Reclaiming the Dead - Emile Alexandrov

Fedro would get enraged. He would get furious. He would be like, "No, I mean this literally like literally we need to go back to the cemetery [music] and literally resurrect people because we resurrecting all these humans. We won't have space on Earth. So, we need to send those resurrected [music] humans to other planets." And then he said literally things like we have to colonize the solar system and then eventually turn earth into some sort of space fairing planet that can float around according to our will. He said mad things like this. We have this romantic exchange between him and this woman. But she left him and went for someone successful because he was walking around Moscow with barely clothes sinceus 10°. And he's a really peculiar character. Really unusual. Right. But I've been reading it for a long time and I can't [music] wrap my head around the the guy. Like what is what what was going on in there? Instead of aiming cannons at the enemy, we need to aim the cannons up to the sky. Why? He wants to change the weather so it gets more crops. He would use metaphor like that. So it rains now. Grow more food. She doesn't starve. He doesn't starve. He would use language like this to make it provocative. But she is considered somewhat heretical because he thinks that we are responsible for bringing the kingdom of God here. We are the ones who are supposed to do the kingdom. We are honored to have Emil um remind me your >> Alexandro >> Alexandro with us today and uh I'm really grateful that Emil reached out to me recently and said that he was going to be in the states for some other research you're doing I guess. >> Yep. and was kind enough to come and present on uh Nikico Fodorov and um Russian cosmism. And so we're we're privileged and uh blessed tonight to be able to hear about Russian cosmism from a Russian who's wellversed in Russian philosophy and many other uh branches of philosophy as well. But I'll leave it to um Emil to give us some more details about himself and kick off the discussion. >> All right. Thank you very much for that introduction and uh thank you of course for the invitation and thank you all the MTA group. Very nice. The biggest garden salad I've ever had in my life. So I went to eat a garden salad and I thought that you know garden salads like they are in Australia really small. So I ordered two. [laughter] It was a mistake. See, I was just shoveling lettuce. >> I just gave up afterwards. >> Okay. So, as um Carl introduced uh me earlier, I'm doing some work with the University of New Mexico. That's why I'm in the United States. Currently, I'm doing work at Waseda University. So, I teach philosophy as an academic. Uh I'm an assistant professor of philosophy and my specialty is metaphysics, but I work across many cultures. Um, Greek and Arabic is my specialty. Uh, >> classical Chinese and Russian is just because I have Russian background. Um, now with regards to Fodov, which we're going to be talking about today, uh, Fodov is actually not very um, how do I say, not very academic as a subject matter. He isn't studied seriously. There's very little scholarship on him in a scholarly setting. You don't see him being taught in universities as extensively as you would see Aristotle for example or nature. Right. >> Can you say the name really slowly? >> Which name? >> Yes. >> Fodorov. >> Yeah. That's why there's a Y. >> So some people spell it with an E, but it's if you put the Y, it pronounces better. >> Yeah. Yeah. Fod. Yeah. Uh so as I was saying he's not he's not considered a serious philosopher for academics. I beg to differ right I've done a lot of work on Fodov and he is a very impressive figure. Most of the text that we have from him is in Russian. We have minor translations so you get a basic gist of the ideas but the vast majority of his work is untransated. you're talking four volumes each something around 5 600 pages right and a fifth volume of like miscellaneous writings letters you know that sort of thing so what I hope to do today is I'll give you guys a background to his life so you understand this unique character and then I'm going to talk about some of the ideas that I see very consistent radically consistent in fact with the MTA okay Um so firstly let's just talk about where he was. Uh so this will be uploaded you guys will be able to see this a bit later uh from the internet so you can get the details. So the first thing was he was born in 1829 and he was an illegit illegitimate son of prince Pavl Ivanovich Gagarin. Now Gagarin was uh it's a very famous name in Russia. Maybe you guys know Yuri Gagarin the first first dude in space. >> That's right. Cosmono, but it's also the uh it's also a very ancient family, a Rurick family. Rurick is like the founding uh state if you want to call it of Russia. And that's how old the name is. But he didn't inherit that name because he was a bastard son as they call him. So he got the name um Fodov, right? Uh from his godfather rather than his his his actual father. So then he went and he studied in Odessa in Ukraine which is today Ukraine which incidentally is where my family's from right and uh he studied in the lysum which was a cosmopolitan university. It was designed by the French actually at the time the French had very good relations with the Russians. So they had these you know universities and so that's where he studied. He was too rebellious. He didn't finish his degree. He was too creative right? So he got eventually I think he either got kicked out or he left. Um and then from there on he went and became a school teacher. Okay. And this is where the accounts we have of him as a school teacher really show the the um the true essence of his character. Right? He was unusually aesthetic. He was not a priest. He wasn't a monk. Right? But he was extraordinarily generous. Okay? So for example, I'll read this out. what I have here. When a pupil's father became seriously ill, Fodorov repeatedly gave the boy all his money for treatment and after the man died, sold his official teaching uniform to help pay for the burial. Reprimanded for appearing without the uniform, he refused to explain himself and nearly resigned before the principal learned what had happened and persuaded him to remain. Right? He did things like that, right? Um other examples there are stories where um he would go home and if he had if he noticed he still had money in his pocket he would give it away and if he found that he had money and he was at home he would be so upset that he actually had money left. He wanted to be empty every day give everything he has and go to sleep. That's that's how he lived. Right. >> Was he married? No, >> the same thing. >> No. Um, that said, >> I [clears throat] didn't put that I didn't I didn't put that in there. So, so, so see how I talked about five volumes of works. So, the fifth volume is a bit of letters that we have him in. He was in love with this woman and she and he was working at the library at the time. And so we have this romantic exchange between him and this woman, but she left him and went for someone successful because he was walking around Moscow with barely any clothes and it's minus 10°. So, you know, so that's the only uh intimate side we have to feel. Apart from that, he's a really peculiar character, really unusual, right? I've been reading it for a long time and I can't wrap my head around the the guy like what is what what was going on in there? Okay. So eventually I'll skip this part where he moved through the various jobs but eventually after going from one school to another school he ended up in the library. Okay. Uh the Moscow state library at the time. Okay. And um at the time he worked 25 years there. He met all the most famous Russian writers. This is where Fodov is really interesting. He was just in the circle. Okay. So he met for example Leo Toltoy, Vladimir Solv Vladimir Solivv is like the most he's the famous Russian philosopher Afanasifi Val Bosov Nikolov Pastanak you know these are all famous figures and then here's one really important for our talk today Constantine Salovski so the father of rocket engineering right in fact he encouraged him to study even though Constantine SKovski was a school teacher by engineering standard but he was a genius right and so uh Fodorov used to give him the books what to stud uh so let me talk a little bit about his time when he was actually in the library so he wasn't only really good at his job with finding like books and whatnot and knowledgeable he knew content related to other content via different disciplines it's extraordinary library because the library was massive. So he would so an engineer would come in and say look I need text on you know whatever and he would recommend this book and supplementary material and then this person would come back and say thank you you saved my life with this like how did you know I needed to know this as well so he did things like this right he was really really articulate okay now uh I'll read this part here so he he never he never married he lived alone in extreme austerity he rented tiny rooms slept on a trunk. Yeah. He slept literally on the trunk where you would put clothes in. That was his pillow, right? That's his whole life. Whole life. Um he owned almost no furniture, ate very little, and continually gave away money and possessions. Yeah. So he aborted money and was anxious that he might die with a few coins in his pocket. He arrived at the library before it opened, remained after closing. Yeah. And he only slept a few hours, spent much of the night reading and writing. So he used to sleep 3 hours, then he'd wake up at night, drink tea, read, go back to sleep for another one or two hours, and then go to work to the library. Now, he died of pneumonia in 1903. Um, according to one account, he had regularly endured Moscow winters on foot in a thin ragged coat, but became ill shortly after friends persuaded him to dress warmly and travel by cab. So his a steel life oral teaching and philosophical conversations at the library earned him the moniker the Moscow Socrates right so because he walked around everywhere um I don't know if barefoot but that's what Socrates did right so now here's the other interesting thing uh so we have only one painting of him he because he refused to be I I'll pass this around um uh he refused to sit for a portrait so what happened was he was drawn um without his knowledge by a guy called Leonid Pastanac, the son of the famous Boris Pastanac. Now, that's unbelievably coincidental. I mean, I don't understand how that even works, but in any case, uh Pastanak's uh son painted him and that's what we have today. So, you can pass this around. So, that's the only image we have of Fod of what he looked like. Okay. Yeah. So that speaks so much for his character. Um so to >> was he a active Russian Orthodox or not? >> Yes. Very very and if you read So this is the other thing about a lot of his Russian text why it hasn't been translated is because you need to have a very deep background in theology to know what he's talking about. He talked about everything. For example, the size of the cross to how mass is conducted. He he was I mean the knowledge is incredible. And so everything that he did and all the concepts and ideas that he developed are rooted in Orthodox Christianity. I'm going to emphasize that right? So everything I'm going to talk about now is related to his Christianity. He sees it completely inextricable. Okay. This is crucial. Okay. Okay. So do we have any questions about his character