https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=RdfFGEPW4yM
I guess these things take a while to catch up to to YouTube But it says where it says we’re live. Let’s give it a little little bit of time and see how it plays out. So What do you think Manuel? What do you want to what do you want to discuss in this in this live stream here? well, actually I had a Interesting thing. I don’t know if I want to spend a live stream on but we can at least start with that and it’s the relationship between tolerance and mercy That’s that’s not a subject you see every day I Don’t see this that subject very often myself. Yeah so Yeah, so tolerance is related to to respect To Look back right like I associate that with putting things in their place knowing where they are Yeah, and then that is a prerequisite for having right relationship to them So Tolerance is in some sense Letting things be where they are or something Yeah, we’ll probably get to a better definition of tolerance maybe we should get the The internet to help us out. And of course the comment section should help us out with this Tolerance Or missiveness for merits So yeah, and and and then and then mercy is is The way I was thinking about it is if you’re looking at bodies, right and then there’s part of a body that that isn’t Doing the will of the body then It should be cut off. It should be The body should preserve itself right and then and then mercy is is kind of like an in-between state where You you’re not Following through on the cutting off. Although there is a recognition that the cutting off should have happened and There is no good justification Apart from the benevolence of the body to to maintain the relationship So We got an interesting comment here, I think this was with with tolerance pretending you agree when you don’t That’s part of it. Certainly is is that concept? I think I think that’s fair actually I think I think it’s fair or or giving it affordance before it’s asked for or or Understood right in other words You know you’re you’re you’re going to tolerate something That is that is already in conflict with you ahead of time usually and not always Or you’re gonna you’re gonna forego action in the conflict like it actively you’re gonna say no No, we’re not gonna we’re not gonna take any action on our conflict. We’re just gonna we’re just gonna avoid the the conflict entirely And sometimes that’s the right thing to do certainly but you don’t you know, you can have too much of anything And I think that’s one of those areas and I think the way that relates to mercy is If you’re tolerant There’s no transgression and if there’s no transgression It’s hard to understand the concept of mercy Like if there’s no transgression, there’s nothing to be merciful for or about or you know There’s no target of the mercy at that point Of the mercy at that point and so you’re cutting yourself off from mercy by being too tolerant The opportunity for mercy now does not exist Yeah, so so it is interesting this is this is touching on some one of my complaints about people nowadays where they’re Deprivilaging the maintenance of peace over Asserting a line right and Yeah, yeah well just asserting as such right like there’s a privileging of the maintenance of peace and and you can say well tolerance is is is the Forgoing maybe to go into the process of justice where Where where you’re you’re you’re temporarily suspending something in the assumption that Well, hopefully in the assumption because others would be corrupt right in the assumption that either you’re trying to Go to a different value, which is higher, right? So going to that process is more important than engaging in the conflict or that the conflict will self-resolve over time So so it’s it’s like a conditional thing and I I think the problem with the conditional thing is that You tend to forget that it’s conditional like you just start accepting something that that shouldn’t be accepted as normal because that’s that’s how it is and Well, that’s used to discern That’s that that’s the interesting part, you know what you brought up there and I do want to bring it down But before I bring it before I get to more or pragmatic level That’s the important part like too much tolerance leads to normalization of all kinds of things and some of the things that get normalized Can be not good. That’s why you can’t just apply tolerance, right? you need temperance applied to your tolerance so you’re not just constantly tolerating because It distorts normalization right because the outliers the people who are sort of out in the end are the most visible Right because they’re the loudest so even if there’s only four of them It looks like there’s you know, they’re the majority even though there’s they’re not the majority the minority They’re the loud overly loud minority. So I want to put tolerance sort of in something like a Community so what you know and we can narrow it down a little bit more specifically, right? So let’s suppose you have a discord server or something And I’m only using this because it got brought up yesterday on the awakening server, right? You can’t just let everybody in because some people want to disrupt like they actively want to disrupt So if you’re automatically tolerant and you let the disruptors in and you tolerate them Then there’s a problem in that and the problem in that is that now that they that they are in there The the destruction has already happened and these people who want tolerance are Basically going off the theory that everyone is basically good and is going to act good I and I don’t I mean I don’t think I don’t think tolerance suspends justice so much as it doesn’t afford it like it cuts off the Affordance of justice you can’t be just if you’re tolerant first Because you never reach the point of judgment and you know where justice can be applied We’ll say right so you’re still making a judgment. You’re judging. I’m not gonna do anything about this Transgression that’s a tolerances. We’re gonna we’re gonna afford and accept the transgression without pushback and I think that’s where it’s dangerous because once you get a community if you let people in with bad intent and There are people in the world with bad intent right or with an intent that is counter to your goal at the very least Right now everybody has the same goal. Nobody has the same idea about the same goal how to implement it So it’s worse you can have the same goal that doesn’t solve the problem And and once you get into that if you tolerate that it can create a schism And then it breaks the community apart or the community never formed which is the more common case. Let’s say Yeah, so I think there’s a really interesting Thing happening rights because there might be two what so first of all I’m just gonna justify my use of the word suspension, right? So it’s suspension is is a temporarily not enacting of something right, but I Think I think there’s two ways in which that can happen right? Like one is consciously right like you’re like, ooh, this is not good and You don’t act upon it and secondly is that there’s a Flow of information there’s just this this cascade of things that you have to relate to and and you have to Realize which aspects are relevant to to relate to and things can just get caught in the flow So I think I think this is actually connecting to a perennial problem like okay, so so we’re We are necessarily Limited in in the actions that we can take and now we need to privilege Certain things and then all the things will get lost in the noise right and and these might manifest as as patterns over time and The patterns are then gonna end up as normalization of something that is bad You could imagine that trauma words that way right where it’s like you you look the other way because like the most important thing in the moment is not dealing with the transgression but maintaining emotional health and I want to stop you there man. You’re going awful far awful fast But if you said something really interesting and important to me, so when John Verbecky talks about The and then I want to address address Lynn’s comment But when John Verbecky talks about perennial problems he tends to talk about them as conditions that sort of come upon you, right and You’ve pointed out something I think it’s very important and quite brilliant as you often do right which is there’s a perennial problem in the idea of tolerance because the perennial problem is How and when and where to apply it? When is it relevant to be tolerant and when is it not relevant to be tolerant and as you you know pointed out past that you you know You you can You can run into an issue where too much tolerance leads to normalization of bad behavior will say you know like like suppose everybody’s talking about You know being able to cross dress and and treat children like adults when it comes to sexuality and then all of a sudden It’s everywhere right that could happen in theory. I’m making any statements Just saying historically that might have happened and it might happen again And that’s a problem, right? So you don’t want to be overly tolerant and then I did want to address Lynn Yeah Lynn yesterday was perfectly justified in being anger at angry at somebody who was being a jerk and has since been banned from the server because after he was a jerk in the voice chat and We were too tolerant of him I would say He went off in the text chat and like spam the text chat to an enormous degree and apparently was threatening people in cyberspace with with physical attacks and stuff which is just It’s absurd, but I think it’s important to to kind of keep track of right is that that’s what happens with too much tolerance When you’re too nice to people they don’t get a negative signal to stop and that’s unfair to them because now they don’t know that Transgressed and you know as hard as it is to tell people know you need to stop because you’re doing a bad thing And how painful that is you’re denying them a good signal when you do that and so you’ve got to be careful with that The story of Samson, I don’t know the story of Samson these Bible people and their Bible II things I don’t like yeah They’re gonna have to get in and share some of that word with us No, I don’t want to hear that Christian stuff man. That’s everywhere Bible Bible Bible like the most read book or something who reads that proclaim the word people Well, and where are they getting the tolerance doctrine from because again Jesus also flipped over the tables. That wasn’t the only thing he did Yeah, I mean Tolerance is a tricky subject especially for religions because It’s a perennial problem. How much tolerance perennial problem? We should write that one down. We’ve got notes. We should add to them Yeah, so We’re getting a comment here, right? There’s there’s this this thing where it’s like, yeah, like there’s this build up That’s like snow or something right or leaves or your drive Or leaves or your driveway and it’s like at a certain point or or even clean up your room, right? Like there’s clutter and then it’s like yeah, but like that’s okay. That’s just one day’s word of clutter Because I like as you didn’t be doing it every day, but then it’s like yeah Where’s that boundary and how do we how do we? Protect that boundary and part of it is a consequence of just having resources, right? You need to manage resources and you need to privilege and like sometimes it’s okay if your room is dirty because Well, maybe you’re not in it all day and maybe you’re outside doing things that allow you to maintain your room. For example, right? But yeah, then there’s there’s still this this principle right like like it needs to get clean right, you can’t suspend cleaning up your room and There’s there’s this point where you stop realizing that cleaning up your room is even a thing Well, I like that man who I’ll write this analogy between Tolerance and cleaning is really good or clutter as such, right? So you have to allow some amount of clutter to get things done Okay So right now my office is completely clutter free like actually like the only things in here other than my keys in my wallet and My boat I got a couple of other things right are Our drinks that are leaving the room. All right, and so but it’s too clean now that this this room’s not useful The computers are great, but this room’s not useful I have to go in the other room where I put all the junk and start adding some of the junk back in Right because there’s too much potential here, but I can’t manifest anything because it’s just too it’s too overwhelming too much open space But I have to unlike last time I have to leave some open space to manifest potential whether it be leaving drinks on the table or you know, whatever it is And tolerance is the same thing like how much of Transgression up front are we going to tolerate how much transgression in the moment? Are we going to tolerate two types, right? That’s the perennial problem is figuring out how much and one of the things I was thinking about is how much of a problem is I was like, we’re all caught up and doing things fast like getting this done in like a faster teapot, which I haven’t liked the teapots very quick right and so What that does is rob us of time for contemplation and then so then we we discover me at meditation It’s like all we’re really doing is adding in the time that we took away by making all the devices And then we discover me at meditation Doing is adding in the time that we took away by making all the devices Things go fast. It’s like this is madness. Why are we doing this? It’s because it’s another perennial problem Like how much time do you leave for contemplation and how much time do you do you need to take action? Because those two things Need to be put in what I call Cooperative processing with one another rather than opponent processing because I don’t like that. I don’t like I don’t like that term anymore Uh, I don’t think I don’t think they’re opponents. I think they’re they’re partners in cooperation. So it’s a good question So, yeah too much tolerance leads to a lack of communication And of ethics, I think this is mark’s point in a nutshell I like that formulation. That’s not bad. That’s quite good. I think I think that’s That’s part of it for sure. Yeah Right You like that? Yeah, well Um I think I think it’s even more fundamental than Than the lack of communication. I think it’s actually the the atrophy or or the not cultivation of a skill um Oh, yes, the skill of conflict. We’re back to intimacy crisis, right? And so yeah Yeah, that’s the positive aspect we’ll say the negative aspect is you’re denying yourself the ability to Conflict with people and still get along like manuel are excellent. Manuel and I are excellent at this Still get along with each other and we still manage to get along. No, we don’t Yes, we do Despite Manuel saying some incredibly stupid things sometimes and despite me saying some incredibly stupid things sometimes right and and yeah, that’s just this projection No, no, it’s your projection And that’s the problem, right and I So So the the I this is a good question chris, you know, how did how did I feel my question pvk about speaking out against evil when let’s see What happened was of three different people? Independently, you know, then maybe they know each other Maybe they don’t but independently came up with this question of tolerance and then ethan finally took it to me now ethan and I are I drove I drove ethan from minneapolis airport up to thunder bay So it was like six and a half hours or something in a car with him This is a lovely experience and just the act of going to minneapolis instead of going straight to thunder bay Opened up a wonderful potential for me that I never could have imagined and it was wonderful, right? So So Ethan was very concerned about this and so he wanted me to address it so because I had heard two other people talk about it i’m like it’s time to Talk about tolerance and and vanderklaas wonderfully generous running these q a’s and I was quite fortunate That I got in right and I got to put my question in place And yeah, I mean this is wrapped up in calling out evil First you need and this is going to be the new the the new focus on navigating patterns my excellent youtube channel the focus on Discernment Because tolerance gets you out of the job of discernment and if you don’t have to discern because you just say i’m going to be tolerant Then you you’re not practicing discernment, but also if you’re not practicing discernment judgment is even an option Now you don’t have to judge anybody And you can always make the claim. Well, I don’t judge anybody. So why should you judge me? It’s a very pernicious thing like all these things have two sides They have the side of what you’re doing to the outside world But also the side of what the outside world is doing to you And so what that means is it can set up a defense So I think I took a step in the right direction with with pvk in particular, but i’m not sure that that full message is getting through about Too much tolerance leads to lack of judgment and lack of judgment leads to a lack of action And