Exploring WHY？ We cannot agree! (OKj9ZJ8smaA)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=OKj9ZJ8smaA

MUSIC All right. Hello, everybody. So today we’re going to have a discussion, an exploration around agreement because we’ve been talking a lot about agreement. We’ve been realizing a bunch of problems with that. Haven’t we, Mark? Yes, we have. We seem to be getting a lot of agreement by people who don’t seem to actually agree. And so that was a topic that we wanted to cover because we noticed this problem where people are saying, well, I agree. And the way they’re acting and the way they’re talking after they say, I agree, does not really match this idea of agreement. And hopefully Adam’s going to be here to help us work this out, too. So it’s always a pleasure to add in more people in these conversations when we can, if we can find interested enough parties. But yeah, Luke, I heard you had quite a talk with Manuel. I’m sure he’s going to paste that link into the comments. And Manuel, what have you discovered about agreement recently? That’s the big question here. Well, I have discovered that it is a big source, so maybe like the source of my frustration. I usually, I think you got some static going. I usually have this sense of that the conversation is being frustrated, right? And like I try to maintain a lot of order in the conversation. And this is actually something that I talked with Luke about, like the importance about being on the same page. And so that’s a little bit different than agreement, right? Because agreement follows from being on the same page and then looking at the same thing. And I got this colossal notes about what we’re going to talk about. But I think the most important thing is to realize that if we want to commune, like we need to have agreement. And we need to have an understanding of what that agreement means, right? Well, or let me flip that around a bit. I think the problem is we can be on the same page and disagree, right? We can be in the, like we can be fishing and using completely different fishing techniques, but we’re still fishing. And so we don’t, what we’re agreeing on and how we’re actually doing it matters a great deal. And I think that’s where things get confused because people get into this whole thing of saying I agree when they’re not even on the same page. It’s like, well, how are you in agreement with me if you’re playing basketball and I’m fishing? And we can agree about the rules of basketball or the right way to fish, but we’re not doing the same thing anymore. And so do we really have agreement in that case? And welcome, Adam. It’s good to have you. You’re muted in StreamYard. But please say a few words before we continue. Yeah, so I’m not sure if I was a source of static or not. But anyways, I have been thinking about this kind of agreement and the dissonance between it a little bit. And maybe not today, but the past couple of days. And yeah, I think it’s important to look at where people are coming from. But when somebody’s saying something, when you say I agree to kind of be very careful with how you use that, I just went ahead and looked up actually the etymology of agree. And it is kind of to be pleasing to. And if you’re putting pleasing other people above being on the same page with them, yeah, you’re going to fail. Yeah, so I listed three prerequisites of agreement. So you need to be looking at the same thing. You need to be wanting the same, right? So that would be sharing a value or a vision. And you need to have a capacity for understanding what you’re looking at, right? Like you need the relationary framework that allows you to participate. Because like if you don’t have that capacity, then you cannot be in agreement with the other person. So, yeah, maybe you guys want to comment on that a bit. Yeah, I think I think that’s important, right? Like this this differentiation between, we’ll say, the participatory way of having a communion around a value and the pleasing aspect that Adam mentioned where there is a, you know, a mere well, I’m just trying to placate you or calm you down or reduce your frustration. And I see that a lot with people like especially agreeable people want to say they agree. But then, you know, it’s clear that they don’t either. So one of the things one of the things is sort of annoying for me. And I know we saw this recently. I’m going to try to keep it out of a drama realm. But if you want to see an example of this, there was a talk on Randall’s United that has he did. Manuel jumped into and I jumped into later. They always there. A bunch of folks were there, right? Where it was clear that somebody was saying, I agree. But then proceeding as if the point of agreement didn’t change. But the thing is, if somebody says, hold on, blah, blah, blah, right, which is in contradiction to your previous statement. But then you say, I agree. But then proceed as if your previous statement is still true. You don’t agree like you lie. That’s a lie. And maybe you’re lying for a good reason. Whatever. I don’t care. But it’s not it’s not true. And because I care way more about the truth than most of the things, that’s where the problem for me comes in, is that you can’t just blithely go, well, I agree as a way of getting rid of a problem. Right. Like whether that problem is the other person’s frustration or that problem is a problem of your thought being incorrect, given the evidence and facts that you that you cannot deny in some sense or that you don’t even deny. Right. One great example of this is is is saying something like, OK, well, look, it’s it’s clear that that that the elect that an election wasn’t rigged. Right. And then somebody says, well, what about all of these incidents that happen that show some sort of fraud or some sort of interference in the election? Right. Oh, it’s very mysterious that the federal government, the United States government set up the election country with these devices that they and only they know how to use and that they oversaw the election in this country. But and then you can go, you know, if the other person says, well, yes, that’s true. That’s very mysterious. But then proceeds as though there was no election interference in that country. It’s kind of like, um, uh, what are you doing? Like, what do you you you’re you’re continuing your thesis as though that agreement shouldn’t change something about the discussion, shouldn’t change the landscape, the page that you’re on, the mode of participation, behavioral circle. Right. And so that’s agreement used as a tool. Right. It’s used as a means to achieve something. And I got a list of the things that you can agree for. Right. So you can agree to keep the peace. Right. So sometimes keeping the peace is really important. Right. So it’s not even that these these uses aren’t valid. Right. But you have to realize that you’re sacrificing one thing for another thing. And so if you agree to keep the peace, you say that peace is more important than being true. Right. Like you’re effectively saying, I’m allowed to lie in order to maintain peace. And then you can agree in order to push an agenda. Right. So if you if you want something to happen and the conversation is stuck somewhere, you can just agree so that you can get the thing done that you want to have done. But again, you’re lying in order to achieve something. And then you can agree to curry favor. Right. So like I can just agree with you and then I’ll basically get social credit that I can use somewhere else. Right. Like then you can agree out of opportunism. Right. It’s like you see a potential that you can you can use and you’re just in agreement because you’re going to chase that potential in the moment. And maybe the most important one, you can agree in order not to have to face an argument or, in other words, facing your shadow. Because like if you agree, then the disagreement would imply that you’re going to have to unpack this. Right. Like you’re going to have to argue your position, especially if you know somewhere deep inside that you’re wrong. Going down that path means facing the darkness inside of yourself. Like that’s just really uncomfortable. Like so. Right. I think a lot of people agree to avoid going down that path. Well, and I want to I want to get out of thoughts on this because this this occurred to me as you as you were saying your first point, maybe in order to agree in, we’ll say, a proper fashion, not and not just merely placate the other person. Maybe agreement actually requires some form of sacrifice. What do you think of that framing there, Adam? Well, you know, making bringing bringing back the etymology into it, making something pleasing to or to be pleasing in some sense. I suppose in this case, I’m just going to jump the gun and say like you’re trying to please something higher. So it’s actually above the people involved. And perhaps in that sense, there is actually sacrifice and able and being able to and being able to engage in conversation. But when it comes to when it comes to ultimately agreeing with somebody in the sense of not just saying it, but rather kind of in some sense, kind of maybe maybe embodying it. And sacrifice is necessary because because, you know, you’re not not everyone’s doing the same thing and not in the same way and not in the same spirit either. Right. Well, and I like that idea. And I think I think Manuel was probably going to get there. Right. There’s there’s, you know, in this case, there’s two forms of agreement. There’s the form of agreement where you’re looking across or horizontally at the person or persons or the situation and saying, I agree. Right. And that doesn’t necessarily require sacrifice because you’re all on this equal plane, if you will, this equality doctrine garbage plane. Right. But proper agreement might require something higher, which, you know, to Manuel’s earlier point about the relationship between agreement and value rather than agreement and person or agreement and object or agreement in fact or agreement in idea. Like those things are not higher. Right. And therefore that’s not proper agreement. Proper agreement, which your point be something that’s pleasing, we’ll say up the stack right to the to that distributed cognition, for example. And that’s that’s one of the things you might have to sacrifice to, for example, is the distributed cognition as such. Well, I think we need to differentiate between two scenarios. Right. So I can agree with you if I’m already in the same spirit. Right. So then we haven’t had a conflict. Right. So that’s just effectively green light to proceed. But there’s also an agreement where I changed my mind. Right. Because like there was a disagreement and then there’s a unification that that comes from from that agreement. That requires sacrifice. Right. Because like there needs to be given something up by either party because either party is wrong. Right. Like there has to be a confirmation to to a truth that that hasn’t happened on one of the sides. And yeah, that confirmation requires sacrifice. And I want to add humility. Right. Like it requires the capacity to to step back. Right. And say my opinion or my vision on what I thought was there was incorrect. And now I can make space for that with the other right, which is the sacrificial aspect. Yeah. And in that sense, you’d have to break that behavioral circle where you just have this. Well, I agree. I agree. And you could come back to the same point with somebody. This has happened to me either witnessing conversations or participating in the conversations where it’s like, you know, even it just as an example. I was watching The Hobbit today after coming home from work and we were talking about me and my dad were talking about, you know, Oh, why did they make three films or whatever? I’ve had this conversation at least 10 times with him. And and each time he always holds the same same point. But I remember there were times where I got him to, let’s say, agree, you know, propositially or whatever. That like maybe that exactly wasn’t the case. But it still doesn’t matter because like when it comes back to it, he’s like, no, he comes back to the same sort of he still says the same sort of thing. That the embodiment in that respect isn’t isn’t so much as big a deal, except that it comes up again and again in the conversation. He maintains the same point, which fair enough. But that’s that that’s that deep seated validation. I think that Manuel was doing a good job of pointing out. Right. People are really looking for validation. And so they’re kind of like, well, I’m going to give you agreement. That’s validation of your ideas. Right. Separate separate from the communion, separate from the conversation, validate you by saying I agree. Right. But then I’m going to proceed as if nothing has changed, even though I said I agreed. And it’s like, you know, and that that when we’re using agreement as a word to denote, we’ll say validation of the individual rather than validation of the point they’re trying to make. That’s when the conversation is going to be like, OK, I’m going to say I agree. That’s when the conversation can’t go anywhere because, well, quite honestly, and you know, I hate to disagree with your father, but yeah, it’s three parts. I had the same question myself before it came out. Yeah. They’re going to lose in three movies. How is this, you know, how is the book in three parts? And then somebody said, no, no, the book is in three parts. And then I went back and thought about it and went, oh, yes, there are three distinct parts to the to the hobby. I I I did it. Because I wasn’t looking at it that way initially because, you know, look, it’s just it’s just Tolkien’s wonderful, fantastic prequel, you know, children’s story to, you know, lead into his much, you know, his his much vaunted mythos. Right. And it didn’t really own in our weight. It actually follows the structure. In fact, I would argue it’s better story and better look at the story. If you take mythos out of the category of literature, which might be appropriate, then then the Lord of the