before? Yeah. >> Did he receive any fame in his lifetime? like any notoriety while he was living? >> Uh, not quite. So, in fact, we only have his writings because his followers um that were really really enraptured by his writing, they preserved his texts and collated into a coherent volume. Most of his writing was sporadic, right? So, not really. Um, however, DSKI heard about his ideas and DSKI being the author, right? Um DSFC said that this is the most authentic idea I've ever seen something along those lines and Toltoy was complete Toltoy was in regular contact with him completely you know enamored by his ideas solv also the famous Russian philosopher so amongst the intellectual circles he was recognized but outside of that nobody nobody knew him yeah okay so we good I can talk about his ideas okay so um what's the general idea what's the about fod of well it's what we call cosmism right they call it cosmism because it's based on the common task obia in Russian right the common task okay so the idea is that there is a universal practical vocation every human being is obligated to contribute towards the university that's the first thing he starts off with that fundamental premise By virtue of you being alive and being human, being conscious, being a sentient being, you are obligated to extend your compassion, your care, your virtues towards the other immediately. You have to become selfless. That's the starting point, right? Okay. So then what does he see as the main problem? He sees that what we do is we think. What's the first thing we do as sentient beings? We contemplate. We think, we reason, right? And so from there, Furov looks at the world and he recognizes, wow, we have an entire trajectory, history of philosophy and science where we sit there in abstraction often for the rest of our lives without ever bringing that abstraction into practical use. Right? He looks at that and then he goes into the philosophical details and he brings in Aristotle and all these and says there is a separation between theory and practice. That's the first thing Fodov says. Now the problem is theory and practice is a is something like for example Marx would try and figure out Marxist you know this is the whole thing about Marx that's why they make everything economic right there should be theory there should just be economic right um fov says the main thing is compassion if you want to unify theory and practice you have to do it under the rubric of compassion so immediately as soon as you act on impulse toward compassion. The contemplative project is itself already unified with practice. Right? So that means education comes hand in hand with this process. Everybody needs to be educated to the highest level possible. Okay. So the main the main formula if I'm to talk about uh his idea in one sentence the common task represents the collective duty and organized labor through which humanity is to transform the world as it is into the world as it ought to be. Okay. So before I get into the main idea that comes after this, the first thing he recognizes is how the world looks. Okay, if you look at the world, you see that it's chaos. He looks at nature on a fundamental level and he says it's chaos. For example, you might be at work one day and you get struck by lightning. You have no control over your environment. That's nature. So he says nature is chaos. It's unregulated and it's not for you. That's how the world is but not how it ought to be. This is just a fundamental idea he starts off with, right? So then he says, well, okay, so how do we go about dealing with this problem? Well, we come back to the issue of of compassion, right? and realize that a lot of people die with nature with chaos. And so nature is one problem, but there's also enmity because people aren't working on compassion, right? People care for one another only on the basis of some personal gain. So this needs to be fixed. So what he goes with is what this is the famous idea. This is what he's really radical for the universal resurrection. Okay, in Russian for whoever wants to hear it in Russian, that's what it sounds like. So, the ultimate aim of the common task, the goal I talked about with compassion and stuff is the literal and bodily restoration of every person who has ever lived, right? So not just you know one generation quite literally every single person that has ever lived in the history of humanity right and not merely longevity for the living immortality of soul or survival through memory descendants or historical influence. Resurrection must be universal rather than selective. Why does he want this to happen? Coming back to compassion because we are talking if we are going to be honest with ourselves and talk about universal reconciliation, universal compassion, [snorts] right? What's the term universal means? It means absolutely everybody including those who have passed away. Now let's go back to nature and chaos. See how he says that nature is chaotic and completely uncontrollable. Well, if you resurrect every single human being, that means you are transforming, this is where it gets radical, reality as itself quite literally into how it should be, as in the kingdom of God. Okay, that's why he says this message is Christian fundamentally. And this is I'll get to this a bit later, but this is also why he needs texts like the Old Testament, the New Testament, because this is not purely a scientific endeavor. It's a religious one. Right? Okay. So again, I want to make another thing clear. When Fodov talks about a Christian, he's not talking about someone who goes to church only or even someone who's faithful. He's talking about every single person that is actively aware of what the problem is and is actively working towards it. Right? That's what the message is. >> Are you saying anybody who had that attitude is a unbaptized Christian? That kind of idea >> more or less. Yeah. Yeah. So because love and compassion is at the root of his philosophy, you cannot be Christian if you don't have love and compassion for literally everything. Everything, everyone. So for example, I don't have this in the paper uh because I've read all his stuff so it's all my head. Um the conscription basis, you know, when someone gets conscripted in the military and he looked at that. This is what field was really good at. He noticed how conscription works. There is this universal calling when a nation calls its people to fight. He says, "Well, we need to universally conscript everyone to this goal, but instead of shooting, so at the time it was cannons for him. It's like instead of aiming cannons at the enemy, we need to aim the cannons up to the sky. Why? He wants to change the weather so it gets more crops." He would use metaphor like that. So it rains now, grow more food, she doesn't starve, he doesn't starve. He would use language like this to make it provocative, right? And he has some really interesting essays. He talks about people who are the true Greek gods, the ones that learned about, you know, materiology, right? So learned about weather phenomena and how it impacts crops and things. Said those are the real Greek gods, right? They used the science. They did that to improve our state of being. You know, >> you might be interested if William James wrote the famous [snorts] thing. We need a moral equivalent of war. And he said, "The enemy is nature." >> Yeah. Well, William James, >> let's, you know, let's tame nature. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Put the cannons up. >> Yeah. Well, that's what he would that's what he says. Put the cannons up. Yeah. >> Okay. So, uh, do we have any uh questions about these main ideas? No. It's what? Yeah. Go ahead. >> I think a lot of Christians believe in a univer a universal resurrection, but they believe that God will do that work. Yes. Right. So, did he believe like did he not believe that God would do that work and if he was leaving it to humans or was he trying to like make Christianity palatable to the secular people? I'm just wondering how did he It's an excellent question. Um, this is where he differs. Um, I should speak to his reception in the Orthodox Church. is considered somewhat heretical because he thinks that we are responsible for bringing the kingdom of god here. He doesn't think that there is the conventional esquetology. So in if you look at um traditional Catholic or orthodox Christianity the ancient church the way they see it um the the the um the final day is sort of bodily resurrection and all that stuff. It's an esqueological narrative at the end God caused twits or whatever, right? Um, Fodov doesn't think that's the case. He reads the New Testament in a way where we are obligated to act on this. We are the ones who are supposed to do the kingdom. >> He actually read the text. >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. That's one way to look at it. Well, I think that Yeah. >> Um, but this is radical by the way, right? So if you go to any Catholic or any Orthodox say that then they'd be like no >> that's not how it works. Yeah. So we're good. I can get into the All right. So um a lot of what he does relies on the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Right. So the the Orthodox tradition uh Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox whatever it goes back to ancient Greece and there is this idea of deification. Right? So um I I imagine most of you guys are in the latter day saints, right? Church of latter day. Okay. So um what we have the distinction with Catholicism and orthodoxy is really deep, right? For those of you that are interested, you should read Bradshaw's book who Steve and I were talking about this. There's a book Easter and Western Christianity by David Bradshaw. He explains the differences. It's very complicated. But there is one only one difference I'm going to capitalize on here for the purpose of this talk. And that is uh this idea of theosis. Uh the idea of um how do I say deification is taken literally and mystically in the Orthodox church. If you go to any Orthodox church, the priest has almost like a divine propensity towards making you, you know, gaining you salvation in so far as you put the work. Of course, it's really a mystical union. The Orthodox tradition is much more like that. Um, I don't want to speak too much more on this because it end up taking me to Rome and why Rome is a bit different. The Latin tradition, Catholics, they're a bit different here. But we just have to take that. So, he takes the theosis which is central to the Orthodox tradition, right? And he takes many central figures. One of them is Athanasius of Alexandria, right? He's one of the early church fathers. So, Fodov converts deification into a practical program grounded in Athanasius proclamation that and this is the famous phrase Christ became incarnate that we might be made God and inherit incorruptibility. So, Athanasius says this. So, Athanasius reads that Jesus came so that we can become like God and inherit incorruptibility. The translations for the Greek, the Greek term atarsian, it's either incorruptibility or some people translate it as immortality. Right? I'm not that good at classical Greek, so I can't jump on which one I prefer, but the idea is imperishability of some sort. Right? So that's one major figure, this sentence. The other example is Maximus, the confessor, another major orthodox figure. He takes quotes quite literally and maps it onto his philosophy. For example, humanity is a natural bond uniting creation in God. For the whole universe is a human being and the human