Discernment - Kathryn - Embodying the Logos (q7Ekqk3Clgo)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=q7Ekqk3Clgo

Hello, everybody and welcome to another episode of embodying the logos. I’m here with Katrin and we had this back and forth on Twitter a while back. And yeah, it was not really… Twitter wasn’t able to hold the conversation. So I was like, yeah, we need to talk about this in another way. So here we are. And the impression that I got in the Twitter conversation is that something that I generally get annoyed with happened, right? So you have the obvious example of people, secular people taking the perspective of objective material reality, right? And then they basically say, well, there is something there. And because the something is there, right, like the gun or the traffic light or something else needs to happen, right? And that’s the only relationship that we can have to it, right? That’s implicit. And then if I can just show you that the object is there, then you’re going to agree with me, right? And so you get into this tension. It’s like, no, no, no. When you’re looking at the object, you bring a bunch of things with you, right? Your experience, your worldview. And then you’re going to draw implications, right? Like the gun might be something to protect yourself or it might be a threat, right? And that’s just the way that you make associations with it. And it’s still a gun, right? Like the gun doesn’t tell you which of those two things it is, right? So to know which one of those things it is, you need to draw from a different space, right? And when I talk with Christians, Christians tend to, well, some Christians, not all obviously, they tend to fall on the same dynamic, right? So there’s objective morality or there’s this objective thing. And if we just put our antenna to the right spiritual place, then we will be all in agreement again. And it’s like, no, that’s also not true, right? Because the place from which we attune our antenna has the same problem as the material reality, right? So if you have trauma, for example, right? You can go back to the gun, right? Like what’s the spiritual meaning of the gun, right? It will bring fear or it will bring a sense of safety, right? So there’s a way to participate in the gun that’s holistic, right? It allows you to build and commune into something higher. And there’s a way in which you basically drop everything that you were doing and you run away, right? Which is isolating you and that’s actually a negative. It’s confining you, it’s closing you up from your relationship to God. So yeah, that’s kind of the dynamic that I remember in the conversation with Catherine. And so that’s kind of the, well, how do we deal with this? And why are people even trying this? What are they trying to solve? We kind of want to explore these motivational structures, like why people appeal to authority in a certain way. What is the danger of doing that, right? Is there a good way to do that, right? Maybe there’s actually a healthy way to make that appeal that can be communal, right? I can imagine that if a pastor does that and everybody listens to that person, or the pope even better, right? Like if the pope says, this is this, and everybody is accepting that designation, then everybody can have a similar relationship to that, right? That there’s a whole lot of things that are required before that can even be true, right? And then still, in order for you to be able to listen to the pope at that point, that requires a bunch of things of you, right? That requires some purification inside of you so that your ego effectively isn’t dragged along in how you’re looking at that. So yeah, Catherine, what do you think? Well, I think you’re totally right that there are physical or metaphysical, where the way that we see it is very much shaped by our worldview and what we think that thing is and what we think that thing means. So depending on what the examples you gave, it’s like, well, what is the gun? Well, it’s a piece of metal and maybe some water plastic and it can move a projectile forward. But what does that mean? Like you said, maybe safety, maybe danger, maybe nothing if you have no exposure to weapons at all. So it has a physical reality or a metaphysical reality, like if we were to talk about maybe time, space, God, angels, virtue, there’s metaphysical realities and physical realities. But for all of those things, what we understand it to be and what we understand its purpose to be in relation to us is going to be hugely shaped by the past that we bring in, our goals, our values, what we think of ourselves as an agent. Like if you think of yourself as capable of mastering the gun and controlling the gun, that’s going to really change your relationship with the gun as opposed to thinking that the gun is too dangerous or too complex for you to engage with it in a state. So your own identity is going to massively change how you interact with whatever object you see, as well as your history and your personal goals. So I completely track with all of that. Yeah, so let’s assume, because the discussion was within the Christian identity, but even within the Christian identity, there’s problems. I see plenty of Christians talk to each other and they’re not even from the same planet. So this is, like they supposedly should have the same metaphysical view and still they cannot find agreement. You could say, well, they haven’t gone through proper purification, but I would argue no, like they don’t have access to what allows them to do that. There’s a step before that that is problematic. And at this point, I bring in the idea of forbidden knowledge, which I’m a real fan of. It’s like, well, if you don’t have the tools to engage with what is presented to you, then maybe engaging with that is actually detrimental, right? Because now you’re going to draw implications from something which is true, right? And the implications are going to mislead you, because you can’t have the relationship that is required to see the truth in it. So, yeah, I mean, Christians, obviously, like part of what is hard with communication between Christians is that we make a lot of assumptions about one another. And so if you consider even just the nature of God, sort of the metaphysical object, let’s say, the thing we’re discussing, Christians frequently have very different visions of who and what it is that God is. What is the nature of God himself? Even within one group of like one denomination, let’s say, like a group of Presbyterians, you can have people describe God in 10 different ways. And it’s not because they are one is accurate and nine are heretical. It’s that the nature of God is so vast and complex that often the aspect that we most identify with and can articulate because we can understand it is going to be different person to person based on the history they come in with. So one person might talk about God as more of a tyrannical father. They might use that phrase, but that would be the description. Sort of you have this father who tells you what to do and you need to obey him. And if you don’t, there’s punishments. But if you do, you could be rewarded at the very end if you’re faithful forever. You know, you can have nine different descriptions. But part of that is because, as you said, the complexity of who we are when we come to any object is going to change how we relate to it. Never mind an idea as complex, large and infinite as the idea of God. And so one of the biggest problems that I think first faces Christians in conversation is we make assumptions that the God we’re talking about is the God the other person is talking about. So that’s one. Then you also have out of that, people come in and they think that there are different ways we’re meant to relate to God. And that’s also related to who we think God is. But if you think that your goal in relation to God is to appease him, that’s going to be different than someone who thinks your goal is to impress him or submit to him or be in relationship with him as a spouse versus someone who wants to be in relationship with God as a general or the leader of armies. Like you have very different ways that you can imagine relating to God and the goals you think God wants you to accomplish. Some sects of Christianity focus on personal righteousness and purity and the advancement of sort of personal growth in terms of character. Other sects focus on building more churches, saving more souls, expanding the kingdom numerically by any means necessary. Some groups of churches focus more on doing good acts and good deeds and serving the poor and building wells in Africa. And so that, too, is going to, you know, if we’re going to have a conversation and we haven’t articulated any of this background and we just think we can come together and talk about who God is and what he wants us to do as the background to a conversation on maybe, I don’t know, whatever is happening in the conversation, there’s just a lot of assumptions that get brought in so that most of the time people are thinking of God and relating to him in extremely different ways that are completely uncommunicated. And so I think that. That difference is going to drive a huge amount of the way that Christians can talk over and against each other. But then to get to your point on authority, if you then say, OK, this is who God is, this is how we’re supposed to relate to him, and that’s the authority that I’m going to appeal to. You’re going to say. You’re going to end up with two people appealing to the same authority for very different goals and different ends and thinking that they’re both appealing to the same authority for the same thing. And I think that drives a whole bunch of the issues and the appeals to authority because they’re not actually appealing to the same authority for the same reason. Well, OK, because when I’m listening to you, right? So when you’re relating to an aspect of God, are you relating to God or not? Well, like, what’s my analysis of that in people in general or in my perspective? No, no, I’m because I’m talking more abstractly, like because. If it well, the example that I always have is the elephant in the dark, right? And when you touch the elephant, right? And. If I touch the elephant, am I relating to the elephant? And I walk, I’m going to answer my own question, right? If I think what I’m touching is the elephant, then no. Right. If I’m touching part of the elephant, then yes, right, because then I I create the space, right? Like I have the openness, I have the receptivity for the recognition that like when I use my other hand, I might touch something else, which is also the elephant. And that allows me to have a dynamic nature, right, towards it. And so I kind of I kind of get like, like, I don’t I don’t think there’s there’s a problem, like every individual is called to do whatever he’s called to do. Right. But there’s. A way in which all of these individuals are still supposed to to be united. Right. And so. If. The way that you perceive your calling is interfering with the union, then you’re you’re obviously wrong, like that’s kind of. Yeah, the way I would deal with that. Yeah, and I think that. You have. Two groups that are sort of prone to that problem. One would be the young or the immature. So people who are either like physically young, their their youths or children or people who are young in the faith. So, you know, you always have like cage stage, right? You have