Heidegger, science, tech & spirituality with Johannes Niederhauser - Voices with Vervaeke

Grateful of you guys sharing this Sabiduría with us.

great conversation, I found very helpful John stressing the difference between finality of death and finitude of mortality and that we shouldn't reduce the latter to the former.

This was truly a most wonderful discussion. One aspect that I consider essential but that is usually absent in philosophy, past as well as contemporary, is the elephant in the room—there is no being, or meaning for that matter, if there is no survival. Without that recognition there still exists this anthropomorphic disconnection to one’s own very real and existential value system. And if we’re disconnected to ourselves, we’re going to be equally disconnected to the world. We do not live in a void that’s only upended by the prospect of our final death. The prospect of death is also here and now and it informs our deepest values. Yes, we need to awaken from the generational and personal givenness of experience, but that givenness, too, is an hermeneutics of survival—to simply follow the rules already laid down as a means of energy conservation. We need a philosophy of survival, of ourselves, other beings as well as of the universe as a whole.

I will watch! I’m hoping to hear language that might describe some of my experiences during prayer…I’m Not well versed in any branch of philosophy but I have suspected that phenomenology might have parallels to the world of prayer…

Great !

Gestell could also be translated as "scaffold". I'm interested if there's any proximity to Vygotsky's idea of scaffolding.

<3 it! (but it does feel as if I write this below every one of the Voices with Vervaeke ;-) )

Wittgenstein's later thought of basis of thought is relevant here. Recommend Prichard's exposition on how Wittgenstein approach this.

"Science" has a select committee for deciding epistemological focus. As distanced from the "Democratic Process" as is politics. Now the democratic question for science should be "What should be the epistemological focus which provides greatest benefits for a majority of humanity, rather than what seems more of a subsection within it?" If "Truth" is a goal for science, what happens when the communications mechanisms for delivering objective epistemological truth are captured by a subsection of humanity for whatever unknown or undeclared intentions?

I think the Buddhist philosophy would be best suited to an immortal being in that it trains the mind to find continually find value in the present.

I have a floatation tank which is an interesting piece of tech in which to say the Jesus Prayer. Facilitates hesychasm…

I love this. But many times I feel compelled to say that not everyone can be a priest or a shaman, the vast majority has to be busy little bees, or tools for each other, for society to work as it does today. Sadly.

Key Discussion.  Heidegger and the techno flattening of the world.  Flat earthers have a point. Not literal but metaphorical.

Who?

This isn't long enough

The Unabomber was right.

Careful not to get Jargon filled in these conversations. It's happening

Hint: if you REALLY want to figure out the meaning crisis, look at the welfare state, not capitalism. Though the two are related (capitalism makes the welfare state possible), the gradual (but ever increasing and accelerating) transfer of agency from the individual to the almighty State (to state AGENCIES, indeed!) is absolutely the cause of the crisis we are experiencing. Disconnecting individual action (effort/initiative/work/ideas...) from results is destructive of the very concept of agency. And agency is essential to meaning. So there you have it. "Agency, not agencies."

You like the feel of polyslabic words in your mouth too much... you only think you know what your saying.