being is the universe. So these are all church fathers, right? Can you already see the consistencies with NTA? Right? Uh this mediation culminates in a reciprocal deification. God becomes human. And here's what really wants through love for humanity. Okay? While humanity empowered by that divine love which is already intertwined, right? Makes itself God. So this this I am not paraphrasing here. I this is these are literal quotes, right? From Maximus the confessor, for example, and he's like sixth, seventh century. So it's a long time ago, right? So the logos thereby quote divonizes man through his love for God and humanizes God through his love for man. That's another direct quotation. Perpetually willing in all things to accomplish the mystery of his embodiment. End quote. Right? So these are phrases that further said look it's in our tradition. It's there text is explicit. There's nothing you know we can't hide away from it. Okay. Okay. And then of course there is the gospel of John, right? So some of the passages he works with um the decisive one is this and I quote, "Whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do and greater works than these will he do." So this is right out of Gospel of John. So a command that further of extend to extend Christ's restorative work universally culminating in the resurrection of all the dead. Okay. So this is basically um some of the uh examples that we have from like you know the doctrine of theosis right this deification how they take so if you go to any Orthodox church um they'll read this out in mass you know they read this they might interpret it differently right but they will read this out right so scriptural examples and this is this this for me by the way is what really I found interesting um when I started to study furovv all these years I'm not a new I'm not a biblical scholar so I don't know the bible that well right but then I dug into the bible to see why philof keeps referencing for example you know John or two kings you know the resurrection narratives are all over I had no idea the amount of times you see resurrection in the old testament it's unbelievable So, I've got a few examples. For example, we have, and I quote, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I'm going there to wake him up." This is the resurrection of Lazarus. This is when Christ raises Lazarus from the dead, right? Um, there's another one, restoration through prayer joined to deliberate bodily action. Right? This is how he links it to bodily action. Alicia restores the Shunmite's woman's son after praying and stretching himself over the child whose quote flesh waxed warm and quote. Then the child sneezed seven times and opened his eyes. Right? The child is brought back to life. And then another example and this one for material remains because Fod of thought that when we're doing this resurrection work, we actually have to go out into nature and collect particles, right? We actually he he's explicit that we need to pick up nature, tie it all back together. I'll explain the deeper meaning of this, but he finds uh material remains mediate restored life. When a dead uh when a dead man's body touches Alicia's bones, he revived and stood up on his feet. This is from two kings, right? Another example, resurrection restores broken relation between parent and child. Um Christ raises the widow of Na's son. commanding quote young man I say to you get up and quote the dead man sits up begins to speak and is returned to his mother this is from Luke right so this is just a few selections right of of stuff um right so this idea of collecting particles let me go to this for a second so resurrection must be universal so the deeper meaning behind this and this is very philosophical So we talked about how nature is chaotic and that you have all these particles everywhere spinning around doing its own thing. When says that we need to collect particles to resurrect human beings, what he's talking about is the bringing together on a metaphysical level of everything on the basis of love. Right? This is by the way very ancient Greek principle. It goes back to empetically those of you familiar with ancient Greek stuff. Right? So love unites, strife separates, right? So the kingdom of God really in Fra's understanding is the putting into work love, compassion, right? Bringing things together. And so resurrection when you you bring people back to life by collecting particles, you're you're really enacting compassion. And so the other aspect of resurrection apart from that collecting is divine human cooperation. You can't do this on your own. This is the other thing. Everybody needs to work together. So the restoration of life must become the organizing purpose of religion, science and history. This is the this is the very important point I think for MTA. Further is deeply anchored in history. I mean when I when you read his four volume text the amount so remember this is well before computers. He'll talk about some obscure event in Roman history or Indian history and tie it in together and read into it, interpret it, showing that he's he's taught about those events and how they link to that and this this whole project is fundamentally historical. Okay, there are some theologians throughout time for example Hugh Victor of St. Hugh I talked about momentarily when we review um he reads Christianity through history. History is like a narrative. You can't just look at history as a random series of events. Fodov looks at it too exactly the same way. [snorts] So when you look at history, you have to sort of capture the narrative so that it comes in and hones in onto universal cooperation. Right? So I'll give you one just so I'm clear. I might be a bit obscure here. Um so Homer the famous Homeriic epics you know Iliad Odyssey. So in the Odyssey when Odysius is out you know um trying to get back to his to his ancestral home to where his son is to where his wife has all the suitors. So he reads this right as a narrative of fathers trying to come back to their sons. Um but the father's dead so come back from death back into life. He reads things like that. This is like a ancient Greek epic, right? Or Alexander the Great, for example. This is another really good one. I like this one. It says Alexander the Great when he went all the way to India, what he was doing was he was spreading an early form of Christianity. This is like 300 years before Christianity, right? He's going all the way to India so he can unify the peoples, right? Under the same idea. So he does things. You see this how he reads history into the narrative. Okay. And so uh the last one resurrection must become practical. So theosis must pass from belief and contemplation into a universal coordinated scientific task directed towards the conquest of death and the restoration of all. All right. So um this is where the Soviets loved him. So he died in 1907. Was it 1907? I think it was 1903. Yeah. 1903. So he died 1903. So well before the Soviets took power 14 years later 1917 October revolution of course. So the Soviets um anyone who is interested in Soviet history you'll find the Soviets were very ambitious. They were very spacebearing. They were cosmic in outlook. Well they were very influenced by Fodorov very very much because Fodorov actually gave practical ideas. you know, he said, for example, you know, we need to terraform planets and grow food everywhere. And then because we resurrecting all these humans, we won't have space on Earth. So, we need to send those resurrected humans to other planets. And then he said literally things like we have to colonize the solar system, make it a whole and then eventually turn Earth into some sort of spacefearing planet that can float around according to our will. He said mad things like this. Um but the point is the Soviets really liked this right the Soviets were very scientific. The problem is the Soviets could not accept the Christian component and of course they were very anti-religious. Um so in some sense he was not accepted by Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviets also right so that's why he wasn't read so much early on but nonetheless if anyone so there's a lot of literature on this by the way any of you interested in Russian cosmism right there's a very good book by George Young it's fantastic read it will outline for you Russian cosmism and how it started with Fodov right he really influenced the Soviet space project to a large degree Okay. So, um I won't talk too much more, but let me get into his idea of the cathedral. Right. This is the this is the really interesting stuff. So, um the main problem we talked about is the difference between theory and practice, right? So, Fodor of thought that we need to have what an organizing principle where people come together. So, how do we make this practical? like he's you know I don't want to talk about this I'm already sounding like a abstractor you know doing abstraction only so this is how he's thinking right and he's like how do I make it practical well he talks about the cathedral of divine wisdom all right so what he does is he takes the temple the church whatever the library and the museum and unifies them into one right that's what he calls the cathedral of divine wisdom Um it is the tablet. He calls it the tablet upon which universal resurrection is inscribed. It unites Haga Sophia with the temples of of Athena and the muses. So the ancient Greeks as well embodying the unity of theory and practice. Okay. So why why the museum? How are museums uh how are museums used? Generally speaking, we put artifacts of the past that we enjoy for our pleasure. F of calls that dead matter because taking pleasure in dead, you know, the dead shouldn't be just enjoyed from what they achieve. They need to be brought back. So the museum is to remind people that we need they need to come back, right? The temple is for the worship part. This is in you know inextricably bound to religious worship and whatnot. Right? And the library is the knowledge component. And then he calls these three together the cathedral of divine wisdom. Right? And so it is like a religious, scientific and uh data collecting center allin one. Right? This is how he makes it practical. And then um this is where it gets a little bit philosophical. I hope you excuse me on this but the idea is by making this concrete right anytime we have a thought right let's say you know whenever you have ideas but they never come into fruition he calls that non-being right um whenever you have an idea that comes into fruition it's being so on an onlogical level let's say if we talk philosophically for a moment um there's a distinction between non-being and being that is always at work and you can only unify them when you have already unified those three dimensions. The religious, the data collecting and the museum which is the artifacts of the past, right? Um so in other words by living in that cathedral of divine wisdom and everybody has effectively made themselves an a an extension of this work. There is no non-being. It's always being and it's consistently being. You you see what I'm saying? So it extends out. Every person is already acting out the resurrection work. This is how he sees it. And so then it becomes at this point a process of steady growth rather than wasteful non-being thoughts. Right? You don't peel away and think something completely irrelevant to the universal task. Right? And so this is why he says, this is his exact words. Um, in building the temple, one creates oneself into a church. So that's what he