somebody who’s just converted. They maybe read three books on theology. They feel like, oh, I understand it now. I’ve mastered it. I get it. And then they become very strident in the way that they talk. So that’s another young group. It’s people who are new to it, but they feel like they’ve recently mastered it. And so it’s the guy who maybe has touched the elephant and said, I guess I have found the elephant and they haven’t been around long enough. Everybody should feel here like. Yeah, this is the. So the young or the fundamentalists, right? There’s a lot of people who the group of Christians that they were taught that group of Christians told them, look, the only thing that exists in the elephant is the lake. This is the whole thing. Anyone who tells you differently is lying. This is the whole elephant. And so they’ve been brought up within a sect of Christianity that is more fundamentalist and is not and sees the openness that you just described as a threat as instead of a. Affording greater connection with God and a greater understanding of God. So we do have it is it is a threat. It is a threat, absolutely, because obviously when you have that kind of open it, like what you’re trying to do is find the optimum balance between openness and boundary where you can filter out the lies, but you aren’t closing yourself off to truth and figuring out where that is. I think that’s in it. I think that’s part of why the Christian life is called a journey. And one of the primary analogies of walking, because you’re always trying to move between those two poles. You’re always trying to figure out where is the boundary, but what else is new? And the reality is, since we’re talking about a God who’s infinite, we can never get the full picture. It’s beyond our capacity ever within this life, unless we are able to achieve God likeness in some manner in the world beyond. It’s impossible for us in our current form to see the picture of the elephant, which is God. And so can you even if I could, like just judging by my brain, forget it. Yeah, it’s true. It’s true. It’s like even if you could, you couldn’t hold it. It’s not possible. And so to answer your question, like, yeah, we we can’t. You can’t relate to all of God ever because you can’t even comprehend it. So how could you relate to that? But you can truly relate to the part of God that you can. But that’s never the full. Allness of God, because that’s I mean, that’s like asking me if I can touch all of the ocean at once. I mean, I can touch the ocean, but I can’t touch all of the ocean. Not in my current form. That’s impossible. Yeah. So where my mind is going is like, OK, so now we’re talking about the individual level, right? Well, I just read the part where there’s talk about the city, right? So the two or three are gathered in my name, right? Like, yes, there’s obviously a call to not not be singular, right? And and then you can have all your your fantasies about God is right. When when when you add more, then there’s there’s different constraints, right? And there’s a different dynamic and and authority works in a different way. So, yeah, maybe you can give your views on on how to step out the individual perspective and integrate that. Well, my opinion for the last. 16 years has been that like that is why God has had so many denominations and so many individuals is because we can’t see all of God. We can’t. We can only see what we can in one moment of time. And even if our perspective changes, then it wasn’t the other one before. But there’s so much of God to be seen and experienced and cared for. And experienced and communicated. But you need so many people to see him differently, that all of the various ways that. We are able to see God is part of why we have so much variety. Go ahead. You said the word you need. People to see that. Why? Well, need for the goal. And if in my mind, the goal is. To be fully known by God and to fully know him, which can’t be achieved within this life. But if that is the goal and the goal is for God to be fully communicated to man, to be loved and for us to for that full relationship, then the fullest communication possible is the goal. On the way to that deeper love, because the more you’re known, the more you’re loved. And so to get to that purpose, the fullest amount of communication possible is needed. Partly because there are some people like. Well, but aren’t you going backwards? Because the way the way I see things, right, is you build. Right. And then true. I guess I’m bringing in relevance realization, right? Because when when you say we need all these perspectives, right? Like. Maybe, but they need to be able to commune. Right. Yes, they need to be able to commune. Right. And so so if if you have perspectives that can’t be integrated, then in my mind, they’re actually disrupted. OK, so some some perspectives will be disrupted if they’re too far off the beaten path so that they are perhaps not even accurate at all. Right. So some of those perspectives, like maybe the people who say Satan is God, you’re like, OK, well, that’s a little too far off the beaten path. We’re not integrating that one. That’s the opposite of what we as a community hold to be true. So that’s not an integratable. Assessment of the nature of God. Is your personal experience integratable at all? Well, it should be. OK, so so we might be pursuing different thoughts here. But when I think about the many ways in which God is seen by many people, I think about the many cultures and the many places through time. And so there are different aspects of the nature of God that are more. Seen, celebrated and necessary in different times and different places. Right. There’s there’s there’s a constraint of culture and a constraint of matter. Right. Yeah. And both of them will influence the way that things get presented to us. So, yeah, and that that is seen as good and that those people in those cultures at that time, for them to engage with God, God necessarily presents himself in a way that is that has affordances which they can engage with. And I when when when like when when you say that is seen as good. No, no. Like when I hear that, I go, no, God is good. And if he gets expressed properly, that’s right. Yeah. So it’s not it’s not the situation that’s good. No, no, there’s goodness that gets manifested in different situations. OK, sure. I can. You can prove it that way. That’s fine. No, but I think I think it’s important because because else you’re in an emergent mindset. And I like we started before we went talking. We were talking about God being outside of time. Right. And and that which is outside of time is is an ammunition. Right. Like like it can’t emerge. Like all it can do is guide what emerges to conform. All that I’m saying is that it is a good thing that God is understood and expressed in various ways so that people from many cultures and times can engage with him because he’s more complex than the engagement of one time in one culture. That’s what I’m saying. Is that for the goal and so me saying that is in response to the more fundamentalist perspective, which is the expression of God in one culture in one time, the way that I experience it and I’ve been taught it is the ultimate and full total final expression of God. So my comments are more in response to that perspective. And so I’m saying, yes, of course, you’re right. It is good because it is God being expressed. But it is a good thing that God is communicated and communicates himself and exists in such an expansive manner that he can be engaged with throughout all times and cultures. That’s what I’m trying to say. But you’re right. The goodness is God. But it is good for us to relate to God. Yeah. Well, yeah, but it’s yeah. Well, but it’s also necessary for God to be able to be expressed in all situations because else he wouldn’t be God. Yes. Yeah, yeah, of course. But the fundamentalists don’t see it that way. They think, well, that expression of God that you’ve identified, let’s say. Well, but you look at it to give them their due. Right. Like there are ways. Well, there are ways of tradition that hold a relationship to God, which is more true than a new sprout that just started blossoming. For sure. Yeah. Like, of course, there are. Like we were saying a little while ago, there are things that are so beyond the pale that it’s like, well, this isn’t even true. And then there’s gradations from not true to the closest line of reality. Like this is the most clear expression of this truth. What is the thing that would make something the most true? Well, that it can gather up the most things in it to come together. Right. So. So, yeah, let’s go back, because that’s kind of the process that I want to get at. So when. But you can you can do the micro chasm, right? Yeah, you have to get everything that’s inside of you as well. Right. In into one expression, right. Like that’s one of the psychological reasons that that God is important. Right. Is that it unifies you as a person. Like if you if you don’t worship one thing, then there will be strife within within you to. Between things and that will just lead to disorder. Right. So. Yeah. And if we take that out between people, right, like this is where I’ve been thinking about a lot, right, like now you need to bind yourself. Right. Because if you’re not bound, then you people cannot appeal to you. Right. So you need to give up part of yourself. And obviously, right, like whatever I think of God, when I talk to you, I I need to constrain what I give to you, because with the other stuff like you cannot relate to it. Right. Like irrespective of whether my experience is actually a true relationship to God, like it’s not useful to you. Right. So how do you think about that? I completely agree that we need to constrain ourselves in relation to others by binding ourselves to them. I think that. When we don’t do that, there’s a lot of chaos, suffering, disorder. And as people, we tend to be extremely lost and unhappy when we don’t do that. I also think that when you bind yourself to someone else, you actually do become a whole that is greater than the parts and something new does actually come out of that. And so, you know, me and my husband, our marriage is actually. So, yeah, I just got caught up. So there’s a new thing. So, yeah, can you can you give some flesh to it? Yeah. What’s the new thing? Yeah. So, for example, me and my husband, when we’re married, our marriage is different. It’s a different thing than either of us on our own. And once we add in our children, our family is a different thing than just our marriage or just any of us as individuals. And the spirit of those are different than it would be just on its own. So if we have, you know, me and my husband and my three kids, if we all go to. I don’t know, the fair or the library, we go to some other space that has its own goals and purposes and ethos. If I bring all of my family there, we as a unit will interact with the other people and the items in that space in a different way than we would if it was all of us, just individually there. And so we become a different thing. We have different goals. We have different things we’re attending to as individuals, but also the overall spirit will be different. And I know that sounds very woo, but I know you’re open to the woo that way. So that’s good. But people will comment on it. They’ll say, oh, your family. When I’m with your family, I feel peaceful or I feel like there’s so