🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (5 tweets)
loving concept of "modal confusion": 1. try to solve being mode with having mode (objectification, eg trying to get love by *having* sex) 2. try to solve having mode with being mode (spiritual bypassing = "too heavenly to be any earthly good") (@vervaeke_john➔@JimRuttShow pt2)
Vervaeke talks about how: having mode = I-It being mode = I-Thou in Buber's terms he doesn't mention it for whatever reason but I'm sure he knows these modes map onto the hemispheres since he's talked with McGilchrist in depth https://t.co/fZGtK6pA43
@jim_rutt asks the excellent Q "what about doing?" Vervaeke answers: doing has 2 modes: work (having: real goals, trying to actually change something about the world) play (being: game has goals, but you don't want to shortcut them and just declare yourself winner)
so modal confusion here would be either: - treating a game like it has to be won at all costs - treating something that matters like it's just an attachment to be transcended eg Buddha referring to his son as "fetter" James Carse's Finite & Infinite Games is relevant here