means quite literally. You become an extension of that cathedral of divine wisdom, right? Once you have it built and everybody's got their task and then uh its build has become a living aslesial community giving construction, education and collective labor a lurggical character. So you see when you go to church and read our prayers and hymns and things like that says those prayers and hymns are good but they need to be literally scientific also. So you don't just worship, you worship through the task, right? Um, so it's really intrusive. You see what I'm saying? Um, and then all of this becomes really, how do I say ultimately and this for me the most profound stuff. I I mean we can get into it if you guys want, but it's all about recollection. Platonic principle of course. >> Anomnesis. >> Anomnesis. Correct. Yes. So this goes back to Plato's idea that every time you recollect something you are not really remembering you are unforgetting because you already know it. Okay. So this is this is the Platonic idea. Further gives it a practical task. He says that that's what we're doing. So by unifying we are recollecting. We're bringing what's already there. We just need to do it. Right? So this is how he sees the task. Um and uh from here I mean he look of course this is very rudimentary what I'm doing here. This is very uh introductory to his ideas. But he then develops a system of 12 steps right he calls it the Pascal questions. Right? You guys know about the Pascal uh the the event the Christian event. Okay read this out. So from the second century onwards dispute of a pasture from the Greek pasture and Hebrew Pesak concerned whether Christ's death and resurrection should be commemorated on the 14th nan or always on a Sunday. There was this you know tension between Christianity Judaism when they should com commemorate Jesus um his death and resurrection and whether it should be Sunday or Saturday right um so in the council of Nika in 3:25 it established a common Sunday observance independent of the Jewish calendar. So the Christians developed their own independent Judeaic calendar. So he took that word Pascal um and he made it uh it's really interesting. He took that controversial event in Christian history and called it the 12 Pascal questions. How to answer that problem. Right now I won't read out the 12 because I think I've already spoken too much. But what I will do is I'll I'll tell you the the just really quickly some of the important ones. The first one and this goes back to everything I said at the start is deathbearing nature. He says that nature is a dealer of death right now. Now I do a lot of work in Buddhism, Buddhist scholarship and I gave a talk on Fodov and Buddhism actually um when I was in Japan only a couple months ago and the the Buddha sees a similar thing but he calls it dependent origination right everything sort of comes into being and then pass away into being and this is the root cause of suffering that's the general Buddhist idea um the Buddhists of course they tell you to basically regulate inward contemplation so that dependent origination no longer impacts do and then you can escape. Further goes the other way, right? He says that this he agrees with this dependent origination stuff goes death bearing nature but you need to go out into the world and literally stabilize the world like literally manipulate the world into where it's just love and compassion unified. So this is the number one Pascal question. From there every all the rest of them follow and then the rest is really interesting stuff because it shows that he is definitely engaging. I know this because this is kind of my job that he's engaging with a lot of the ethical principles of many of the traditions whether it's Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek stuff. So he talks about for example there's an over sexualized feeling. Everybody just wants to mate based on pleasure only not for the purpose of reproduction right and then he talks about the difference between city and countryside. He said everybody's congregating in the city. Why? Because you want to make money. The countryside the land gets left out. Right? This is one example uh human immaturity. He says that humans are immature. They take interest in things that are completely irrelevant to anything. Like you have 80 years to live, 100 years to live and you take interest in things that have nothing to do with compassion or others. For him it's like this is the waste immaturity. Um another example he gives. Oh yeah. So religion and this is where he's controversial and probably why orthodox Christianity they would have read this and not like this. He says religion's become dead. He says we have to transform doctrine ritual and ideology. Ideology he came up he came up with this word we worshiping idols just for the idol's sake. It's not having any use in this compassion project. So we need to transform all of that again into the resurrection project. And then of course there is the the the um divide reason theory and practice. This is another major example. Okay. So that's I don't want to talk much more than that. I'll leave it open to questions. So this is his basic ideas. So we can go with questions now. >> Yeah. >> So um earlier you spoke about uh the world being transformed through love. >> Yes. and love um causing God to become man but also in the reverse direction man to become God. >> Correct. >> Um it sounds very mystical as though >> uh he's just describing some um mysterious process that we don't understand how works but later on you talk about how we felt that >> science and the library was involved in this process as well. So I'm wondering if this is more a metaphorical description from him but he still has the in mind that this will need to be worked out scientifically as well. >> Yes. So this is the very difficult dimension but you know here again this is why he says history is important. Um I'm going to go with the Greek example so you understand what he's what he has in mind. So if you look at a lot of the early platonists and some of the aristoilians followers of these major Greek philosophers, they would look at geometry and say geometry is really practical. It gets results. We can you know build buildings and have amazing structures. But these platists would say that's not what geometry is all about. Geometry is about seeing intelligible patterns in reality and recognizing the higher order. In recognizing the higher order, what you see? You see the geometry is nothing but expression in mathematical form in space of love. Why? Because intelligible order, reason, rationality is inextricably bound to love. When things are rational, they are good by default. This is the connection, right? So the idea is when you use science not just to build the nice building but you use it in so in to make it love with God then it's a little bit different. This is how he sees it right now. We're saying it's mystical but look this was already used. I mean the the the Pythagorian tradition did this for a while. I mean they made discoveries in mathematics but along the route they also had salvific principles at work. it was sillogical. You know, people did this and they got salvation. So that's what he had in mind. I hope that makes clear. >> So um would it be accurate to say that he is really just speaking um at a different level or a different symbolic level here but he has in mind that there are operative processes involved that might be more scientific as well. So I remember he a lot of his texts were written with the expectation firstly that nobody was going to read it >> and then secondly that the reader was really really adept at the content. So he expects someone to really know this stuff the Greek stuff the Greek background especially the Christian theology and all of this stuff. So when he says for example that science needs to have compassionate principles at work he would expect that people reading the stuff already understand this. They know the history that we have had this already. There's evidence that this works. >> And so it's not necessarily I should actually be um clear about this. Fodov never wanted to write esoterically. He didn't want symbolic interpretation. This is one big problem he had with the famous Russian philosopher Soliv. Solv which everybody reads him. He's well studied. This he's he's taught in universities. I know this. Whereas Frov is not. So Soliv when he looked at Fodov's ideas he said no no this is all too esoteric even for me it's too symbolic what do you mean resurrect everybody we couldn't do this literally we need to think about this on a metaphysical level and Fodov would get enraged he would get furious he would be like no I mean this literally like literally we need to go back to the cemetery and literally resurrect people right so he's not into esoteric writing One more question. >> Yeah. Yeah, of course. >> Uh you spoke about ideology >> as a a new a neologism that he came up with. >> Uh is he trying to say essentially that ideology can become a form of idolatry? Is that what he's trying to say? >> Yes. But he's meaning it primarily on the use of um uh religious symbols. So at this point he he really didn't like mystical rights that was were left in the church or like you know any aesthetic in fact he didn't like and so he said that whenever okay so this is kind of probably important background so the Russian Orthodox tradition has a very deep mystical element probably even more so than the Greeks they were famous for their icons especially right so Russian iconography is world famous because they took the Greek and they made it even more mystical to another level especially in the Middle Ages. There's a really good film if anyone's interested in this. Andre Rublf, you might have seen this. It's great, right? Yeah. This is where you see this stuff where the early middle ages Russians were doing this. So, Fodov was in this sort of context and he saw that this mysticism was giving salvation. It was it worked but what did it work for? For one person, right? So in other words, one person would learn how to use the icon to see God and get salvation and freedom and everything else. And that's what he meant. It's like no, no, no, no. It needs to be universal. So those icons, they need to be transformed. And this is where science comes in. >> It seems to be more than a notion of love as an interpersonal experience. And so I'm curious with some theology. >> Was God a person? >> Oh, this is where it's very difficult. Um, okay. Uh, how do I approach this question? So, there is an issue with Christianity in the middle ages. The distinction between imminence and transcendence. Right now, everything about the other of you read, right? You read about this idea that God is present in all things. Right? Now, this is Phil would say, okay, but here's the final problem. God is simultaneously imminent and transcendent. This, I think, is where MTA might start to think, you know, we got to work this out. Uh, the Russian Orthodox tradition has this idea that salvation is never guaranteed. You might do everything perfect. You might even get this universal resurrection on the road. You might become a Fodorovian might transform the world into a, you know, a planet as he sees it. That's space fairing. We're doing it. We've achieved what he wants to and still salvation might not be there. That's the transcendent element for the Russian Orthodox tradition. That's what fov means. So God is simultaneously imminent. We need to do this work, but we need to do it even if we know we're not going to be saved. If you like dustfski or if you like this idea, you'll find it in dustki. I should say this is a dustfkian idea. This is Russian orthodoxy. Basically, >> this is a a theme that recurs in our uh discourse as well where I I know Lincoln has said this often that like we should behave as though even if God doesn't turn out to be real or if some of the promises of God turn out to fail, we should still act as though they will and do our best to kind of like be an imperfect substitute for that. So like we should still fight for the cause even if >> Exactly. >> even if it's a lost cause. >> Yeah. >> It's almost a it's almost a like a like a self-inforcing gamble because uh the idea of salvation lends you to suspect that the kind of person who would get saved is the kind of person who would do it anyway. