And a paper tiger? A lot of strawmen in this one. Maybe this is a relevant criticism (barely) of certain "official" Communist regimes circa 1960, but it´s hardly a serious criticism of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Note also the hypocritical "pie in the sky" message. Endure yer suffering, proles! Nupe, won´t happen, comrade. Or should I call you "citizen"?
"Professor Jiang" is a somewhat peculiar Internet personality who rose to prominence recently. His message seems to be a confused "lowest common denominator" of every on-line conspiracy / alternative theory, which may explain his sudden success.
Unless it´s algorithmic manipulation...
Some conspiracy theorists (!) suspect that Jiang is an asset of the Chinese regime, but Jay Dyer (also a conspiracist) believe it´s more likely that the fake professor is a *Western* influence agent. Indeed, he was arrested by the Chinese authorities at one point and extradited from the country! For unclear reasons, he was later allowed back, which obviously gave rise to rumors that he must be secretely working for the CCP or be a double agent.
I don´t claim to know who Jiang is, except that he sounds frankly uninteresting even for a supposed fringey!
Translation: Ethnic icons aren´t heresy at all, as long as they depict Christ as an idealized light-skinned Levantine Jew. Got it, bruh.
Another sad by-product of Nominalism and the Protestant Reformation. Or no?
Orthodox bad boy Jay Dyer calls out the SSPX (or as he jokingly calls them: Ssss-pksss), who were recently excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The SSPX faithful presumably want the Orthodox to submit to Rome, but they don´t seem willing to submit themselves...
Dyer was a supporter of the SSPX for a number of years and his video contains some funny gossip about the society. Are we to believe Dyer, the SSPX is teeming with crypto-Nazis, barely closeted homosexuals and kooks in general. At one point, our man emphasizes that no gay priest ever touched his butt?! Alcoholism is another rampant problem. One SSPX priest had a private collection of German Nazi memorabilia which he treated in an almost sacramental manner. Dyer also believes that the society is theologically heterodox compared to mainstream conservative Catholicism, perhaps in a Jansenist and Gallican direction.
His main argument against the Society of Saint Pius X, however, is their refusal to consistently obey the papacy. Dyer argues at length that according to both Catholic theology and canon law, Catholics are duty bound to follow "the First See" at Rome *on all issues*. Yet, the SSPX picks and chooses which decisions of Rome they will follow, and hence acts exactly like the "modernists" they are condemning!
This is something I noticed, too. The SSPX do next level "lawyering" in order to stay inside the Catholic Church. For instance, they pretend to recognize the Second Vatican Council, but argue that its decisions aren´t binding (cuz reasons blah blah).
In case you are interested in this latest occasion for scandal...
LOL, something tells me this isn´t the correct Patristic understanding of the Great Commission, but what the heck do I know...
Here is our man Formscapes again. I commented on "Mr Breakfast" and one of his videos about the GenZ revival before.
>>>Recently (ish) the channel "religion for breakfast" released a video which addressed the "zoomer religious revival" phenomenon. In the video, Mr Breakfast argues that this phenomenon isn't actually occurring, and that the headlines claiming otherwise are all misleading, and presents a decent pile of survey/statistical data which seems to suggest that no such revival is happening.
>>>This, my friends, is a great example of why quantifiable data should never be trusted more than your own eyeballs. Source; my eyeballs. What the statistical data does show is that there had been a very pronounced downward trend in religiosity over the past few decades, and that this downward trend seems to be coming to a halt. But, argues Mr Breakfast, this halt of a downward trend is not a "revival" because there has not been an uptick in church attendance, professed religiosity, conversions, etc... >>>Statistical data is, I ven under the best of circumstances, a sawed-off shotgun among epistemological tools, due to the fact that it is extremely reductive and abstract, and - significantly - because the extent of this glossing is usually not fully clear to people. >>>In this case, what those numbers aren't accounting for is the fact that not all human beings are equal in terms of cultural influence. Among any generation of people, you are going to have a very large majority of people who are just kind of "going with the vibe", and a very small minority of people who are standing on the razor's edge between present and future. The latter are what the kids these days refer to as "main character energy", so I'm told. >>>So if you want to understand the direction a given zeitgeist is headed in, you shouldn't be taking of surveys of everyone as though everyone were equal. You need to look to the "main character energy" people and see what they are doing, bc in very short order, the "just going with the vibe" people will be following along with the trail being cleared by the former. >>>When I - a millennial - was in my late teens and early twenties, all of us "main character" kids were into things like Marxism, new atheism and postmodernism. No statistical study performed in 2008 would have predicted that in 15 years, those ideas would have leaked into every aspect of pop culture. But anyone paying attention could have told you that, bc they could see with their own eyeballs that those were the topics of interest to all of the people of that generation who were undoubtedly going to become novelists, opinion piece writers, screenplay writers and academics in the coming decades. >>>The current religious revival is like that. Look at the people who are suddenly converting to Orthodoxy and Catholicism. They aren't the "go with the vibes" kids. They are the cerebral, autistic nerds who will be novelists, opinion havers, screenplay writers, etc in the next decade or two. >>>Now to be clear, I don't think that this is a good thing - for reasons I'll be getting into in my next unscripted rant video, so stay tuned for that - but it is definitely happening, and that is in fact what the statistical data shows if you have eyeballs with which to see what the statistical data is actually about. >>>Nothing is Hidden™️
Jay Dyer (!) discusses C S Lewis´ "Chronicles of Narnia", specifically "The Horse and His Boy", seeing it as a veiled criticism of Islam.