much harmony or maybe you’re with a family and you’re like, it feels so chaotic. It’s weird. I can be with any of these individual people, but once they’re all together, everyone feels shut down. It feels like everyone is stressed. Everything is everything becomes more difficult and stressful. But anyone on their own, it’s not like that. So this the family is its own it’s its own thing. However, you want to dig into that. And so when you bind yourself to somebody else and in the example we were working with, likely a pastor, other believers that will worship with or a priest, a larger grouping at the denomination, when you bind yourself to that, those individuals or those groups, you constrain yourself in such a way that now you are pouring more of your time and attention into them and the goals of that group, which you are directed towards, which obviously, depending on the parish or the denomination or the pastor themselves or the small group you’re in, it will be slightly different depending on those particular contacts. But you will have new ways to explore and express yourself as an individual that you wouldn’t have without that binding. And you will find ways where you have to hold yourself back from expression or exploration that otherwise you would have been free to. And hopefully you’re able to find a group that is good, because sometimes you bind yourself and it’s not a good thing. And you start off and think, yeah, well, you get you get your tattoos, right? Like, like, yeah, you’re you’re stuck, right? Like, like you kill someone. So like now now they have to if you leave, right, like they have a thing above your head, right? So like that’s a really powerful bond binding, right? Like this is ritualistic aspect to it as well. Right. You have a marriage where you get baptized, like whatever whatever it is, right? Like you have to leave something, right? You have to sacrifice your past to to move in into something new. And like I I like this idea of that you you you’re presenting an atmosphere, right? Like you there’s there’s something intelligible that others can relate to. Right. And in some sense. Well, like I can imagine, right, like if your kid goes to the library and you got his family there, like maybe maybe there’s there’s something that he can do that he wouldn’t dare to do without. Right. So there’s there’s a lifting up. Right. And like it’s it’s implicit. Right. Like you don’t even have to give the encouragement, but the encouragement is. Is is inherited from. I guess I guess something that’s reliable, right? Like there’s a reliability that that that that gets integrated. Right. And then if I connect that to fate. Right. So. Like I see fate as as the main the capacity to maintain and believe. Right. And so when. When you don’t even have to think about it, right, like when it’s natural, like you can you can live in fate, right. And you you can exceed what would be normal expectations because right. First of all, you just have more capacity to attend to other things. Right. But secondly, you can make a commitment. Right. Because I was I was on my bicycle. I know you were talking about riding a motorcycle. And I was going down a hill. And then I’m like, what what am I doing right now when I’m going down this hill? Right. It’s like like this. Like at some sense, it’s ludicrous because there’s all these move moving parts. And then there’s these bumps and all these things. Right. And then it’s like, what would what would happen if I hit that bump? Because I always carefully try to avoid hitting the bumps, which is also dangerous if you try to steer too much around things. Right. Anyway, but when you hit the bump, right, you you can overcorrect. Right. So then you instead of being in fate and you’re like, no, no, I’m just going I’m moving into what what is there and and I’m going through it. You you end up trying to. Correct it, right. You’re trying to manifest it. And it’s like. Like I can see that how when you’re falling and you’re falling into the falling. Right. Like you’re going you could fix it. Like you don’t you don’t have to. Be swept into it, but you can you can go through it. Well, if you try to correct it, like that might completely not be an option. Like like you can’t you can’t even conceive it. Right. So so there’s there’s something there is like, well, what when I was thinking about that, right, like I was not in the right mind. Like I was I was not capable of participating in faith. And I was like, I need to get out of here. Like, this is bad. Not now and probably not ever. Although I’m doing it right now. Right. But. Yeah. So so there’s there’s this binding, right? Like, in some sense, I’m bound to my my bicycle at that point. Right. Because like I’m feeling through it. Right. Like I’m I’m not thinking of myself as walking. No, I’m thinking of myself as a bicycle going down a tremendous speed. So, yeah, like, can you can you use that to to bring that back to the spirit of the family? Maybe like. Yeah, I think that once you’ve done something as a group, as a family or as a denomination, but you’ve done something. As a as a representative of that group or in participation with that group, either way. Then I don’t I don’t even have to explain what that would be, because you can feel what that would be. Right. You can feel what it’s like if you go and. You go from your school to the other school and you’re going to be there on the volleyball team or something and everybody else has, like their school colors on and you’re there to do your thing as a volleyball and you either feel like again, depending on the your your your your your your your team spirit, right, you either feel like. More likely to mock, tease, harangue the other group. You have this more of maybe your group is like a very like bullyish brash kind of group and you would say and do things you would never do by yourself. But because you’re in that group, you’re going to do it. And so you kind of are seeing yourself and your inner identity is not, oh, I’m here at this random school. It’s me. My team is here. The Broncos have come to this school and then you’re acting like a Bronco because you are participating in the spirit of your team. Sort of like with the Bitis School, you’re not just walking there. You bound yourself to this whole unit that is carrying forward. Or maybe your your downtown and you’re like talking to homeless people and hanging out and giving them food, which you would never choose to do on your own. I mean, maybe somebody would, but maybe you’re someone who’s naturally shy and not outgoing and would never approach a homeless person except to maybe like give them a couple bucks but not even talk. But now that you’re with this group of people, you feel like, oh, I could talk and I have something. I’m not just here by myself. I have a purpose. And then attaching yourself to the larger identity of the group, the larger purpose of the group, it opens up actions and words that you never would have found on your own. I would have had no reason to. If we take that perspective and we try to include God in that analysis, right? How would God manifest through that group? So it might be easier for me if I can start with that on the individual level and then move it to a larger level. Is it okay if I do that? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. But that’s the problem, right? Like the individual level is, right, that’s what we have, right? And then we get these higher levels. It’s like, like, you’re glad that you see the team spirit, right? Like, that’s like, oh, thank you, God. That’s like, oh, thank you, God. Like, I can see the team spirit. Like, maybe I can participate in it too. That’s true. But for people who maybe don’t have an idea or vision for how you would do it on an individual level, it might help before we go to the- Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So I do feel like the analogy of the bicycle is even more apt on the individual level in learning how to relate with God. So one of the things they teach you when you motorcycle is that when you want to turn to something, you have to look at it, you have to move the hand that’s closest to it towards it, and you have to lean towards it. So instead of turning like you do when you’re a kid, you turn the handles, you actually lean into the thing that you’re going to go towards. So if I’m going to go left, I lean left, and I push left, and I look left. And you do gyroscopic steer. And so you have to push and lean towards all of that. But none of that- All of that gets stalled out if you think too much. Like, 90% of the time that accidents happen, people hit the thing they’re trying to avoid, because they’re focused on the thing they don’t want to have happen. And so that’s what they end up steering towards unconsciously. So they’re not even trying to, but they see it, and they’re afraid of it. And so they’re fixating on it, and then they move towards it, even if they’re consciously trying to move away from it. So you have to actually move your eyes, look at something, push towards it, and then lean towards the thing you’re pushing towards. I actually have a pretty good example. So like, right outside my door, there’s these two poles, right? And one of them is a little bit tilted, and like, they’re a little bit too close together, right? And every time I have to write true down, right? And I don’t face them straight, right? Like I go in a turn, true down. And like, sometimes I forget to attend to them, right? Like, sometimes like, and every time I’m true down, I’m like, I’m amazed that I got true down. Like, how did I not hit them this time? And I never hit them. Like, never. It’s like, what’s going on here? And like, I can tell you that I cannot account for a couple times, like for real. So that’s kind of it, right? It’s like, I do it, right? And it somehow magically happens. Like, like, just… Yeah, yeah, you do it, you have where you’re going, and you have your mind on that. And everything else sort of comes together to get you there. Right? And I find the same problem, like if I’m skiing, if I’m on something that’s steep, and I think, how will this work? And you try to mentally think through the mechanics, that it all falls apart. But once I’m like, oh, I’m just going down, it all just happens. I don’t have to figure out how my skis get from one position to the next position. They just do. It just happens. And I think this is very much on the individual level with God, where once you have accepted and tried to embrace, okay, these are the goals I’m supposed to have, this is where I’m heading. This is the virtue that I’m trying to live out. And you just move towards it and start acting. And as you’re acting, you have faith, like you’re saying, you just lean toward it. This will come together as I move in the right direction. So I’m just going to get up and walk over to that person and ask them the question. I’m going to bring them the sandwich, whatever it might be, that is going to be the expression of faith in the moment. You just start doing it. So on an individual level, as you move forward and you’re doing those things, you’re participating with God. And then things open up and unfold for you in ways that it wouldn’t if you were trying to sit back and calculate and plan on your own how you would move forward with an agenda. But then when you move that into the group. No, I want to keep this level for a second, right? Because in some sense, right, even