Rings is by far because Lord of the Rings is full of I mean, everybody loves it. And I love it. But boy, is it full of problems. So so without engaging with that disagreement and then finding a way to actually get the book out there and then you know, you know, you’re going to have to have to have a lot of work to do to get it out there. And so without engaging with that disagreement and then finding a way to actually see the point that the person made because I made the statement that no, no, of course, it shouldn’t be three movies. That’s dumb. It’s it’s really just one thing. And you know, maybe you can cut it in half, but no, actually, it’s there’s it’s a three act play. And unless you understand that and unless it comes to you, you know, pretty right away or you get some pushback, you’ll never see how beautiful that three act play is. Right. You’ll never see that fact. And in that case, it was the disagreement that led to me straightening out and going, oh, no, no, I see it now. I see that it’s actually should be three movies. I think if you’re stuck in a fundamentally materialistic frame that when you’re stuck in that pattern, you you’re it’s really hard to kind of be brought to be to be brought out of that space because, yeah, you’re not even you’re not even willing to kind of put on the table that you might have to kind of reframe what you’re doing and then act different differently in accordance with that, perhaps. Yeah, like I think Mark, the sample was is really interesting because now he’s actually promoting the position that he was opposed to. Right. And I think that’s that’s defining of the agreement. Like you’re you’re switching sides like it’s it’s not on only a way forward. No, it’s like there’s a fundamental transformation that has to happen. And I want to I want to introduce a little bit more complexity. So that before you do that, I want to push back on the word transformation. It should lead to a transformation. Right. But it’s really a change in participation. And that’s what what has been missing from people saying I agree and then continuing as if nothing has changed. Like if you agree with a statement that was countering your previous statement, then you need to change. In my case, I changed my mind about whether or not that was that book was dividable into three parts. And so, like I said, I mean, I can I can see where your father’s coming from. It’s hard to see it subtle. And it wasn’t through agreement that I arrived at that. It was through a friend of mine on Facebook telling me, no, you idiot. Three is correct. And he didn’t explain it either. See, this is the other thing. He didn’t explain it. He actually just said, no, three is the right answer. And and because I respect him and I know him very well, I was like, well, what are the odds that I’m wrong here? A hundred percent. Right. I really I. Right. And and and I appreciated the challenge in the statement rather than somebody going, oh, you know what? I’m just going to lead you through this very carefully. So the first fact is, you know, I didn’t want that. I wanted to be able to discover to my own. Like, that’s where the individualism, the individualistic aspect of your personality should shine through. And not everybody has that. And I get that. But in my case, that was the right way to deal with it. And in another case, it might be the wrong way to deal with it. So I think that’s super important to to recognize. But, yeah, I just want to put back and push back on transformation, which would sort of be the end result, Manuel. But at least participation in the fact that there is a disagreement is the way we find agreements. Right. That’s how you’ve got it. You’ve got to state the disagreement and work from there in order to get to the point of actual agreement through participation. Right. Right. Because what you’re effectively saying is, well, you’re confronted with a new potential or the recognition of the new potential. And then you start participating with that potential. And as a consequence, the form, right, like that you take, gets transformed or informed by this new potential. So, yeah, I like that framing. So I was going to also differentiate levels of agreement. Right. So one of the things that I and Mark Love has agreed to disagree. Like, oh, yeah, like, let’s just leave this where it is, because it’s useless to proceed. Well, and why do we why do we think that’s OK in some cases? And why do we think it’s not OK on others? And I think the the ultimate way to determine that is to say, are you actually going after the same thing? Are you actually in communion with that higher virtue value, whatever? Right. So I can say, look, I disagree with the way that Jacob sometimes handles his guests on his live stream. Right. Which is totally fair to say, because sometimes I do. Right. And and and except I never disagree. And to date, I have never disagreed with his decision to kick anybody from a live stream. Now, I might disagree that they they might not have transgressed enough to warrant that if he hadn’t poked them or whatever I’m perceiving. Right. But that’s not the same thing. Like, once they transgressed, he’s very good at cutting people off at a point where, yeah, they they can’t stay. They just can’t stay. And I so I trust that part. Right. I trust that basically Jacob’s going to do the right things in his live streams. That’s going to facilitate the the the most good for the viewers and for his project. Right. And and yeah, but I still I would still quibble with him and I have in the past about, you know, his use of hyperbole. Right. And I use hyperbole. So right. But I quibble about the implementation of hyperbole. I quibble about these other things. But I think his participation is good. And so the fact that he does his participation slightly differently doesn’t really bother me that much because I think he’s trying to manifest something good. And I think his senses on what that is, whether they’re unconscious or fully conscious or fully rationalized or whatever, are excellent. And so I don’t I don’t ever question that part of it. And I think that’s healthy. But that allows us to disagree. Like, well, I disagree with his format. Sometimes I disagree with with with with how he approaches certain situations. But I don’t disagree that he’s trying to manifest the good and the way that he does that is good for his project and his intent. And I think that’s an important differentiation. That’s what allows us to disagree and not destroy each other in that disagreement. Right. And also not seek, to Manuel’s point, not seek to find an agreement to please each other. Like, we don’t that would never work. We’re both fantastically disagreeable. Like, we wouldn’t be able to talk to each other if we had that attitude about it. So in some ways, we’re kind of the perfect example of agreements, really not all that, you know, all it’s cracked up to be unless it’s agreement with with the project, the higher thing with the values and the virtues. Sorry, Manuel, go on. But I like what’s important to recognize is that when Mark hopes in and into Jacob’s dream or whatever, right, like he has a referential recognition. Oh, Adam, you’re making a lot of static noise. Every time you hit that mic, man, it drives us nuts. So when he enters the live stream of Jacob, he has a recognition of the container that Jacob is maintaining. Right. And he also has the recognition of the ownership of that container. Right. And so what what is implied is that if you enter that container, you submit to that container. And that’s the hierarchy that allows you to resolve right. Like you allow you to submit to what you disagree with because it’s not your your game. Like, it’s not about you. So from there, we can go to a more agreeing agreement. You can agree for the sake of argument. So this is a thing that I’ve done with Mark many times. This is like the first iteration of the dialogous practice that we started on the awakening from the mini crisis server. Where it was just like, OK, like, let’s just agree on this, not because I agree with you. But I want to see what the world looks like if what you say is true. And this allows for an exploration. Right. Like this allows for, I guess, a level of sympathy. This allows for checking for the structural integrity of someone’s argument without actually going into the argument. Right. And I think it’s I think it’s important to recognize the objection. Right. Like there is an inherent objection in the agreement. And you can you can see that when when we’re in the book club and we’re listening to Socrates talk and Socrates says, Well, I know what I’m going to say will sound ludicrous and nobody will agree with me, but just just hear me out. Right. And then everybody’s like, OK, like, I trust you, Socrates, that you’ll you’ll go there and like you’ll show something of value to us, even though we don’t agree. And then sometimes they end up agreeing in the end. But but it’s it’s play. Right. Like it allows for play. Right. No. And I think, too, what you’re doing when you’re involved in that process is very much a process that that that I exemplified with Ben Hang on the awakening server. So so many years ago, unfortunately, too many. The ability to do that is also the ability to hone your logic. Right. Because if your logic only works when your setup is the way you want it, is your logic working? Because how are you testing that? Right. If you’re not using somebody’s bad framing to find out if the logic still fits and works and matches, then maybe your logic’s not actually independent of the framing and kind of should be to some extent. Otherwise, it doesn’t act as a corrective agent. Right. If rationality only works with your particular starting point and ending point, then it’s not it’s not a way to determine anything. Right. It’s just an inevitability. And and and that’s a you know, that can be a real problem. So having that ability to disagree and proceed as if anyway is super important. It’s not as fun otherwise, because basically the whole book of the republic would basically stop as soon as as soon as these because the way it works is that Socrates is going into the press and he comes across a group of guys coming back up from it. And they say, hey, you need to come with to a party with us because we say so or something like that. There is actually some disagreement. And he, you know, if Socrates was just like, well, no, I just I’m not I’m not, you know, I’m not playing that game. You just go back home. Okay. All right. It would completely scupper his intentions from from the get go. It would be one page. Rather than 50 or 60, I think so. So a higher level of agreement is you can agree with within someone’s value system or maybe differently set within someone’s frame, but reject the framing. Right. So like, if you have the starting points, then your logic is sound. But I reject your starting points. So that that that isn’t in some sense that’s that’s not validation, but that’s. I forgot the word. Acknowledgement. Right. Like you acknowledge the truth of something while rejecting it. It as a whole or something, because because there’s a higher higher value that doesn’t allow you to participate in that. Right. Like, so, for example, the thing like that would be eugenics. Right. Like there’s there’s a truth in eugenics. But I reject eugenics as a whole based upon principle. So. Right. Well, and that’s and that’s one of the great tricks that people are using on each other, like all over the place. It’s like, well, there was an incident once where a thing happened and therefore and it’s like, yeah, but how often does that happen? Like, are you just because at some point you’re just stating the fact that all implementations are imperfect. Right. It’s like, are we trying to make a perfect world? Is that because because I’m not saying we shouldn’t try, but there’s a limit to what we should do to try to make a perfect world, because maybe that’s not the world we live in and we can’t. And maybe the cost of trying to make sure one type of an incident can never happen exceeds the value of that in some important way. And yeah, you can get into all kinds of well, you know, value a person over. And it’s like, well, maybe I don’t. Maybe I don’t value a person over the continuation of the entire species. That’s possible. In fact, that is that that is the argument that the say the climate people or the Greenpeace people or whatever are having is like, no, no, no. There’s no there’s no amount of human flourishing that’s worth killing off three whales a year. And it’s like, especially in light of, well, we’re not going to do without oil. So we’re probably going to go back to the previous source of oil. And the previous source of oil was slaughtering whales left, right and center. And so maybe more whales would die. And how are you going to how are you going to police that? Like you think you think drilling for oil is bad. Try to police a bunch of ships that are out there illegally poaching whales because there’d be a lot more than there are oil oil wells and they move. They’re much harder to catch. So maybe maybe even just policing that is less possible and would kill more whales. And therefore, however many whales were killed by oil drilling is really not the thing you should be focused on at some point. And I think now we get to the ultimate agreement, right? It’s agreement which allows for communion and that’s seeing the world in the same way. Right. And I think this is what we’re talking about when we say we cannot agree, right? Like we cannot make ourselves see the world in the way that other people see. But if we adhere or commune around the same, then our participation, our shared participation will allow us to see the same. And I think this is where the agreement is inherited. Like it’s coming from what we’re communing around. So it’s not a thing that we can do. Like it’s it’s a thing that flows from from what we participate, what we share. And I think I think it’s important to realize, right? So when when you’re you’re making yourself agree or something, that’s