if you’re not going to act the evil people are and I think that’s kind of to some extent what we’re seeing and so that’s where the that’s where the uh, The danger is so when we’re not what you know when we’re not, you know to to the point here, right? When we’re not practicing The art of conflict when we’re not practicing You know pushing back on people when we’re not practicing being Intolerant of certain types of behavior, right then we’re left with the extremes And when you’re left with the extremes that always leads to war at least as near as I can tell from my greek study of history Yeah, I want to add in a different aspect when when you’re not When you’re being tolerant you also lose the ability to take responsibility because now you your discernment about where you can take action and where you can take action is Changes, right and then The The way that you conceive of your agency. So When you look at the world, what are the levers that I can pull? Well if if the if there’s no social lever of of calling people to to Well to a standard then The the only way is is force effectively that that’s left to you, right? Like now it’s like okay, like either I do exclusion or I retreat right like there’s there’s this these hard boundaries that you have to enact because You’re you’re not Well, you’re not doing the thing like with with the sea with the tides where you’re going Like like there’s this recession where where where some of the beach is is being scraped off by the tide and then there’s there’s new things being deposited and then there’s a refinement over time, right and and then there’s a A way of being that that is going with these waves, right and When when you’re not going with the waves then the wave is coming at you and smashing into you and it’s like, whoa Like I don’t like this right and then you lose your footing right like there’s there’s an inability to to maintain yourself, right so there’s this this element where Yeah, there’s a type of agency and the agency is is corrective, right? Which which is well not not a nice thing, right because we we all like to be perfect, right? So so Being reminded of the ways in which we’re not perfect is is actually not pleasant and Yeah, we were talking about this earlier today right mark where there’s there’s this aspect where We’re being corrected is allowing in the process of growth and You can find joy you can you can find fulfillments Within growth, right? But the growth is always on the point Of discomfort, right? So what that means is that there is a way to participate in the discomfort in a way that is emotionally satisfying and and and uplifting and and that’s a skill that you have to cultivate and And I I think that’s that’s the most powerful way of being that we we need to do it And that goes back to your point which is tied into this comment about tolerance also leading to a lack of introspection I think that I like the way paul vanderpott pastor paul and who talks about we outsource our sanity, right? He says this all the time and it’s like so we outsource our skill at discernment Right. We have to right you want the distributed cognition you want other people to help you Am I being tolerant or am I being intolerant? Like that’s a fuzzy lie. And so if you’re never Able to enact intolerance, you don’t really know what tolerance is, right? And if you’re not Drawing lines and unverting values right to the earlier point about training for ethics because I think that’s very true You’re training to some extent for ethics, right? Then you’re not learning how to be an ethical agent in the world Sorry a moral agent in an ethical world, right? Your ethics doesn’t enter into it because you’re just being too nice all the time So you’re really not learning when to stand up for your own virtues and values, right? You’re not you’re not making that distinction And um, yeah, I mean I like this comment, you know tolerance is a tool not a way of life right and and I think that a lot of the a lot of people especially the religious people especially the christians are are Talking about tolerance as though it’s a way of life because they’re equating it with grace But i’d say that no tolerance destroys the opportunity to give grace entirely There’s no grace in intolerance because no one can transgress because you’re being tolerant of their behavior And that’s not you know, that’s not good either because again You’re robbing yourself of all of these signals that you need from the outside world to be introspective to learn discernment and to learn grace Yeah, and I think the distinction is where like Are you living under a watchful eye? Like is everything that you do being judged right and and do you have a responsibility towards that? Or are you this carefree? Naive person right like this. There’s all of these Uh youthful I guess are they virtues? Charming things at least I don’t know if they’re virtues but but there’s this this way in Well, let’s just say well, I think there are virtues right like there’s there’s a way of youthful participation that allows for growth And and for improvement and so I think they’re virtues there are ways of participating but there’s a A way in which uh, your relationship to them Changes and and they mature to a higher level right so the naivety Involvement turns into fate or something right like there’s a Way in which which you become intentional in in in your participation Well, and that’s the problem is intentionality as such right like when you’re too tolerant, right? If you’re completely tolerant and yeah, I mean I agree with the comment You can’t be completely tolerant, right? But people are pretending as though they can right? They’re acting as if I’m as if I’m tolerant and so what but what that does is it takes their ability to judge away from them Right because you’re not judging others. You’re not getting practiced in judging now. You can’t judge yourself And so now you corrupt yourself because your judgment’s about what’s right and wrong It’s kind of like well, I’m taller of all these other people doing these things So maybe I can do them too because that’s the normalization argument all over again, basically So yeah, I mean it just degrades society It’s not that you can’t try to do it you can But society degrades because you’re not only you denying everybody else the signal of what’s right and wrong by not judging But also you’re denying yourself that signal And and that’s a big a big problem. And yeah, I like I like their principles, right? They are yeah Yeah, I don’t well tolerance might be a principle, but I think naivety Isn’t like it is a way of participation No principles are the things you uphold through intolerance All right, yeah, I I like that But but yeah, like there’s I just want to highlight the distinction right like a principle is it’s something that erects a hierarchy and uh A virtue is is a way of participation, right? Like so it’s it’s not a hierarchy but it is a way of of this discerning a way of a way of privileging Or or ignoring information like it’s functioning on on a on a pre-cognitive level in some sense, right? It’s it’s like the spirit In which you’re participating So Lynn had an interesting question that probably requires some Unpacking right? So so the discernment right the way I look at it is you have You recognize distinction um And recognition is is a step further because I think recognition is well, it’s it’s re right So you’re recognizing some something so you’re you’re bringing something back into awareness or or or being But but the recognition also requires you to have a judgment, right? Like it requires you to apply a meaning to a thing while discernment is not requiring meaning. It just requires Distinction. Yeah, and I would say yeah discernment is part of awareness not part of attention Recognition is part of attention because you’ve cognized through discernment, right? And now you have the opportunity to judge in some fashion and maybe the judgment is I want to bring this to my attention and that’s recognition Attention and recognition or maybe they’re the same thing or maybe they’re maybe they’re related And I did want to back up real quick and say I think one of the problems that people have is that They’re actually treating all things that you can do as principles But I don’t think that’s true. I mean, I think a bunch of things that we can do are Options and then there’s perennial problems because there’s a cooperative processing trade-off that we have to make Between things like like how much tolerance do we give people right? And when do we stop being tolerant of a certain type of behavior of a certain person? Right in a certain forum like like tolerance isn’t a universal You can’t say why I’m just tolerant all the time in all circumstances like that’s not good And so we need to know that that tolerance isn’t a principle that you can uphold It’s a decision point that you have to enact, right in order to Be healthy like because if you can’t make judgments in the real world that other people can give you feedback on through distributed cognition Then you know, that’s going to corrupt automatically Yeah, so that’s interesting because this all originated from from this really interesting question between mercy and justice right I effectively said that well Like you can’t have mercy without justice, but you can’t have justice without mercy, right? So there’s a a hierarchical relationship where justice is a Principle or principality probably and and then because because Mercy is is bumping into that right? Like it’s it’s like Like in some sense bounding justice or or or it’s constraining justice It’s it’s like a lesser thing, but it’s still its own identity. So I think I think we have to make a distinction between The things that organize the hierarchy and then the things that Care for the right manifestation of the hierarchy Um And and so I think I think we can put tolerance on on that level right where where there is there’s something Like a functionality That the hierarchy needs to undergo and maybe we can map this sometime actually In in order to remain healthy Yeah, and and yeah, I mean I don’t even necessarily know if it’s a hierarchy per se but certainly there’s an asymmetry And not seem to let talks a lot about asymmetries. That’s kind of the core of his His work and in some sense is is that a level of? asymmetry and I think that I think that this is a good point like you can’t you can’t be Without judgment because in order to take an action you have to judge and so You you would remove your agency in the world if you never judged And so yeah, you’re lying to yourself to some extent if you think you’re not judging You’re certainly making judgments all the time And the question is are the good judgments or bad judgments, right? Which is a different a different a different issue um and Yeah These sorts of things are always problematic for me Frame of reference is an interesting an interesting phrase, right framing is the thing that matters the most And this is why postmodernism is such a problem because you’re You’re in some sense destroying framing as such causing a problem with frames And the problem roughly speaking that you’re that you’re actually causing Uh, it seems to be a problem around The inability to interact and participate properly with the world right and so you can be resigned to the fact of slavery not in the U.s sense the u.s almost when they say slavery, they mean chattel slavery, which is rare historically And in the u.s Like most of the people who work with slaves in the u.s were indentured servants and that was considered a form of slavery Like so there’s different forms of slavery And and that’s where the and that’s where the problem comes in is that there’s there’s lots of different forms of slavery And and you know, we’re not taking them seriously enough that there are different types and different forms and then we’re getting confused and a lot of people knew All along will say that the sort of the important equation is not whether or not you are a slave The important equation is what are you getting out of your interaction? Right, and so your interaction actually matters, right and maybe maybe everybody’s a slave to something Uh, maybe god if you’re a christian, right or whatever Uh, and and their conditions like you’re a slave to the conditions you are born into I mean if you’re born without limbs you’re a slave to that right if you’re born with uh with a high iq You’re a slave to that too because there are disadvantages, right? And and and that’s the problem is that We’re all sort of enslaved to a bunch of things all the time and it’s not really a problem I mean some of these things were enslaved to too much choice Makes us paralyzed right it paralyzes us in a significant way. So maybe you know, maybe it’s important To not worry so much about that um and Yeah, it’s it’s hard. It’s a difficult question. Yeah, I know I I I want to Do something about the framing of this question or statement? Because I think I think there’s a problem in in in the framing, right? So If if you’re living in a society where people do something You don’t have to be tolerant towards the thing that they’re doing Like like the fact tolerating something means that you’re disagreeing Like if you’re living in a society that has the institution of slavery, like why would you be tolerant towards the institution of slavery? like maybe you approve of of that like like Being tolerant is the recognition of a negative and the ignore ignoring the negative For the purpose of maintaining peace like that’s the definition i’ll stick with for now, right? so Like You could be tolerant towards slavery in in a society where they have slavery, right? But but now you’re making a moral transgression Against yourself and your society, right? Well, well it depends it I mean not necessarily It really depends on a lot of stuff like there’s nothing wrong with being tolerant towards slavery while moving away from it Which in the us is very much the case, right and then the people who didn’t like slavery for example You know a lot of them who the feds hit slaves almost all of them released the slaves upon their death Because they needed the slaves to run the to run what they have like There was a condition that was built up for better or for worse, especially in the south Where labor had to be free or the economy didn’t work. In other words people couldn’t live there And and by people I mean almost nobody at all could live live physically like survive and people don’t account for that They just say oh, well everybody everything would have been fine. If not, you know if they had never started slavery, but the fact of the matter is That area wasn’t populated before channel slavery came to the deep south For a reason and that reason was it’s impossible to start the process of living in that area Because the area back back then was very difficult to live in i’m still not a breeze down in south carolina It’s kind of hot in the summer, right? It wasn’t habitable until people came in with Free labor, although it’s not free you just go get a house and feed them and you know all that Uh, we’ll call it cheap labor until people came in with cheap labor. The south wasn’t habitable And that’s the problem is that people don’t realize that trade-off Um I don’t know are they building foundations? I think I think I think that’s correct frames are built on foundations The the question is what foundations are you building your frame on? And then the problem with that is that it’s anti-postmodern, which of course is not a problem for me. I think it’s great but That means right that you can’t just build frames anywhere All frames are not equal Your interpretation of moby dick is not necessarily valid Right, but that’s based on the foundation and then it’s fair to ask people Well, what are you basing this on? right and so look you might you might get into a tiff about whether or not something like Uh christian anarchy is a valid way to think about the world, right? Of course, my argument is that’s a contradiction It’s not possible if you talk to anarchists and I recommend you do because I have They don’t recognize religion as a valid thing in the world because Anarchy means not bowing to authority like denying authority or not cooperating with authority as such period any authority at all That’s what the definition means oxford goes way back a couple hundred years at least And and so if your foundation is Not stated like i’m a you know christian christianity means following christ Who i’m pretty sure I mean i haven’t read the book but like from what I understand He submitted to the authority of both the jewish authority and the roman authority Right in his action of being crucified So at that point he is submitted to authority, which means if you want to be a follower of christ or a christian Then you also have to submit to authority And so if you’re submitting to in political authority, not just religious authority political authority And if you’re submitting to political authority, you cannot be any definition of an anarchist like But your foundation has to be