though the bicycle level is really complicated, it’s also really simple, right? It’s like me, bicycle, go. When we get into giving someone the sandwich, right? Like, I first have to realize that there is a sandwich to be given, right? Like that I can be the one that can give the sandwich. Like there’s a whole list of things, right? That need to occur before I can do that. And then the question is, well, is that good? Right? Because I’ve done things which I thought were good. And then, like, after I did them, I’m like, yeah, that wasn’t the best idea. You should not have done that. Right? So when we’re talking about God, right, like there’s an aspect there, right? We need an attunement to what is good so that we can have faith in our action. Absolutely. And that’s why church and mystics and everyone so strongly push things like reading scripture, getting to know God. It isn’t just because there’s something like completely unrelated that is just good about those things. It’s because through those means, you get to know God as a person. And as you can know God as a person, that’s how you can map on what is the good and how do you pursue it. And because you need the knowledge so that you know what good is so that you can pursue the good. But if you get stuck at the level of knowledge, then what for what? That’s nothing. That’s empty. But you need that so that you can have a map that you can track and and you can integrate that in a physical manifested place. But you have to know that so that you can manifest it. So you these things kind of come together, but a lot of times we get stuck at the the knowledge part and then we can play knowledge games and one-upmanship and have pissing contests about who knows more accurately, who knows the details, blah, blah, blah. Well, the problem there, the problem there, is we were talking about it, like God loves you. That was like, okay, so I have to act in my life as if God loves me. And I’m like, what is love? How does God do that? So there’s a translating step. And I remember that my mom said to me once, I love you. And I was like, what are you saying? Like, that’s not my experience. So there’s a conflict there. Well, maybe we should include that as well. It’s like you can be loved and you can experience that as whatever, like hell. So these things are not obvious, right? Like the knowledge or the propositional knowledge of such a line and translating that into, okay, like what does that require of me? And I’ve been dancing a lot around the idea of having ears to hear and eyes to see. And I’m like, I think I kind of got my eyes to see part right, but then there’s the ears to hear. And then it’s like, oh, like you hear a calling first, right? You’re called, and then you look at it, right? And then you develop a vision, right? So there’s all of these things. And it was like, well, if you think you have your vision first and then you’re called to do the vision, right? Like, who directed you towards that vision? Well, like that wasn’t God, that was you, right? And like, on the what influence are you? So yeah, there’s a bunch of things kept up in this stuff. And like, obviously you need to progressively participate in the revelation, true experience, and you’re going to mess up and you got to embrace the messing up because like, there’s no not doing that. Yes, there’s no not doing that. This is true. So yeah, go ahead. Like, so on a group level, I think there’s a lot of ways where that experience of your identity is bound up with God’s in a way where it’s fully integrated as you pursue and as you track. Like that’s so many times in the Old Testament, it’s brought up. It’s as you go, it’s as you’re walking across the Red Sea. That’s when then you feel the participation of the Holy Spirit. And you feel that binding of yourself with God sort of like the motorcycle, the way that I’m being carried forward is bound to something that is beyond myself. I think we likely feel a bit more like we’re being I mean, the idea is more that we’re caught up into God’s Spirit, which is greater than us. But it can often feel like we’re But it can also be school spirit, right? But it could also be Yeah, it can just be it is a spirit, right? But for the analogy we’re talking about. So when you’re with a group, though, it’s some of that. But then it when you have more people, and assuming you have devoted yourself to this group, and you have adopted the same visions, goals, image of who God is, you’re now all about that together. Right. So you’re listing a bunch of free, free requisites. I think that’s great. Okay, like, so how do you share a vision, right? Like, a goal is more obvious, right? Because like, you’re gonna just have an authority tell you, although like, that’s still complicated. I guess, first of all, like, you need to have proper interface with the authority. And secondly, you need to accept the authority, which is a really big problem for a lot of people. Really big problem for a lot of people. So, so yeah, right. So, so effectively, what you’re saying is, all eyes need to be at the same place. Yeah. And, and then when everybody’s seeing the same thing, right, so you can say, well, we’re all grounded in the Bible, right? We’re also grounded in the cultural context of our locality. And now we’ve stated that we wanted to do something, right? So now we kind of all get to see the same thing, right? Which is amazing if you get there, right? Because that, like, I don’t think you can get there within a couple years. Like, this is, this is like, tens of years, right? So, and then we have all of the individualists, right? Nowadays, they’re like, so far away from that, that that’s not even funny. So, yeah, like, can you, can you point more about this shared vision and what that does? So, like, the, the, to go with the example of like, okay, you’re with a church group, and you’re feeding the homeless. So, the way that you would likely arrive at that point already, is you’re already within a church group where you have, as you said earlier, bound yourself to that group. If you’re not a member, you’re at least participating regularly, and you’ve decided to join the outreach group that’s doing something. Likely what you have is months and years of the pastor preaching once a week about this is the nature of God, this is who he is, and every week, this is an example of how that should instantiate in the world, either in your family or in our community, likely teaching about the ongoing sort of traditional things the church teaches that we ought to do. We should care for the poor, we should care for the homeless, we should love our spouses, care for our children, we should give to the poor, all these classic Christian ethics. So, you likely have been with a group of people who have all had the same preaching. You have decided to commit yourself to them. Once you’ve joined the group that’s going to do this particular type of ministry, this food giving on a Saturday or whatever, likely you would have had some meetings with the leader of that group who’s going to say, probably starting each meeting with prayer, so you’re already focusing that this is the central thing that we care about, this is the reason why we’re here, we’re dedicating this time and ourselves to God for this time. This is the expression. Hold on, because I have a different framing of that, right? Like that’s the setting, the container, right? So, and I think prayer is really nice because it first points you towards God, and then it points you to, well, first it points you in relation to God, and then it pulls back from God what is required of you. So, there’s all of these steps, if you’re doing it properly, that connect you, and then it’s more than that because it’s also referencing back into your experience of reading the scriptures and the sermons, right? And maybe things you talked about before, right? So, there’s all of these ways that get appealed to by that prayer, and that can then attune your mind in such a way that you can be receptive to the right things. Yes, and if this isn’t just your first time in this group, maybe you’ve been doing it for a while, and you have a pattern to how this group runs, you also have a ritual now that you’re a part of, and that ritual will further all the things you just said and make them stronger. So, you likely start with prayer, then likely you will read some appropriate scripture that helps to focus on how this particular activity we’re going to do is connected throughout time with the purposes of God. It connects us to the identity of who God is as one who has all of these resources and cares for the needy and the marginalized, so you’re going to be connecting with those identity points again through a very concrete thing that is likely going to be. So, then you have that, and then you’re going to have the leader probably talk a little bit about what exactly he wants the group to look like, the spirit he wants to see presented. So, he wouldn’t say it that way, but it’s like, we’re going to be the Spirit of Christ on the street, and so I’m looking forward to us being cheerful, warm, we want to be attentive, so he’s going to probably list out what he thinks that should manifestly look like. Do you already have an idea? He’s going to kind of refresh everybody because it’s probably been a week since it’s happened, like this is the kind of attitude and spirit we’re trying to bring, these are the results we’re hoping for, and then we will ask God to give those to us, so we’re going to strive without trying to control, and so he’ll kind of set the tone. So, one of the things that you get when you go and do an activity like that with the group is there’s usually a lot of scaffolding that is helping to optimize that group spirit as much as possible, and I don’t know how other families do it, but I also do that with my kids. Like, if we go to somebody’s house, I’m going to say, I’m glad we’re going, this is the kind of behavior I expect from you, if you need something you can come and talk to me, but like you build in the scaffolding so that everybody has a similar spirit and anticipation of how to be and what to do if something goes wrong, so you kind of are preparing the land in advance, but then once you’re there, let’s say you’re somebody who’s new to this, you have all the other people who are modeling it for you, so if you haven’t done this much, then one of the things that the group affords for you is you have now models that you can, you know, see how to walk it up, and then you have all the other people doing it, which lowers the threshold of anxiety for you to then participate, because you’re not the only person on the street handing out the sandwich, you know, you have all these other people, and so there’s ways in which you can be more courageous or less self-conscious, because you aren’t seeing yourself just as Manuel on the street, you’re seeing yourself as, oh, me, a member of Presbyterian Redeemer South is here, and we’re doing this together. There’s a safety of the herd, right? Yes. Herd mentality. Yes. Because I got the vision of a bunch of sheep being herded as well, right? Like, there’s a reason why there’s this shepherd metaphor in the Bible that’s used so much, and it’s like there’s something good in there, right? Like, if you’re a good sheep, like there’s something good in there, right? Then on the other hand, you’re not a sheep, right? So then there’s this tension there, and in some sense, right, like