A propos nothing in particular...
Certainly. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662) is one of the most profound metaphysical theologians in Christian history. His teaching on the Logos and the logoi is central to his vision of reality — and it is remarkably sophisticated.
Given your interest in metaphysics and contemplative traditions, I think you’ll find this especially rich.
Maximus distinguishes between:
The Logos (singular)
The logoi (plural)
The Logos is:
The divine Word
The Second Person of the Trinity
Identified with Jesus Christ
The eternal divine principle through which all things were made (John 1:1–3)
The logoi are:
The divine “reasons”
The intelligible principles
The inner meanings or purposes of created things
Every created being has its own logos.
For Maximus:
Each creature has:
A divine idea
A purpose in God
A unique participation in the Logos
The logoi are:
The eternal divine intentions according to which creatures exist.
They are not separate entities floating in heaven.
They exist within the Logos.
So:
Logos = Divine unity
logoi = Divine plurality of meanings
This is the key metaphysical move:
The many logoi are unified in the one Logos.
All created diversity is grounded in one divine source.
Creation is not random.
It is structured, meaningful, intelligible.
Each being:
Expresses a unique aspect of the divine wisdom
Participates in the Logos
Moves toward fulfillment in the Logos
Maximus goes further.
The incarnation of Christ is not just about human salvation.
It is:
The gathering of all logoi into unity in the Logos made flesh.
Christ is the center and fulfillment of the entire cosmos.
The universe is Christologically structured.
This is why Maximus speaks of:
Cosmic recapitulation
The unification of divisions
The healing of fragmentation
Maximus describes five great divisions in reality:
Uncreated / Created
Intelligible / Sensible
Heaven / Earth
Paradise / World
Male / Female
Christ unites these divisions.
This is not metaphorical poetry — it is ontological healing.
Humans are unique because we can:
Contemplate the logoi in creation
Recognize their unity in the Logos
Freely align ourselves with divine intention
For Maximus, sin is:
Failure to live according to one’s logos.
Salvation is:
Conformity of one’s personal will to the divine Logos.
This is why he was central to the defense of dyothelitism (two wills in Christ) — because proper willing is essential to cosmic restoration.
Maximus is deeply contemplative.
To perceive the logoi is a spiritual act.
It requires purification of:
passions
ego
disordered desire
Then creation becomes transparent.
You begin to see:
The inner rationality of things
Their divine grounding
Their movement toward unity
Maximus avoids two extremes:
He avoids Platonic dualism (creation is not inferior illusion).
He avoids materialist randomness.
Instead:
Creation is real, good, meaningful, and divinely intentional.
Multiplicity is not chaos.
It is structured expression of divine wisdom.
You’ve previously explored:
Śiva as silent ground (unity)
Ganesha as structured multiplicity
Bala Tripura Sundari as manifesting consciousness
Maximus’ Logos/logoi framework performs a somewhat analogous move:
Logos = divine unity
logoi = differentiated expressions
But in his case, the unity is personal and incarnate in Christ.
For Maximus:
The Logos is the eternal Word of God.
The logoi are the divine principles of each created thing.
All multiplicity is unified in Christ.
Salvation is cosmic integration.
Human freedom participates in this unification.
If you’d like, I can also explore how Maximus compares to Neoplatonism — or to non-dual metaphysical systems you’ve shown interest in.
Excellent — this is one of the most illuminating comparisons in late antique thought.