correct, which you have to understand anarchists don’t believe in any type of authority At all. It’s not political authority. It’s any type of authority They strongly deny religion All of the ones i’ve ever met and they don’t they don’t they don’t allow people to identify as as Anarchists unless they also do the same thing, right? And so You know, what’s the relationship between uh Anarchist and antichrist. Hmm. That’s a good question. They sound pretty similar But but you can see the way in which the foundation matters. What’s the foundation that you’re using to define anarchy? What’s the foundation you’re using to define christianity? Because if your foundation is christ never flipped over the tables and never caused a kerfuffle and he was very tolerant of everybody’s activities Which I think is not in the bible, but but is definitely uh, Uh, uh the opposite is in the bible will say right it’s definitely sort of denied by it by the biblical text then Like how can I talk to you? Right, so you can set up a frame like that. You can set that up but You know to the point like if it’s not built on a foundation I can’t go there to communicate with you like communication itself fails. This is why post-modernism is dangerous. It destroys language Yeah, so yeah I don’t know if frames are necessarily built on foundations good frames might be necessarily built on foundations and I think there’s also the question of justification, right like like there’s a justification behind The frame that that allows it to be a valid way of relating uh to the world and then Within the frame there’s there’s a structure or something, right that Yeah, like maybe that structure needs a foundation but uh, it’s yeah Well, I want to far for for me in some sense. I want to address this. Okay Guys, you gotta understand something. Okay When I make statements, they’re usually well researched. I have spoken to anarchists about this No, they would recognize the authority i’m giving to the definition of words. They absolutely do Okay, and you can go on the internet look because I actually did some recent research because this came up with Michael Martin on On twitter and I was like you guys have to stop this this you’ve fallen into the post-modern trap of stating literally Like actual satanic behavior you’re distracted in weird definitions of configurations that are contradictory So if you look the anarchists on reddit are saying you can’t be religious and an anarchist That’s what they’re saying right now that i’m not i’m not putting forth an anarchist heresy using the words They do recognize the authority of words. They’re not completely retarded like the communists But or the or the pure post-moderns that’s true. And I also I want to address this Yeah, we’re all enslaved, right? um But yeah, what are the limits of admit? You know, what are the limits of infringement on freedom, right? And this is what we never talk about we talk about freedom We talk about how much well we should have freedom. We don’t define freedom There’s no foundation to the earlier point, right? And then we say but we should have this thing But we’re not defining the thing and then anytime that anybody does anything we don’t like psychologically. We just go You’re infringing on my freedom Really like that. Is that the game we’re going to play because it seems to be the game we’re playing It’s a terrible game. It doesn’t work very well for people and that’s where you get into trouble And this is the problem like you want to promise today It’s garbage like that where we can’t we can’t use words to a common definition a foundation, right? To allow us to communicate um You know effectively the question, you know to your point, where do we draw the line of freedom? This is and you’re not going to hear me say this very often a political question. It’s a question of governance The principality of the government is the thing that Definitionally whenever you have a decision about where to draw the line of freedom Fundamentally, that is a question of governance and politics Actually a real political thing Things that are not that I have questions about whether or not they’re political at all But that’s a different a different discussion, right? Where do we draw the line? That’s the question of government. That’s the question of governance That’s the that’s the principality of caesar or the principality of government that that we’re submitted to Right according to christ anyway, I mean maybe you’re not a christian or whatever then you’re not Necessarily submitted to it, but I think I think you are to live with other people, right? So that’s the that’s the question. Um Yeah, so I I want to I want to go in a little bit different tag because when we’re talking about Anarchy or whatever like communism they build up this this whole jargon, right? And this whole jargon is is premised on a bunch of presuppositions And so when we’re saying the jargon is hard to understand it’s because well, maybe it’s wrong, right? Like maybe it’s describing something not real And and they’re pretending that it is real and they’re building On of unfalse presupposition So we have to be careful with Like there there is there is a sense when when you enter a new area it’s like oh like there’s newness because there’s a new area but there’s also There might be wrong assumptions within that area and and maybe those are the cause of of your misunderstand Not so much that that it’s hard or whatever Um, let’s go to the next one It’s a combination It’s a combination of submitting to authority but also telling the truth They killed the messiah not because he was following the authority but rather against their authority That he died willing Yeah, so we bring up this point fairly often right like He yeah, like so there there’s a structure And you either cooperate with the structure or you don’t cooperate with the structure, right but then There’s also this question of do you recognize the structure and its its authority? In the world and do you submit to that and I think those those two are are two Separate questions, right? So I I would say as a christian you you first have your allegiance to god, right and then Secondly you have your allegiance to the identity that you inhabit on earth and It there shall be no gods before me, right? So if you swap the identity that you’re participating in on earth to to be higher than than your submittance to god right like now you you start going out of out of balance right like and and you’ll You’ll start corrupting The way that you manifest on earth You know, that’s good, that’s a good point And I think that’s that’s what that’s why tolerance is important right because it all gets back to discernment and decision making and judgment And you know you have to judge to make a decision You have to judge something higher than something else or something more important than something else or more appropriately something more important than all other possible things Because you’re never making a decision between two things Yeah, so I think this is a reference to the platonic idea of going outside of the cave Yeah Well, yeah, that is an interesting question, right? Like what what do you do when you go back into the cave? Right, like what what is being in the cave? I mean this is this is great, right? This is this is great, right? Because really when you’re in the cave the only frames you’re building are the projections on the wall And we’re not saying that’s not useful, but it’s also not housing. So I like this idea that building frames in caves are Part of a compartment building project not a housing project, right? So they’re inherently uh done, you know Contributed to domicile Right because you still you can’t live in those frames and I think that’s where the pragmatist is like Is this a practical frame is christian anarchy a practical way to think about the world is social justice a practical way to think about the world I’m going to do a video on that i’m navigating patterns soon, right? Are these language constructions useful in navigating the world because society doesn’t exist without justice And justice doesn’t make sense outside of a society Uh, so can you split those two words apart like that and and make a new object in the world or a new conception? Well, I I I say no you can’t right in the same way you can’t be a christian anarchist Like a lot of these constructions are are sort of absurd You know, can you can you just chain up a new world like populism? So what do you think populism is right? Because I have this thesis about populism populism is democracy that you don’t like In other words when you’re in the minority and you find out that everybody thinks you’re in the minority and that you’re just a small group of like four people then you call Those people populists you’re like you’re not you’re not democrats. You’re populists What because because you know, and I might be wrong, but look I just can’t find anybody um anybody Trying you know talking about populism that’s using a definition that isn’t just a definition of democracy Uh-oh, well look at this. Why would anybody ask a question like this? I don’t read books books are no good I just burn them to keep warm. No, I haven’t read that book I don’t know who that is. It sounds fascinating though so I I think it’s interesting because Um If you look at what what’s happening with Plato’s cave, right? Like they’re stuck within this contraption that holds their head facing forward, right? So they’re they’re kind of yolks, right like there’s A burden that they’re carrying a constraint that that imposes a a type of relationship with with the world and And and and in order to get free from from that constraint Uh, well Yeah, like what what what happens when when you take off this? This constraint well now the way that movements function for you are different, right? Like you need to You need to walk all over again because all all the moves that you used to make They’re they’re no longer the same. They don’t they don’t have the same effect on the world, right? So in some sense you’re expanding Uh Expanding the the things in the world that you can participate with and this can go back to to tolerance, right? so What what is let’s just say? I tolerate something That means that I I cast it as insignificant in in some sense Like it’s like I don’t I don’t have to have an interaction with that now if I lift that veil Right and and i’m like now. Oh, this is this is a valid interaction at this point now I I gain a bunch more options within my Agency within the world, right and now When when we listen to revaki talk about Acceptation right like this this functionality Can inform me About other places where where I have to act in the world, right? Like it’s not only something that’s constrained to this to this specific area This this can bleed into other areas and and I think if we go back to this conception of of the yoke, right like this there’s a limitation in the move set like there’s a limitation in in the things of That were able to participate within the world and and that causes us blindness and I think the problem that we’re talking about is in some sense willful blindness like there’s a And that’s also play those points about the cave, right? Like people in the cave want to stay in the game like this when you when you start talking about them about not the cave They’re like Stop talking nonsense and leave me alone doing my cavey thing Right, right. Yeah, they’re very upset to have their worldview messed with even though their worldview doesn’t relate to we’ll say that the The world outside the cave, right? It doesn’t relate to the quote brutal world. I really liked like if you guys haven’t seen John verveckis talk with lander jack dr lander jack on uh on dr lander jack’s uh youtube channel man About ai the matrix and plato’s cave Ah I mean jack is awesome Uh, but but vervecki is doing a really good job there actually too. And uh, I really I really like that conversation I thought it was I thought I was next. I know uh, pastor paul’s talked about it like three or four times It’s a really good talk Uh, all of jack’s stuff is good, but that that one in particular was good he was out of sort of out of format for his normal format, but Uh, it was it was it’s good to understand how plato’s cave is still important relevant today, especially with respect to ai Especially now that we have chat gpt and all this crazy stuff that we have and all this hopefulness and no no This time the ai is going to emerge and be real just like the last 17 times we said it didn’t happen yeah, and and it’s It it’s good to relate the the parable of the cave back to Our own experience in the world and realize that there are people we’ll say out in the world that don’t um That that don’t Understand the dual nature of the things that we’re caught in Right because there’s again there’s always this how does this affect you internally and how does it affect the external world? You can’t nothing affects only you and nothing affects only the internal world So we have to manage that and maybe that’s a perennial problem just having to manage that whole interaction as such Okay I don’t know if we want to go into this anti-edipus capitalism and schizophrenia Uh, yeah, that was a reference to the book, uh for the I got, you know questioned about there um Yeah, I don’t know I I don’t I mean capitalism good schizophrenia bad uh People are a problem. I don’t know that’s how I would summarize that up Everybody, uh, I have a video on capitalism. Maybe i’ll post that link next. Um, yeah, there’s the lantern jack talk in case Anybody hasn’t seen it Yeah, I mean I think I think that a lot of people like to put things in economic frames or in political frames to understand the world Those are valid frames, but not to understand the world They’re only valid frames to understand some certain things if you don’t know what things they’re good for and what things they’re bad for Then you’re going to get easily enchanted by people telling you, you know stories like about game a and game b or stories about how capitalism ruined the world or or whatever and uh, Yeah, like let me reframe that because When you pick a frame you pick it right like when someone else picks a frame for you like either You have to explicitly agree to it or you’re gonna have to see how that is coloring what they’re saying because If you’re not if you’re not paying attention to to the frame in which people are talking they This was going back to the question of jargon, right? Like yeah, like jar people are talking in jargon, right? And there’s there’s implied implied assumptions within the jargon So like they might seem to make sense If you use their structure of logic, but like yeah, maybe you don’t want to be in in the structure of logic it’s like To go to this populism aspect. I think What well, what what is populism? Well populism? Is I think a redefinition of the way that politics is manifested So If we’re if we’re having this this one mechanism, which is like the press is bringing things up and then there’s this other Channel where where the politicians have this feedback of their local population And and and those are the way that things happen and then you get clinton it is disgusting idea of of these focus groups where When they get these these people together and and and they they bounce ideas of them and and then Instead of basing policy on ideals. They start basing policies on On basing on on this idea of what is the public gonna like right now? Now they call that populism, right? But In in some sense, it’s just making more efficient What was already happening? Right? And and I think I Maybe this is the derogatory nature of of this idea of populism is well when you submit too much to the populace to the will Of the people and you are not chasing ideals As much anymore you’re gonna corrupt the the manifestation of of government because you’re you’re relating to Your frames too small Right. Well, yeah, but but you’re you’re relating to the to the needs, right? You’re not relating to the requirements, but you’re relating to the passions, right? Like it’s Well, you’re relating to your impression of the needs based on other people’s projections of what they think they need So it’s way worse, right? It’s way worse because it’s so far removed from reality First of all, you don’t know what you’re up to and yeah the way that you know, I love this comment I mean the way the news uses populism just popular right? So the question is and this is this is really good I didn’t think about this. This is a good framing So if your conception of the world is that things are being driven by politics purely and then you have democracy So things should be driven in the right way, right now what what you don’t realize? particularly if you’re i’m gonna say the left right is that If people don’t agree with you Then democracy will prove you wrong If you think it’s all politically driven Then what you’re doing by saying populism is you’re recognizing democracy disagrees with your point of view Or the the majority of the people don’t see it your way or something, right? And that’s