you said, right, like things can go wrong, and we need to know, right? So there’s an appropriate sheep-itness, and then there’s the point where you need to slap out of it and, well, re-attune to the higher, right, which because there’s an alarm bell going off, right, like there’s a calling, and now the vision needs to change, right? Like, we need to save people, right? Like, now it’s not no longer handing out food and being joyful. So, yeah, I like this idea, right, where there is, like there was a tweet about what’s the purpose of law, right, and like I said, well, it’s when things go wrong, right, but it’s in, when things go wrong, you have something to appeal to, that’s what I said, right? But there’s also another aspect, right, like it’s also defining a shared space, right, and there’s a reliability there, right, like there’s a predictability, right, which is then, again, calming, right, because if we know our place, where to go back to the sheep, then we don’t have to be upset, like, because, like, we don’t have to deal with stressors, right, and then if you have a proper shepherd, the shepherd is the one that’s dealing with the stressors, right? So, well, that’s maybe pointing out the boons of that type of participation, and like, I think it’s really good that we go through these because people need to hear them. And you said there’s a way in which God gets injected, right, or your attunement to God gets injected from above, right, from the shepherd effectively, right? But what about the other side? What about your side in that equation? As a sheep? Well, there’s always like the dual role, right, so there’s the role within the group where you’re contributing and you’re receiving, so we kind of were talking more about the receptive side. But then the contributing side is, you know, you’re going to also be modelling for others and moving the momentum forward to do the actions needed, but you’re also going to be there to, say, raise alarm bells or bring attention to the anomalous things that need addressing. So you might be the one to say, oh, we’re running out of sandwiches, that we need to get more sandwiches, or, you know, Mary keeps going off and doing the sandwiches by herself, and I think that someone should go with her because that doesn’t seem like it’s very safe, like I’m glad she feels confident, but let’s make sure nobody grabs Mary and she’s okay, so someone should go with her. So you’re going to also play a bit of a role of, yeah, you’re the sheep and you’re following the overall directive, but there is also an aspect where you’re helping as part of the group consciousness to make sure that we’re all navigating towards this thing together and any rocky shoals. We’re all looking for predators that are outside. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, so while you were talking, I got this conception, right, so sometimes I see a me-shaped hole, right, so there’s like something that could be happening and the person making that happen could be me, right, and like if we’re talking about a calling, like if you want it more explicit, that’s when you’re called to do it, right, just like you can, there’s an affordance and there’s a need and you can bring them together. So, well, now we’re going back to bringing someone the sandwich, right, because like this is again really complex, like that it’s multi-dimensional, right, like how do you see yourself in a hole, right, because now you need spiritual sight because you need to see the wholeness or the lekkardness and you see yourself as fulfilling or filling the hole. And because, like, well, I can speak from my own experience, right, like I have an observant relationship with the world, right, like I look at a bunch of things, then placing yourself there, right, and then, well, yeah, like this is where fate comes in, right, because like you can only see so far, right, you can only see so, like, all right, go there and then I go do things and then you’re in a new situation, right, and now you have to deal with all the things that are shifted, right, and everything that you inherited from the amazing setup of the container, right, all the scaffolding just drops and you’re there and you’re having to deal with what is, right, and so there’s an, well, like, doing that brings forth the glory of God, right, like if everybody’s doing that, because I guess this is where I want to go, right, it’s like you go there, right, and you’re holding your hand against the leek, right, and then the other person jumps next to you, right, because that’s, I think, how the Holy Spirit, like, moves, right, like the fact that you’re holding like, moves, right, like the fact that you can rely upon that person jumping next to you and in some sense, right, like now you can go there and you can be out of balance because your being out of balance is not your responsibility. Yes, yeah, and I think that, so there’s like two ways that people approach this and I think that it changes as you’ve been sort of in the group for longer, maybe moving away from just the sheep role that you’re mostly in and maybe into more frequently being a shepherd. Oh, a goat. But at first, yeah, there often is more like, well, where do I fit into this picture? You know, what are my gifts and where can I help with my particular, where’s my particular calling? And so often that’s where people kind of start. They’re like, oh, well, I’m not good at anything, so I don’t fit in here anywhere. Or, well, I’m good at, I’m good at music, so I can fit in that spot. Or you try to find, what are my gifts and then where can I fit myself in? And that’s usually where people kind of start within a group. And that’s kind of where you, you’re working more to say, how do I align myself with this group? But the more that you are married myself with this group, but the more that you are married to the group, the less the question is, how does my identity fit with this group? And the more the group goals have just become your own goals, and you just naturally, as you would for your own life, think, how can I make this problem be resolved? And you become a much more active agent in the resolution of all the problems. So instead of showing up to the youth group meeting and being like, well, I mean, I’m good at dishes, so maybe I’ll go and see if they need help with that. Not even knowing if they need dishes cleaned, just thinking, well, maybe I could help and that’s one thing I could do. Instead, you’re looking at what’s actually happening and seeing, okay, well, actually chairs have to be set up. And you, the question whether or not I’m a person who sets up chairs isn’t a question, you just think there’s a problem, I’ll go solve it. And so you shift over from an analysis of yourself as an individual and how you might fit within the group to more of just a consciousness of group goals and an activation towards meeting group goals. And if someone who’s a better fit to resolve that shows up, then you could have them just go and they could take over, but you’re not looking and waiting for your fit. And you’ll feel this naturally as you grow as an individual too. You kind of when you’re a young person look out at the world and say, well, where’s the best fit? Like what kind of career should I have? Where’s the best fit for me as an individual into this larger world? And that kind of shifts as you become less conscious of yourself and your individual, maybe ideal affordances, and more just think of the groups that I have allied myself with what needs to be achieved. So what does my community need as a town, as a group of friends, as my children, my wife, my parents, the people that I’m connected with, and I’ve already given myself over to, what are the needs and I just actively work to fulfill those needs. And so the way that you engage with your arena shifts as you mature. And so that happens as a person, but it also happens in your engagement within any group. All right. So I took two things out of that. So first there’s as you mature or let me rephrase that. If you mature, then you move out of self-referential to referencing the external world. And you become open to being informed instead of forming the world. So that’s one aspect. And then the other aspect is that there’s a sense making that’s only available after you’ve gone through that, right? Like after you’ve removed the egocentric glasses. And now you can recognize the will of the group by seeing what is needed. So the need implies that there’s a will to fulfill the need. So like the chairs are not organized. Well, there’s a need for them to be organized. So the will is that they get organized. Now there’s two ways to deal with it. You can do it yourself, but maybe that’s not valuable. And maybe there’s someone standing on the side that doesn’t know what to do. So you can assign that person or you can do it yourself if that’s called for. So there’s a sense making. And then you can – well, we were talking about hierarchy last week. There’s an inevitable hierarchy because the person who sees the will of the group is obviously more valuable than the person who doesn’t see it. Because the person who doesn’t see it can only do what they’re told to do if they want to contribute. And the person who actually sees the need of the group can relate to many things and is necessary for the will of the group to manifest. And without that person being a leader, they wouldn’t move forward. Yeah, absolutely. And I think that you made a good point that not all people actually progress through that. But also it goes back to two things. One, you were saying about binding yourself to a group. And unless you make those – unless you take on those bonds, you won’t be able to see those things and you won’t see the will of the group and be able to move forward in it. Because it won’t be your will. You only see the group of the will when it’s – or the will of the group when it’s your group. And even if you’re trying to imagine, like, let’s say some totally bizarre scenario where you’re – maybe you have an opposing team, you only can see the will of that group by imaginably joining that group. Right? Like, I can’t – a simple example like a soccer game. I can’t imagine what their goal is until I imaginably join them as a member of their team. And say, oh, yeah, they want to take out this person in our team and get around them or whatever because that person is the most threatening to them. You have to imaginably join the group and their will to be able to know how to act within the will of that group. So it’s through binding yourself to the group that allows you to have that personal will. Because you can’t – we’re not that – we don’t have fancy skills. Like, you can imagine yourself in scenarios and move forward through that. But we can’t actually, like, in some other way abstract out beyond ourselves. Some other person or being – and only if you imagine that to be yourself are you able to move forward in that. So I can – if I try to, like, figure out, like, if my job was to track down a killer, I can’t make some mental model that is in some way completely not referencing my own world and experience and desires and goals. I have to take on those, map them onto myself and then be able to imaginably move it forward. We really can only navigate the physical, emotional, mental, metaphysical world through our own self. And so we can try to put on other – imagine we have different traits, imagine we have different