Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

A Sense-Making Odyssey, Part 1: Jordan Peterson, John Vervaeke & Jordan Hall (Patreon)

Published:
2025-09-11 02:12:48
Edited:
2025-09-11 04:34:15
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

  • Sensemaking Danger Part 1.mp3

Some files exceed the archive size limit and weren't saved: 1 file. Please note these limits are in place to keep this site running long term, without costing a fortune. You can favorite the creator though, certain milestones increase the limit.

Content

Join Matt and Chris as they enter the intellectual labyrinth of a reflective sensemaking that features Jordan Peterson, John Vervaeke, and Jordan Hall. You will learn about many deep concepts and puzzle over definitions for conscience, the vertical hierarchy of value, normativity, goals vs. ideals, the ultimate unifying meta-narrative, and touchstones. With frequent excursions into biblical stories, Platonic philosophy, Jungian psychology, Martial Art stances, and much, much, more! This is a voyage through the overlapping and refracted philosophical frameworks of three contemporary sensemaking powerhouses. So get your oars ready and set your mind to taste the Dialogos, vis-à-vis Moses...

Sources

A Dialogue So Dangerous, It Just Might Bring You Wisdom | John Vervaeke and Jordan Hall | EP 532

Comments

Ryan O'Rourke

I imagine the three of them finishing the Dialogos, jumping to their feet, high-fiving all around, JP yelling "Whooo! We made the shit out of that sense!"

Jen

Johnny V never disappoints that part of my brain that zones out and allows my consciousness to leave the building.

Idan Ca

Part 1???

Kerena

Merleau-Ponty is a French continental style philosopher. He's in the world of phenomenology, not quantitative cog sci. (Source - my boyfriend in college was obsessed with MP and I tried to read it to seem smart.)

Vivian

I’m genuinely so jealous of Matt and Chris. They found so much joy in each other. I hope one day I find someone to share in the joy of my niche hater hyper- fixations.

Nat J

"Ostention" mostly just means pointing at something (or maybe physically indicating something more generally). But it's important in philosophy of language because it was the basis for a ground-breaking theory of how names work. (The prevailing theory was that names are connected to a mental definition of a person. Until the significant logician Kripke proposed that names depend on ostention, not concepts.(Kripke, as I understand it, provided the first complete semantics for modal logic. Not really relevant here, except to establish he wasn't a complete dummy. Sex pest? yes. But not a dummy))

Nat J

please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jordan's account of postmodernism almost 100% inverted? I thought the most distinctive feature of postmodernism is that it thinks of reality as nothing but competing narratives, or something like that. Saying that postmodernists don't accept unifying narratives is like complaining about Catholicism for never considering that God might be omnipotent.

Frances

Hugely entertaining - thank you; can't wait for part 2!

Elissa

Haha! The ‘cut’ to the ‘ad’ for Easter!!! Hahaha ! Stellar editing folks

Dial-1-2-enter-in-2-diaLOGOS

Matt mentioned something akin to process supervision, which is most commonly associated with group analysis or psychodynamic group therapy. I’m a clinical psychologist, and although I work in a very psychoanalytically oriented environment, my own practice is mainly in newer forms of cognitive behavioural therapy. Because of the institutional culture, I often find myself in situations where groups essentially “regress” for ninety minutes. I don’t think psychodynamic group therapy is necessarily useless. Some patients do benefit. But to me, it often feels so irreducible and non-technical that I doubt it can really be taught in a systematic way. My impression is that only a small fraction of therapists are genuinely effective with this approach—and these are probably individuals who would be effective clinicians regardless of the method. They are the ones usually cited when defending the value of such groups. Reflection groups in workplaces also seem like derivatives of the group-analytic tradition. The assumption is that whatever regressive material emerges reflects the collective unconscious of the group, and that working through the resulting conflicts is itself therapeutic. Personally, I find this dubious. I suspect that in both psychodynamic group therapy and its workplace adaptations, the therapist’s personal skill and the group’s composition are far more predictive of outcome than the formal method, which contributes very little in itself.

