From: jimruttshow8596
The concept of symbols and their role in culture, particularly in the context of meaning-making and overcoming the perennial problems of human existence, is central to John Vervaeke’s work. This discussion emphasizes that while certain symbols and cultural elements are indispensable for human cognition and societal function, they do not necessarily hold metaphysical necessity.
Relevance and Sacredness
Relevance, unlike scientific categories, does not possess an inherent essence. Instead, it functions as a dynamic process, similar to Darwinian fitness, constantly redefining and redesigning itself based on context and interaction with the environment [00:08:34]. What is relevant one moment may be irrelevant the next [00:06:44]. This process of “relevance realization” is a key tool for making sense of a complex and ever-changing world [00:09:35].
Sacredness is defined idiosyncratically as the inexhaustibility of our reality, meaning an ongoing fount of new intelligibility that deepens understanding and affords continuous self-transcendence [00:10:03]. It is experienced as a profound enhancement of our “relevance realization connectedness” [00:10:50]. This perspective contrasts with classical ideas of sacredness as a final or immobile perfection [00:12:02]. For example, reading Plato repeatedly can offer an inexhaustible source of meaning and transformation, unlike a finite experience such as watching a TV show [00:13:30].
Symbols: Culturally Indispensable, Not Metaphysically Necessary
Symbols, used in a rich, literary sense (not merely iconic, indexical, or Peircean), are crucial for cultural and cognitive function [00:14:42].
Examples of such “heavy symbols” include:
- The Christian cross, which informs a Christian’s worldview [00:14:47].
- The American flag, imbued with significant cultural “baggage” [00:14:55].
While these symbols are “culturally and cognitively indispensable” for individuals and groups, they do not hold “metaphysical necessity” [00:15:09]. An analogy is given with language: English is indispensable for Vervaeke’s cognitive agency, but it would be absurd to claim it’s a metaphysical necessity for all cognitive agents, as other languages exist [00:15:41].
Acknowledging that symbols are indispensable to people’s experience and identity is important, as people are “pointed to something real when they say things like ‘I can’t live without this’” [00:17:12]. However, this does not mean that “everybody needs this” [00:17:22]. Conflating cultural indispensability with metaphysical necessity is a common human tendency, as seen in the historical development of Buddhism, which originally disavowed metaphysical speculation but later accumulated “metaphysical claptrap” [00:18:30].
To avoid this conflation, it’s necessary to pursue metaphysics independently, paying attention to what is derivable from and presupposed by the sciences [00:19:30].
The Interplay of Religio, Credo, and Mythos
The framework proposes three interconnected elements: religio, credo, and mythos, which are crucial for addressing perennial problems and fostering flourishing.
-
Religio: Defined as the “realization” (both awareness and actualization) of the fundamental connectedness and fittedness at the core of our cognitive agency [00:20:50]. This connectedness extends to ourselves, to others as sociocultural beings, and to the world as dynamical evolving cognitive systems [00:21:59]. Religio is a significant part of the answer to the perennial problems of human existence, such as modal confusion, absurdity, alienation, and parasitic processing [00:22:20]. It functions as a cultural superstructure that guides relevance realization towards a better life [00:25:31].
-
Credo: Refers to the use of propositions and conceptual models (like belief systems) to set criteria, distinguish signal from noise, and determine what is “on the path” (e.g., distinguishing transformation from madness) [01:10:09]. While cognitively indispensable for signal detection, any particular credo is not metaphysically necessary [01:14:15]. Problems arise when credo leads to “creedal tyranny,” claiming eternal truth and inverting its proper role, which should be to serve religio [01:12:47]. Credo should always be evolving and self-correcting to better serve religio [01:14:24].
-
Mythos: Involves the use of symbols, stories, rituals, and celebrations—“enactive, imaginal stuff”—to augment our realization of religio [01:16:24]. Mythos makes us aware of religio and enhances its realization, leading to experiences of sacredness and sapiential (wisdom-based) understanding [01:17:00]. Mythos helps align different kinds of knowing and needs to be wary of merging with credo in a way that makes it unquestionable [01:17:38].
Challenges and a Path Forward
The “religion of no religion” is a proposal to integrate cognitive science with the “reverse engineering of enlightenment” [01:06:00]. This approach aims to leverage insights from past “ecologies of practices” to ameliorate foolishness and afford flourishing, while leaving behind “decadent two worlds mythologies” and metaphysics [01:06:17]. The goal is to create a worldview compatible with scientific understanding that profoundly transforms and empowers individuals [01:06:44].
The challenge is that many people no longer find meaning in existing religious frameworks [01:08:15]. The “religion that’s not a religion” offers a coherent, collective alternative that is philosophically and scientifically respectable, as well as existentially transformative [01:08:30]. This model prioritizes understanding and cultivating religio, with credo and mythos constantly self-correcting to serve it [01:14:31].
This approach acknowledges that humans “feel ill at ease if they don’t have a story” [00:32:43]. The suggested “aspirational story” for this “religion of no religion” is how to access and activate the “intelligence of distributed cognition” to reliably transform it into collective wisdom [01:21:31]. This process of collective sense-making, exemplified by “warm data labs,” emphasizes dynamic, fluid, and mutually supportive engagement among individuals [01:20:16].
Ultimately, the goal is to provide people with the best tools for “wise enlightenment,” combining insightful rationality with rationally insightful practice, leading to profound individual and collective development and transformation [01:38:04].