To understand Maximus the Confessor, we have to place him in dialogue with Plotinus and the broader Neoplatonic tradition.
Maximus is deeply influenced by Neoplatonism — but he decisively transforms it.
In classical Neoplatonism (Plotinus):
Reality unfolds in three primary levels:
The One (absolute unity beyond being)
Nous (Divine Intellect, containing the Forms)
Soul (mediating principle)
The material world
Multiplicity arises by emanation from the One.
The Forms (intelligible archetypes of things) exist in the Divine Intellect (Nous).
Maximus’ structure looks superficially similar:
Logos (divine unity)
logoi (intelligible principles)
created world
return to unity
This is not accidental.
But the differences are crucial.
The One is:
Beyond being
Beyond intellect
Impersonal
Ineffable
The Logos is:
Personal
Identified with Jesus Christ
Trinitarian
Actively loving
In Neoplatonism, unity is metaphysical abstraction.
In Maximus, unity is personal communion.
That changes everything.
In Neoplatonism:
The Forms exist in the Divine Intellect.
They are archetypes of things.
Multiplicity is structured but static.
In Maximus:
The logoi are dynamic divine intentions.
They are not separate ideas but personal wills within the Logos.
They are teleological (purpose-oriented).
This is a major shift.
Neoplatonic Forms are ontological patterns.
Maximian logoi are purposeful divine intentions.
Neoplatonism:
Reality flows necessarily from the One.
Maximus:
Creation is free.
God did not have to create.
This preserves:
Divine freedom
Real contingency
Love as motive
Emanation implies metaphysical necessity.
Creation implies personal generosity.
Plotinus:
Matter is the lowest level of reality — almost non-being.
Maximus:
Matter is good.
It participates in divine logoi.
It is destined for transfiguration.
Because of the Incarnation, materiality is elevated.
Neoplatonism:
All things return to the One through contemplative ascent.
Maximus:
All things are recapitulated in Christ.
This return is:
Historical
Incarnational
Eschatological
It is not just philosophical contemplation — it is cosmic salvation.
This is one of the deepest divergences.
Plotinus:
The return to the One is contemplative union.
Maximus:
The key issue is will.
Human beings must align their will with the divine Logos.
That’s why Maximus fought against monothelitism (the idea that Christ had only one will).
For him:
If Christ does not have a human will,
human will cannot be healed.
Neoplatonism focuses on intellect.
Maximus integrates will and love.
Plotinus describes union with the One as:
Ecstatic
Beyond thought
Non-dual
Maximus also speaks of deification (theosis).
But for him:
Union never abolishes personhood.
The human person does not dissolve into divine simplicity.
Instead:
Communion without confusion.
This is a fundamentally relational metaphysics.
You could say:
Maximus Christianizes Neoplatonism by:
Personalizing unity
Historicizing return
Affirming matter
Centering love and will
Anchoring everything in Christ
He takes the vertical metaphysical ladder of Plotinus and bends it around the Incarnation.
You’ve explored non-dual frameworks before.
Neoplatonism:
Unity → Intellect → Multiplicity → Return
Maximus:
Personal Logos → logoi → Creation → Incarnation → Deification
The difference lies in:
Personhood
Freedom
Love
History
Neoplatonic unity is metaphysical necessity.
Maximian unity is personal communion.
Maximus stands at the meeting point of:
Greek metaphysics
Christian revelation
Mystical theology
He preserves Neoplatonic structure but transforms its center:
The One becomes the Logos.
The Forms become logoi.
Return becomes Incarnation and theosis.
Emanation becomes love.
If you'd like, we could go one level deeper and compare this with Dōgen’s view of multiplicity and unity — there are fascinating resonances and differences there.
Jay Dyer is a notorious controversialist in the conspiracist demimonde, but his take on the Epstein Files is surprisingly moderate (at least relatively speaking). Yes, there is a rather obvious connection to "Eyes Wide Shut". Also: MK-Ultra, the intelligence services, sexual blackmail and paedophilia.
In the last ten minutes or so, Dyer and his hosts go off the deep end with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, UFO disclosure speculations and such. But since I like to live dangerously on the web, I´m linking to this video anyway...
Not sure if this really means that much, but it´s fun listening to. Especially if you´re a nerd. It´s also a good summary of the bewildering diversity of Christian Churches and denominations. In practice, of course, even Churches that are in some sense "close" might hate each other - witness the rather rocky historical relations between Catholics and Orthodox. To mention just one example...