becoming manifest in an interesting way and What it what it points to is You think that the political frame should should tell everybody everything they need to know to have the views that they need to have To vote the way you expect them to vote and when they don’t do that you’re making up populism because your model of political You know understanding of the world fails it fails to to describe the world accurately So you make up a new word populism doesn’t have a meaning outside of democracy I you know, i’m still gonna i’m still gonna hold that line. And so that’s that’s a problem And then you know that that does get us into this comment I think the limit on freedom being imposed by the state is a little simplistic But it’s not imposed by the state nobody said that Politics is the way we work that out. It’s not it’s not what’s being imposed, right? In the example of the crippled person that imposition is not imposed by the state, right? It’s imposed by a different phenomenon. Sure, but this is the problem like believing that something like the state Is the agency that’s doing the thing is wrong like it never is Politics is downstream of culture. Tim pool used to say this carl benjamin. Sorry. I got my kind just to say this all the time Politics is the reflection. It’s a it’s the thing on the screen at the end after everything’s already happened in other words the distributed cognition of culture or society or however, you want to frame that works it out And then tries to get the laws pushed through and that’s a difficult process and it’s messy. And so for example You might look in the united states and say well people have been, you know running illegal marijuana growing operations for Decades before the laws got passed to legalize it. Yeah, that was happening So was the government enforcing, you know people not to No, it wasn’t right and then I would argue it should but that’s a different argument. And so that’s the problem Uh, and and yeah, I mean, I think it’s really important and then of course I like what father eric said Which is culture is downstream of religion. Yeah, that’s the next step. It’s not let’s not jump people too far They might get into shock father eric and then and then they’d panic But yeah, in fact, that would be my argument is that religion is inevitable and that’s the foundation that that was being talked about Earlier that you built the frames on what foundation are you building your framing on? Right because it’s super important to know what foundation you’re actually Using to justify your stance in the world, right? Your your virtues And your and your values and look at this. It’s shameless marketing by the catholic church This is why people don’t like the catholic church. It’s too much marketing. Damn it um, yeah, it’s It is a it is a problem when uh When people don’t reveal their cards, right and and when people are we’ll say, you know The puritans in new england when they’re private about religion the problem is now we don’t know How tolerant to be and so everybody annoying gets a little too tolerant over time and then the next thing you know There’s a there’s a bunch of conflict that that sort of squirts out on the back end so I I want to go back to this remark because I again start objecting to to the framing right like I I think There’s a distinction between freedom, which is I think something spiritual Um a cripple person which is a limitation of ability A limitation of ability is not a constraint of freedom. Like I think that’s No, I think it is like you’re not free to run if you don’t have legs if you only have one leg, right? And that freedom can be restored to some extent right like you lose a leg Yeah, but like I like I don’t think you’re free to run like like You’re not free to run if someone is With agency stopping you from running like Yeah, well, it’s the confusion of freedom with total freedom to do whatever you want Whatever you want, however you want which doesn’t make any sense, right? Like freedom has to have a constraint or there’s no contrast. You can’t tell what freedom is Yeah, so so Yeah, i’ve been thinking about this distinction between Between Well, like there’s there’s there’s reality and I like this new conception of reality is that which objects right and then Well, there’s there’s natural reality right like Gravity says well, you can’t jump higher than so much with this energy expenditure or whatever, right? um and then There’s there’s a a spiritual reality which uh Is in some sense way more temporally Diffused although like getting hungry is also something that is temporally diffused but and and it’s it’s A step away from from the materiality. So so there’s no real Real body that we can perceive That that holds holds these constraints, but but they’re still there and so So when when we’re relating to Material constraints in some sense, they’re final and then when we’re talking about spiritual constraints, right? And this is where we get into the idea of Adversarial Processing or whatever right like this These these these trades trade-offs that happen between well If I make Society a little bit less free here, then I can get some freedom here, right? So there’s there’s this malleable nature to it, right? And then there’s there’s these things that you can meld you into that can’t Persist across long periods of time and I think this is where we have the discussion about right? Like there’s these these these patterns that that we manifest but we don’t recognize the way that they can’t persist across time and and the the inaffability and and the Yeah, like the nature of of of the objection of reality changes When it becomes more enough Yeah, and I want to I want to address this yeah, I mean how people express religion is cultural that that’s true But that’s the expression of the religion not the religion and see this is where it gets tricky, right? because people want to over reduce everything and so You know, yeah if religion was downstream from cultural why would certain cultures choose the pro-reformation over the catholics did they? Or did that happen in spite of the majority of the population not wanting me because that happens all the time, right? And so It’s not a one-to-one relation. You can’t say this This happens over here and always poses this downstream because it’s not the world we live in right? We’re the negotiation We’re the mediation between these layers And so you can say that there is like there’s gravity and we mediate gravity by building planes and helicopters Right and and by going up into space and like there’s all kinds of mediation of gravity that we do So gravity gravity is not something that always forces we’ll say Unknown results, right? It forces a predictable result, but that’s different because the prediction is based on what we do And this is where people get confused, right? This is why joyden peterson keeps saying like Imagine if everything you do mattered. Yeah, because it does right and this is where the argument of If there’s a scientific possibility for something it will definitely happen and therefore we should do it now. That’s all lies It’s wrong. It’s technically incorrect. It’s mathematically wrong. You can calculate it. I promise you it’s been done There are papers you can do it yourself. It’s not that hard, right? You do it all the time when you make a decision to do one thing over all the other things All those other things aren’t happening in that moment and you can argue well But some things are time dependent and so some things end up that you’ll never be able to do them because you made this one Decision so the idea that that doesn’t scale is foolish and of course it does and so You know basically what you know what ends up happening is that we are the mediators? Culture is the distributed cognition mediator of the things that we interact with and And you know, I like what father saying here freedom for excellence Is not the same as a license to act right? And there’s freedom from and freedom too and and again we over reduce the idea of freedom Then it becomes useless to us because we’re not making a discernment right, we’re not discerning the simple case the The case in the group versus the case in the individual There’s no discernment there and discernment is actually a really important concept that that we have to sort of bring back into things Yeah, like I I have a problem with with putting this Like people choosing religion, right? So you can make the argument of people choosing religion when christianity goes into the roman empire or something, right where It’s it’s the individual That that is aligning itself with with the new right at a certain point There’s an institutional manifestation of the religion and institutional Uh So now now we’re there’s a there’s a body that’s gathered and and that body has In the nation it has a certain standing and then there’s a political side to to the body that is in some sense disconnected from from the individuals, right and then Now there’s there’s the capacity to have a leadership decision, right? Like so for protestantism There’s a leadership decision that that steps away from from the catholic church And it’s it’s not so much something that was born by the people right? But they were caught up in right because all of these Issues right like they’re highly theological and like only a small elite is is is capable of relating to to these questions in a healthy way and then a lot of a lot of the the issues with the catholic church, for example in the netherlands, right? They were like done by looters, right? Like like they were going into churches to get gold or to get riches, right? Or they they were doing it as a political statement against a a other political group in the country There’s many ways in which There There’s a rebellion and And that rebellion might not be against the catholic church, but but it is it is getting expression as a As anti-catholic church because that’s the spirit that is manifesting in that moment so so the complexity of these things is way bigger than uh, just a rejection of the Well, I want to point out this comment right in the case of a legless person from birth. It’s kind of post Democratic or pre-democratic because notice that in like this verse is not democratic agent When that infringement is being imposed see this is a limitation of political framing If you try to understand things in terms of politics, it will fail because most of the world is not political Like most of the world Cannot be understood with political frames, right? There’s no democracy in how you’re born like evolution is real and there’s certain Indications from the fact of evolution, right? And this is where it gets tricky like again, we are mediating Potential and actual right? So in some sense, yeah, we’re creating history Sure, of course, duh where history is being created irrespective of our involvement in it would be probably a better way to say it But because we’re involved in the creation of the here and now And that’s a that’s a problem and and so When you’re in your family and you’re not the parent will say Or even if you are one of the parents and not both of the parents There’s no democracy in a family. I mean, this is one of the arguments the communists make all the time in In family groups communism works. Well, except it’s not it’s not actually communism, but they have a point Even though it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s you know a point on top of their head because they don’t understand something simple, right? Which is that it’s easier for small groups to cooperate and when they cooperate everybody in the group does better. Yes, that that’s true But families also have a head of households and that head of household is not always the father Sometimes the mother has a pre-tilt to say about what’s going on in the family Sometimes more than the father and that isn’t manifest in the same way Right, so the subtle cues that women give to men that men don’t even realize most of the time are really important in shaping What the men do? And you got to take that into account, right? So it’s not that simple To say well communism works at the family level and here’s how leadership works and here’s how political power works It’s all tucked down from above. That’s a very postmodern narrative. It’s wrong Postmoderns wouldn’t know power to beat them on the ass because they don’t even have a reasonable definition of it that matches reality Right. So when you get stuck in these frames, right you say well, it’s all really economics and you can extend economics And you should extend economics to trade right? Like i’ll i’ll let you vote this way if you let me vote that way and you know, all of those sorts of things, right? Um, but but that’s you know ridiculous, right? So That’s the problem is that you know You it’s not as simple as putting it in a political frame or an economic frame or some other frame Like there’s a lots of influences and impacts from lots of different sources and so You know your ability to make an independent decision Is limited. You’re not making independent decisions of other people to begin with and I like I like what father eric saying here families at work are based on love, but I cannot love communists. Therefore communists are wrong You know, I can’t argue with the with the logic there. It sounds perfectly reasonable Yes, there’s some rationality to that that is correct Yeah, so Um, but The greeks had this distinction Where they had their work life. I think it was the religious life. They had the family life and then they had the polis right the political life um, right and A bunch of identities by the way Hmm a bunch of identities. Yeah, and and and the polis was was one of the ways which they could preserve being effectively, right like And Well So I already framed it in in in a conservative frame there. It’s like yes there’s there’s a preservation of of the way of being and and now uh, it seems to have flipped right like there’s There seems to be this this implication that the way of being is as a consequence of Where we’re aiming at right like like there’s this innovation that constantly needs to happen, right and Yeah, there’s this feel forward attitude right like oh like we have pollution So we need to produce more that can contain the pollution and and then Like we need we need to make better things and we need to make And it’s it’s it’s in some sense. It’s shifting Where Where the the cost is is being paid right? So it’s like oh, it’s the oil refineries in africa, right that are polluting the environment there or it’s it’s the child labor in in asia that that is Bearing the burden or whatever right? Like there’s all of these these ways where we’re just pushing things away and and And there’s these second order effects effectively, right? Like we’re doing something and then in order for that to be like a whole bunch of conditions need to be met And we don’t realize all the conditions that need to be met when we make the distinction to move forward Even assuming that we’re making this decision, right because there’s there’s a lot of things That that just happened and now I want to go back to to where we started actually, right like We make transgressions And We necessarily have to right like this is in some sense The recapitulation of of original sin, right? Like we’re we’re fallible creatures and we can’t account for everything Well, we have to find the boundaries and you don’t find boundaries unless you move up against them or across them, right? And so there’s a transgression in just exploration which is necessary, right? So We often forget that there are two states a state of rest and a state of action Like there’s different states of action one is a known action and the other is an unknown action roughly speaking Exploration is unknown action, right? It’s not the only type of unknown action The idea of exploring a space is going to lead to a transgression of some kind And that’s okay. That’s why you need to tolerate some transgressions, right? And this gets back to the perennial problem. How much do I tolerate? When do I stop? How much do I tolerate? When do I stop tolerating that much? What things do I never tolerate right all of these decision points they’re all they’re all difficult all these discernments Sorry, Manuel, please go on Well, yeah, right. So so we’re making these transgressions And then sometimes we’re like in bad, hopefully we’re doing a practice or like prayer or Journaling or meditation or whatever right where we’re Reflecting upon what we did but like we might not remember right like or we might be lazy and not do it Or we might even have never heard of that as an option And and then we we build up these these transgressions It’s it’s not even that right like we we might also not realize that we’re making the transgression And this is where we started as well right like if we don’t get feedback from the people around us like how do we get the discernment of Of what is wrong? right and then And then we go back to the second order effect, right? So now there’s there’s this transgression that happened, right? So now