probably wrong. Like that’s actually you not agreeing because because this is where we want to go. Right. Like we want to go to like, OK, like how do you recognize whether someone actually agrees with you or not, whether you’re agreeing with them or not? And when when you’re not sharing the participation, like you’re probably not agreeing or not agreeing on the same level of agreement. Right. And so you have to start taking care of like, I agree with you in this way. You have to get specific. And and then if you have agreement around where you agree, then you can still cooperate. Yeah. Well, and that’s that that’s that higher agreement. Right. That’s that. Oh, we’re after something above us. The virtual or the value. And so so and we use this analogy before. I’ll use it again. Right. So if we’re both looking up at the same thing, I’m on the left of it and you’re on the right of it. We’re looking in opposite directions, roughly speaking. But we’re seeing different things except at the thing we’re looking at. Right. So the path to the thing is very, very different. So if we’re both looking at a mountain and we’re talking about the mountain, but we’re on opposite sides of it, we’ll say we’re on different sides of it. What we see is different, except for the peak. The peak is roughly the same. I mean, not be exactly the same, but it’s the same goal. Like we both want to get all the way up the mountain. We don’t want to stop midway because midway looks different for you than it looks for me. And again, we’re we’re going in opposite directions in some sense or opposing directions. They may not be binary opposites. Always important. It’s not a false dichotomy. Right. But because of that, the agreement is in the goal. The agreement isn’t in the implementation. It is in the journey. It isn’t in the path. It isn’t in these things. It’s not to say we don’t have a path in common. The average steepness of climbing the mountain is probably pretty close, even if you’re on opposite sides. And, you know, you can make all kinds of arguments about trails. But in the distance traveled, maybe might be slightly different or whatever. But ultimately, you’re both getting to the same point. Literally, in that case, even though you don’t have a path in common, you’re both getting to the same point. Literally, in that case, even though you don’t see the same path or the same the exact same steepness or whatever. And that, I think, is important. But that’s where the agreement lies. The agreement lies at that higher thing and at your attempt to, we’ll say, instantiate it or acquire it. And I think that it’s maybe also important that the agreement is, in some sense, a reflection. So if we both go up and we don’t end up at the same place, maybe we still had a disagreement. But it wasn’t visible when we were at a lower state. And so the movement is revealing whether you’re an actual agreement or not. And this goes back into humility. In some sense, I cannot know whether I agree with you. I can make an assumption about it. All the signs say that I am in agreement with you and therefore I want to cooperate. And the cooperation is correct until there’s an irresolvable conflict. So in that sense, there’s still agreement. It’s just the minute detail that at a certain point becomes important. I want to highlight something you said, too. So if we’re both climbing different sides of the mountain or different parts of the mountain or whatever, and we both see the same sort of vision, like, oh, let’s just do something silly, right? I know how we can all get along. I know we can all get along. And we’ll say this for a small group, right? We’ll say like this little corner. Oh, I can see how this little corner can all get along and be a corner and manifest something. And then you climb up on your side and your thing hits a wall and it doesn’t work, then even though we’re seeing the same thing, but maybe I can climb up on my side and that works just fine, you’re still wrong even though we have agreement on the, you know, we may have agreement on the fact that, oh, yeah, we could have something. But you’d have to do this to get it. It’s like if your this doesn’t work and mine does, pragmatism wins. And that’s also really important because I like what you said there. It’s like, yeah, if you’re on your way to acquire or attain the agreement and get to a common space and one of you or maybe more than one of you can’t get there, then maybe the fact that we agree is not so important because you’ve got some block around what you’re doing that doesn’t allow you to actually manifest that agreement in communion, in your participation. Which would mean that the vision that they have isn’t true. Right. And that vision may not be the higher thing. It may be their vision of how to get there, right, that their vision of the path. Right, right. Well, yeah, well, yes, like they might have a correct vision of the ideal, but the vision of how to get to the ideal is not true. Or maybe they don’t have any, right, like that. Because it’s not obvious how to get somewhere, right. Like sometimes we’re just making assumptions about, well, like I just go outside and then I step on the train and then I get to Rome. It’s like you need to step on the right train. You need to have a ticket because you’re going to get bumped up. And you need to have a passport because you’re going to end up in jail. I think also those differences are going to happen anyways. And it’s about kind of recognizing them in the first instance. And if you’re looking for more agreement, like recognizing that this was going to happen from the beginning. In doing that, though, not getting, not going on the path on the way at all. Because if you’re trying to work out how, you know, and this can happen sometimes in conversations because people might want just to like concede to their frame entirely. I mean, that’s never going to work. They’re asking for an impossibility. And I think that can imply either they want you to embody that all at the same time, which like good luck. Or they just want to know, they just want kind of the lowest form of agreement that their path is the one. Which is affirmation. Yes, and that’s the affirmation, right? And in some sense, if you just describe the path, if you just point like try and point out that path, you never necessarily have to walk it. You just, you could just stay there and kind of… Point up. Look, I got the path. Point up, yeah. And then you can shuffle between different paths that you’ve never walked. And, you know, there we go. There’s no sacrifice because you never took a first step. So, yeah, I think we need to explore a little bit more this second order effect that we’re talking about, right? So, like when you’re walking together, right, like in some sense you can make a bunch of assumptions before you start walking, but the proof is in the pudding, right? And also you can’t have your cake and eat it too, right? There’s a bunch of things going on there. And like when you’re eating the cake, like you’re going to face reality, right? Like you’re going to face the manifestation of what’s in your head. And you’re going to see whether it works, like whether what you were thinking is true, right? And that’s not because you make it true or untrue, but it is as a consequence of your participation. Like it’s a second order effect. And if you focus on manifesting the truth in your head, you’re actually going to conflict within your participation. You’re going to corrupt it because you’re going to be relating to your head instead of what is in the world. And when you’re relating to your head what’s in your world, like there’s inevitably, right, like this is unavoidable, going to be a conflict with what’s happening and what’s in your head. And then you’re going to be led astray. And so that’s why it has to be a second order effect, because living it out in the first order effect will end up in failure, guaranteed. Yeah, yeah, the second order effect is important because that’s really what you’re after, right? You’re not after the same path. You’re not after the right method. You’re not after the identical implementation. You are after that higher abstraction. And to go after that higher abstraction, you need to pay attention to the second order effect rather than the first order effect. And then, well I have a different framing. Agreement is alignment with the other, right? So you’re aligned, which means that your lines are pointing at the same way. You are agreeing with something else is observing a state that you’re already in. So you cannot actually agree. And then what you do, right, like now we’re getting a little bit woo-woo, right, but you’re trying to embody a spirit, like the spirit of the talos of the vision, right, like that’s connected to the vision. And then behind you, all the results of your actions crystallize in your slipstream. I like this slipstream idea, right? So it’s all already passed behind you. And sometimes these things take time to manifest, right? If you’re nice to someone, maybe they’re going to be nice back in a month or so because they remember, right? So these slipstreams, they keep on building over time. And if you maintain true to that spirit, to that goal, to that vision, then the things that will align, that will help that actually come into being, they’re going to cohere. They’re going to be shared. You’re going to get other people to participate in that spirit because they can see something in you or in the slipstream behind you that appeals to them. And they want to participate in that too. I hope that was intelligent. Yeah. Well, no, the stress on participation, right, is important. Like it is about true agreement, it’s about participation. It’s about not just taking the step, but recognizing when that step didn’t work or recognizing when it did work, right? And making that acknowledgement on, you know, hopefully on both sides. And you’re not going to do that perfectly or probably even very well. But it’s something to strive for is to say, oh, no, no, no, that’s a good point. I’m part of that, right? That sort of thing. So that you can get to the point where you are acknowledging the other person’s struggle towards the common second-order effect goal. And then the question is, right, like, what is this first-order stuff? Like, what does that look like? Right? Because in some sense, what we’re actually saying is we’re doing this kung fu move or whatever, right? And then something else happens somewhere else. So what is the thing that you need to be doing in order to do let these other things appear? And that’s you need to be virtuous, right? Like you need to relate to expressing yourself in the right way. And then if you express yourself in the right way, then the things that are intended will follow. Right. Well, and I think you’re pointing back there to the how to have humility and what to have humility about. Right. Because it’s that higher thing that you’re humbling yourself for. It’s that shared vision that you’re, quote, agreeing on. Right. And it’s in your participation, which is imperfect because you’re an imperfect person like everybody else that that is required. Right. And in order to be imperfect, you need humility. You need to you need to start from that premise like, oh, I’m going to instantiate this agreement poorly. Because what a choice do I have? I’m a flawed, broken human like everybody else. And the other person is going to do the same thing. And so we just need to be mindful of that. And what’s going to happen then? You are going to cooperate with others. Right. Which means together is go right and operate is is manifest in the being right. Like you’re you’re you’re operating a body right because you’re not you’re not the whole of it. And so now you have to re imagine your participation. Right. Because like now it’s not only you but but your with this order orderness like like whether it’s a group of people or an individual. And now the most use you can have isn’t manifest in your individuality. Right. Like it’s manifest in the cooperation. Right. And it’s a corpus right. Like it’s a body. And then you have to figure out like what body part right. Like what what is what is the means by which you are contributing to the body. It might not be one mean one way right. But you can only express one way at a time. And that that requires a different way of thinking. And again right like this there’s the second order effect. Right. So that body also has to act virtuously. And in a second order of fact it will manifest the things that that are necessary. Yeah. And that virtue. Yeah. Virtue is very much that higher thing that allows us the affordance or afford and says probably right to to actually manifest the participation that is will serve the purpose of the body. Is will say true agreement. And that that I think is the sort of where the rubber meets the road there. I guess not agreement unless you’re participating and you need to be able to manifest that. So you need this hierarchical frame where it’s not about you and it’s not about the other person and it’s not about you and the other person. And it’s not about you and the other person and the thing. There’s actual virtues involved. And those are above all of that actually above all of that. And I think just to kind of put more meat on the bones of of of kind of agreement as a word like there’s another space that that that word can have which is grateful and thankfulness. And I know that there was a stream done a while back on gratitude and how that relates as well to something like humility as well. I think you can’t let me let me just throw this out there. But I don’t think you can ever be grateful for a conversation where people are merely trying to to to placate one another. In fact, I think that’s that’s going to be that’s going to be viewed as a waste of time and maybe immediately afterwards, but certainly long afterwards is basically just wasted words because there was no embodiment. There was no. Yeah. Well, yeah. Or if you do see value in it, you’re severely misguided. Yeah. Yeah. And