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Just because it's right, not because they were going to get something out of them. >> Right. >> And it seems like Jesus also exemplifies that. Right. >> I've heard like Well, like like you know I'm thinking I think John on the cross he thinks um >> you know >> all the other wrong he's getting >> they've been forsaken by God but I'm going to go through with it you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's true. >> Yeah. That's that's basically so if you have that element you've got a core system already of Fov's ideas. Um, in fact, this is the only way in which salvation can become a coherent if it is not guaranteed and it's acted upon. Which also, by the way, and McKay, I have a feeling you don't like this. This is where this is where God is transcendent because you don't know. Everything we're reading here, everything we're talking about here, you don't know. So, this is the mysterious element to transcendence that is inseparable from fod. I have a question from one of our remote >> course >> Ben Peters who is also a Russian scholar >> um at he asks how to resurrect according to Fodorov literally. What kind of specific scientific techniques does he propose to realize the universal resurrection? How in specific would say piloting the planet Earth around the solar system help realize the resurrection? Are we gathering the trace traces residuals of our ancestors? The trace residuals of our ancestors. >> Yes. So that latter part is basically the answer. You literally collect the traces. He uses the term traces. >> And is this because he thinks that somewhere out in space is where the traces are. >> Yeah. He says he says they go everywhere. The entire the entire universe is basically evidence of traces. >> What makes him think that it's pre-informationation theory? What what makes him think that um say the remnants of the dead are out in space somewhere instead of like just on the planet? >> Yeah. So, we're thinking 19th century science, he's thinking to the best of his ability, Yeah. you know. Okay. >> So, it's really wild. A lot of the stuff is theoretical. >> Okay. >> Um even this idea of piloting the planet, >> like I don't know. I I'm I'm not an you know, astronomer. >> One of my favorite sci-fi movies is called Wandering Earth and they do that. >> [laughter] >> So what happens to like the sun and like the moon and like >> the sun is dying. So they start using the crust of the earth as rocket fuel and build mountain sized engines and the earth falls into a deep snow where the atmosphere falls to the ground as snow like it is on those underground >> and everyone looks underground and the earth just starts firing and >> I take me this movie. >> I try if she falls. >> So this this what is this movie called? I got to watch this. >> Wandering earth. It's an Indian movie. It's really good. [laughter] >> I did not mean relevance. >> I'm good. >> That's great actually. It's highly relevant. >> Um, yeah. So, Talovski, one of his uh one of the guys that really Tarovski, he was also deaf by the way, this father of rocket engineering. By the way, when the Germans were going through Soviet Union at the time, they found these manuscripts in a basement. So, they found where Sarovsky was writing all these formulas. And uh von Braonn the famous uh German who became a rocket engineer himself he saw the documents he's like what the hell school teacher knew this well Fodov he was inspired by Fodov Sarovski >> so Ben Peters mentions another um interesting uh author who has this concept of a spaceship earth. Hey Ben, do you want to just speak up and share it with us? >> I love that sort sticking. [laughter] >> Go ahead. >> Yes. Hi. Am am I audible? >> You are. >> Okay, great. Well, thank you so much. Um, this is so fascinating, Professor Alexandra. Anyway, like the this long tradition can be traced through the hippies and Buckminister Fuller in the 50s, 60s and 70s who has a beautiful um book called the operating manual for the spaceship planet Earth which extends kind of actually a lot of the theories of um Bernatski um yeah into a kind of new spirit worldview. Anyway, the Earth is a spaceship. >> Cool. >> And what does Buckminister Fuller want to do with this spaceship? >> Well, I mean, he has a little bit like that of um this world history of revolution and transformation. He wants to see a total class economic transformation at home and then he wants to see us kind of steer into a brighter Star Trek like future. It's not quite clear to what end. It's certainly not a Russian Orthodox resurrection, but it is a kind of bold vision of a of a future. Um, but yeah, just like it's half half in play in his case. I don't think at all as literal or as serious as Field. I see. Okay. >> So, I'm getting the impression that you guys want to convince me this is possible. [laughter] >> I think I think we're trying to make sense out of something that seems really strange, but um I guess from >> it's not a major concern of orbit trans. [laughter] >> I would hope not. >> I I guess like you're saying his cosmology is not as advanced as modern science and so >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So this is just this makes sense for some reason in his cosmology. >> It does. But you know um he he had a lot of wow theories. It wasn't just that. I mean uh part okay for example he thought that um uh a lot of the species uh for example sharks and things like that don't need to be harmful towards humans. >> So he says that they can be reoriented in a way in their nature where they become friendly. I mean, what is he what is he talking about exactly? You know what I mean? >> All living creatures can develop behaviors and habits. Like I've seen people on YouTube became friends with their jumping spiders. So >> So >> wow. >> Here here's a here here's I'll give you guys a very interesting anecdote. I think that the reason the sharks I think it might have a biblical uh story. >> The lion. >> Oh, okay. Well, there you go. See, this is it. You know why I remember this is because I remember when I was like a little kid, Jehovah witnesses used to come and knock on the door and one of them tried to, you know, tell me the stories and then I was like really interested. I was always scared of sharks and I was like, but what what about the sharks? Will the animals there hurt us? And he was like, "No, the sharks become your friends." [laughter] So that's what I thought. Maybe this is what FO had in mind, too. >> Yeah, please. >> Um, I think this is really interesting. Um what it sounds like something that's really important to him is the closing the gap between the theory and the practice. >> Yeah. >> So I think the theories are really interesting in practice. Does living this these ideas mean is he expecting people to live the way he lived where they kind of give up all of their material possessions and come home with empty pockets every day and think about ways that they can lift up everybody else? Like what what is he what do his ideas look like in practice for the average person? um quite literally as he said that I mean giving up everything no material gain um so in effect this is it's it's aesthetic but it also is very consistent with the desert fathers of of Christianity early desert fathers they were all about giving um but the problem is that Fodov understood he was intuitive enough to understand that everybody can't become aesthetics we need scientists we need engineers right so um the thing is I know this sounds strange but he thought that this was inevitable and so he thought by giving away his stuff he's just speeding it up right so he thought oh look I did more what I could do I articulated what we already doing I'll just give up my stuff um one more thing I'll add to the theory um so uh the deeper philosophical element of the separation between theory and practice he goes back to the to the mystic ical traditions and says that um they are actually glorifying death by making non-being and thinking a dead principle right so that's why he said whenever I give money away I haven't thought a dead thought if that makes sense so it's quite it's it's a literal enactment of what he's thinking >> have his ideas transformed the way that you with live your life at all? >> Me personally? >> Yeah. >> Um, >> is it just interesting for you to study or has it changed your behavior at all? >> Well, you know, I don't like to >> That might not even be an appropriate question. >> And by that I mean, do you have any change in your pocket with [laughter] >> We take Visa card. >> We take [laughter] Visa. Well, when I was when I was talking to KL downstairs, I like pulled out my pocket and noticed that receipts were falling on the floor. [laughter] So, yeah, I don't have spent all your pockets are empty. [laughter] >> Yeah, you're safe. >> Yeah. Um, no. So, about Fodov. So, um, look, uh, because I work in academic philosophy, I work with really complex thoughts. like you you think like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel Kant. Um uh for whatever reason, Fodorov is really close to me like really he really speaks to me. I I I don't get it. Like the thing is some ideas are profound. Like you read Ralph Waldo Emerson, I love Ralph Waldo Emerson, right? He's profound. But this resurrection idea, there's something to it, you know? Um so I would say definitely it's influence. It changed my life. In fact, when I think about it, uh, so when I was teaching in Russia, um, my Russian colleagues were were like, "I don't get why you really like this guy." And but one of them said something really interesting. He said to me, um, and he was also, you know, an excellent scholar. He said, "What we need to do if you want to really make Fodov taken seriously again, we need to dethize him." So because that's how everybody accepts him that [clears throat] he's mythologized, right? So everybody's like this is myth and that's what Soliv said, you know, the Russian premier philosopher. So in that sense, I think there's more to it. I think I'm not I don't read further just because I enjoy his ideas. No, I really think there's something there. >> You should tell them what you did to the Sagaw's man in the airport. >> No, no, that's Come on. That's enough. >> That's too much. No, no, no. So sent >> no that story is not coming. >> Um let me >> So go ahead. >> Uh if I understood you earlier it seemed you were saying he conceived of some kind of radical freedom where the universe is open. It's up to all of us. And yet you said it's inevitable. >> Yes. Yes. So how does that >> yes um okay despite the fact that nature is already chaotic it's fundamentally good why because God created it right now this is the message we understand we work