we’re not We’re not seeing what reality is we’re getting A malformed picture of reality because we’re not in right participation, right? And are we able to discern? the consequences of this right like so for example, right like If if I get upset when someone says something to me and and then I get into an argument and I get angry right, like I might assume that that is normal or that is the only way to relate to the situation because for me from my perspective, I don’t see an alternative to to that Happening and then we start we start building upon that right like now we we take that as an axiomatic assumption and And we start building our our coping strategies based upon. Okay, that’s going to happen While that is not necessary Right, and I I know father eric wasn’t here earlier obviously. Yeah, it’s not it’s not that That uh, you also give you know have to give signals to the people who transgress we did cover that earlier But also you’re denying the distributed cognition like the intelligence that is distributed the the ability to discern Right and the ability to and therefore the ability to decide when you are not recognizing Transgression when you are not acknowledging when you’re not calling out evil for example That’s one example if there are many and and that’s important because then society loses its sanity Because society loses the ability to discern good behavior from bad behavior, right? Is it okay that somebody do? You know What is that stupid thing that storybook hour with with transvestites? Like I I don’t think that’s okay Uh, and and is it okay when other people because I just read this on twitter apparently other people want to do a conservative Based story hour and they’re denied. No, I don’t think that’s okay because Definitely it’s not reciprocal. It’s not fair. It’s not even it’s not just right and so what’s really then it’s like well What’s really going on? Oh the society’s insane Technically, right and therefore it’s not making a distinction between good storybook hour at the at the library and bad storybook Hour at the library, right? There’s no discernment there There’s no because there’s too much tolerance But but you can’t really do tolerance right because then you can’t decide So it’s a trick when people tell you they’re tolerant what they’re saying is I’m not judging but Then they’re not taking action in the world and they certainly are taking action in the world So they’re lying to themselves, right? They’re not necessarily lying to you personally, but they’re lying to themselves Yeah, and father eric is uh Showing us that the catholic church is slow to the party and I think we should stop tolerating that kind of behavior Like we need them to take action Yes, we did not tolerate their slowness get on it short Uh, okay So we’re back to boundaries build blueprints the racks from port foundation frames are built On foundations make sure that’s plumbing and stuff square So, uh, he’s really a builder Yeah But it’s a good it’s it’s good to re-enchant and stop reducing things right to things like politics Right and to say there’s a lot of moving pieces And so, you know You have to have a little bit of grace for when you screw up and not expect politicians to get it, right? Not expect voters to get it right not expect churches to get it, right? Not expect people to get it right not expect the parents to get it right or have gotten it right, right? Not expect yourself to get it right because there’s a lot of moving parts and no matter what you’re doing I don’t care how smart you are what your iq is how smart you think you are how smart other people tell you you are You’re not smart enough to track half of that stuff. You just aren’t neither am I neither is manuel You’re not tracking that much stuff I wish you could but you can’t you’re just a limited muppet like the rest of the muppets and we’re all muppets And it’s and it’s okay and look if father eric wants to send out a memo to the catholic church Which I highly recommend Um, then I think that’s a good thing because yes some signal will get out there And it was the only thing that impressed me about the church down the street was I mean it was you know, techie It’s too late in my opinion But they actually wrote to the to rome and said we’re really concerned about this Uh this scandal around around the pedophile priest and said well 25 years too late, but at least you’re doing something like I don’t respect that. It was really impressed me So it was i’m glad that they did something, you know, and then that is how it works It’s one memo at a time It’s one little signal at a time because the distributed cognition and the church all the churches are distributed cognitions are very slow to move Yeah, so I I think father eric needs to feed the carrier pigeons because uh, else they might get distracted on boot And they’re gonna be even late Send the memo via carrier pigeon. I’ll have more weight for sure and that is actually technically true, right? How the message gets to you really matters how often you see the message really matters Um people often get fooled by well, I hear this every day. It must be common The number of people I know that are coming to me panicking and have been panicking for the past two and a half years Over the same over the same stuff. It’s like I understand that you hear that a lot But it’s four people who are very loud. I promise you it’s literally four people. Don’t worry about it They’re going to be loud for a while ignore them ignore that signal It’s a bad signal to signal that they want very badly, which is why they’re loud, but they’re not it’s not going to happen It’s not gonna happen So yeah And maybe if we write the the memo on a piece of golden paper, right or or we nail memo on the on the Door of the church, right? Like there’s many ways to highlight This this message and um Have it gain more status in some sense, right? So, um Yeah, so if we if we Bring that back into to these transgressions, right? Like we we need Some way to to highlight these transgressions to ourselves, right? Like to to lift them up from all of this well noise effectively of all these other things and and I think this is where the ecology of practices is gonna jump in there’s a a way in which we can Be intentional about our relationship to ourselves to the people around us that that Stops the clutter from cluttering Right, right. Well, you rely on the distributed cognition, right? Like if I need to know something about play dough, i’m not going to ask myself because I don’t you know Another play dough expert, but I might ask dr. Landry and jack who has an excellent channel and he would know he would answer me Because he’s awesome, but I wanted to highlight this then how come they have it’s a story hour, but we can’t yeah It’s an interesting idea. There’s some kind of egalitarian notions. No, there isn’t it’s not it’s not a justice issue Right. This is the problem Is that when you try to fit things into a legal frame or a political frame or both or an economic frame? You’re going to fail to understand that individual towns with individual libraries and they may have more than one Have the individual decision makers at that layer of reality making individual decisions now Can it rise to the courts it can it probably will in that particular case I got a feeling about this So i’ll just give you an example story So here’s here’s a true story of what happened in massachusetts massachusetts years ago years and years ago Probably maybe even 20 years ago. I forget how long ago it was they passed a law that basically said you couldn’t have You couldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex, right? The purpose of the law was to make sure that men’s only clubs weren’t allowed That was the purpose of the law stated by the people by the evil people I would say who did it This is what they wanted. That’s what they stated But the law that got passed said you could not discriminate you couldn’t have an organization or a club That discriminated on the basis of sex at all in the state of massachusetts ever Okay So what happened is because it’s massachusetts and the weirdest things happen in massachusetts You wouldn’t even imagine if you cannot imagine even if you live there You probably don’t know, you know one-tenth of the weird things that go on in the courts in particular Some guy had a woman’s only gym because they had women’s only gyms all over the place There were no male only gyms in massachusetts because they would get shut down immediately But women’s only gyms never got shut down because women are sacred and everybody knows that and no fool Would be foolish enough to shut down a woman’s only gym despite the law said everybody’s ignoring the law literally in the whole state of massachusetts I’m not joking. This actually happened So sun smart, I think it was a jewish lawyer out of out of newton Or wellsley or one of the wealthy towns with too much time on his hands and you know, he was wealthy He lived in a wealthy town decided that uh, the closest gym to him was a woman’s only gym and he was gonna sue So he sues and he wins Eventually they had to let him do the stupid gym And i’m of two minds on the one hand. Yay The law got upheld and on the other hand no, it was such a stupid law It never should have been passed, right? And so these little inconsistencies happen all over the place and it’s only this reduction this desire Well, if the federal government would just say everybody has to wear masks and everybody wear masks to have that workout It didn’t it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen Not even half the people wore masks all the idiots in the cities maybe uh, but everybody which is you know, not all the people Everybody outside the city wasn’t wearing masks, you know I I changed where I shopped for groceries because They had a citywide ordinance we didn’t have a statewide ordinance in south carolina They had a citywide ordinance So I stopped going to the city and just went to the closer groceries for that had less less less food that I wanted Whatever. I can I can survive on rice and beans. I can do the epicurean thing So that’s the problem is that justice isn’t this fast thing that reacts immediately just like the church Isn’t this fast thing that reacts immediately to everything that you see? Because you see more than it does like just the justice system the political system only sees things when people make a big deal Of them and that process takes a long time because you can get into negotiations with people people can tell you know They can stone all of you for months You know i’ve been involved in lawsuits. I’ve been an expert witness in a lawsuit These things take a long time even though to me it’s like 10 minutes. Do you have the documents? No, okay moving on you lose, right? Any idiot would look at the case and go in this case takes 10 minutes, right? But it never does the courts are always like or I have to come here five times For no reason other than to say two words and then all go home and come back in a month or six months or whatever The courts are ridiculously inefficient like go spend the day at the court They’ll let you just come in and watch for most things. You can just watch the court be completely insane and ridiculous I get a buddy who goes to court all the time and whenever i’m up in new england. He’s like, oh come on You’re going to go down to the courthouse where i am is going to be fun You know and the only reason why he wants me to go because when he goes he wins and he wins every single case It’s unbelievable But he’s also very well organized and he knows and he knows the people and and yeah, I mean I like what father eric said here inefficiency is a feature not a bug because you don’t want to make large changes too quickly And so the larger systems the distributed cognitions that are above us Are very slow to change because that’s important It’s not it’s not like oh we should instantly be able to make everybody wear masks because some President said so or some premier said so or some parliament passed some law, right? You’ve got to give people time to adjust Right because you can’t just implement it tomorrow and strike going after businesses because I mean it just takes time to do these things But but also you don’t want to because how else do you find out if you’re wrong if things happen instantly? And so it’s a good point I want to bring back tolerance in here Because I think if we look at tolerance from this framing, it’s it’s like a way to To take load of the system, right? So there’s the slow moving system that has high implications and and therefore should be wielded with care and And also, yeah, like we there’s limited resources, right? So should also have a high level of relevance realization It should only relate to to things that are really important and not so much to to the lesser things Although they might be bad right and important to that layer of of reality, right? So one of the things that people don’t understand is that when governments talk about inflation They aren’t talking about the inflation that you feel in your pocketbook because governments Their fundamental job is not to make you comfortable. It’s to make it it’s to make things It’s to make it so that you have affordances so that you’re able to do things, right? But the government’s job is to manage the price of commodities for businesses So when they measure inflation, they measure things like commodity price commodity price of wheat and corn doesn’t affect me Because it doesn’t go up and down that much I mean it does can can but largely those fluctuations I never see because they get absorbed by the grocery store by the people delivering the food by the people growing the food But people processing the food etc, etc, etc so those Those things that are happening that level that I never see because I only care when I go to the grocery store how much my food costs The government doesn’t care about your grocery store though, but they do care about that middle place So I just wanted to put that little caveat in there it’s not that they’re looking at relevance They’re looking at relevance at the layer at a specific layer Because relevance at that layer and relevance at the layer below it and relevance at the layer above it may be related But you can’t adjust all three at the same time And so you have to adjust one and see how the other two are affected. Sorry, Daniel. Please continue right well and and so if you Take the analogy to the body right like there’s there’s things that happen to your toenail that Are annoying to your toenail right and and maybe there needs to be some antibodies that go there or whatever, right? But but at a certain point you get the signal of pain Right, like the signal of pain is the thing that That brings in Well the attention of the head and says oh like I I now need to go Onto this part of the body. I need to have an executive decision, right? Like maybe I need to clean my feet. Maybe I need to put a bandage on Maybe I need to go to the doctor, right? And i’m going to the doctor’s again a higher level of escalation because now your whole body needs to participate in a project That that will just serve the functioning of the foot, right? so so there’s and and then the the tolerance thing is is Letting these things right like oh like my my foot is Annoying me, right? But I I don’t have time to go to the doctor like that like I I have to do whatever because Like that is of immediate importance, right? And then a lot of these things they they will just resolve themselves across time, right and and there will be a cost associated to that right like you you might have bad sleep as a consequence of your foot hurting for a while like Like you might you might not be able to walk as as properly as as you could right? And these things could have been resolved but but they they get That cost gets carried by you in favor of manifesting something else. So now we’re we’re again talking about trade-offs and and what are the values that that we’re striving for right and then There’s there’s this Thing right where you might ignore your foot once Maybe you might ignore it twice but if you have a chronic problem like there’s the reason why chronic problems are a special category in in the healthcare industry, right like then you’re You’re You’re changing the way that you’re you’re living your life as a consequence of the endurance of the problem, right? So you might you might look at it one way right? Like when when when your your feet is hurting all the time you start favoring your leg, right? And then when you start favoring your leg you you start Walking a little bit sideways and now you’re And then you hurt your neck. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, that’s that’s the process that we’re talking about Let’s let’s find out what chad has to has to say about all this. What do you think chad? uh Uh when you guys were talking about law stuff, um, I was reminded of um when covid first went down um and like the Whatever the lockdowns or whatever and we had to wear masks and stuff um My wife and I had to get a piece of paper notarized I think for our wedding it might have been Like my I don’t remember which paper it was but it needed to get notarized. So we go to this place It was the ups store and uh And we go in there and I have it we all have our masks on and um And she’s like well do you have your id I said yes, so I give her my id Well, my identification card had been What’s the word? Uh expired Expired. Yeah for like a month or two And she’s like, i’m sorry. I can’t use this you have anything else and so I go and I’m like I have my union card identification Uh, and you know when they took the picture, I never thought I’d ever use this card I just made like a stupid goofy face on it You know And so she’s like that’ll work and she takes the card and she uses it and she uses it But you know what she never did She never asked to see my face Yeah No, I know Well, yeah, but then that’s the problem the government can ask for something Right, but the ability for people to implement it is a different question and it has to be implemented by someone somewhere And not everyone’s capable of doing all the same things and not everybody does the same things in the same way And so that’s that’s part of the problem is that this top-down power from above narrative doesn’t work because It doesn’t work like there isn’t a single entity Doing doing all the things It was hilarious. So it’s like wait So you’re gonna you’re going to give me trouble because my driver’s license is invalid and you’re going to take a piece of Identification that is not a government identification and You’re going to accept that and not look at my face, right? Right, right, right, but they don’t but they don’t see that like you thought it all through because you’re able to but most people aren’t Most people aren’t able to see things like that and that’s the problem. We don’t appreciate how Difficult thinking is and how hard it is for people to engage and then when You notice something that somebody else doesn’t notice irrespective of your intelligence or iq or anything, right? Because you can argue that brett weinstein’s ever for the only attention to politics and so his ideas Are about equivalent to a four-year-old literally, right? Because that happened like some of the stuff he describes i’m like dude You need to read the federalist papers the way you’re describing the way government should work is actually what they wrote about in the federalist papers You’re just re describing and rediscovering something that people already discovered He doesn’t know he’s ignorant of that, but he just thinks he has a solution to what he perceives as a problem Right, and and then he’s a smart guy like he has very high iq and he’s very well read He’s just not very well read in politics and we all have that like we all have our limitations of relevance Our limitations of attention our limitation of awareness our limitations of information and our limitations of of what knowledge? You know we have access to where or can or can uh generate for ourselves so Uh grah has brought up something. I can’t remember who he talked with but it was like I I can’t remember which amendment it was or Whatever, maybe it’s in the constitution about how if something gets out of whack You know, it’s it’s up to the responsibility of the people to To change things or change. I can’t remember see this is how uneducated um, I am I don’t know how many other people are uneducated around the constitution, but like do you know what i’m talking about was which which part is that in the constitution where it talks about Basically Taking the system down and starting over And when things get out of balance or I can’t remember no, it’s it’s supposed to self-adjust you don’t tear it down There’s nothing about tearing it down there was there was I think it was thomas jefferson who said we should have a revolution Every 80 years or something crazy, right? But but even the idea of revolution in the united states is different from the what people conceive of right? It’s not tear down the government. That’s anarchy Yeah, no, it’s it’s the fourth. I can’t remember what you Can’t remember what it is. But yeah, I was wondering about that and like I don’t know I’m Listening right now Yeah, there’s nothing there’s nothing preventing us from changing the system That’s the strength in the united states of the u.s System, right is the way that it changes because you can change the european systems pretty easily too, right? It’s just a different mechanism. I think people get confused and I think that um That yeah, I mean Bringing back the framing on this story time egalitarianism issue It’s not egalitarianism that’s at play right it’s equality as such right? It’s equal treatment or equal opportunity Right egalitarianism isn’t equal opportunity. That’s not what it is And so you can frame the issue any way you want, right? But if people don’t want to do it, they’re not going to do it This is the problem Right. The right frame is to say that there is a spirit of what that doesn’t want people to engage um and and uh Equal right? They don’t they’re not down for the equality They may say they are and this is again this goes back to the problem People say things all the time that aren’t true about themselves like constantly it happens. Everybody does it we all do it We’re all muppets. It happens and we don’t I don’t do that Except manuel Right, because he’s really a robot spider built by sally joe. So we all know I have nets and I can capture you Exactly exactly I’m really wondering what people think about this weird guy wearing a mask with a hole in it standing at the gas pump in the middle of the city I think he’s he’s he’s pretty uh, pretty pretty freaky Yeah, didn’t they do something like that? with some cartoon It reminds me of um Um Yeah, you want to hit up one of these comments here man? Yeah, I think I think this is the one that summarizes it uh, so there’s this idea that we can’t talk about examples in history and And say that it can happen now and Well In some sense that that is obviously true, right? Like it happened exactly the same way, right? But history rhymes if not repeats So also no Yeah, so there there isn’t there is an element where where there’s a bunch of specifics That that are necessary for something to happen, but you can also talk about history in a different way where there is different forces or different spirits that come together, right and then If if you if you start seeing the world in that way, then you can say well, okay, then there’s a limited Way for that energy to disperse right and so one one of them can be in separation, right? like one of them can be in conflict like one of them can be in We recapturing that energy into something productive right like there’s there’s all of these ways and then Then the specifics of the situation they are gonna Decide right or define The fields that That these energies can manifest true And then there’s going to be individuals that will redirect That energy into one direction or the other direction, right? So all of these things they come together and then that that is how things happen And so you in some sense you can say no Like we can’t take these things from the past and and apply them to the present but in another sense, yes, right and and then What you have to realize is that there’s a level of certainty, right? Like You you you’re talking not with certainty, but you’re talking about tendencies instead Yeah, well and it’s the modern Everything’s different that is obviously false like everything is not different A lot of the patterns that unfolded in the past are going to unfold again And I think that’s one of the things that people miss like over the past 50 years has been great It’s like well, yeah, but if you go back 100 it hasn’t and you can see these patterns over time so that that’s part of the problem is that When you’re not engaging correctly with the patterns you can always say well the implementation is different and therefore it’s different But actually, you know, it’s not different like we’re not different people fundamentally. We’re not more rational We’re not more intelligent on average. None of that stuff is true and none of it’s backed up by any data at all Right. These people like to say it over and over and over again so that they believe it but it’s not There’s a story too that I like to tell so that the british museum has a youtube channel And on that youtube channel Uh, there’s a guy named uh, irving, uh Finkel I think it is but anyway, he’s he’s the director of you know antiquities or something like that or he was and and He he tells the story about the world’s oldest game, which is Not not a game from egypt. It’s not senate Like I thought it was this game called the we now call it the royal game of ur And he says well the first time they found this game, you know They found they found one of these games intact They were surprised that there was a drawer in the bottom of the game to hold the game pieces And i’m like, why would anybody be surprised about that? Did they think the people that lived five or six thousand years ago were retarded or they’re stupid like they weren’t stupid Of course, they knew how to build drawers and put drawers for Pieces like they’re not dumb Like why would you assume that but we had the snobbery about the modern era You know mostly based on the fact that we’re standing on the shoulders not not just of giants but of average folk And folk that are lesser than us, right? They built the past that we that we you know that we now built built our our present upon right and Those people had many of the same concerns many of the same problems many of the same philosophies many of the same religious traditions and Many of the same struggles and we’re just not recognizing that Well, yeah now that brings up this whole thing about I think one of the most like the Most difficult things that modern people will do Is accept their averageness It’s like so like, you know, it’s like For me, that’s that’s one of my primary aims Can I just be okay with being average? And the more I move into that like the more freedom I feel you know, and yeah, it’s that’s absurd like Yeah, and humorous is ridiculous Well, and I think I think what that leads to is precisely the problem that people have which is they go You know what? I can understand the world my my my forefathers couldn’t really understand what’s going on Which is why you know To cast and things in history is dangerous because sometimes people didn’t see it that way and you’re just wrong about your historical conclusions, right? but I can come up with a frame to understand the world and i’m just going to use politics and i’m going to say the government Controls everything which is so obvious bs The past two and a half years hasn’t proven anything to you Other than the government has very little control any government anywhere in the world very little control their population I don’t know what to tell you, you know Masks weren’t a thing in my state except for 90 days florida never did masks or maybe they did them for a month or something South dakota never did masks like The federal government put a mask mandate in place and everybody pretty much ignored it like not everybody everybody But the vast majority of people ignored it, right? Like the control the government has is zero basically, right when the government does not reflect the people There’s a mismatch and then they have to use force but the government is a tiny number of percentage of population So their ability to use force is limited, right? This is all good news, by the way You’re not controlled by your government. You have a great deal of control over the government so I I want to respond with with this right like because we’re we’re talking about tolerance effectively and I think what is happening is is people are over tolerant To everything and part of the thing that the tolerant towards is the government now That manifests in the way that the government does a thing and they don’t get a lot of opposition But that doesn’t mean that people are actually complying With what the government is doing or that they’re agreeing with right? Like what what what what’s going on is they? They’re at a place where avoiding the conflict or or being part of the hood Is being privileged over? Rebellion and I think this is a consequence of affluence, right? Because if you’re affluent then you don’t need to protect the things that you have in the same way As when you’re not right because you can have find alternative means right? So it’s like well Like I don’t I don’t want to wear a mask So like i’m not going to go to the pub drinking with a mask because that’s silly So i’m just going to watch netflix, right? Like if you don’t have netflix, then That that is a different decision Right, and so I I I don’t think that that the government is actually exerting Control, but but but yeah, like there’s this this idea right like that this these recent generations. They’re They’re not properly in alignment to why I you call them philosophical aspects, but I would argue that they’re probably more religious aspects right like where Where do you base your actions? right, and if you don’t if you don’t have a a source of justification for your actions, right like you’re you’re going to place it in politics or in science true politics or or true science in politics like one of one of those ways Well, really it’s it’s all rooted self-centeredness. It’s like Yeah, the government doesn’t need to have control when they weaponize uh like something like Your lack of virtue so like the other’s lack of virtue, I guess so Like it’s convenient when it’s convenient It’s like that. It’s like the guy that you said there that sued that That a woman’s gym. It was like it was convenient for him to do like that’s You don’t need a government to be half top down that you can just put something like that in place that people can weaponize something like that like if the snap of the fingers and like you know another thing to to remember it’s like Well, I think it’s really interesting we live in a world today that is I think unlike anything that we’ve ever ever ever even come close to experiencing. I mean Everyday people have like the greatest library that one could ever imagine in the ancient world And that in the palm of our hands, I mean like you think about that every idiot has it myself included you know like And I don’t even know like There’s so much that goes along with that. It’s like I remember I refused to uh use To use google maps or map quest Or any of that stuff for years up until like maybe only Five years ago and now it’s like Now I can’t even like like I need maps map quest to go somewhere You know what I mean? And so I think about all that stuff is kind of intertwined. I know all over the place But there’s all of this is intertwined It’s it’s like a it’s like this other level of affluence Where it’s like Yeah, it’s like intellectual affluence or something where it’s like pseudo intellectualism Yeah, we’re all the sobbery of elevation of intelligence whatever that is and it is undefined which is interesting It’s a mass of intelligence because it’s not my intelligence Right, but that gives us the concept that we can understand things about the world And then when we try we come up with small frames like politics or like economics or like generations Or you know these tiny frames and then we try to fit the whole world into them and then when our prediction that’s that middle out Yeah, yeah, well it leads to the middle out thinking for sure. Yeah, if you haven’t seen my video right because at the bottom of all of it It’s the bottom of all of it really is even like a self I think it’s a self-centered philosophy and I think it’s a weapon Where the salt is at the center if you have that kind of philosophy a thing like tolerance is a weapon So, you know like it’s not like true tolerance It should be a tool using wisdom just like discernment You know all those are all like and if you’re in a room by yourself and you never actually are in the world amongst people It’s a self-centered philosophy Where it’s all just thinking thinking thinking like, you know And then you have an amplified voice where you can go on places like twitter any idiot can be a reporter with you know, it’s like Yeah, just like me right now like I have no idea what i’m talking about I think i’m onto something but i’m not exactly sure No, well, that’s the thing I mean you’re tying a bunch of threads together and this is this is the conceit that we have The world is very complex and you really do need to rely on distributed cognition to get through the world Like you don’t actually have a choice when you try you will fail You’ll you’ll go after a guru or you’ll start listening to a particular news outlet or you’ll grab somebody on youtube Or a bunch of people on your group and try to put it together yourself Right and then that just needs to confuse you with frustration because your predictions about how the world can unfolder You know keep being incorrect like in a substantial way And and it really is that lie of intelligence