to that degree, you’re not you’re not giving thanks or being grateful properly or maybe maybe maybe even at all. Yeah, right. And so so there’s an implicit pointing at what’s motivating us. Right. Like in order to agree, like like Mark said, the motivation needs to come from above. If that is not what is motivating us, then we will end up in conflict. Right. Because there’s an anticipation on on the others that you cannot fulfill because you literally don’t see what what their what their expectation is because you literally don’t have eyes to see. Yeah. And that’s again like the same word like it’s it’s not just like it’s add gratas. That’s where it comes from in Latin. And that’s a prefix meaning to towards like something out there. So it’s not. Yeah, it’s it’s it’s directional in some sense. Is that related to grace as well? Yeah. Same same root word. Yeah. Yeah. Right. And if you if you can consider grace like this, this spirit, right, which which is manifesting the second order of facts, right. And if that that is the thing that holds your attention, I think that’s what the right relationship would be. So do we have other things to add or do we want to open it up for discussion? Well, why don’t we do a quick wrap up today because some people came in late and didn’t quite get the point of that because the beginning framing was missing. So you want to you want to do a summary manual and I’ll do one and we’ll have Adam do one and that way we’ll have three perspectives on the same on the same thing. OK, yeah, so I went into three basic things. One is the prerequisites of agreement. So you have to look at the same thing, you have to want the same thing and you have to be able to do it. Then there’s levels of agreement. They afford different levels of cooperation activity. And then there’s agreement as a tool, right. So you can agree with people to achieve things in the world. And there’s value to be had by using agreement like that. But it’s also corrupted. Like the nature of using agreement as a tool will inherently misalign you, right. Like it will put you out of true participation. And so then there’s dissonance created within within your relationship. There’s going to be a bill to be paid for actions like that. And we should be aware of that. And then all of that came together in this idea that OK, like the agreement is a second order effect of the way that we participate in the world, in the way that we cooperate. And we don’t get to decide whether we agree. It’s something that follows and is actually observable as a consequence of how we relate. Yeah, that was good. I like that. Yeah, I like to do different types of agreement. That was really useful. And yeah, I mean, I guess my summary would be when people are using the word agreement, they’re using it in the sense that I’m so glad Adam was here in the sense that Adam pointed out from the etymology where they’re they’re using it to placate or to please the other person rather than using it as a marker of participation or we’ll say true participation because the agreement is not with the person or with the point. The agreement is with the participation of the higher instantiation. And it and it we only fail in that when we’re flat worlders, when we reduce the world or we over compress things down to the horizontal. It’s all quantity or materialistic. Right. That’s when we basically can’t manifest agreement and participation or commune properly. And that’s really to me, that’s the important part. We’re just using it as a tool to either seem virtuous. Right. Or or or say, oh, I get what you mean. But really, the point is right or or or to placate the other person so you don’t have to be in conflict with them, which, you know, again, as I pointed out in my stories, that conflict is really helpful. Sometimes people just sometimes somebody will tell you, you know, you’re just wrong about this particular thing. And then that affords you the ability, you know, to the extent that you can do this on your own by yourself. And that actually affords you the ability to go ahead and instantiate your own process of appreciating and learning and changing and transforming so that the point that you thought you had you now own the opposite position or the opposite, maybe opposing position or different positions. Right. Conflict. That’s important. So, yeah. And you can see the communing just in this. So there’s three of us here. Right. Adam agreed last minute just because you have to be on the discord. Right. And it’s inputs been, of course, invaluable as Adam’s input always is. Right. And and so, you know, that that afforded us something, but we all had to agree to participate and put away our time. And some of us had to rush to do things like shower, eat lunch or get ready or run errands or whatever in order to find a common time slot. We could do this then. So that’s that’s the that’s the manifestation of the agreement is us being here doing this particular live stream. And Adam, go ahead and take us away with your with your thoughts before we open it up to anybody who wants to jump in. OK. And my thoughts are a little bit more scattered on it, but I was I was kind of listening in on on what was. Yeah. On on the use of the word communion. And the word the word I use was something like something like a behavioral cycle when it comes to people engaging in mere and placation. And I’m trying to make the connection levels of agreement. I’m I’m I’m I agree. But I think there’s there’s there’s something there’s something more in the vertical dimension. There’s something to be said for sacrifice and and also conflict because you had conflict was mentioned. And I I wonder about the use of the term. This is a term that might people might be familiar with is opponent processing and how I think that actually might be the enemy of any any and all true. True agreement, because if you’re always in conflict and in participation, I think things will always tend to actually know community community at all because communion all that communion means not all. But certainly part of what that means is buildings, building something or building something together. And so I think I’ll just leave it at that. Yeah. And opposition is inherently non-generative. Yes. Right. So opposition is zero sum. Zero sum is necessary sometimes because sometimes people are evil and they need to renounce their ways. But if if if you want to commune, right, which would be generated, you cannot have the spirit of opposition because the spirit of opposition is disallowing the generation of something. Yeah. All right, Manuel, you want to you want to paste in the link and invite everybody in and see if anybody wants to jump in and discuss this topic a little bit further or deeper or whatever. I tried to address all the current comments at the moment. So feel free to ask questions or put in comments and we’ll we’ll do our best to address them as you know, this is a new topic for us kind of. And like I said, it did come up as the result of the Render’s United Livestream. But it was quite a bit of agreement that wasn’t manifesting in the communion and participation of the participants there, the people who are present, trying to pretend to be participants in any case. Yeah, we’d love to get feedback. Anybody wants to come on on camera and and chat this up or anybody in the chat who wants to ask a more specific question. I thought we did a good job with the examples to which usually be stuck out. So thanks, Adam. It’s good to have Adam here. I think I think I want to maybe bring in an extra dimension here while we wait. I think trust like Fandaclay is really hard. You need to first build trust, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. No, right. Like trust is a second order effect of the communion. Right. So what is what he’s trying to do is he’s trying to synthesize or magic communion. And then then the trust will follow. But I think I think that’s inferred. Like I think if you’re participating in the right spirit, like the trust is just there. Like it’s all you have to bring it. Well, you have to bring it right. Like if I want to share a meal with somebody, I have to trust they’re not a serial killer and I’m going to break. So you have to bring the trust. It’s not some third thing that kind of like, you know, hocus pocus abracadabra, a trust. And then you can just kind of apply that. It’s like, no, you have to you have to generate it and manifest it yourself. And look, the problem with trust is sometimes you you make a mistake. And so there’s a great there’s a great and actually it comes up twice in the best science fiction series of all time, like seven, there’s this great line about he he who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken. And it’s like, oh, and it comes up in two different episodes. Yeah. And it’s like, oh, that’s so interesting. And in both ways, in the positive sense and in the negative sense, which I thought was just fantastic, because the person who said it, her entire planet gets wiped out. Yeah. Oh, wow. Because they trusted somebody. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so it’s it’s a very stark lesson. It’s one of the reasons why I love like seven and sort of reasons why it’s the best science fiction show of all time. It’s one of those stark lessons that you that you get out of that. It’s like, yeah, these these things you think are solutions to a problem are not. They’re just tools. And the fact that you have a tool doesn’t mean you have a solution, because if you have a nail and you have a screwdriver, you have a tool, but it’s not going to help you with the nail. And so you and some things you have to bring or manifest or create yourself and bring to the party. They’re not like trust isn’t going to like come at you from the outside and then enable you to do things. That’s definitely not the way that works. And it’s important to kind of understand that and embrace that, because otherwise you’re going to be barking up the wrong tree. Yeah, I agree. And so I think I think what’s being talked about is it’s not so much trust, but enchantment. Right. So there’s because if if we’re in the right spirit together or whatever, right, like a cozy spirit, then getting along seems natural within the spirit. But like I don’t think that what happens there is trust. It’s it’s it’s seduction. And to mistake seduction for trust is actually, I think, a grave mistake, because because I don’t I don’t I don’t think seduction is burning anything like I don’t. It’s it’s a temporal invoked state that allows you to manipulate it in into a direction. And it’s it’s not actual trust. I think actual trust is based upon the recognition of something real and true within the participation of the other. Yeah. And I want to address this, Mills. I was wondering when trust was going to come in. So I think discussing hidden agendas is worth talking about. So it’s interesting, Mills, because we kind of did. Right. We said people can say they find agreement. Right. But then proceed as if nothing has changed. So, again, if if if if somebody says, well, this thing happened. Right. Like if somebody says, well, clearly, you know, the the the the United States doesn’t interfere in elections in other countries and somebody else says, yes. But don’t you think it’s suspicious that they’re the ones that sold the voting machines and the people who set up and configured the voting machines with CIA operatives might indicate that you’re wrong. And they say, well, I agree that that happens. And they continue with their thesis. There’s their hidden agenda. Now, is there hidden agenda conscious? Probably not. And that’s, you know, that’s important to note. Like, not all people are rational and evil. Right. A lot of evil manifests as the result of them not being conscious of what’s going on around them. And that’s the problem. And OK, so so there’s the follow on from Mills. Is my time, energy and attention to going to wind up supporting harming people, scapegoating, et cetera, that sort of concern? Well, look, first of all, I’m not I’m not I’m not with Jonathan Pigeot in that scapegoats are bad or anything. I actually think they’re inevitable, but different discussion. So, yeah, I mean, look, your your time, energy and attention goes to whatever you put it towards. And so if you try to put it towards, we’ll say something about a virtue, right, where your your cause and your reasoning is virtuous, then the fact that the other person isn’t being virtuous is not a concern anymore because you’re putting your time, energy, attention where it belongs. Is that going to work? Is it going to have the end effect that you want? Maybe not. And again, we can point back at that conversation on Randall’s United where it was clear that there were there were disagreements in terms of what was manifesting and how. Right. And there were disagreements about how to see what had happened. But there was no communion around the things that actually happened. Like, it’s a video. You can watch it. You can see that people weren’t treated unfairly, that people were greeted and that they were asked to share. And you can see that it wasn’t like me doing all the things that happened. Right. And that some of the things that I did, other people also did, which might, you know, and I don’t like the, you know, the, the, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the things that happened. you know, the sort of agreement through intersubjective means, right? But it is an indicator. And that’s part of the problem, is that there’s an indication that if a bunch of people are being inviting and being welcoming in different ways and that’s not working, that maybe that the problem is not that, right? The problem is something else. And it’s not even necessarily implementation of that. And so, again, I think this comes out. And what you need to worry about is your time energy attention what you put it towards, right? Because I’ve spent lots of time energy attention of mine putting it towards manifesting a bunch of things. And a lot of them haven’t worked out. Some of