Zak

Made me laugh hearing whoever it was talk about their fighting stance and then Chris saying they do Tai Chi. Now I'm convinced Tai Chi is sensemaking in martial art form.

Roland Weber

This is hilarious! I've been grinning and giggling in public transport while listening to it. 😁 Have been briefly wondering why the Bible talks about profits... until I figured out it was about prophets. 😇

Tim Tripp

Geez, these three are such tedious turds.

Joel G

Such a frustrating conversation. I mean, I have a COMPLETELY different working model for the normative! Wish there had been another hour or two to double-click on it.

Joe Euro

Nice to see monkey magic making a reappearance on the podcast. It's been a while

Linda Sears

I know its silly to nitpick, but I got confused with the origin and orientation ideas of Vervaeke. Isn't origin about where you came from and orientation about where you are at the moment and how you relate to the situation you are in at that moment? It sounded like he was saying origin is where you are at the moment and orientation is the direction you are going in. As for ostention.... I kind of feel like he was just using these words for their alliterative effects.

jubshit

This episode really approaches my ideal of beauty - and I mean that in the most normative sense. They really have transformed discussion in to a type of kunda-logos. An orgiastic display that could reckon with the greats like... Uhhh, great thinkers. You know who I'm thinking about. In that sense, as Foucault said "Power is relations; power is not a thing, it is a relationship between two individuals…" and so really they're here establishing a new line of thinking. Don't look into the rest of that quote though because it only just scratches the surface of what Jordan x 2 and John can establish through their long form chitty chats. That was a stellar episode. It's hard not to play word games with these fellas. The second half of this part is so focused on actually listening to what they're saying that I felt stoned when Jordan, Jordan, and John were actually speaking. Great episode. I'm looking forward to part 2. Thanks.

Linda Sears

It was funny to me how they, specifically Jordan P, necessarily thought power was always a bad thing when they were talking about the postmodernists. Power can be shared or laterally expressed between people so that it is experienced more fairly amongst the community. Its not always a top down (vertical) relationship. But I guess in Jordan P's view self-sacrfice means one is offering up one's entire being to the higher whatever that he believes sits at the top of the ladder. If the self must be sacrificed to this higher whatever, is it such a good thing? Like maybe complete self-sacrifice to an unknown higher whatever could be really destructive? It sounds like the higher whatever is on its own power trip if it demands self-sacrifice from its acolytes. Anyway, this kind of talk is a little worrisome to me, particularly since the higher whatever is kept vague enough for a person to fill in their particular whatever into.

Roland Weber

Btw, John Vervaeke hangs out with meta-modernists. Those came after the post-modernists. Not sure if JBP knows about them, but Jordan Hall probably does. There are connections to Game B from there. (have to stop typing now, I'm feeling an urge to start making up things... Game Z, hyper-modernists, you name it)

Philip Grant

These orgiastic-materialism-denouncers are going to have some rationalising to do when they see Trump Tower.

Some who call me Tim

“Take your stance... get the right grips... knowing your origin, your place in the world... having vertical alignment... knowing your optimal orientation, knowing where you’re going to go out into the world.” So help me, I could not help wondering if Vervaeke invents all his philosophy…at the urinal.

Jordan

Loved every second of this. If the podcast changed completely to be centred fully around just decoding this conversation forever. I'd be down. Would probably pay more money too.

Emma

Where us he getting this idea that post modernist say everything is about power? Even in nature? Wasn't it JP who was previously obsessed with hierarchies and how everything in nature is in hierarchies. Isn't that a power structure?

Molly Bretthauer

Sensemaking with sensemakers is Waiting for Godot meets Waiting for Guffman.

Melinda

Blessed are the cheese makers

Joe Euro

Just got to Kris' bombshell that this is only part 1 of a double bill. Not sure whether that fills me with dread or delight. Maybe those two reactions aren't mutually exclusive.