roughly speaking in how much we tell people they have in terms of How much how intelligent are you? It’s like well, you’re not smart enough to do most of these things and that’s why distributed cognition is important And that’s why you have to rely on it. It’s not an optional thing You’re not free to say i’m giving up on all distributed Cognition whatsoever and i’m not going to have access to this to this anymore like you’re embedded in it. You don’t have a choice so To go back to this idea of having a library in in your pocket, right? Like well, what was a library? before the printing A library was a place where They gathered books, right? So first of all someone had to create the book, right? So that was a big investment so a lot of that Yeah, so so creating a book is already a barrier to to enter right and then They have to gather the book from somewhere and and they have to want it and they have to upkeep it, right? So so someone has to value the book as well as the person has to value the book in order to create it, right? and And then they get organized in in the place right in the library So they get stacked in relation to each other due to relevance, right? Like there so there’s all of these filters that that happen that select The the knowledge that that is appropriate from from knowledge that is less appropriate and We don’t have that on the internet, right? Like yeah And they would like they would make sure that not every idiot got into the library That as well right so there’s a forbidden knowledge aspect as well, right? Like oh in order to properly relate to this content you need to First know these these things and yeah, like that barrier is also removed on the internet. So Right, well, I think I think yeah, we should we should address this I like this this comment from uh, nahama Um, he might be the smartphone automatically Obliviate obliterated the previous previously automatic boundaries discernment between work home government and god Now everything is up for questioning at any point in time and I would modify that slightly I would say it didn’t obliterate the boundaries, but it allowed you to do that. In other words, it affords tolerance Right and and this is the point there’s too much tolerance in the world, right? There’s too much tolerance available to us and Making just decisions, right making judgments Which requires discernment all of these processes discernment decision judgments and decisions Are cognitively difficult. They require a lot of hard Thought and thought it takes a lot of energy out of us and so we don’t it’s not tolerance though Well, it is but it is tolerance like not yeah, it’s not we’re not talking about tolerance you’re talking about We’re talking about social bypassing. It’s it’s not tolerance tolerance requires a real relation You know and and like That’s what they relation but you’re what you’re talking about is you’re wiping a like You’re like a like a social bypassing unlike I don’t agree with it. So i’m not going to look at all or you know, or they’re idiots and so I shut my ears That’s one side effect of it chat, but that’s not what i’m talking about. I’m talking about Yeah, but that’s not the ability to be tolerant and actual like to actually be tolerant takes wisdom and there’s a real lack of that and I don’t think that What we’re actually talking about is tolerance. It’s Like I said, it’s a sort of bypass No, the ability to be tolerant requires nothing the ability to do tolerance correctly requires wisdom And that’s the problem is that people are too easily able to be tolerant And so they are being too tolerant and tolerant towards the wrong things And then you get this stupid story hour problem You get these other problems where people are okay telling other people to wear masks and you get all of these other Second order effects from all of that because people are too used to being too tolerant about too many things and they’re able to do it Because of some of this technology And I can I can link tolerance to virtue because if you treat tolerance as a virtue, right like now there’s an imperative to Express the tolerance, right and and I think that’s what happens with the story. Oh, right like there isn’t there’s an imperative to to include those on the outside right because that’s what you should do, right because there’s There’s there’s there’s Yeah, there for sure talks about the split right like this there’s been this confusion, right where we’re we’re we’re privileging Uh Well, we’re no longer seeing the the boundaries and now so The imposition of the boundaries is is gonna cause stress and therefore is associated with with either Right, like there’s there’s a negativity that is implicit in And and this is this is related to our feelings, right? So so what what is tolerance doing right? Like it’s it’s privileging people, right? Or the maintenance of peace right and and it’s no longer recognizing that if If you tolerate things too long Peace cannot exist anymore because now you have built up too much energy too much tension For for for these things to to be stable anymore Yeah, you’re not you’re not correcting me. I’m gonna I’m gonna start I’m gonna start robotting really quick I’m gonna start robotic quick. I want to say something quick before I have to kind of speak but so like And tolerance like in machining tolerance is like the space between how far something Like when you machine a tool or something you only have a little bit of tolerance And if you can’t go outside of those those numbers, so that’s what I mean by tolerance Tolerance is within boundaries now If you throw that meant what’s happened is the measuring tool has gotten so far out of black Now we’re not in the land of tolerance. We’re in the land of chaos So keep that in mind when we that’s how I understand tolerance it’s like there is understood Um again like the foundations thing right like we understand what foundations were on now if we’re in the desert There is no foundations. You can’t have tolerance out there You know, so that’s what I mean by tolerance Yeah, well there’s an aspect of being able to measure tolerance, but there’s also an aspect of making it universal Right, which is where you have a measurement, but you’re ignoring that measurement and you’re saying well I know this person transgressed, but i’m not going to do anything about it. Um, I think that’s a fair way to think about it. Um You know and that’s and that’s where the problem comes in people don’t want to admit That yeah, we have too much stuff It’s too easy for us to avoid conflict and rather than learning to conflict learning to interface in a in a conflicting matter with people we are allowing people to uh You know to to not to not do that, right? And and then they don’t have the skill anymore and everybody else doesn’t have the signaling that’s required And that’s a you know, that’s a problem It’s a huge it’s actually a huge problem Yeah interesting Yeah, mules trolls are no good being attacked by trolls in the studio Being childish Congratulations. So uh, yeah, like we seem to have a new generation of uh of people that Can’t participate correctly with other people Right Well, then we’re too tolerant of them. We should throw them off the internet entirely which we could do technically actually I’m a little surprised the google isn’t on that they could do they could do a lot better job And and that is I mean again, this is part of the enablement of tolerance, right? It’s too easy to let everybody do whatever they want. Whatever they want. It’s too easy to let people join uh Join chats and join You know live streams and it’s very hard for one or even two people to sort of figure out Well, what are you know, what are we? You know, what are we doing? right and and uh, and how do we do it Right, and and that’s why I like the rule of no camera. No, no, you know, you’re not going to be here Right and then you’re gonna put your camera up first so we can see who and what you are So you’re not spamming the spamming the channel because it’s too easy to do the barrier to entry is zero and barriers to entry are annoying But they serve a filtering purpose and filtering Is part of tolerance like if you’re not filtering for bad actors You’re going to end up not being able to get rid of the bad actors because they’re just going to keep coming Yeah And they’re very persistent and they know how to do interesting things but they don’t think they’re uh Don’t think they’re uh it who they say they are at this point Oh Poor poor poor nick feels uh Discriminated against Well, we’re discriminating against you so that’s too bad If we did that with who you were that would be different But actually yeah There’s a problem with validating people whether sitting in the waiting area in the studio and apparently you can fake the names Which I didn’t realize so you can appear to be somebody who you’re not it’s like, ah very tricky but That level of filtering is required and when we’re not filtering You’re you’re running into problems. It’s it’s funny to be running into the tolerance problem right here Yeah yeah, well I think I think uh, yeah, I I made that that comment that that cigarette hole has uh, some uh Some connotations in in our culture that uh are of a sexual nature. Uh or of that more Horror like nature I like what joey said here, right? When you stop realizing you’re in a filtered environment you start thinking socialism works and other silly beliefs exactly Well, and the thing is zero of these people want to be in an unfiltered environment, right? Because they want to take advantage of your rules so that they can gain some control over the situation or exert some force over the situation Right and you’ll notice I didn’t use the the p-word there Uh, because basically I don’t believe it’s appropriate right? It’s not it’s not power Uh, it’s a whole different different kettle of fish and I think that is the important part is when we fail to filter when we have Too much tolerance we’re letting too much stuff in and then you have bad effects left right and center And it’s been a big problem in online platforms in particular Hey, chad, welcome back. I resent that comment about the hole in my mask You’re not being very tolerant right now chad I I Like to aim towards things i’m not too attached to results. Okay There we go. Well, that’s good. That’s what you need to be right? You need to aim for things and not worry about the lions coming to eat you because the lions are coming to eat you There ain’t no way around that paul paul van der klee calling on my Nightmarish holy mask with smoke in it He’s got a holy mask and the pastor doesn’t like it Okay You’re a real pastor. I have my doubts this this mask is the icon of worshiping cigarettes Okay, like like he’s right and this is not tolerable under any church standard This is the mask is going to be the vestments of the future of the future I you can you can you can you can drink your slurpee through it? Hey think about this like Think about this the masks were typically used before the Covid thing in hospitals, correct? Yeah, the hospital is the church the modern church And how do we venerate the hospital? We’re all needs wear masks That’s interesting framing I think this is a good example of where framing can lead you astray, but yes, I I actually I I like meta Jett no, no paul has to put his on this video again Was that paul who was was that paul who was bombing this chat or this video Definitely definitely we’ve now seen explicit pictures That kind of troll Somehow I don’t think so Yeah, like we can’t filter the trolling of paul van der klee like like we can’t even filter that like I thought that guy was fired Uh, I well that that may be I don’t think I don’t think we Deadline Well, he was just laid off. There’s no reason to fire paul from anything despite what jacob may feel but yeah, it’s it’s all fine Everything’s fine. The only fire that paul needs to deal with is the fire of purification That’s right. That’s right. The holy fire of purification indeed I wonder if the brothers themselves have such a concept Well, no, because then they wouldn’t protest anymore they’re too tolerant that’s the well Maybe that’s what’s driving their protest is the the fire of purification You’re constantly trying to purify the church even though it’s mostly already accomplished. We’ll say His father eric might might say I don’t know Well, do me a favor here once so like you made this distinction about the protest, right? It’s more something Right. So what is the protestant in that frame? I’m mislabeling Luther’s original protest was a valid Protest, I think I mean i’m not this is way out of my way out of my lane here But I think it was a valid protest I think the problem and luther said this like luther wrote about this like when he did was a mistake He realized that later because it caused a lot of doubt and and it was you know Wasn’t like the catholic church fought back and slaughtered all the it wasn’t it wasn’t a one-way thing It was you know in protestant for fighting protestants and it was a mess and luther saw all that was like, oh no I shouldn’t have done that stupid Uh nailing of the of the thing to the door where it led right because you don’t you don’t know where things are going to lead Yeah, well, yeah, and that’s a lot of that’s out of his hands like So just because you hammer some 95 pieces to a door doesn’t mean some asshole down the street is it going to take print a bunch of this stuff Well It’s it’s are you going to take it to heart? Right, that’s the first discernment and then what you’re going to do about it and there’s lots of things you could do about it. So Uh, this is a good question. Could you be unintentionally or intentionally advocating for intolerant bubbles? Well, no, i’m not advocating for balls, uh, because what is a quote bad according to one bubble is different to what is Yeah, look these are perennial problems Your idea of bad and my idea of bad are going to be different and one of us is going to be more or less Correct in some frame and in another frame. It’ll be the opposite like that’s going to happen These are not straightforward problems. You can’t just sit there and say I know it will all be Level of four that’s the tolerance level we need and if we’re all for tolerant It’ll be you can’t do that. It’s not a universal That’s why we’re working it out through government through the religion right by making these changes Protestantism I am sure pastor paul will love to hear this Protestantism did some great things and fixed a bunch of bad stuff in the catholic church for sure, right? You know, does that justify all the depth? That’s a tougher question, right? The protestants better believe the answer is yes the way But whatever like I don’t have an opinion on any of that. I’m just saying there’s lots of consideration You can’t just boil this stuff down And it’s not about bubbles We are all in bubbles and always will be because our cognition is limited And we have to pick which groups we need to be part of or are going to be part of and which groups we’re going to Exclude right? We can’t have full tolerance for everything because we can’t track everything We can’t even track a lot of things the dunbar number is allegedly what 150? And you can argue with the number So you’re saying that the So the tolerance between the dumbar number now is between 150 and 1000 No Don’t take it seriously the dumbar number is just to say to say that there’s a limitation to what you can deal like There’s two same thing with tolerance But there’s two there’s two important limitations. There’s the limitation of what you can do in the moment In other words, how many friends can you actually call? It’s not a thousand right? You can’t call a thousand people every month or most people can’t so are they your friends? But over the course of your life, have you had a thousand friends that you called? Of course you have Like, you know like that’s not you know, or of course it’s possible, right? And that’s the problem is that we’re not we’re not accounting for time in history and future we’re not even thinking about these things uh, and I I want to talk about these bubbles, right? So first of all, right like when we talk about bubbles, we’re effectively talking about structures without structures or something, right? Like Which which is again really protestant? And uh the way of way of being right like we don’t want to build this build this constriction around About This identity that I have because that’s what the bubble is right? Like it’s it’s a shared identity And so when you when you have a shared identity you need to protect that identity from the outside because if there’s too much Influence from the outside. It’s it’s it’s gonna lose its identity because it’s gonna become something else Right. So so there needs to be an integration process like that like there needs to be A shielding from the outside and and then there needs to be a permeation of of a boundary from the outside Like all of this stuff is necessary and depending on what point in time For the same bubble Those things are going to change like so so even for the same