that’s clearly rebellious audience that I’m speaking to at some points. But some of it’s other things too. And that’s sort of worth understanding, is that there’s disagreement going on when it’s stated as agreement. And that’s a big problem. Dan Smith, culturally people of similar pasts commune together and are closed off mostly to opposing paths. Yeah, sometimes. I am not sure of the best way to overcome, eliminate diverse cultural systems and paths. Well, look, diversity is inevitable. And some of it’s good. And that’s where everyone’s upset. They can’t tell good diversity from bad diversity or the right amount of diversity from the wrong amount of diversity. And then you get Paris on fire. Hold on. I want to go into that because there’s an interesting… I wanted to continue his… It does continue, right? For example, both Russia and Ukraine have the goal of having their country strong. I disagree. Big enough. I disagree. And protected. I thoroughly disagree. Yet they’re engaged in a war with each other. This is a prime example of a mis-framing. Ukraine was shooting rockets into Ukraine since 2014. That happened. That was still happening. That was always happening. Now, you can argue, oh, well, that was just Russia. But A, that doesn’t make any sense since it was happening. And it also doesn’t make any sense that since 2014, if that was happening, why didn’t Ukraine do anything about it? Because they really kind of didn’t. They could have joined NATO. They could have asked for help. They could have done a bunch of things. They didn’t do it. So there was a disunity there. Ukraine’s not a country. Ukraine’s never been a country. Ukraine is never going to be a country. And Ukraine is never going to have been a country. It was always this split region. It’s true genetically. There’s three different cultures there. It’s true physically. It’s just maybe four. Three genetically. There might be four cultures ultimately. And there may be a fifth forming, but it’s not formed. And so there’s all sorts of reasons why that’s not actually true, why that’s actually bad framing. So I did want to address that. But go ahead, Manuel. You can go back to the previous comment or however you want to. Yeah, yeah. So like opposing paths, right? I think most of people, cultural community are on their path and then there’s not their path. Right? So I think that’s fundamentally the distinction that they’re making. Right? Like us and not us. And the opposition frame is almost never there. Like when is there an opposition frame? Well, the opposition frame comes in when there’s the sense of oppression. Right? So if you say that there’s this group or probably better said class at this point, right? Like there’s this class of people because they’re not unified, but they’re distinguished by a characteristic. Right? So they’re classified. They’re not unified. There’s a class of people that have this way of self-expression and this way of self-expression is inhibiting our group’s self-expression. Right? And that’s where you start going into the opposition path. And I think when we’re talking about Russia and Ukraine, I don’t think Russia and Ukraine were in opposition. Like I don’t think that was a real thing. The opposition came when the integration with the West was happening. So there is the choosing of a path, the choosing of an identity is threatening another identity. And then that has to be resolved in a way. Right? Like that can either be resolved by acquiescing, by feigning agreement because there’s not an actual agreement there. Or there can be a show of force or threat of force. Right? And like when you threaten force, now you’re in a different place. Right? Because like if people are not going to follow your threats, either you’re going to be a hypocrite or you’re going to have to act it out. And so like that’s a really dangerous place. And when you’re playing games in that dangerous place, then bad things will happen. Well, and I do want to address this, Dan. I get your point about your bad example, but again, what if all your examples are bad? And so with that, I will show you bad examples. So both of this, brothers are always fighting brothers. Well, not always. They did during the Civil War in the United States, for example. We can kind of go into some of that if you want. Russia and Ukraine are not brothers. It’s four different cultures. And the reason why parts of Russia or parts of Ukraine were firing rockets into parts of Ukraine is because they are not brothers. And it’s bizarre because there’s two or three different languages being spoken at the same time, which is a good indication that there’s, you know, that and the strange thing with Ukraine for me is that I unbeknownst to me knew a bunch of Ukrainians, but none of them ever told me they were Ukrainian. They all told me they were Russian until the war broke out, which is a really weird thing to do because people from other countries with that problem, there was a guy, Teddy on VOM used to regularly tell everybody, well, I’m in Israel now, but that’s not where I’m from. So he would double identify. And there’s nothing wrong with, well, I’m a Ukrainian identifying as Russian or whatever. But they didn’t do that. They just didn’t talk about Ukraine as though it was some kind of stain on their existence until the war. And then there’s a reason. Right. And so Catholic with Protestants are not brothers. OK. And there’s a deep asymmetry between Catholics and Protestants, namely the Protestants literally, actually, and not all of them, but most of them, from what I can tell, literally have their children in school write essays about the evil of the Catholics. OK. The Catholics never do this with the Protestants ever. They just don’t have that attitude. They’re not brothers. They’re not the same. You can’t equate them because they are that significantly different. Sunnis and other Islamic clubs. I mean, look, doctrinal differences are differences. And that’s because they can’t get to an agreement in participation. And so they can say, we agree on all these things. Right. But the agreement and participation is important. That’s why I’ve said to Paul Van Der Klem many, many times. The problem with Christians is that they can’t agree on the things they agree on. They can’t say, no, no, no, no, no, no. Here are the things we absolutely have in common. We are going to set aside all the all the disagreements and participate on the things we have in common. That would change the world overnight. But they all refuse to do it, despite the fact that I’ve told them multiple times on many, many streams and videos on many, many channels that that’s what needs to happen. And they could do that tomorrow if they weren’t so busy arguing. And that’s like a feigning agreement. Right. They’re feigning agreement. They’re faking the agreement. Oh, we agree on all these things, but also, this doctrine is terrible. And, you know, oh, look at the Orthodox. Even they don’t like your Catholic doctrine. And it’s interesting the Catholics don’t actually engage in any of that. Incidentally, might be worth nor to the Orthodox, to be fair, might be worth noting. And then I want to deal with Dan Smith’s example here. Maybe a better example would be two grocery stores across from each other, their goals being shared. They don’t have shared goals, dude. I don’t know what to tell you. So they don’t even have shared operating procedures. Like, businesses do not all have the same goal. Like some business, there’s a whole class of businesses called nonprofits that don’t they don’t they cannot legally have profit as a motive. And they don’t actually have profits. And so they don’t share anything. And charities, charities don’t share anything in common with profit and nonprofit businesses, even though they’re all businesses, they’re all types of businesses. And so I think we very much get caught up in making a false equivalency and then say, aha, here’s an equivalency. And really, there are significant differences. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Right. Like different different people are in business for different reasons. Like the guy who runs Table Rock Tea up here in South Carolina, Pickens, which is right on the North Carolina border, way up in the mountains, basically, or at the foothills of the mountains. Their reason for being in business is very, very different from, let’s say, every other business in the area. Because they’re very committed to getting proceeds donated to their charity, which is a charity that they funded that they founded that helps people drill water wells in Africa and other places, I believe. And like he patented and gave away the patent for a drilling technique that that’s easily transportable in carry on luggage or checked in luggage or something. And is repairable in the field, because, you know, if you give somebody a nice modern drill, that’s wonderful until it breaks down or needs parts. And then when you’re in the middle of the freaking jungle in Africa, it doesn’t work so well anymore. Right. Or South America or Asia, wherever. Right. And so those are very different goals from, say, the goals of something like like Merck. And Merck is a wonderful company in some aspect because they made the river blindness drug. I think it is free. They just free. We’re going to produce this for free. We’re not going to charge anybody for it. Right. We’re just now. Now, the problem was they were like, it’s here in California. And, of course, all the people with river blindness are in Africa, roughly speaking. So somebody had to build a charity to put together a distribution network and do all the other things right to make that happen. But in some ways, Table Rock Tea and Merck are very similar, even in there, because Table Rock, as far as I know, is not a not for profit business either. Right. They’re trying to make some money, although the amount of money they make is minuscule compared to Merck, certainly. But their goals are very, very different. And that’s the problem is that you have these deep differences that you’re not recognizing because you can always find something in common and always find something to say agrees. And then you don’t see the differences anymore. Yeah. And I think what we’re talking about is, well, like, how much agreement do we have? Right. Because the agreement that we have allows or borders of the cooperation that we can have. And so we have two options. We can look at can we cooperate or we can look at our disagreements. But if our disagreements between the Protestants and the Catholics, for example, are mainly of a nature that doesn’t have a pragmatic implementation, because like if there’s even disagreements, right, like like disagreements on that nature should should not be relevant to manifesting something on Earth that is shared. And having a cooperation in that. And when when you have an identity that that’s literally embedded in protest, right, which would be identification against right or identification in turning away, then that is that is problematic. And it’s like like the same thing goes for the two stores. Right. It’s like, well, like, is this door looking for profit or is this door looking to provide for the community? Right. As like, well, as long as as their their highest goal is to provide for the community, then they can commune around providing for the community. And they’re not in they don’t have to be in disagreement. Right. Like they can choose specializations. They can coordinate specialization or whatever. But there’s also similar goals. So one of the things that sort of took me off guard, so I live in a two horse town. It’s very cute. I love my town. It’s fantastic. And in the two horse town, there’s a grocery store. There’s a couple of groceries. I think there’s like two, like there’s like two grocery stores around here somewhere. And they’re, you know, moderate size grocery stores. Down the street in the in the city, there are big grocery stores in the cities. The outskirts and cities are not that far away because it’s a huge city. Columbia is an enormous, enormous area. But, you know, I often go to the one that’s closer to my house that’s in my little town here. And one day I go I go there and there’s all of this set up and there’s a line and there’s people set up giving away bags of food. This is like 200 feet from the big grocery store. 200 feet. There’s no conflict there. They’re both in the business of providing food for people. Now, you could argue, well, people are going to drive up to the grocery store and most of them will because there are driveways the other way. But this is the driveway from the main drag through town, Route 1, the main drag, right? Like the big road. And right there you turn in and boom. And part of the reason why it’s there is because town hall such as it is or maybe that town hall at the police station and such are right there. The little tiny buildings. Two horse town. It’s quite quaint. It’s very adorable. So there’s this big giveaway of food in front of a grocery store. Right. Now, what do you think the odds are that the grocery store is actually coming out and bringing some of its profitable food and giving it to that cause? 