relationships, relationships, but it’s still through our own being that we can imagine those things. Yeah. Can you expand on the word imagine? So in this context, what I mean is you can bring to mind the things that are the closest references to what you are – I’m trying to explain imagining without the word imagine – the closest references to what you can observe or what you have had related to you. And then you can bring those references in as close of an alignment to the other scenario that you have not yourself been in. And so you can bring those references in. So are you referencing sympathy or empathy here? Both. So sympathy is when I can feel for you, I can feel badly for you, I can see the situation that you’re in, and I feel that for you, I can feel badly for you. Empathy is when you imagine yourself going through the same scenario. Mm-hmm. So I can have empathy but not sympathy for a killer, say, someone who’s like – I can imagine going through that myself. I can empathize with that, meaning I can imagine how they might act, and then that might allow me to stop them. But I’m not feeling sympathy because I don’t feel badly for them. I think they’re the perpetrator. So I’m not sympathetic towards them, but I can empathically imagine their situation, which would allow me to maybe trap them or fight them or something. But both require an imaginal engagement with that person and their goals. And that’s how we relate to any person, is we map them onto ourselves. And that’s how we can anticipate emotions in other people. I disagree, actually. You disagree? Okay. I think there’s another way. Okay. What’s the other way? Because this is why I want you to expand on the imagination, right? Because I can look at you, right? And I can see things about you, right? And for example, you’re in an office chair, right? And then I can say, well, this is not actually true, but office people, right, they obey the office form, right? And so I can know things about you as a consequence of the form that you’re in. And I don’t have to know you at all. I don’t have to sympathize. I don’t have to empathize, right? But that imaginal thing you just did, right? I’m going to imagine that- I don’t think it’s imaginal, but keep going. Okay. Well, technically it’s imaginal, right? Maybe not in the common usage of imaginal, but in the psychological usage of imaginal. So technically, what you’re doing is you’re saying you’re an office person. These are traits of office people. I will anticipate that you work out of that. And so that is considered empathy in the technical sense. It’s not the way we talk about empathy. People don’t use the word empathy correctly most of the time. They usually use the word empathy, meaning I feel for you. That’s not what empathy is. Well, with you, but like- Yeah, like I feel with you, but that’s not technically what it is. It’s positioning yourself within their perspective through the information and knowledge that you have about their situation. Yeah, but that’s not what I do. Well, that’s what you just described. No, no, no, no, no, because I don’t enter the perspective. Well, I suppose you could say these are common traits about a person in that situation. And I will react based on the common traits, but that will give you an extremely low resolution outcome, which will likely lead to many, many errors about the person. Only if you’re doing it propositionally. And if you do it with the spirit, you don’t have that problem. Well, I don’t know what you mean by doing it with the spirit, because that sounds like all of a sudden you’re going to do empathy. So, but we don’t need to go No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, because, but let me, huh, well, no, because I had large discussions about empathy with Mark and like the problem I have with empathy, right? Like it, well, it’s not real, right? And, and it’s hypersensitive to projection, right? Yeah. Like, so it, it captures you, right? It’s basically entering a spirit that’s often overwhelming because the reason that people do it is because someone else is in a state of distress, right? And then they empathize with that person, right? So, so No, we use empathy all the time to map all human interactions. It’s just you’re using, we’re using the words differently. You’re talking about an emotional movement, but I’m like, no, and like they map this on the brain. Like when you watch somebody doing something, it triggers all your mirror neurons and not just like the movement ones, but the emotional ones. Yeah, but okay. Now we’re going to go back to the start of the conversation, right? And, and I’m going to say, well, yes, my mirror neurons get triggered. Okay. Like, so what? Like my mirror, like what that means is, is totally like, it’s not related. Like even, even if I’m reflecting your expression in my hand, right, which I already, I’m doubtful of, but like, like, even if I do that, the implications of what that is are completely personal, right? Yeah, they are completely personal. Well, but then like, if you say I shake my head, right? Like, I can build 15,000 frames of what that would mean, right? But I’m not like, I, because I don’t, like that’s not sensible to me. No, but what happens is you, when I make a movement, you do map it, you determine what it is and you project that onto me. So no, I just, you do. No, because I don’t have to. I don’t have to. I don’t have to. I don’t have to. I don’t have to. I don’t have to. I don’t have to. You, but that’s the only way that you could do all of it. You do project it onto me, but that’s not a bad thing. That’s how we do. Sometimes I do that, but most of the times I don’t like. You mean you just don’t try to interpret my hand movements at all. Is that what you mean? Right. Oh, okay. Well, I don’t know how to interpret that. I don’t, I don’t know how to interpret that. Oh, okay. Well, whatever you try to determine from me is determined through that means, right? Like everything that you get from me, and you make this point frequently, everything that you receive from me is interpreted by you through your lens and how it relates to you. So everything you relate, you receive from me is your interpretation of that. It is inevitably that it’s your reception from me. Right. And just like we were talking about with God, you have your hand on the elephant. You get an aspect of that. You don’t get the full thing of it. Even I don’t know the full thing of my own expression. Well, but I think it’s worse, right? Like, I think it’s one step removed. Like I don’t get anything from you. I just get something from me. Okay. Like, and that might correlate with what’s in you or not, right? Like to different degrees, but that’s effectively getting locked. And this is why, right? Like if you, like I’m going to use platonic forms, right? We can wrap. Okay, hang on though. I got to stop you for one second. Right. You can’t tell me that everything that you get from me is in your own head and then argue with me that I say that that’s projection because that’s completely projection is what you just described. Is that everything you receive from me is from your own head. That’s what projection is. Yeah. Yeah. Well, no, no, no, not completely. Right. Because it’s only if I want to do something with it. Right. It’s like, like if I just let it be, right. Like if I don’t interpret it, then like. Yeah. But, but you can’t at the same time say that it just sounds like you’re saying totally opposite things because for you to say anything you receive from me is within your own mind, but that is projection. I’m like, that’s technically projection. Okay. Then where did you want to go? If I connect it to the mind of God, right? Like I’m going to use platonic forms because I’m more confident in, but I think you can just use angels instead of form. But um, if I can see what you’re conforming to, right. Which is not, I’m not knowing about the instantiation, right. I’m, I’m just knowing about the source that you’re relating to. Then I can relate to you to that. I don’t know exactly what you mean, but from the way you just described it to me, to me, what that sounds like is the most impersonal and unhappy way to exist that I can imagine. It sounds so impersonal because then you don’t relate to me ever. You relate to the platonic form to which I may or may not relate. Yeah. But, but, but when, what, but that’s the same thing as you relating to the marriage. No. Why not? I don’t actively relate to the marriage. I relate to my husband. But we just had this whole thing about how the marriage is a separate thing. It’s a separate thing, but I don’t relate to it. I relate to my husband and the marriage creates affordances in which I can relate to my husband. We always relate to individuals and the spirit can change the tenor of the expression of the individual, but you relate to the individual. If I do marriage counseling, I can’t speak to the marriage. I speak to the individuals within the marriage, within the context of the marriage, and they can express the spirit of the marriage. You can speak to the marriage. No, because how would the marriage speak back to me? I speak to the individual and they express the marriage. No, but, but like just, just like when, when I, I, when I would go into your room, right, or into your house, I’d speak to your husband because he’s the head of the household. Like I, I speak to the household through him. Sure, but you’re speaking to him, right? You have to relate to the group by speaking to the individual. I’m relating to the household. Like I’m, I can’t speak to him and I can speak to him as the household. Yes, but it is through an individual. Every relation, it has to be through the individual. You can access the whole, but it has to be through the individual. Yeah, but, but he’s no longer himself when I speak to him because he needs to be the household. Like, but he’s not the household. No, he is. He’s the head. Like he’s speaking for the house. Like he can speak for the house as himself. Like I just, you, you can access the whole. I agree with you, but I don’t think you can circumvent the individual, which is the whole reason why you have to have Christ as a man, because you have to have an individual that substantially, that everything can land on. Yeah, which, which, which, which is the head is an office, right? Which is held, but I speak to the office, right? Like when I write a letter to the city, I don’t write to the person, the mayor. I write to the office, the mayor. But my whole point is just that it’s, you still are speaking to the individual. But no, but no, I would, I would consider that inappropriate. Like if, if that person acted as an individual in the office of mayor, then he made a transgression because he’s the mayor. He’s not the individual. And when he leaves for, okay, but I can’t imagine like, let’s go back when you’re like, okay, well, I won’t relate. You told me you’re not going to relate to me. You’re going to relate to the platonic form with which I am somehow in connection to. No, no, no, I can relate to you. Like it’s not that, that, that’s not an option. Right. I, I, I like, like, I’m, I can relate to you, right? I can relate to the form that you’re relating to. I can do many things. Like I can relate to you in your professional character. I can relate to you in, in, in your, your motherhood. I can relate to you as a child, right? Like there’s many aspects that I can relate, but, but I’m not relating to the same