towards it we work towards this good universe and improve it and everything but God is also transcendent do we really know what we're doing will the message change what will happen in a thousand years what happen 5,000 years. We don't know. So, in other words, every every single act, and I hope I'm not getting too complicated here. And this is a fundamental >> getting started. Ke. >> Yeah. [laughter] So, there's a fundamental idea in Russian Orthodox thinking, and that is creation. Creativity. Um, how does creativity function? This is very important, and this is really deep. This really keeps me up at night. Creativity is Xne law created out of nothing. So let me be clear here again. Whenever you create let's say software you already have the base structure right you tune what you already have into creating something right that is more suitable. Am I right? Is that good? That's fair. Right. >> Creativity for the orthodox tradition is not bad. It's goes back to the Greek word which I to remember we spoke about this Steve today pois it goes back to the word pois which means it creates completely out of new ex nilo out of nothing. What does that mean? That means we don't know what the next step is. What the next thought is because every thought is completely out of new. It's not related to an antecedent order. There's no link. Right? >> How does that even work? >> Yeah. This is it. That's transcendence. >> Okay. >> So in other words, some things are related. You create software. Like I said, using that same analogy on a base reality. But true creativity, true poises is out of completely nothing. It exceeds. It is the transcendent in the imminent. This is the mystical component of >> fod. >> So that's why coming back saying it's inevitable. Well, this is God's understanding only, right? We can only create. This is what makes us human, but we don't know what we're creating towards. So, uh you probably know this already, but in uh Mormon theology, uh Joseph Smith makes a quite quite a strong point of going back to the Hebrew and pointing out that the Hebrew says that the gods organized matter from chaos rather rather than out of nothing. Right. Yeah. >> And that the ex nihilo creation posited by classical Christianity is in in essence idolatrous. It's some kind of false notion that is not biblical. According to Joseph anyway, this he he much preferred the idea of thinking of gods as emerging from pre-existing things and then choosing to organize the things that that they found themselves amidst. >> That's right. I mean, in fact, I have it in the notes. Did you notice I have it? So, when I upload this, you see I did go into like um I I just didn't want to talk too too long, but I got into the King Flet discourse, right? >> Do it. >> Yeah. Well, you guys have it. You can read. You don't need it in your >> Well, okay. So, Steve heard all my thoughts already. Now I'm saying it again. Um, so look, I mean, uh, the Hebrew bar created, right? So you have this. So you have Clayton's report. Um, okay. Let me read out Clayton's report 1844. This is this is you. This is you guys, right? Um, the word create came from the word bar, Hebrew bar. Created don't mean so. It means to organize, right? Same as a man would use to build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize from chaos. Chaotic matter element had in existence from the time he had. So the pure principles of element are principles that never can be destroyed. They may be organized and reorganized but not destroyed. So this is Joseph Smith's basic idea right now. Then this is what I noticed earlier. We have another thing from him. Eternal intelligence. This is have you guys read this? You probably all have. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle. Right? We talked about Stephen H were talking about this. Another rendition we have um from another person who was recording it was Woodruff. Woodruff he he had intelligence is eternal and it is self-existing. Okay. So here's the thing um organizing. So when I said that creation exilo creation exhilo isn't creating matter itself out of nothing. It is the thought form. So here he's consistent with Joseph Smith. If we read intelligence exists upon a self-existence principle or that it is eternal in itself. >> Um this by the way I look I haven't studied Mormon theology long enough. You need give me another year or two. I'll be I'll be back. I'll give you a call. >> Sounds good. >> All right. Let me study it properly. But let me give you my initial thoughts. Um in Greek thought, intellect, the mind is the highest principle and it is free from matter. It impacts matter but it's free. Right? This is a huge thing with Aristotle and Plato. These are the guys that came up with the idea. Okay? So what he's saying here is almost you know I I don't want to just map or someone else Greeks onto Joseph Smith's words but when you talk about intelligence existing upon a self-existent principle that it is when he says it is eternal especially right this is what it means to create exneil it's the thought form that is is out of nowhere and then the matter follows so even if you organize matter that's no problem matter can be imminent you're still in the picture it's fine Fine. >> But the thought is out of nowhere. We can't see an antecedented thought because thought is eternal, self-existing truly on its own. Right? Did I did I make sense? >> When you have when you have that year or two of Mormonism on your belt, >> yeah, >> you'll see that that is only one way of looking at the latter day. There's the idea of se eternalism. >> Mhm. >> Eternal history. >> The mystery is no beginning. >> Yeah. >> Period. >> So >> but no beginning. >> But that's Aristotle too though. >> And and but the problem in in Mormonism is if there's always change, does it go up, down? It it isn't transcendence. >> Mhm. >> It's all Joseph Smith says spirit and matter are the same thing. >> Yeah. Yeah. He does. I I know this >> in that sense. It's not transcendence. It's all perspectival. >> You see I know I know you see. And so why is there differences between the gods? >> What did they choose differently >> to become different >> since they all are the same ancient age so to speak? And so, uh, Lincoln's been working on a third way. Somehow, the past that isn't isn't fixed and final by its historical aspect. >> How we can actually look back and say even looking back, there is freedom to redo the past in a sense. It's in that middle ground. >> Um, anyhow, there's some very interesting things going on within the Latter Day Saint theology right now. >> Yeah. Yeah. There's a few LDS theologians. >> I know >> we have a hard time finding the latest stuff, but uh >> I I noticed some of the this Steve and I were talking about this. Senior scholars in German thought are now breaching into ODS um philosophy or theology, whatever they're calling it. Um uh because it seems like it's controversial to call it theology. That's what I'm hearing. I don't know. I mean, >> yeah, you'll get it. You can call it >> theology. I think it's fine. It's just that um because the church is somewhat young, I think there is a little bit of concern about um like practicing theology as being a form of kind of speculation about deep doctrine instead that >> people aren't >> that you know some of our leadership is probably thinking well they need to just work on the basics you know and not like speculate about lots of weird things and I think >> I think there are some leaders who don't have that training who are just uncomfortable with it and maybe don't uh they think it's a bunch of nonsense or whatever. I I don't know. I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I this is the impression that I get. Um so I think this may be why we have church education. >> You can go into church education, but you can't go into theology at least at a at a church university. But I do see this changing because we have a lot of young uh scholars going and studying theology at other universities like Harvard Divinity School. >> Okay. >> And then and then doing Mormon theology after they graduate. >> But it's kind of sad that they can't do it in our at our own at our own universities. Right. So >> theory in practice heavy into practice in our latter day into practice. >> Yeah. I I can see look I mean I can see that definitely. >> I was wondering though sorry I didn't mean to interrupt. >> No, that's okay. That's okay. You go. >> You um you you were talking to me earlier about some of what you see as the the goals of the association or what should be the goals and some of your ideas about um what makes us interesting and unique and how you think we might >> slightly before you answer it that way. >> Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. earlier tempted us with a with claiming you said there were some things that you saw that were overlaps or symmetries or um some consonances between the and Mormon transhumanism. I'd love to hear those and then how they um feed into what Carl just >> uh look I see I see yeah so this is the thing maybe I wasn't explicit enough it's not consistent that there are no inconsistencies at this point I don't see any um I see of course inconsistencies between the Russian Orthodox Church for example and Mormon church right the church of bad day saints I should say um but in terms of the MTA and But f there's complete parallels. Um I don't know. I have to think about inconsistency. This idea about transcendence that I was talking about this is a very deep philosophical principle. It won't reach the vast majority of people. It's too it's too complicated. But everything else is so what so do you can you tell me an inconsistency that pops into your head? Perhaps I can ruminate over it because there isn't any. He might be somewhat more platonic than the average Mormon. >> Yeah. But here's the thing though. Um what I'm reading from the Kingf Discourse seems like okay which comes back reminds me what what you were mentioning. Um it seems like you will have you guys can correct me here. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle. Is he conflating intelligence with spirit? >> I don't think so. >> Oh see see this is the issue now I need to know. We but this has been debated and by our own >> okay so it's undecided. >> So let me let me um chat fill you in on sort of what has been said about this. So um Joseph Smith throughout his life sometimes seems to use certain terminology interchangeably. So there are times when he speaks of intelligences and times when he speaks of spirits >> almost as though they were the same thing >> and it's unclear. However, subsequent scholars like Joseph F. Smith or was it Joseph Fielding Smith? No, Joseph >> the the person who compiled the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith. >> That's Joseph Fielding. >> Yeah, Joseph Fielding Smith was attempting to harmonize these different usages of Joseph Smith. And so he thought, well, clearly he used different words and so he must have meant something different. So then Joseph Fielding Smith tried to harmonize them by saying intelligence is a pre primordial state of spirit which is a primordial state of of soul which is spirit and body connected. But it's not totally clear in my opinion whether that's actually what Joseph Smith intended or whether it was just Joseph Fielding Smith's interpretation of what Joseph was saying. So this so this is a distinction that would need to be worked out very carefully because it's important. Um so let me let me tell you why I picked up on it. Um Clayton he adds um let me >> just add one other thing which is that regardless of who's right in many uh modern Sunday school manuals intelligences are treated differently from spirit. >> Yeah. So I'm reading it personally I read it as different but again like I said I am not confident in how much I've thought about this and worked on it and written about it you know. Um so here's one example as to why I see it different. So um Clayton after he says so Clayton has the idea that intelligence is eternal and it is self-existing. Um whereas the other quote by I'm not sure who it was has intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle. It's almost the same. These are two records right? But here's what Clayton adds uh that these spirits are susceptible of enlargement. Now uh this is why it helps to know the Greek background. This is why I said it's really platonic. Um the platist believe that the intellect is exactly like thison and it is absolutely susceptible to enlargement per person. So in other words, some people can cultivate the intellect to higher states of awareness. Now um for example, the plaintist will say these are people that become prophets. They see more, they hear more and then they eventually say more. That's what enlargement of intellect is not spirit because spirit is an embodied principle. So you can't enlarge the embodiment condition. You can enlarge only is that making sense? This is the intellect. This is a this is Greek stuff, right? I see this is consistent with what he's saying with with that's how I read Joseph Smith at this point. >> In platonism, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. This is my PhD was in Pltonism basically. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. So you you guys see the So if you take spirit as enlargement, >> can you can you make that work? I think there is a fundamental agreement. what it needs. But there is some agreement that that uh there's an onlogical monism in the sense of all things are the same stuff, >> matter, spirit, >> intellect isn't separate. Now, the form, >> see what I'm getting? That's where we're all soaking on as Latter Day Saints. >> The form, >> the form of that >> same stuff. Mhm. >> You see it's it's a question and it >> so has said this as well where >> he talks about how spirit is really the configuration of matter right not like it's a pattern of information right you're taking what makes your spirit you is that you're organized in a unique pattern that makes up you rather >> rather than that it's some kind of like thing that's separate from your body >> but the but these again like like I say these These are all Greek ideas. These have been taught over for hundreds and thousands of years. >> That's what I'm telling you. And the other thing we have to keep in mind, so obviously uh uh the Bible itself is also important for the last day saints, right? Well, the Bible was influenced by the Greeks, >> by the Mesopotamians. >> Yeah. And of course, >> I had so have some fun with this. One of my LDS teachers years ago was named Hugh Nibbi and he was a centrist. We believe [clears throat] that the Greeks got it from some primal early LDS culture that you laugh at. But here's the deal. When the el when the Mormons go to their temple >> Yeah. >> the ritual is that God gave all the Christian truth to Adam and Eve. >> Of course. Yeah. Yeah. That's the >> That's right. >> diffused and then messed up by the Greeks. Yeah. >> You see where I'm going with that? >> I like the Greeks. >> A very interesting. This is a very old LDS idea. >> Well, I mean, if you think I mean, the the Book of Mormon goes 600 BC, right? 500 BC. >> I think it's just that um Hugh Nibbi loved to find Mormon principles in really ancient uh records. So yeah, he would go to Egypt and he would read the hieroglyphics and he would say, "Well, this is just like our temple ceremony." Yeah. Yeah. >> So he said it was just a permutation that went arry from the real stuff. Yeah. >> And Federal would have gotten along really well. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> But look to be honest the early the early Islamic tradition of golden age they that's what they said. They said a lot of the the principles of Christianity and Judaism and Islam are adamic principles. >> Adamic principles. >> Yeah. So they say that even so they love Plato and Aristotle. even though they were pagan, they still liked them and they're like, "These guys were just working with Adamic principles." >> There you go. >> Yeah, you I mean, you can read it like that. Of course, I understand that. But in terms of like working out this distinction between spirit and and intellect, this is really important because for the Greeks, what they clarified is that spirit is not thought. Thinking itself is the most divine component. And in fact, this is where we have a really controversial thing. I put it in the footnotes because I don't know how everybody would feel like this, but about it. But this is what I found from the text. It says um God never had power to create the spirit of man at all. So that means intellect if you read it platonically that's what Plato would say and the platonist they would say that the intellect creates spirit. Spirit is a manifestation of a little thought. scripture in the DNC that says intelligence or a light of truth was not created or made neither indeed can be. >> Yeah. >> Will you repeat what you were just saying a second? Are you saying that you think Plato would agree with >> uh yeah this idea that spirit well to make it as clear as possible the spirit or soul let's say soul because that's the language you would use c for example is derivative of intellect n they are two levels only because we so they're not really two levels but we have to think about it like that because we're inferior to this high understanding. So the intellect right is the root of the soul. So that you have a soul, okay, is because you are embodied. If you're not embodied, you are just intellect. Does that make sense? >> Tie it back to the quote that you were pulling from Joseph Smith about God not having the ability to create. Well, this is in so far as we understand God is the self-existent principle that's already completed the intellect if that makes sense. Because if you are saying that there's nothing beyond that intellect or intelligence, then that's that's what God is. So you don't find a tension between what Joseph is saying there and your understanding of God. >> No, not really. Because in fact when I was reading this I was thinking I mean when you say intelligence exists upon self-existent principle >> um I can give you the enslus which is one of the most famous platonic text and I'll find you passages like I'll show them to you. So it's almost word for word and we know for a fact that he didn't read the innates. >> True. >> Yeah. I know for a fact because >> because we know Ralph Waldo Emerson even didn't have the translations of the init right. >> So I don't see the Yeah, I don't see u >> inconsistencies. Yeah. >> Yeah. I hope that helps. >> Is there the Greeks? I mean in reading the >> it seems that >> the idea was God created because he was perfect and all. >> He had to demonstrate he didn't have envy >> and so he had to create stuff that he didn't envy >> to prove. I mean this is one of the most wonderful passages I've ever read. You know why create? Well I've got to prove to myself that I'm perfect. So I've got to be tempted with envy. So I'll do create all this. The pl you the plenum. I create everything and I don't envy anyone. >> Yeah. That's God loving himself is sort of a creation. Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, it's it's it's more than loving himself. It's not envying what he has created. It's very it's very interesting. Humanistic personal type passage. >> The code of the taos. >> Yeah. The taas by the way is a pythogorian idea. It's it's pythogorian. It's not just Plato. It's Plato's Pythagorianism, right? >> So, forgive me. >> Interrupting for a sec, but for those of us who don't love geeking out in philosophy quite as much as Randall, >> I'm hoping you can bring it home with more pragmatic terms as to like >> Okay. Yes, please. >> Um, cuz you spoke to me earlier about some of the things you see as maybe perhaps part of our mission as as an organization and some of the ways we could find inspiration in the works of children. >> Okay. So um I I'll I'll say a lot of what I already said to you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The first thing I would say is um these doctrinal things that we talked about just now uh you need to think them to so you need to work them out. So for example um uh you need the rigger to actually understand the ontology. when I when I started so Steve is one of my best friends now and he's you know member of the Latter Day Saints as well and I started reading it then >> [clears throat] >> um I read the book of Mormon read everything uh a lot of the text secondary sources too but I'm still not very confident on knowing the material because it takes time as a scholar I know how it works um but it seems to me that uh there is no consistency amongst the scholars who are studying this enough. [laughter] So at least in so the first sign of a mature scholarship is consensus. The first thing is you need this. I would say you need consensus. Now specific to the MTA, the MTA does need that anchor. You need that philosophical anchor. You need to actually know the direction. The mission statement is brilliant. I like I told you, I'm completely on board. I'm fully on with you on this. But it has to have that consistent um ontological backdrop. It has to. >> Otherwise, when you get to sticky points, you won't know how to deal with it. >> You won't know whether or not you're contradicting your own framework. >> So, this is where you need a philosopher. That's why I said you need the rigor of a philosopher to work this out. I I don't not that I don't want to appear skeptical to that claim, but I would say that >> there is this very strange aspect to Mormon tradition, which is that um we retain this tentativity because at any moment uh uh the current president of the church could change policy or >> of course >> say something that um >> supersedes any prior uh prior revelation. Mhm. >> Um and but more often than not, what seems to happen in our tradition is that from each decade to the next and each sort of phase of church development to the next, they just kind of stop talking about one thing and start talking about something else. >> Of course, >> and there's never there's never an official repudiation of these things or very rarely. Every once in a while there will be a repudiation like when the priesthood was extended to all Rudy males in 1978 but >> but otherwise it's usually done just by changing the emphasis. >> And so there's a lot of slipperiness in Mormon practice by design, right? And so >> I guess what I'm getting at is um we resist this cod this desire to codify everything >> theologically and and philosophically. Um maybe on purpose. >> That's a very good point. But I think you must have misunderstood me a little bit here. >> Okay. It's possible. Definitely possible. >> Um I was not speaking about the actual church and the saints themselves. I was talking about MTA. You guys specific to you guys. um that other component for me the ODS looks like literally the most common sensical religion the most successful per I kept telling Steve I'm like man perfect family units everywhere everyone's lovely everyone dresses well nobody swears [laughter] >> Lincoln