100 percent. I guarantee you it’s 100 percent. The store managers have a lot of power and people like to do good things for other people because it makes them feel good, even if they’re not good people, by the way, which is something to watch out for. And so there’s no inherent conflict there. Right. Even though you could go, well, one’s for profit and these other guys are giving stuff away. And look, I’m sure the grocery store not only donated a lot of food that day and therefore didn’t manifest its full profit potential, which is not the same as having a loss. Those are two different things. Right. But also had an actual loss from people going, oh, yeah, I’m poor. Give me free food. And then not go into the grocery store and actually paying for food. I’m sure that happened. I’m sure that happened. Right. But so what? Like they found a way to agree and participate in their agreement. And it was beautiful. And I think that’s the right attitude to have towards it. Right. And so what are we talking about? We’re talking about a bunch of framing. Like, OK. Like, if we go back to the Russia Ukraine conflict, it’s like, well, Russia is trying to achieve one thing. NATO is trying to achieve another thing. Ukraine is trying to achieve a third thing. And they didn’t manage to put them in relationship in a way that they could communicate and commune. And then that blew up. And so, like, it’s important to make this concession. I posted a tweet today that was about the ability to recognize the fact that the Russian Ukraine conflict is happening. The ability to recognize that there needs to be a coherence within whatever group of people that you want to manifest something in. And that coherence needs to come from something that is shared. And if we don’t maintain the coherence, how are we going to manifest anything in the world anymore? Like, it’s not possible. And these people, they’re so jaded, like, they’re so full of envy that they’re not willing to grant the opposition or the other interest group, because that’s a better way to frame it, because you don’t have to put it in. Like, there’s another interest that needs something, and they’re not willing to give it to the interest. And it’s like, well, like, if you’re not willing to give it to the interest, now you’re losing common ground. And you’re imposing the zero-sum situation at that point. And then it’s like, okay, like, if you want to impose a zero-sum situation, now we’re in the realm of violence, because, like, I’m going to have to protect what is mine. Yeah, and that is actually somewhat a good example. I mean, I think the problem with Ukraine was it was being used as a football by both sides. And the one side got tired of losing the football game and said, look, there’s a problem here, and it needs to be resolved, and you’re not resolving it. And even though we sort of took Crimea as a message, the message didn’t get through, and it was ignored for eight years. It’s like, well, if you’re going to ignore a message like that for eight years, you kind of get what you deserve to some extent. You kind of get yourself in trouble in some significant fashion. And that’s a problem, because now you’re in trouble in some significant fashion. And that’s not good for anybody, really. That’s where the problem comes in, is that, yeah, there’s an issue here. And that issue is that you’re laundering money through this thing and you’re using it for your own political gain, United States, and for political manipulation of your own country, which isn’t good for us, by the way, as the United States. So I’m kind of like, Russia’s doing what’s right for the United States to some extent. Oh, we may disagree about that, but there’s a way to see it that way. That’s absolutely true. And at the same time, there’s a problem in that, how do you resolve that? What do you do about that? Because the Russian-speaking sections of Ukraine have all the resources, maybe except half of the farming or something. And so what does that mean? Again, I’m not saying I’m smart enough to understand any of this stuff, but you can see where the problems are and you can see where the lack of agreement is, because war is a good example of something that doesn’t end with more war. And war doesn’t end war. What ends war is negotiation. And negotiation is finding agreement, or a better way to put it, maybe. Finding a way to commune together in spite of a conflict that can’t be resolved except through force. And so it’s always wise to try to do something about that. Yeah. Well, I’ll… Oh, you want to go? Well, I just want to say on that front, that’s why conflict is sometimes necessary. But this is an old adage with history and war. You get so many quotes of… Even to the point of saying, I would prefer an unjust peace rather than a just war. If you’re avoiding conflict too much to some degree, that’s probably going to end in conflict anyways. But if you’re… If you’re avoiding conflict to that degree, the conflict is going to come anyways. The point being is that it’s trying to, I would say, optimize your path through that. So you can, let’s say, minimize conflict rather than have no conflict at all, because that’s unlikely to happen. Yeah, that’s all I’d say. Well, I did want to address this, Dan. I think you’re going to have a hard time here. I’ll try one more example. Extreme right, bad framing. And extreme left, more bad framing, false binary. Both have the shared goal. No, they don’t have any shared goals of protecting children. The left does not want to protect children. There aren’t a bashed about this. It’s like saying, Foucault was a good person. No, Foucault was not a good person. Like Foucault didn’t want to protect children. He wanted to change the law so that children could be preyed on by him, for example. There’s a lefty for you. However, paths are so diverse. No, their paths are not diverse. Their goals aren’t shared. Solving their conflicting path is very challenging. It’s not challenging at all because they don’t have shared goals. I think that is what it is. The difference that people are noticing when they talk about extreme right and extreme left, or even right and left, which again, is a false dichotomy, for sure. I’ve gone over this on my channel on navigating patterns. Please see my video on binaries. They’re all false. And that’s the problem, is that it is evident that the left doesn’t want to care about children. It is evident because on the one hand, they’ll talk about consent, and we’ll say college-age people. We’re not even at children. We’re at college-age people. And on the other hand, they say, no, no, no. Anybody should be allowed to do whatever they want when they’re four or five or eight or whatever, much lower number. Now, normally, the number wouldn’t matter, except in this case, we’re talking about the development of humans. And so on the one hand, the left will talk about when something’s not a human and when something is a human. And in the latest meme that was so apropos, somebody owned themselves on the left by saying, not a human in the belly, but a human when they emerged from the birth canal, which I just thought was like, do you understand what you’re saying? Do you even… The birth canal is not a magical device that conveys humanity upon you when you go through it. That’s definitely a little woo. The autonomous suction of oxygen, is it, Marc? Like you’re mispronouncing it. Oh, is that what it is? Yeah, my bad. It’s the magical oxygen molecule. Right. And it’s not like there’s oxygen flowing in your blood that gets to the baby first. No, but that’s inherited from the mom. Like there’s an autonomy that happens. Right. So you can see these inherent conflicts. Right. And so what you really have when you’re talking about left and right is the fact that there is a difference of goals, right? But on one side, the goals are more or less the same. And on the other side, the goals aren’t the same. They’re all different goals. So… So… So… So… So… So… So… So… So… So… Well, hold on. Let me just plug my other video, right? You get into the three great religions, right? Which is a video on navigating patterns where you have the religion of climate, which conflicts with the religion of race, which conflicts with the religion of safety. And I mean, there’s more than three, obviously, but you can see there’s conflicts in all of these. Now, they all look like they’re on the same size because they’re opposed to the same thing, which is the current world order or however you want to frame it. Or we’ll say structures are the current institutions, but they don’t want the same things at all. And so in one way, they’re a group that they’re a group creating chaos. And in another way, they’re not a group because they don’t actually have the same goals. Sorry, Manuel. Go ahead. Yeah. So I think it’s important to realize that what the left is pursuing is freedom, right? So there’s this… It’s not libertarian. Liberal, right? Liberal in the sense of liberating. So they’re trying to liberate you from oppression, right? So what does that look like? Well, if I’m a woman, I need to be liberated from the oppression of the child that is in my belly. If I’m a child, I need to be liberated from the oppression of my parents. If I’m in a high school, I need to be liberated from the oppression of the guys that have sacked me when I’m drunk and then I feel bad about it the next day because I was drunk and I couldn’t make proper decisions, right? So you need to be liberated from all of these impositions from the world. And it’s like, well, yeah, but the fact that there’s another side to that equation, right? And maybe they also need protection or… Is getting ignored, right? And so they’re not for children. They’re for liberation. They’re literally fighting the idea of constraint, of responsibility, of imposition. They think these things are evil and they see the state as a means to protect you, to shelter you from these forces that are deemed corrupting because they stop you from manifesting whatever psychosis you have in your head because that’s what reality does, right? Reality objects to you trying to do things that don’t work and they’re trying to remove all the things that stop, the things that don’t work so that people who think things that don’t work don’t feel bad. Like that’s literally everything that they’re doing. Well, right. I wanna boost Lin’s signal here, right? Lin LeVoy, the left doesn’t understand there is a problem about protecting children. They just don’t see it and therefore there will never be agreement. That’s right. They’ll never come to a communion on it because they think their problem, which is constraints, right? Or consequence or the possibility of consequence is the only problem. And therefore all people should be freed from constraint and consequence. But of course, children can’t be freed and it’s not healthy to free them from constraint or consequence for that matter. And then I wanna boost Lin again. Liberalism is a baby boomer framing. It may be dying with the boomer generation and the thing that I like to tell people about liberalism is that the idea of liberalism is a bad frame all by itself because it doesn’t have anything that it’s grounded in. And so if you’re free from everything, there’s no constraints, right? Then it’s not freedom anymore. You’re just floating around in nothing, right? And so it doesn’t make any sense. And the reason why when Jordan Peterson uses classical liberal, it’s important because he’s saying, I have a liberal attitude based in the classics. So literally the classics as in Aristotle and Plato, right? And the classic Western canon, which is all pretty much informed by Christian thought and pre-Christian thought in some sense. All the Christians would say that’s also Christian thought because they’re weird about time. Fair enough, right? Or Judeo-Christian thought might be a better way to say it than we can loop in the Jews. They’re good guys. And all of that is based in that framework. And then liberation within that framework not only makes sense, but like there’s a there there for sure. The liberal ethic is coming from the French Revolution, right? Which is where they went and started to liberate themselves from basically the oppression of the king. And we’re now in like sixth wave liberalism or like however you want to count it. So it’s a slippery slope, right? All these people, they think, oh yeah, we can just take this step. And then they don’t see that this step will make a new status quo. And then the only thing that can happen in the status quo is take the next step because that’s what the liberal ethic is. And it’s like so thank you for agreeing with the title of the stream. Also, oppression does look different, but also it isn’t different because there’s something from above which is more powerful than you. And you’re going to have to submit. So bye. Well, I like bubble viz, aquarius harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding. No more falsehoods or derisions. Golden living dreams and visions, mystic crystal revelation, and the mind’s true liberation. Liberation from what, right? When people say freedom, what they’re actually saying, if you listen really carefully with their framing, is they’re saying I want to be free from constraint and consequences. That’s what they want to be free from. Unfortunately, reality is both of those things. Reality is the thing that gives you consequences and provides you constraints in the world. And so that’s the problem. Yeah, bubble viz, think of that song. It’s a good song here. And yeah, here we go. Mills, my children are not at liberty to play in traffic. And it’s important that they are. Right. And that’s where we can get some agreement and participation. If your children try to play in traffic around me, I’m also going to stop them, sir. Even though they are not my children. And I understand the danger in that. And if I get punished for it, because I transgressed, somehow so be it. And that’s really important. And yeah, I mean, I did put in a link about the French Revolution. It’s a great track that Adam and I did on navigating patterns. It was really important because it does speak to what Manuel was talking about. Right. Which is, yeah, the French Revolution is this great misunderstanding of the American Revolution or maybe it’s a rebellion. Right. And because of that, literally, we have all this weird unfolding. And it did start in Europe. And then there’s the video frontier of ideas. I don’t want to spam the chat with all the videos on navigating patterns you should watch. But that’s important, too, because that talks about how Europe is following an impression of the US and the US is following an impression of Europe. And they’re both following illusions. And they both think they’re following each other. But in fact, neither of those things is happening. There’s more like a spirit manifesting in the middle. Yeah. Yeah. And what I’d say about the French Revolution as well, in this context of liberalism and liberation or freedom, rather, it’s more properly framed as liberation. You want to address this directly? Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Is there a difference between freedom and liberty? So I mean, I’d even go as far to say liberation, Frankenstein, because liberation, you can connect that to liberalism. And liberalism, in some sense, as we were talking about there, is basically removal of any and all constraints. That can be placed on a person, which requires a denial or an ignorance of reality to a large degree. Whereas freedom, let’s say, properly understood is something like the phrase, and this is pre-French Revolution, everyone knew this as either liberty or liberation or freedom or any of these words. It would have been something like a man, a man or people. A man has as many masters as he has vices. So it’s a matter of character rather than a matter of these external things that are happening. It’s not that they don’t exist, but that it begins from there. So it wasn’t a political term. It wasn’t applying to groups and governments. It was applying to an individual’s relationship with virtues and values. Yeah. Which is where vices come from, right? Vices don’t make any sense outside of the framing of virtues and values. Yeah. And I also want to say, look, this is easy in some sense. I hate that these things are easy and everybody hates easy answers because they’re like, no, there’s all these smart people that thought about it and they missed this. Yeah, they did. I hate the, yeah, they did. They missed it, right? Liberty to the people who were liberating themselves in the United States, and this is something I can speak about because I actually did study this, right? Meant liberty from the tyranny of the Parliament of England, not just the King, right? And that’s actually super important. Again, if you want to know more, I put the link in for French Revolution. Of course, Adam and I, in a week and a half, for a couple of weeks, we’re going to do another, and we’re going to actually go backwards in time and talk about monarchy and the importance of that and the difference between, say, monarchy in Europe and the fact that we don’t have a monarchy in the United States or anything like it, right? But it’s really important because liberty to them meant they were throwing off the constraints of one system, which was the arbitrary Parliament that they didn’t have any say in, for the constraints of a different system, which was a, what was it? It was a Senate, or I’m sorry, a Congress, a court, and an executive, all three, right, of their own choosing, right? Or one that they had a say in. So, and unless you read American Nations by Colin Woodard, you have no idea, like zero concept of how different the colonies were and what the hell was going on and how many different groups had completely different political philosophies and ideologies at play, and yet they all agreed, and this is something Adam and I went over. It’s weird because you’ve got England and you’ve got France and they’ve got spots, and they’re like writing back to the country saying, any minute now, this whole constitution and this declaration of independence is going to crumble. This is 25 years later. It’s going to crumble. It’s days away, and then you’ll be able to move your armies in. Both countries believed this, both of them, and it never happened, right? And that’s because they didn’t understand the fundamental difference of the concept of liberty, and that’s also where, again, the misunderstanding of the French Revolution comes in. Liberty! Liberty went over for the king like those weird colonists over there in North America did, and they didn’t understand any of it. Of course, that’s what leads to Napoleon, and Napoleon is this terrible tyrant and just misunderstands everything, right? Yeah, absolutely. There’s a lot going on there, but yeah, definitely there’s something different. There’s something specifically different about America as it relates to constraints within its institutions, and definitely two different conceptions of freedom. And maybe also two different conceptions of agreement? Yes. Yeah, because the agreement in the United States is to the constitution, and we are the first ones to really have that in that way, even though you can argue that the Netherlands had something very similar first, but they still have that continental philosophical tradition of top-down power from above, which I’m not even saying is wrong or worse or anything. I’m just saying it’s different, right? And then I want to address Dan. If I understand, I think you mean correctly, that George Washington had an option to serve his king as America decided otherwise. No, I think if you read the papers, the Federalist Papers, kings were outlawed, and there’s actually a great argument that is really important that we never had in this country about whether or not there was an amendment ratified that said, if you hold the title of any kind, including barrister or lawyer, you cannot serve in the government at any level. And that was there for a reason. So the anti-kingness was established right in the founding documents, long before they were written, like wrong before the Declaration of Independence was written. They’re like, we’re never having a king, screw that. And the reason why wasn’t because the king failed to protect them from the parliament. Adam and I are going to go into this in two weeks. It’s going to be great because once you understand what happened in England that led to the fact that people left to some extent, and then you start to understand, oh, there’s a significant difference here between how we conceive of that and how Europe conceives of it, and how people have been taught it, because that’s actually super important. And I want to connect this to the virtues of values, right? So like all of these systems, they’re coming from an age which was deeply religious. These people had high standards in upholding virtues and values within society. And so there’s a bunch of stuff that’s written down, and then there’s a bunch of stuff that was implicit in how people cooperate, right? Like there was an agreement around how to be, what being was. And what we’re seeing now is that the human capital that these systems require to run upon has been degraded, and there’s now no longer an agreement of what true participation in a political office should look like. And then we end up with the corruption, right? And then we end up with people pursuing financial interests, people pursuing ideology, people pursuing a whole bunch of things which are not the protection of the interest of the nation. So you can see this with the globalist agenda, right? So for example, when we’re looking at the Netherlands, right, like what is happening now is that there’s a bunch of movements which are asking the Dutch nation, or better yet a subset of the Dutch nation, to sacrifice for the world as such, right? So like that’s not an action based in the national interest, and actually it’s an action based, what I learned is a Calvinist inheritance of moral superiority and being the shiny city on the hill, right? So one of the self-identifications of the Netherlands that is still inherited from the past is that we’re moral leaders of the world, and moral leaders are supposed to make the sacrifice. They’re supposed to be the first over the line, and they’re so zealous in this way of viewing the world that they’re willing to sacrifice their own people to do this, and in an important way transgress their obligations as a leader, because they’re supposed to protect the interest of the people and not the interest of the world. Right, well I want to catch up on comments, but I live in a country that has a king, King William Alexander, I don’t know what country that is. After the Second World War, our queen even nationalized our central bank. Only a queen can do such a thing. Yes, yeah, to some extent that’s true, and I did want to correct this. Frankenstein, Christian framed, liberation from sin, freedom to sin. I would argue it’s not Christian framing, but it is religious framing. I would argue that lots of religion have something like that type of framing, and that’s actually really important, and you are correct. His troops begged him to be king, right, in the middle of the pitch battles. That is true, and he did decline. Rightly so, by the way, because nobody wanted a king at that point, because the king failed to protect the colonies from the Parliamentary Stamp Act, which was a tax not on tea, but on all trade in the colonies, all trade, like actually to get any goods and services from any other place in the colonies. It was a big deal. Stamps were everywhere, and stamps were just, you know, actual physical stamps. They weren’t like lick them and stick them on an envelope stamps, although sometimes they were, but usually they were mineral. There’s a wax seal, right, or there’s at least an ink thing that goes on, right, in a particular pattern, but it affected all of trade in the colonies. So it made everything more expensive all at once. So even if you can argue it was a small tax, it was designed to pay for a bunch of defense. So you may think it was a small tax, but it was actually designed to pay for a war that had happened in the past, or expenses to a war that was ongoing, which was part of a larger war, by the way. And so it wasn’t meant to be an insignificant amount of money or an insignificant burden on the colonies, and that’s why it wasn’t. And that’s why they said, no, hell no, we’re not doing this. And found ways around it, one of which was dumping tea in the harbor to let the parliament know we’re not giving the East India Company, because I think that’s who it was at the time, more money just because you want us to, and they’re going to pay you some percentage of it, you know, to pay for a war. We’re not doing that. They were going for the sort of Caesar aspect, but it’s interesting to note that it’s a letter given to Washington or whatever, and his troops are asking him. Ostensibly, these are men who are very much interested in the kind of the where America’s going at that time, the colonies are going. And in some sense, Washington is also trying to go in that direction. But then this is a good example of disagreeing on the way there. He’s saying like, yes, to where you want to go, like, I get it. You want stability, you want a place where you aren’t subject to tyranny. And you’re willing to fight for that. And you’re willing. Yeah. And you’re right. So the sacrifice is there. However, like, no, no, no, King, that’s just not that’s not good, or at least I’m not going to be your king. So let’s let’s figure out a different way. Oh, Manuel, bubble this is very true, Manuel. There was a debate about it in parliament today, debating about a giant fund for climate change. Yes, a giant fund which will set us back economically for a 0.001 degree world temperature. It’s crazy. Well, that’s assuming that they’re right and they’re not. No, no, he missed a zero. He missed a zero. It missed a zero. Yeah, it’s right. Right. Wow. No, he missed two zeros. Maybe. Yeah, it’s so insignificant. It’s not even worth debating at some point. And that’s assuming they’re right, which, you know, they probably are. Dan Smith, July 4th, 1776, second Continental Congress unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence, right? And then Washington took his oath of office, right? But by then the the Federalist Papers, if you’ve ever read them, you know, or skimmed them or whatever, make it pretty clear there wasn’t going to be no king. It wasn’t going to happen because again, the principle of kingship had left them down. And this is what led to the revolutionary idea that was totally new in practice, not in theory, because England had tried to do it with the Magna Carta, of having a constitution and appealing to that. And you can be cynical about that all you want, but actually a bunch of people used it during, we’ll say, the fake news virus scam, the scandemic that recently happened, where, you know, whole sheriffs who are also elected in some states were saying, yeah, I know the governor signed this executive order, but, and they came on TV and said, we’re not enforcing it, so you can ignore it. Literally, and that happened in Virginia, happened in other places too, but Virginia is the most notable because Virginia made the news. Like the sheriff was like, yeah, the governor signed this order, and we’re going to make sure that that order isn’t carried out. And we appeal to the Constitution because we think it’s unconstitutional. So it’s not an issue of the president, it’s not an issue of the governor, it’s an issue for the Constitution. And of course, good luck arguing with the Constitution. And that’s sort of important, right? And yeah, the Magna Carta, this is where Carl Benjamin, Sagan Avakad, flipped. He used to say all the time, oh, we didn’t need the Magna Carta, it’s fine. And post-fake news virus scam, he’s like, nope, we need a document to appeal to. Look at the Americans, they had one, it worked out great. We need a document to appeal to so that we can say no to the cops, and there’s nothing anybody can do. And all the cops will do is go, well, it’s between the document and my boss, and so maybe I need to stay out of it. Or maybe there’s a limit to how far I’ll go. And yeah. So actually, that tension was also manifested in the Netherlands. And I know that there was a court that ruled that effectively in a state of emergency, the executive should be able to execute without being inhibited by the court. Right? So they appealed to the authority of the government to say that there’s a state of emergency so that they couldn’t challenge the actions of the government. Which, like, yes, but also no. Like, there’s a limit to that line of reasoning. And yeah, so it’s really interesting where you have this paper and it’s like, okay, but now, like, there’s going to be some power has to trickle down, right? Like, it’s going to have to be embodied. And there’s going to