person at that point, right? Like, like I’m appealing to different things. Like they’re not the same. I’m not using the same language. I’m, I’m not using, like my relationships to you changes as the appeal that I make upon you change. I can agree with you to an extent, but I’m like, but not completely because I’m still myself. So if you relate to me as a therapist, but you are like abusive in your language, then the therapist maybe technically would be like, well, that doesn’t matter because I’m therapeutic. And so that’s fine. But as a person, I would say, well, this relationship is over because you’ve been abusive towards me and I’m not going to relate to you any further. It’s like, well, but why would you do that? Because as the therapist, it was fine. It’s like, well, because I’m an actual person, I’m not just the form. I’m not the, I’m not the marriage. I am myself. Okay. Okay. So, so, okay. Right. So now, now we’re getting into a space, right? So you, what you’re, what you’re saying is a couple of things. And I shouldn’t use that framing, but whatever. So what you, you have a certain capacity, right? And why you can, you can, you can look at the politicians, right? Like these politicians don’t have the capacity to fulfill the role that they give, right? They don’t like they’re transgressing in so many ways that I don’t even want to go there. Right. So, so they’re not fulfilling their office properly. And that’s a transgression on their part and they should be kicked out for that. Right. Like if, if we want to be serious about the world, like they should be kicked out. They should, they shouldn’t be allowed to hold that office. Right. So then secondly, the other way around as well is like when, when someone comes to that office, right. And, and they’re acting outside of the relationship that is, yeah. How would I say that? Well, it’s, it’s outside of the container, right? Like there’s, there’s, there’s norms that they’re out, the acting out, they’re transgressing the norm, right? They’re, they’re transgressing the etiquette that is present at that relationship, right? At that office, then there should be consequences, right? So, so if like someone who’s, who’s being aggressive towards you, they’re transgressing the relationship that they have because you’re there to help them. You’re not there to be an object of their anger, right? Like that’s, that’s, and so then, right, and this, this is the same thing as we were talking about with the group, right? Like, oh, like there’s an alarm going off, right? Like now there’s a calling, right? Like the alarm bell is calling. Now we need to reorganize our relationship, right? So now I can no longer be acting to you from a professional capacity because you’ve, you’ve transgressed your relationship to me and you’ve, you’ve let me feel endangered over that, right? And so now that, that is taking primacy over what I was trying to do with you and consequences follow, right? So, so, and, and I, like, I think, I think it’s important, right, especially when a therapist, right? Like you should not be acting out of your person when, when you’re doing therapy because that’s, that’s transgressing your relationship and that’s influencing, influencing your capacity to have a therapeutic relationship, right? But yeah, like my point was though that your access to those things are through an individual, like that individual can manifest it, right? But yes, an individual person, right? So you, you can access the therapist that I am. There’s a therapeutic mode and model, right? There’s a, a platonic form of the therapist that I can participate in and allow you to engage with through me, but it’s me manifesting that. Yes. And if you’re in distress, right? If you’re in distress, I cannot make the appeal because you’re not able to cooperate at that point. And so, like, if you were the client and you were trying to speak to the form without talking to me, you can’t, you can’t speak to the form. You can speak to me as the one manifesting the form. And I will do my best to continue to manifest the form, but there’s no access to the form. It, like it has to be substantiated in a person. That’s what I mean. Like you, when I try to speak to a couple, I can’t speak to the marriage. I can speak to the person manifesting the marriage. Like there’s always, the individual is always the access point to the larger body. But don’t, don’t you agree that you want to get to the point where you can’t speak to the marriage? I don’t entirely know what you’re saying when you say that. So I can’t agree. Because when, when I hear, right, I can’t speak to the marriage, I would say, yes, you’re right. Because the way that they’re bound to the marriage is corrupted, right? That’s why they’re in therapy. Right? So when you make an appeal to the marriage, that’s, there’s gonna, something’s gonna go wrong there, right? So you’re gonna have to fix the person so that they can have a healthy bond to the marriage, right? And then you can say, well, as a husband, this is required of you, or whatever, right? And only when they’re at the point that they’re willing and capable to take that responsibility, then they can have that relationship to the marriage, right? In a healthy way. Yeah, I, I think for me, even when I do that, then I’m speaking to the person who is the man who is the husband who then is accessing that greater form. So it’s still through the person, which is why I think when we relate to people, to go back further, when we relate to people, we have to do it in a way, like not have to like you, I’m telling you, you must, but because we are biological entities, it is enforced upon us that the way that we relate to others is empathic. It just is the biomechanics of, of human engagement. Now we can have a hateful empathy, or a loving empathy, or a dismissive empathy. I’m not saying that there’s an emotional tenor to this, but this is the mechanics of how we engage with other humans. And so I don’t think that it’s possible to actually engage with an actual person, maybe some abstract, imaginal person, where you’re like, I’ve never seen this person, but I, there could be some individual out there that’s an office worker and, and maybe they’ll be this way. But if you’re actually going to talk to an actual person, your brain does things. And those things are technically empathic things that you can’t control, unless there’s something wrong with your brain, that is what your brain does. Yes. Yeah, I’m, I’m, I’m not disagreeing that, that your brain does things and, and you’re, yeah, well, if, if, like, like at that point, right, like, if you want to say that if my mirror and the room fires, that’s empathic, then I guess I’ll agree with you. But that’s, that’s like a nonsensical definition that’s useless to me. Like, like, okay, yes. Right. Like, but it’s important because it’s bound up with how we develop as people and our mimetic engagement with the world. Like, that’s why it’s important because that is the way that we develop as individuals towards a new form of self is because we are so mimetic that we grow as people, as we mimic others. That’s how we learn how to participate in our environment. It’s a way, but it’s the primary way. For some people, like, I, for all the, the neuromally typical people, that is how it works. That’s how you develop as an infant. Like, this is how human development happens. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I think, I think, I think we can drop it. I think, I agree with you that, that is an important aspect of development and essential, right? So like, right? So like, no disagreement there. I’m just stating that there’s, there’s other things. Anyway. Sure. That’s fine. That’s fine. I would, I would tie it back to the conversation about larger, how do we participate with the larger spirit in that as we watch other people, it gives us abilities to engage with the larger spirit of the group because we watch them and how they participate as we see them spiritually, emotionally engaging with others as expressed through their bodies. We are then able to participate in that through watching and then doing likewise ourselves. And so I think it does all kind of tie in with this idea of how do we participate with the spirit that we try to join ourselves to as a group. So that, that is why I think that it ties in with the larger conversation, but we don’t need to explore it further. That’s you know, but, but I, I, I think there, there’s an important aspect there, right? So the thing that immediately comes up to me is like, okay, yes, right? Like you see something, right? Especially if it’s participated in joy, right? Because there’s, well, then go back to the calling, right? There’s something that calls to you. It’s like, oh, that, that seems attractive, right? And, and then you take a taste, right? And, and then, well, there’s a bunch of things happen, right? Like, first of all, you don’t have the perspective that the other person was engaged in, right? Like secondly, you don’t have the skills that the other person was using in their engagement, right? And so, so you’re, you’re, you’re going to get a flavor of what happened, right? And, and that’s going to color your relationship with, with the thing that occurred, right? But also you might see something that the other person wasn’t seeing, right? So there’s an, there’s an individual aspect that you’re bringing in. And you, well, there’s a seed planted, right? But, but it’s, it’s, it’s a different seed, right? It’s not the seed that’s coming from the food that you’re trying to reach for. And so this is where this mirror stuff, right? Like, it’s like, yes, it’s important, right? It’s like a bootstrap. It’s like it, it, yeah, it calls you out into new things. And, and, and sometimes you share this, right? Like sometimes you participate in the same form, and sometimes you find a new form or, or you find half a form because you can only see half of it or whatever, right? And, and so, so that’s kind of, kind of what, what I, what I would say, right? And why am I bringing up the forms? Well, like, so when I do the sequence, for example, about calling, vision, right? Like, I think, I think there’s something fundamentally true about the way that things are revealed to you in, in, in that, right? Like, I haven’t fully thought it true, but, and then in, in the way that these things are revealed to you, there’s a universality, right? Like, it’s, it’s not in the way that, that is experienced, but there’s a universality in the process by which the experience gets manifested, right? And that’s what I, what I’m talking about with, with the forms, right? There’s something there, right? That even though I, I have no clue about what, what you’re going through, what your experience is, like, I, I can still talk to you, I can still hand you what you need, I can still, I can still do all these things, even, even though I, I am completely blind to the specific. That tracks. Okay, well, and, and, and, like, I, well, so to go back to, to, to the spirit, right? Just, no, yeah, so you said something really interesting about, in some sense, empathizing with the opposing team, was that basically what you were saying? Right? Okay. And, and, and again, right, like, I want to highlight this importance of grounding, right? So if you’re, if you’re participating in the same strategy, right, or the strategic framework, then you, you can kind of do that, right? Especially with a group