does everyone's >> the for me like for examp like for me I pick up on these things like I can't even watch Joe Rogan's podcast because the the panning is too much. Believe it or not, for me it's like too much. I'm like, "Oh, I can't." So, um I don't see it here. Like, I've known Steve 5 years. I haven't heard him swear once. I'm trying to like trigger him to do it, man. [laughter] >> It is pretty funny that our even in our own conservatism, we're quite different from other sort of crass forms of conservatism. >> Yeah. It's not And that's the thing. It's not overt. It's almost like So, that's what I'm saying. So, coming to the >> It's polite. It's yeah but it's etiquette and it's also grounded in tradition you see look I mean you have other traditions like this too if you see pious people from other traditions they have this but that's what I'm saying that's why it's successful but I was speaking specifically to NTA you guys have a project >> that's why I said you guys have to work out that ontology >> right right >> I'm not saying the ODS ODS is function don't there's nothing to do there it's perfect leave it >> um but the MTA needs because you have a project that is quite literally unprecedented in scale and unbelievably ambitious. Of course, you have to have an ontology, >> right? Even let's take a very radical example. Look at Marxism. >> Marx for all his anti- philosophical speculation is literally one of the deepest political philosophies, right? And he changed the world regardless of whether what you say about Marx or not. >> [clears throat] >> So that's an example, right? You need to have that. That's that's all I was saying. >> Yeah. >> What about us having MTA having schools? >> Schools that are coherent schools that are in contestation. But if we understand it, >> Mhm. >> Would that work? >> Yes. Well, that's >> saying that different ontologies perhaps at some deep level. >> Yeah. Well, this is what Fodorov is telling you to do. you need to do is schools is fundamental the educations but here's the problem though and this I think uh I would be concerned myself you don't want to have schools rivaling abstract ideas you're beyond that stage now so you don't want one school of nominalism another one of realism you know you you don't want that debating the ideas like that you need to have schools in the sense that you have a unified goal look you need solid philosophers dealing with this because for me it seems like the premises are pretty clear, right? You just need to work it out and make it explicit. So no no rivalry in abstraction just you know make the project clear the end goal and then you know lean it into the scripture that's it. >> So so you feel that we would be strengthened by a solid philosophical foundation >> fundamental. Yes. Yes. And as for examples of like uh [clears throat] cases where um uh that solid uh philosophical foundation would would serve us, would it be like um like sort of acceptance criteria for for resurrection or is like this the person that like you know used to be um like what or or what other like things you speculate um don't have clarity because of our lack of philos philosophical foundations. >> Yeah, you would have to work all these out. That's that's what you would do. >> Um because I mean let's talk about generally speaking the transhumanist movement in itself is new. >> Mhm. >> Like outside of your project, people don't know what they're doing out there, you know, you know. >> So, >> yeah. And I I've been recently saying I feel like transhumanists have suffered in many cases because the aesthetics that they use are really poor. Yes, I was just speaking about this at a conference I was invited to and uh saying that like the aesthetics that are things keep calming down. >> Um the uh that part of what makes them seem repellent to others is that their view of what uh an ideal human looks like is so um so much worse than what we already are. It's like plastic and chrome and Barbie and Ken and Barbie kind of like uh caricatures, right? Like >> Yeah. >> Um it's really quite grotesque in many ways. >> Yeah. So if you read, for example, some of the famous sci-fi literature, >> like take for example Neurommancer, you know, >> or something like this, what you see is the envisioning of what the future human is like. It's a hybrid. Um so you have like prosthetic arms you know or someone with an extra eye so they can see further. You see this is why um for example many Christian traditions like your traditional Catholic or whatever they're very very cautious about transhumanism because they believe in what I was explaining Steve earlier in the divinity of the human so that the human being as they are is already complete and in fact we should live a normal life and die and then go to the to the God's resurrection God's way the Christian narrative way. So it's a sensitive topic for conventional Christianity, right? Whereas for Fodov like we take his example is like there's no definition of what the human is. It's limitless, right? But then for you guys, you would have to take the same you have to recognize what are the boundaries, what is heretical, what is no longer human, what is, you know, counterintuitive to compassion and all. So these questions are very deep and you know uh does does for example not having one organ more more than one organ all these questions they all have to work them up >> I think they're also challenging because we recognize that our perception of what forms these future humans may take will will also evolve. >> Yes. Ju just just like um ancient humanity had certain conceptions of what God was like >> that we now think of as barbaric. >> Mhm. >> Um but for them it may have been an improvement on their existing prior moral codes. >> That's right. And um if you take Fodov's idea, he wants he he sees human beings as fundamentally um uh they should be well effectively they're already immortal but they need to enact it. So everybody is already something that should be immortal living forever. >> Yeah. >> That's very LDS too. Yeah. >> Well yeah I've seen it. Yeah. >> Yeah. Would what would we worry as Latterday Saints? I'm impressing everyone in the room as well as you about the notion that the body in its beautiful aesthetic now was designed functionally for a talos that this body would fulfill. a little bit of Aristotle here, but a lot of the idea of the gods having lived forever, always doing new stuff for new >> ti, >> therefore needing new forms. >> And so that's right. >> The resurrection to me has always been a problem in my philosophical [clears throat] mind because it fixes the idea of a body with 10 darn fingers. Mhm. >> You know, it doesn't work for other tloids that I could see in infinitely we might have and therefore redesign bodies, redesign worlds, redesign gravities. If you see how radical it could be given that the fundamental question is what do we want? I'm a pragmatist. What do we want to do next? >> Right? What is the function we want to do next? Therefore, what do we design? And so, how would you think of resurrection? Mhm. >> In that very radically uh historical pattern where you did have these forms, but you changed forms to meet new needs. Could could the body be a resurrected body be something that is that flexible in the future in your mind? >> Well, that makes perfect sense what you're saying. It's it's it's a question that needs to be asked. But let's define immortality on its own. Let's say we achieve mortality. It's it's contradictory to think it would look the same as this because literally for example everything that is about me reflects mortality right my skin is going to get more and more wrinkles by definition of being mortal being human being alive so in so far as I become mortal will I still be the same will I still have wrinkles obviously not so yeah to answer to your question >> already you're saying resurrection is kind of fuzzy. Was it was it that way for for >> of course yeah he he he spoke to this again you see you see we were we were saying oh fther of his 19th century science we were laughing at him you know with this planet idea how much do we know what are we talking about here we're talking about do we need 10 fingers or what maybe [clears throat] we need 12 I don't know the idea right it's and further actually says this he had a good sense to say this he said that I don't really know what this looks like oh Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, you know, immortality is the goal and you see already he's I mean you're abstract, right? And I would agree and this is I think a very important insight you brought up just now. It will be continually revised >> as your understanding develops through time, through history, through the actment of the resurrection goal. >> You did emphasize that it was embodied immortality for the enlightenment. >> Yes. That's the that's the other thing. It's an embodiment. Yeah. Yes. Listen, >> just like some like your general thoughts on this. I know there's a Christian transhumanist association. Like why isn't there an over representation of the Russian Orthodox in there? You said it's like a good fit for that. I don't know that much about what they do. Like do you think there's sort of like a a I would guess your program, but do you think their theology doesn't work quite as well as as MTA? I would I would guess you say it wouldn't, but yeah, I'm curious what you think about or maybe the Russian Orthodox Church has its own group within it that is really transhumanist and >> Okay, it's a very good question. Um, I'll answer it this way. The primary reason is because the Russian language world is completely outside of your pure view. >> Outside of your view, >> so you don't get to see it. >> Yeah. Um, and that's because uh this firstly there's no much interaction anymore between the Russian speaking world and the English world. Take it from me. I was there for three years. >> Uh coming back to the Russian Orthodox Church, if we're specific with them, they're not really uh pro this transhumanism stuff, >> right? >> Yeah. >> You said I thought you said that early on, but that they ought to be like to their >> Yeah, they're sensitive about it. However, the Russian state, the people, the Russians are they are the most transhumanist. >> Yeah. Well, they >> I know I know in the secular they are. >> Yeah. But a lot of them >> like 20 billion dollars on longevity science. >> Yeah. The longevity stuff going on there is mind >> and they've had cryo as long as well >> goes back to the Soviets. >> So, here's what I would say about this. I'll say that this cosmic perspective is deep in the Russian people. The church itself wants to be at a church, but the actual the way the Russians think, they're fundamentally transhumanist. They they love this stuff. This immortality projects, there's so much literature on this. You can see some lots of lots of scholarship on this topic. People go to Russia and they study all the stuff that they're doing, you know, and it even goes back to like Lenin's time, right? Right afterwards, they were already doing stuff. So that's to answer your question. The church, no, not so much. >> Yeah. >> I think in in the interest of time, I think we should um thank Camille for coming and we can continue individual discussions uh for as long as you guys want, but I just want those guests who might have come to support [clears throat] Emil and maybe some friends of yours not to be kept here all night >> so we can have a chance to go home. Yeah, that's right. >> Yeah. But thank you so much for [applause]