Clarissa Tufts

The three hour workshops that Matt is describing that “drove everyone absolutely mental” sound exactly like the sociology of group development class that I took in the fourth year of my sociology degree. It was a whole semester of weekly “seminars” where the class was being observed by MA students (behind a two way mirror). There was no session agenda, just suggested readings from the field of group process/development. So what ended up arising was students enacting emergent archetypal roles … that apparently gave evidence of basic sociological concepts of group development. I found it highly entertaining. But can really hear Matt’s psychological pain - some people in the class were just as bored out of their minds and not willing to play along. I’m pretty sure the research is still (25 yrs later) in boxes in a dark closet of that ancient tenured professor. I wouldn’t be surprised if that prof was linked to the Tavistock Group.

livintheilife

“It’s a dense semantic thicket that you have to cut through” 😂🤣

livintheilife

The unmined seams of sense-making gold that are truth and beauty… oh, god, I shudder to think…

Guruacolyte

This would all sound incredibly banal if they just spoke plain English. "Try to be good" rather than "Orientate yourself towards the good" for example.

Damien Murtagh

I would love to hear all the ways that Jordan P thinks he's been self-sacrificing

Mandy Thompson

This episode cheered up my Friday immensely. Chris & Matt made my day on a long drive - listening to these 3 babble on incoherently and then the guys ‘interpreting’. Bring on part 2 I say!

Trees

Growing up my dad would complain about basketball commentators saying "verticality" because is was a made to word. I wish I could tell him where verticality has gone now, but I'd have to explain so much...

Melinda

Here I am, just flopping around like a fish.

Gavin Ryan Studio

I just learned the definition of not worthwhile..

Russell

“Does anyone know why I’m here? Please, someone tell me why I’m here!”

Russell

Matt, talking about the classes you had to take at the end of this episode made me think you should look into the encounter/human potential movement.

Devin Poore

Jordan: "Noble self sacrifice is the highest order virtue of living in accordance with the Christian ideal." Society: "Will you get a COVID shot and wear a mask to help protect the health of your fellow citizens?" Jordan: "HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST SUCH A THING YOU ANTI-HUMAN DEMON"

Matt Dear

what the fuck is the point of them talking like this, why, why any of this, why do people listen to this, this is deranged. It's like if therapy had no point, no end, and was entirely self-indulgent.

Devin Poore

Oh for fuck's sake - the stick and the shadow You literally CAN use the length of the shadow to explain the length of the stick, assuming you know the angle (and possibly some other factors like distance) of the incoming light source. But you would need to know those things to calculate the length of the shadow based on the length of the stick too. A stick of length X could have a shadow of N lengths. The length of the stick alone will not give you the answer. You need more information. In any case, it's literally just a simple algebra equation where you're changing one of the known variables to an unknown on one side and one of the unknown to a known on the other. You can still do the calculation either way. These fucking guys smdh

Idan Ca

I finally get it. We patreons are all unwitting participants in a sick experiment that Matt and Chris have concocted to test how much masochistic punishment people will accept in order to feel part of a community. Thats why they giggle so much in this episode, because they share a secret that we are not privy to: the joke is on us. Well, DtG, the truth is out now. Shame on you.

Amy S

How the hell do you understand anything these guys are saying??

Monica B.

So fun. I don’t know what it says about me that as my country seems to be crumbling around me, listening to a mediated version of these quacks feels lighthearted hahaha! I also can’t believe there are people who listen w/o the DtG commentary and takedown. (I loooved semiotics once and even considered getting a degree in it! I was also very young once!)

Frances Sebesta

This brought back memories of completing a Masters degree at the College of Fine Arts in Sydney. I lost count of the times my brain melted down over semiotics and Foucauldian theory (I am more a Habermas sort of person). This brought it all back. It is post-modern theory at its worst and it all can be reduced to a search for god. That makes it the most attractive philosophy for American podcasters who love the sound of their own voices and who are tolerated only because there is enough religion in it to keep their audiences listening even though they can’t follow the discussion. It is dense because it has to cover up the emptiness in their arguments.

m

Bro this is so awkward, everyone in the room can tell that JBP has collapsed his paradigms into a single master paradigm but they won't call him on it

Melinda

Is there a part 2?

Steve Edge

Imagine actually listening to JPs podcast and not having the help of Chris and Matt. Thanks Gents. 😊