spirit, but if, if the team is from a different culture with, with a totally different thing, then that’s, that’s just going to fail, right? Like, Well, it might, it might fail, but it’s kind of what you have available to you. So like, let’s say, it’s capture the flag, because that’s a little more loose than soccer, right? You’ve got capture the flag. The only thing that you can do is try to imagine what your enemy might do. And you can try to bring in what you think they would do based on what you know about their culture. Like, you might say, oh, they’re from this culture, I know they’re very direct. I know that as a culture, they try to rely on force. So if I was now you don’t actually think this, it just happens subconsciously. But it’s like, if I was from a forceful, direct culture, and these were the obstacles, and that’s where the met the flag was, how would I navigate to that in a forceful and direct manner. And so you have to, if you are going to, in any way attempt to anticipate what they will do, you have to empathize with them, and who you understand them to be and what their goals would be, so that you can map their actions imaginably, and then try to anticipate those so that you can then plan your counterattack. So you empathize with them, but that’s not like a loving empathy. It’s just the way that we anticipate the actions and movements of others. Now, to take it a step further, we are as Christians commanded to love our enemies. And so that would, if you were to do the empathic thing, also in a loving way, with your enemies, if you were to do the empathic thing also in a loving way with your enemies, allow you to hope ideally, hopefully. Because what love could do is it could allow you to have, to drop defenses against the things against your enemies which you don’t like and which you feel resentful for and hatred for. And so if you were to love them in a way that is not just actions for their behalf but also on a… You need to explain love a little bit because… Yeah well that’s what I was just starting to like unpack a little bit because if you you could take love your enemies as just do good things for them, do caring things for them, like do things on their behalf that would be to their best interest. That could be one way to love. Which is actually what the common conception of it is and that’s corrupting the world right now. So yes. So it could be that but you could also… I mean there’s so many ways to love, right? Like this but one way is to to care for them, to genuinely care for them and want their good and feel an empathic warmth towards them. Where you’re like I want good for you. Not just empathy blankly like I’m trying to understand you but I want good for you, I care for you, I want the best for you, I don’t want harm to come to you. And then whatever that might be that would be the best for them. You know lots of times love for a child can look like discipline or allowing them to go through difficult times. So just because you love someone doesn’t mean you’re going to soften everything or coddle them or there’s no consequences you know. But but I think that love for one’s enemies if you were to genuinely want good for them, be willing to care for them and in some way be able to see yourself as participating with them. I think that then you are able to because I mean that’s what Christ did with us, right? It says while we were his enemies he loved us. So he chose to bind himself to us before we were not his enemies. While we wanted his death he chose to want the best for us and do everything in his power to give the best to us. So the interesting thing that I found in reading the New Testament is in the letters right it’s all about Christians, right? It’s all about people who are not it’s all about Christians, right? It’s all about people who are bound, right? And like there’s obviously a good reason for that because if you’re bound then you can make appeals, right? Like if you’re not bound then what are you appealing to, right? Like this is one of the things that we bark into the modern world as well. It’s like well yeah I’m an individual I’m not bound by whatever you’re presenting to me so like no right and then conversation ends really fast, right? And so there’s well it’s beautiful how a well-bound group, right? Can manifest certain things, right? And then there’s all of these patterns that you can use to well to manifest love and again for it with the example of the bicycle going to a place, right? Like it’s way way way more complex but it’s also in some sense still simple, right? Because you you have an authority and you can appeal to the authority but when we’re stepping outside of well at least the recognition of that authority we face our enemies, right? Like now we have to deal with our agents, right? Like what can we do, right? Like because even if I want to love my enemies like yeah like yeah like probably I need to walk away, right? That’s probably the best thing that I can do to love that person, right? Just like not to relate to that. So do you see the problem there? Maybe. I would say that the first thing that you could do to love your enemies would be to start by praying for them because probably part of what the problem is is that you don’t have a vision for how you could love your enemy in any way that would be good, like truly good. How would you do that? And probably that needs to be an act of revelation and it would likely look different in every context and so that’s the problem. So there’s no answer there, right? There’s only revelation. There’s revelation but there is a path, right? There’s a you can start with prayer. You can start with changing the orientation. You can turn start by changing your goal and then yeah the how that works out will change. There’s not a particular subscription of how that looks but if you change the orientation and you can genuinely have a source that could guide you down that path and you’re committed to following what guides you, then maybe you walk away. That might be the answer but maybe there’s something else and you wouldn’t know until you’re there. Well that’s why you walk away first and then you walk back. Like patience. Yeah. Patience first, right? Yes. So let me see. So I guess you have a level up which is the group of groups, the realm of politics. I don’t know if I’m really capable of thinking on that level yet. Do you want to say something about that? About the group of groups to level up higher? I think my thought is whenever you engage with one of these larger groups you always do it with the individual in front of you, whoever that might be. And so I think that we… So why do you say that? Because you need to make a bond with that individual so that they can then from that bond that you in some sense can transfer from yourself into the group through that bond with that individual? No, I think it’s because it’s so easy for us as people to just abstract everything away. It’s easy for me to think something like, oh I’ll be… I participate in this church and I love God. But that can just be this abstracted idea that doesn’t actually land. Whereas everything that is real that actually plays itself out happens in a space in a time with a person and that’s a real person. And they might be your interface into this larger group but it’s an actual person with their own peculiarities. And so I would say when you’re interacting with this larger group, you might be interacting with that individual with that larger group purpose and will in mind. But you always want to do it in a way that is still personal and not impersonal because the temptation for us is to stay at the impersonal level because the personal is more challenging. It’s always more challenging with an actual person than with the abstracted level. Yeah, I would say that they serve different roles. Sure. So when I think of politics, I actually think that it’s inappropriate because you should come there with a prepared argument and there’s a severely limited amount of time to make your case. And you don’t want the other person to ramble around other things. It’s the same in the court. But then if you’re in conflict, for example, and you need conflict resolution, you do need to appeal to the person because if they’re not willing to be on your side, then you’re never going to get anywhere. And like I said, when you’re in distress, I cannot appeal to these other sides. So I see it as you need to be in harmony, right? And when you’re in harmony, then you can lay the groundwork for the things to happen. And as long as you’re not in harmony, that’s a fool’s error. Yeah, fair. I probably need to go and make dinner for my kids. So did you have any last things that you were hoping to explore or wrap up? Well, yeah, well, I just wanted to point out that there’s this higher level, right? And so that’s the fractal. And these lower levels are already severely complicated. And I don’t even know when I’m going to put my hands on the higher stuff. But we have to recognize that they’re there and they’re important too, right? And there’s people living there, right? Like there’s people’s jobs and lives that go on there. So yeah, like, no, I’m fairly complete upon this. Like, is there something that you stood out to you or like an insight that you had that you want to share? I think I just I always enjoy when we get to talk. It’s such a pleasure. I feel like we come from, like we see and interact with the world in really different ways. So then when we get to talk, it’s really brings nice things out. I think one of the synchronies that was nice was talking about sort of how do you bind yourself to groups? And then what affordances does that make for you? And the analogy of the bicycle and how you kind of have to give yourself over to this larger identity of self and even like a physical level to integrate the bicycle, to be able to move into a way you have to bring together the fact that you’ve got those constraints of the bike or the group or the relationship, but then how that allows you to aim and move in a new way. I liked that part very much. I thought that was very good. Yeah, I think there was a lot of fruitful exploration there. So yeah, I also, I also really enjoyed doing it because it made me think in different ways about things that I haven’t really done it. And yeah, I guess I’m going to engage with this empathy stuff a little bit. Like I’m still, like I think there’s many ways to do things. I think there, well, like I think we already pointed out, right? Like there’s, if you want to get a job done, right? Like you got to deal with the job, right? Because else you can’t get the job done. And I think that’s the masculine and the feminine part, right? Like, like the feminine is like, okay, like, but there’s people who need to do the job, right? And if they’re not people-ing, then the job ain’t going to get done. Right? And so there’s always this tension between the two and which has primacy, but I, I separate those two out. But, but on the other hand, right? Like, like you said, they’re, they’re never not there, right? Like that’s also true, right? Like you can’t, you can’t say they don’t exist, right? Because that’s, that’s completely false. So thank you for your participation. I hope the comments section will be lit up with all, you guys missed this. And then we have something to talk about in the future. Have a great time with your kids. Wonderful. Thank you, Manuel. And hello to anyone in the comments.