An atheist(?) criticism of the Transcedental Argument for God (TAG) promoted by Eastern Orthodox apologist Jay Dyer. Not sure why, since presuppositionalism (in this form at least) is a conservative Calvinist thing. Indeed, the video mentions Bahnsen and Van Til.
TL/DR: the TAG is de facto used in a rhetorical fashion to confound the opposition, while never really demonstrating "the impossibility of the contrary". Which may explain why it attracts the more pugnacious kinds of interweb polemicists.
A relatively interesting contribution.
A Skeptic (and perhaps atheist) criticism of Jay Dyer, the bad boy of the Orthobro interwebs. "Frat boy brand of Christianity" is a keeper.
TL/DR: Dyer is a young earth creationist and presuppositionalist. He actually references an essay by Traditionalist author Titus Burckhardt against evolution. (Our old friend Huston Smith had a similar argument about Platonic forms manifesting in the material world. Perhaps he got them from Burckhardt.)
More unexpectedly, Dyer sounds agnostic on the existence of dinosaurs and even heliocentrism?! Which I suppose is inevitable if you interpret the Bible too literally. Not sure why Seraphim Rose´s name never comes up in the video. This content seems to be a kind of "parallel plot" to the recent drama between Dyer, Professor Dave et al.
 |
| My man Titus |
For the record, I *am* following the recent YouTube drama between Jay Dyer, MythVision, Gnostic Informant and Professor Dave.
2026 seems promising so far. I mean, who could have foreseen this?
What´s the future of Christianity in general and its various branches? Redeemed Zoomer speculates about what will happen in the next 100 years. I assume this is about the United States?
What will *actually* happen globally (on current demographic trends) is that Euro-Christianity will be replaced by South Asian / Central Asian Islam or West African voodoo.
There, I said it.
For whatever reason, ChatGPT constantly wants to pitch David Bentley Hart. Not the first time, either. So finally I gave it the prompt. Full disclosure: I never read Bentley Hart.
Can you tell me about how Hart solved the problems posed by the Emergent Church?
David Bentley Hart is almost a diagnosis and cure for exactly what went wrong in the Emergent Church.
The Emergent movement correctly sensed that modern evangelicalism was:
spiritually thin
philosophically naive
morally brittle
metaphysically incoherent
But it didn’t know how to replace it.
Hart does.
Hart reconstructs Being itself
Emergent Christianity said:
“We should be humbler about doctrine.”
Hart replies:
“Yes — but humility does not mean metaphysical emptiness.”
He goes back to:
the Cappadocians
Gregory of Nyssa
Maximus the Confessor
Dionysius
classical metaphysics
and shows that Christianity once had a rigorous ontology:
God is not a being among beings, but Being itself, infinite, simple, good.
This matters because:
if God is Being, then
existence itself is meaningful
not just belief systems
Emergent Christianity never offered this grounding.
Emergent thinkers treated God as:
story
symbol
metaphor
narrative
Hart restores God as:
the act of existence itself — the infinite actuality that gives being to everything
Which means:
prayer is not pretending
worship is not therapy
spirituality is not lifestyle
It is contact with the absolute.
You noticed the parallels to Vedanta and Zen — Hart did too.
He shows that:
classical Christianity is already nondual
but not monistic
Creation exists within God’s sustaining act.
Nothing exists outside divine presence.
That allows:
mysticism
silence
transcendence
contemplative practice
without dissolving truth into vagueness.
Emergent Christianity wanted mystery but rejected metaphysics; Hart keeps both.
Emergent Christians rejected hell emotionally.
Hart rejects it philosophically.
Eternal torment would mean:
God is not goodness itself
evil has eternal reality
creation fails
So Hart defends universal salvation not as sentiment but as logical consequence of divine goodness.
This gives moral seriousness without cruelty.
Emergent Christianity wanted pluralism but couldn’t justify it.
Hart shows that:
Christ is the Logos through whom all things exist
so every true spiritual insight anywhere is participation in Christ
That allows:
interreligious respect
real metaphysics
not just tolerance
Zen, Vedanta, and Sufism are not “nice stories” — they are real encounters with the Logos.
Emergent Christianity collapsed because it tried to live in:
permanent openness
Hart shows that:
openness requires something infinite to be open toward
You can’t have mystery without reality.
Emergent Christianity said:
“Modern Christianity is wrong.”
Hart says:
“Yes — because it forgot what God is.”
And he brings it back:
with metaphysics
with mysticism
with intellectual rigor
without cruelty
without fundamentalism
Which is why people who outgrow Emergent Christianity so often end up reading David Bentley Hart.
