From: jimruttshow8596
The concepts of sacredness and spirituality are explored through a unique philosophical lens, differentiating between experiential phenomena and metaphysical proposals, and examining their intrinsic relationship with human cognition and meaning-making.
Sacredness: Inexhaustibility of Reality
John Vervaeke proposes an “idiosyncratic definition of sacredness” as the “inexhaustibility of our reality” [01:03:06]. This definition builds upon the idea that relevance, like Darwinian fitness, is not an essence but a process [01:17:17]. Sacredness is experienced as a profound enhancement of our relevance realization, indicating how deeply connected an individual is to themselves, to others, and to the world [01:49:50].
This perspective views spiritual experiences as manifesting this sacredness, which allows for an “ongoing fount of new intelligibility” [01:16:30]. For example, reading Plato can be an inexhaustible source of new meaning and transformation, unlike a “Friends episode” [01:13:30]. This contrasts with classical notions of sacredness often tied to “perfection and immobility” [01:22:29]. Vervaeke highlights the Neo-Platonic Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition’s concept of epictasis, where the sacredness of God is experienced not as a final rest, but as the “ongoing affordance of our continual self-transcendence” [01:11:52].
A critical point is to distinguish between the experience of sacredness and metaphysical proposals about its cause [01:22:22]. Vervaeke argues that the word “sacred” has unfortunately become synonymous with “unchallengeable,” a meaning he believes is detrimental [01:18:13].
Spirituality: The Core of Cognitive Agency
Vervaeke posits a deep connection between relevance realization and spirituality [01:19:20]. Religio is defined as the realization—both in terms of awareness and actualization—of the fundamental connectedness and “fittedness” that lies at the core of our cognitive agency [02:08:47]. This connectedness applies to ourselves as autopoietic beings, to each other as sociocultural beings, and to the world as dynamically evolving cognitive systems [02:20:56].
Religio is seen as a significant part of the answer to what Vervaeke terms “perennial problems” [02:22:15]. These problems—such as modal confusion, absurdity, alienation, and parasitic processing—arise because the very processes that make humans adaptive also make them vulnerable to self-deceptive and self-destructive behavior [02:40:02]. Vervaeke suggests that religio, as a meta-meaning system, aims to “steer religio in the right directions away from foolishness and towards flourishing” [02:00:59].
Philosophy and Metaphysics
The discussion delves into philosophical and metaphysical concepts, particularly the nature of “essence.” Inspired by Wittgenstein, Vervaeke notes that many categories, like “game,” lack an Aristotelian essence (a set of necessary and sufficient conditions shared by all members) [02:45:00]. However, he then brings in Quine’s counterpoint: the job of science is to discover categories that do have an essence, defined as properties that support the broadest possible explanatory generalizations, like the atomic weight of gold [03:10:00]. This distinction, emphasized by J.S. Mill’s concept of “systematic import,” highlights that relevance, unlike gold or horses, has no scientific essence; it is a dynamic process [05:01:00].
A key critique of traditional approaches is the tendency for cultures to attach claims of metaphysical indispensability to their “mythos” (narrative systems) [02:18:25]. This is exemplified by the evolution of Buddhism, where Buddha himself disavowed metaphysical speculation, yet his followers later invented deities and celestial spheres [02:29:40]. Vervaeke argues for recapturing the Greek idea of pursuing metaphysics independently, ensuring it aligns with and is presupposed by scientific understanding [02:36:34].
The “two worlds model,” which posits a distinction between a material world and a transcendent spiritual world, is seen as decadent and no longer viable due to the success of scientific and secular revolutions [02:08:52]. The argument is for a “one world world view” that embraces complexity and emergence while still allowing for rich spiritual experiences [02:07:43].
The Religion of No Religion: A New Path
Vervaeke’s core project is the “religion of no religion” (RTINAR), which he emphasizes he is not founding but rather explaining [01:43:35]. This concept proposes a theoretical integration of cognitive science and the “reverse engineering of enlightenment” [01:58:19]. It seeks to draw from the “rich resource” of past ecologies and practices found in philosophical and religious traditions [02:01:15], while “leaving behind the now decadent two worlds mythologies and metaphysics” [02:07:08].
The RTINAR aims to:
- Cultivate individual and collective ecologies of practices within communities, rooted in a scientific worldview [02:06:36].
- Ameliorate foolishness and afford flourishing [02:06:50].
- Offer a coherent, collective, and self-correcting alternative for those who find existing religions irrelevant [02:08:30].
- Respond to Nietzsche’s challenge of becoming “worthy” after the “death of God” by being philosophically and scientifically respectable, and existentially transformative [02:09:23].
The Interplay of Religio, Credo, and Mythos
Central to this new path is the relationship between:
- Religio: The realization of fundamental connectedness, core to cognitive agency.
- Credo: The use of propositions and pictures to distinguish signal from noise, akin to setting criteria in signal detection theory [02:10:55]. Vervaeke argues that credo should always be in the service of religio, constantly evolving and self-correcting, rather than claiming metaphysical necessity [02:14:24].
- Mythos: The use of symbols and stories, rituals, and celebrations to imaginally augment and enhance the realization of religio [02:16:39]. Mythos needs to align different kinds of knowing and remain wary of merging with an unquestionable credo [02:18:38].
The ideal is a dynamic system where credo and mythos continuously inform and adjust each other based on lived experience and improved understanding of religio [02:15:07].
Reverse Engineering Enlightenment
Vervaeke advocates for “reverse engineering enlightenment,” not as a specific historical or religious attainment, but as the process of “overcoming the perennial problems and enhancing religio in a way that’s wise and transformatively effective for people’s lives” [02:50:46]. This approach bypasses the “perplexing complexity and mystique” surrounding traditional enlightenment [02:49:16] and aims to find reliable, systematic ways, informed by cognitive science, to ameliorate problems and foster flourishing [02:51:01].
This practical approach suggests specific strategies:
- Parasitic Processing: Cultivating “counteractive dynamical systems” through ecologies of practices (like the Buddhist Eightfold Path) to combat self-deceptive and self-destructive patterns [02:53:36].
- Modal Confusion: Engaging in practices like mindfulness to remember the being mode as distinct from the having mode [02:54:52].
- Reflectiveness Gap: Cultivating “flow states” (as in Tai Chi or Taoism) to balance the flexibility of reflection with the involvement of impulsivity [02:56:09].
- Absurdity: Using meditation and contemplation (like in Spinoza or Buddhism) to achieve prajna (non-duality), where clashing perspectives interpenetrate meaningfully [02:57:00].
Cultivating Wisdom and Meta-Virtue
The article emphasizes that developing meta-psychotechnologies for enlightenment must be guided by wisdom and meta-virtue [03:55:00]. Otherwise, these tools could be used for harmful purposes, such as building a “nightmare” like China’s social credit system or creating soldiers without empathy [03:18:18].
Wisdom is seen as the systematic “seeing through illusion and into reality” [03:22:15]. It requires developing intellectual virtues in scientists and philosophers, such as balancing humility and courage in defending theories [03:39:17]. Rationality, unlike fixed intelligence, is highly malleable and can be improved through practices like “active open-mindedness” [03:43:55]. This cognitive style involves actively seeking out and seriously considering criticisms, and “steel-manning” opposing arguments [03:47:31]. The goal is not necessarily agreement but a “dialogical movement” where both parties gain new insights they couldn’t have reached alone, appreciating the “beauty… of the dance of the dialectic” [03:51:15]. This process fosters “real thinking” over “simulated thinking” [03:51:46], leading to collective wisdom and a more robust understanding of reality.