have to be a spirit that will impose itself upon the people. And now we go back to, well, are the people in the system virtuous? Are they actually going to listen to this? Are they going to adhere? Are they going to agree with the principles that uphold the system? Or are they so captured by a different agenda that they’re going to privilege the execution of the agenda over basically that which allows everything to go here? And then that’s why you see fragmentation. And like, this is what we see all over the world. Like, we see that the governments become more and more authoritarian in order to execute an agenda that doesn’t fit upon the people. And that friction is only going to get worse. Yeah, well, and I did want to address it. So, Bubblvist says, the Netherlands and Germany have denounced the idea of multiculturalism recently. They said it failed and is no good. Right. And then I want to address Frankenstein here. Do we agree on everything? No. This stream was primarily about the idea of agreement and how there’s false agreement. There’s different levels of agreement and why that’s important. So, yeah, you’re going to go back and listen to the beginning because it was really good. This is sort of a jump in and join us period. And nobody wants to jump in except from comments, which is totally fine. Although, yeah, I’ll throw another invite out. Yeah, I pinned it on my channel, but I can’t pin it on Rando’s or on your channel. Just throw it out. Yeah. Hop in. And if you’re willing to come on camera, you’re welcome to hop in and actually discuss. Well, yeah, I think we have to realize that these things are not settled within a year or whatever, right? Like it’s… I think there’s a lot of people that lag, right? There’s people that are in tune with the Zeitgeist and then there’s a lot of people that just live their lives, right? Like they’re NPCing. And what you see in France, for example, is that the dissonance is so high for such a long time already that there’s a significant part of the population that is just ready to leave their house and participate in resistance. And that’s going to happen in different places, right? Because if we look at all of these systems that we have now, right? Like the monetary system, but also like energy provision, all of these things. Like even our defense is in crisis now because we sent all our ammunition to Ukraine. So like we don’t even have proper self-defense anymore. All of these systems are all critical and like it’s only gonna get reduced the freedom, right? The ability to move of people because there’s gonna be impositions from just scarcity at that point. Right. And I think, again, the problem with agreement is that you have to agree in participation in communion to something higher than a virtue or value, to something higher than you or than the group. You can’t be focused on people and groups or person and group. You can’t be focused on that because that’s not high enough. Click, but a group is higher than a person. And so there’s a big ladder up there, right? There’s a big sort of pyramid of whatever, right? And hopefully the top of the pyramid is the true, the good, and the beautiful. Not one of those three and not one leading to the other two or two leading to the other one or any of that, right? It’s gotta be all three sort of at once or as at once as it can get. And so that’s actually super important to understand and be able to manifest. Uh-oh. Dan claims the USA has also reduced its Middle Eastern munitions storehouses by sending much of it to Ukraine, right? Well, yeah, there’s a lot of people disarming countries on purpose knowingly. I like to call them evil people, but you can call them whatever you want. But yeah, I mean, I think it’s significant that the U.S. is not just a country that’s been in a state of disarmament for a long time. It’s a country that’s been in a state of disarmament for a long time. And so, yeah, I think it’s significant that things like that are going on because we’re not agreeing about what’s going on in Ukraine. And we’re not being honest about, we’ll say, the possibilities of a tiny country that never had a military or any real military training to speak of actually beating the second largest military power in the world. Was never an option even for a minute, especially when even after Crimea, they were insisting that they didn’t need to bother, right? And resisting going into NATO and when you hear the full story, it’s kind of like, well, you guys kind of did that to yourselves, like for real. Like there ain’t nobody responsible for that except the people. And look, you chose that. Now you have to live with the consequences. The consequences are you’re losing some land. And that’s already happened and that will continue to happen. And you can continue to fight, try to get that land back. But the odds of that happening are zero because now it’s no longer a question of who’s on the offensive, who’s on the defensive. Ukraine is on the offensive and they never have the offensive capability. And they’re not going to develop it in the middle of a war. That’s not how that works. So it’s too bad. We could have found agreement and Russia’s trying to find agreement, but no amount of negotiation is acceptable. And so the war will continue until basically everyone’s dead. Well, maybe we should focus on that a little bit. What is the thing that inhibits us from finding agreement? What’s happened in the war, right? There’s so much bad blood now. The example about that there was a large part of Ukrainians that identified as Russian. And then that flipped because they were threatened. So there’s a way in which the imposition or the loss of freedom that they experienced changed the way that they evaluate the situation. So effectively what’s happening is, well, maybe they were captured by a spirit of greed when orienting towards the West, and now they’re captured by a spirit of resentment identifying against Russia. And then it’s like, well, how do you find agreement? You can’t remain in that spirit. In Dutch they introduce this crazy saying in politics, you have to step over your own shadow. And there’s something true in that. You have to take yourself from where you are, through the darkness, to the other side to become the bigger person. Well, and that’s the sacrifice. Sometimes the thing you have to sacrifice to find agreement in participation is something that you need to burn off as deadwood to paraphrase Jordan Peterson. It’s some bad aspect of you that needs to go so that you can participate with somebody else. And that’s what true agreement is, is this ability to participate or commune with others. Yeah, and so we started this off with things like white knighting or whatever, and I had this idea about… Okay. Yeah, Adam had to go. Okay. Manuel is very Dutch, by the way, Bubblediz, yes, he’s quite Dutch. He’s still Dutching, in fact. We spoke sometimes, I think, but whatever. So now he’s beginning to suspect, which is like really odd, like why wouldn’t he recognize that I was Dutch? That’s like, shame on you. So when we’re acting out of defense, which is what Russia is doing, which is what NATO is doing, which is what Ukraine is doing, we’re captured in the spirit. The spirit is turning away from us, and we’re not going to be able to do anything. We’re captured in the spirit, and that spirit is turning us away from finding agreement, from going together. So we have to recognize that. And the question is, well, if you’re in that spirit, and you’re committed to that spirit, maybe you should change the game that you’re playing. You should stop playing. What’s this spirit? Oh, man, I was thinking your accent was Swedish. Yeah, well, see, this is why we can’t have agreement. I know. I’m American, and even I know that’s not a Swedish accent, dude. Really? Wow. This is terrible. So now we’re in a zero-sum game. I’m going to have to kick you to Sweden. Wow. Wow. Wow, the insults. I thought we were having a nice dream here. Yeah, I thought we had friendly people, but… Yeah, we’re in the spirit of cooperation. Now we get that. Oh, look at this. Here’s the sacrifice. I am terrible with accents, I guess, lol. Right, so there’s the ability to recognize the baby. The failing is yours. Now we can cooperate, see? Now we can commute. That’s excellent. Participating together, because you admit maybe your ability to discern accents is non-existent or something. You could also have given me a compliment that my English is actually really good and low on the accent side. You’d be that good if you sound like a Swedish person. How you think we like you and that you are great. I don’t know about great. That’s because I’m Dutch. Yeah, the only thing is great because now he knows he’s Dutch. Dutch people are great. Well, we’re the tallest. That’s true. I mean, the greatest of people. Wow. Oh my God, this is terrorizing our serious discussion. Like, we can’t laugh. We can’t enjoy this. Get up communion and laugh. Very Dutch attitude right there. How dare we laugh? That’s the Calvinism. Isn’t it though? Isn’t it? I have to be austere. Wow. Well, look, no one wants to join us. Yeah, like. Let’s close it down because Adam’s not here and he left rather suddenly, which is unfortunate. But yeah, let’s shut it down and you get closing arguments on agreement. Well, yeah, like I think that a lot of people just lack the awareness of the game that they’re playing, right? Or the game that other people are playing. Right. At that point, we just end up in a futile exercise of headbutting our wheels together. People disgust me with saying things like that. Yeah. Kamala Harris is not the. Yeah. Framing is important. Being the legacy of Barbados slaveholders is probably not the person to make a comment like our diversity is our power. Kamala Harris, who is the. Who is the descendant of slave owners in the Barbados or the Caribbean islands anyway. Well, I’m just going to correct that statement, right? Like diversity is not power. Diversity is resilience. Can be a force for good, but is also a force for good. For good, but is also the source of this unit. Like if. By definition. Yeah, like if we stretch the diversity far enough, things cannot commune. Like that should be obvious, right? So now we’re getting into the space. Okay, like so we’re supposed to be the same on some level and then we can be different on a different level. But if we go. Put the sameness on this level or the difference on this level, we get big problems and. Recognizing these levels of agreements and disagreement and. Acting accordingly is, I think, the essence of communion like like it’s right. It’s that what allows us to go here together. And yeah, I’m now inspired to think about the golden generation, right? Like the generation that fought in the second world war and that they found means of communion. Like the shared suffering, the reality slapping them so hard in the face, putting humility in them. Allowed them to co manifest something that wasn’t possible without that. Like it’s like it allowed a new cohesion. Yeah, like maybe that’s. I like what you were talking about, especially in the beginning, because the bottom line is. We’re trying to for the person, not for the world, trying to re-enchant the world, the division of the world that the person has. Right. And pointing out that agreements, not some flat world thing where you get it or you don’t, you can have it, etc, etc. It’s it’s a very mysterious way to think about it because the world is so much richer and. More significant than all that right and that’s super important to realize that there’s a lot to. Agreement there’s a lot of layers, there’s a lot of nuance, there’s a lot of importance there and you need to pay attention to that. In order to properly embody it and live in communion with others. And you can’t live in communion with everybody, but you also you don’t have to. There’s no there’s no rule, there’s no law, there’s no reason to have to do that. You can you can find communion and live in communion without having it be everybody. Or on every level. So yeah, I mean, I think that’s a that’s a pretty good way to end it. Manuel, you get any any other closing statements before we close it out? I’m just not going to go there, but no. It’s a good it’s a good question. Well, yeah, I actually looked at the etymology of Dutch. Why are the Dutch from the Netherlands and the Germans from Deutschland? It’s you know, it’s a valid. It’s a valid way. The reason is because the English people are a bunch of idiots that can’t name correctly. That’s why. That can’t name correctly. That’s why confusion. We don’t have that problem in the Netherlands themselves. Like that’s the English people. Wow. Yeah, Dan Smith points out our own little why do you park in a driveway and drive on a parkway? Yes, not everybody can drive on a parkway. Commercial vehicles are not allowed. Yeah, yeah. Let’s break this discussion and try and look for the future. It’s a good example of finding agreement to a higher principle, which is the principle that language is not the thing that constrains our actions. Right. Our actions are bigger than the language. And that works for both cases. So that’s really important. But yeah, look, thanks everybody. I’m glad I know we did this last minute and we could only do it today and at this time, because Adam and Manuel, right? The crazy Europeans. We need to do it before everything burns outside. Well, and it’s better anyway, because there’s fireworks tonight in the US. So I’m glad we got some people. If you haven’t listened to the whole thing, I think the opening is very important. And look, thanks for being here and thanks for participating in whatever, whatever, to whatever degree you did. And tell your friends, this is great. It’s on Gopik Orientation. It’s on Rendez-United and it’s on Navigating Patterns. Three different YouTube channels. They’re all wonderful with different content. And yeah, go back and watch the introduction because I think it’s actually really worth it. So yeah, yeah, the intro to this was really, really good. So all right, guys, see you soon.