bubble like this is not a a permanent condition and then Well, these bubbles have different functionalities So the fact that they’re having a different functionality means that they should have different shielding from the outside and different Coherence of identity right like like how strong do I need to maintain that identity in relation to my other identities, right? Like so for example, if you’re a father or a mother It’s really really important to maintain that identity else. Your child is going to start right like like that It’s not an option to to release yourself from that identity for an extended period of time And so like all of this bubble stuff, it’s like no it’s healthy to have bubbles, right? and so the problem with bubbles is if you take the rules from inside the bubble to the outside of the bubble and expect people to Coherent to those rules, right? Because because now you’re transgressing with your impositions of of the norms and values that that you Want to relate to the world with like you you at that point? You lose the authority right like there’s there’s there’s I want to focus on this because actually Bazzini has a perfect example The green bay packers fan club is intolerant of bears fans. No one sees a problem with that, right? So we keep focusing on well bubbles are a problem. No bubbles are not a problem There are problems with bubbles which are inevitable because bubbles are inevitable, right? But not all the things about bubbles are bad And this is where we get sick. We see a bad thing and therefore we must limit as purity or purification It’s puritanical thinking right and it’s wrapped up in perfection We’re not living in a perfect world and we’re not perfect people So the idea that we’re going to be living in a perfect world is nonsense So you can’t have perfection as your standard you have to have some discernment Around what you’re willing to tolerate and what you’re not willing to tolerate and because things have to change, right? But that is the problem there are plenty of bubbles that are positive Sports bubbles are an excellent example like that that level of conflict where you have boston versus new york Which is probably the most famous right that is wrapped up in a history It goes all the way back before the country was a country like literally this is just The puritans hating on the dutch at the end of the day, right? And then they had a more of an excuse when stupid dutch people got wealthy when they dredged their harbor in the late 1800s Right and then that and then that caused more wealth than has ever been caused on the planet before or since by the way Right. That was the golden age to robber barons all that That was in in conflict with boston because before that the wealthiest man In north america was john hankock, right? Right all the money was in boston until right. So now there’s there’s more reason to hate new york city the nouveau riche That’s where that comes from right and then and now that that tension gets resolved Continually over and over again in the new york yankees versus the boston red sox, right? And all these other, you know teams that are sort of battling in a proxy war to decide You know who’s on top this year roughly speaking, right? Along with that that’s perfectly healthy because the alternative is war. So can we really say that uh, protestantism Was a bad thing. I mean, let’s keep it real You just said that all of that caused the greatest wealth in the world ever and we’re all like We’re all like swimming in that right now, so that’s hilarious But I gotta hop off pretty soon, but I was thinking we should uh rename this video. Um bubbles boundaries found uh foundations frames and tolerance or something like that and and and bitches Damn it, I tried to I tried to say bitches and then leave so I won’t do that again Sorry if i’ve offended you bye-bye He can find his way out in the waiting room So, uh, I yeah utilitarianism, uh Yeah, utilitarianism is They have a tolerance problem that well, I think I think Has a discernment problem And can’t enact anything in the world confirmed we can just absolutely agree to that Okay, I thought you that utilitarianism was let’s just take the utilitarianism because Think about who it is that’ll help you Utilitarianism is intolerant of any of any flaw. That’s the problem with utilitarianism is that it’s puritanism like It’s like and they don’t realize that because they’re dumb because you’re using logic reason or rationality My three of these favorite tools To to to wrap up the world. It’s like yeah, that’s not gonna work. It’s gonna lead to this puritanism Um Yeah, okay So like I want to I want to rehash my point About bubbles, right like so so bubbles have an internal Culture, I guess right or not not an internal culture, but an internal Way way of relating Like a way of seeing the world right like a way of expect that expecting things From others, right and then when we step out of that bubble like When we step out of that bubble like others are gonna be behaving different, right? And there’s the saying when in rome act as the romans do and And I think there’s also this whole thing about paul in When he’s relating to the greeks writers, like how do we deal with with these pagan worshipers, right and They’re accentuating this idea that when you have to relate to these people on the outside Then you have to adjust you can’t be as pure as you are in your home right like I think it’s the same thing like when you go to work, you can’t have your family rules apply at work because You’re you’re having to account for other people around you and when you’re when you’re gonna take your family rules into work You’re gonna end up in conflict right? Like now you’re you’re gonna end up being a bigot effectively, right? and and so The the bubble of family is a good thing Like it’s a good thing because that’s a protective shelf where your kids can grow up You can you can educate people in in the safety and comfort that they need in order to be educated because that safety and comfort might not be there if There’s more tolerance towards different ways of being right? So Bubbles good Physician of bubbles back Right, well I do I do want to address sort of the end of this right your Understanding their bubbles are not necessarily bad. That’s good And not from the particular bubble like globally like you need people with different focuses different Specializations focused on different things right? Like if you’re a scientist specializing in chemistry The chemistry science bubble is important for all of us It’s you know, so it’s not there’s a global reality to the fact that things don’t operate in the flat world on one layer right that there’s multiple layers to the world, so the problem with immigration and assimilation is Different places handle it differently and you can just see them like you don’t it doesn’t take Education and information, you know from you know, some some particular source You just look at the results like Some immigration is always required and the question is always how much it’s a perennial problem And that amount changes over time for sure based on any number of factors and that’s the problem like everybody wants You’ve been trained in science or at least normally Told that science is good and you can just understand things by understanding the one largest moving variable in the equation Some things don’t have that property though Some things don’t happen reducing things to one variable means you’re ignoring all of the other variables and some of those may be small To the thing you’re looking at but big to other things that are way more important, right? And so it could be if you let too many muslims into the uk That a problem arises or if you want an actual example It could be if you let any any relatively small number of muslims into sweden you get fires and bombings Which they’ve had for years for years for like it’s a big problem, right? So you think tolerance and but in sweden where it’s a very Monocultural society unlike the united states. It’s different and they weren’t They weren’t allowing people or requiring people to assimilate Right, they weren’t able to do that. And so that was a that was a problem. They weren’t they weren’t allowing that And because they weren’t allowing that Um, there was no process of assimilation at the same problem in france, by the way, right? And so those people are acting out and of course they’re acting out. They’re frustrated You can’t have what sweden or france or some other country offers if you can’t assimilate And if the country doesn’t allow you or doesn’t force you to assimilate then you’re not going to have the same advantages Like and so there’s a trade-off Um, Just beliefs to have the advantages of living in another country because you might have to i’m not saying you do have to i’m saying You might have to Right. There are trade-offs involved and in the united states the thing that makes immigration so successful Is the desire of people to come into the country? and actually Want to be like us Right, they want to be like the americans they want the u.s ethos now That’s less true now And so it’s more of a problem than it was 20 years ago 30 years ago 50 years ago, right? But it’s a problem And that’s what we have to uh, that’s what we have to sort of decide on So Yeah about about immigration like I’m going back to the body metaphor, right? Like well, I guess I want to go with bubbles in the body, right like a brain right like Has has this But what is it this barrier? Well, the cell has a barrier right like in order for the cell to be a cell it has to have Have its barriers all of these barriers and and and they’re separating Specific tissues from from other tissues because if the other tissue comes in it corrupts right and then it’s like Well, we we want to let in the nutrients and and we we want to get out the pollution and and then there’s there’s these These other entities right like that need to travel through tissues in order to manifest something within the tissue like blobs to Give oxygen for example, right? So so there’s all of these things and and then there’s there’s a certain level of tolerance, right? So so for example, you can get fat in your liver, right? And then that’s okay Up until a certain point and then the fat in the liver starts disrupting the capacity of the liver to to fulfill it Hard work though manual. I want an easy answer like four four is a very easy answer. I like the answer We have the answer four No, I can only give you answers five like I will give you the answer five but four is too simple What does bazini have to say here if he has anything to say Well, I mean the the whole issue of assimilation and identity when it comes to immigration is like well immigration especially but It’s basically been the whole race conversation for the last six years, right? And it’s something that I think the the the whole whiteness thing has just done incredible damage to um, just just for the record, but But there’s this this tension right, you know, like i’m an italian-american, right? Um Do you know what am I right? You know and and and and there’s this this you know kind of vague idea or at least there used to be this vague idea of what it meant to be an american, right and And and so like when my dad came over right like um, you know, he He he came over because he wanted to participate in this right and that’s the thing, right? um, and and so there was there was so there was a lot of intentionality he had both with how he raised us and You know both to to keep some level of connection, you know back to the the old old country, right? But um, but also to uh To make sure that we saw ourselves as a part of you know, what was going on here as well, right? and and so there’s you know, it’s it’s that idea of you’re saying it a different way, but Best way i’ve heard it described was you know, of course pagio and his fractals, you know self-replicating fractals, right? You know, i’m a you know, i’m an italian texan slash Uh christian slash, you know, I mean like okay. I went to a certain university. I’ve I’ve got all these identities Right and I and and in some sense I belong to all sorts of communities right, um and And kind of all of that is part of who I am, right? um Yeah, and but that’s what you do You manage the identities that you have and that will have conflicts in other spaces Because at some point, you know, you get your kids and they’ve got this event and they really want you there But you’ve got work and they have a requirement and at some point you have to be able to you know Decide between which identity is more important in that moment for that thing, you know, and then And if you only have two identities conflicting at one time consider yourself lucky Yeah Yeah But the where where where we’ve gone wrong with it in terms of multiculturalism is to say that there’s no such thing as a national identity Right because we’ve decided we’ve decided nationalism. It’s bad, right? We decided it’s a dirty word Right, uh, and and in the process basically what we’ve said is the idea of a national identity at all Right, uh is a bad thing And essentially what we’ve what we’ve implicitly done with that is is basically said We don’t want to have A common identity. We don’t want to have anything in common with each other a foundation to go back to chad’s thing We don’t want to have a common foundation on which to build things And then we wonder why we can’t get along and build things together. Huh? I don’t know This is a real brain teaser for me. It’s as clear as day And yes, and it’s So we well when we’re talking about a shared identity, right? Like that identity forms a bubble right? Like it’s a thing that judges right now people are going to be excluded Right and now we can’t be tolerant towards some people, right? So that’s that’s the problem that everybody is identifying is like yes People are going to be left out if we say we are a thing because there’s people who are not that And Those people have been having hard times throughout history because some of them were called witches And some of them were called whatever and like they were kicked out Right, like the gypsies for example, right? Like we’re and the jews they they’ve suffered a lot as a consequence of having these national identities and and them Having their own identity which they put higher than Being part of the national identity and therefore them necessarily being in conflict but it was manifesting within the current Here’s an interesting question right for for bazine in particular, but i’m going to answer it first because because I can Uh, you know, don’t you want potential? Dissidents or quote bad people to conform to the standards of the bubble not necessarily this is tolerance How much tolerance do you have? What are the quote bad people what is bad about them and what is good about them and you know Is the good worth the bad because it’s not like this Single axis thinking is dangerous like people are not just good or bad like generically most of the time Sometimes they are but not most of the time and so yeah, that is always the perennial problem the question the opponent Sorry, no, the cooperative processing we have to do right we have to cooperate to say Are we gonna let this this crazy italian person in here? Is it gonna cause trouble because look the italians in the united states in the I think it’s the early 1900s Well late 1800s to early 1900s were almost all anarchists and they were bombing the united states So we had immigrants flooding into the country literally setting off bombs left right and center. I’m not kidding It’s a period of history people a little about if you want a quick overview of the Culmination of that you can look up the saco and vanzetti trial Because that’s the famous trial sort of the extreme case too So like don’t don’t put too much talk and it only kind of happened once but yeah What do you want to say about that about that bazini about about this, you know this conflict? Between letting people in and and and and you know bad actors into a vault well, I mean, I think you’ve you’ve got to You’ve got to think about which bubble you’re talking about, right? Now everybody who’s in a in in the country, right? You know, maybe in the country legally, I don’t know, right? But whatever right? You know, okay, then you know, there’s a legal code, right? Um, you know you you break the criminal laws, right and there are consequences to that right you get removed from society, right? um, so So so I think it you know, it depends on the context, right? There’s the bubble of my family, right? You know, there’s the bubble of my church You know, you know my my church is intolerant of satanists, right? You know is I mean is is that such a bad thing like they can go ahead and they they have their own church now, right? um, you know, I mean, you know, hey you go do your thing, right? uh, and and and maybe You know We can we can we can tolerate the fact that there’s another bubble out there that says something different than my bubble Uh, maybe maybe not maybe Yeah, I wanted to address joey a apparently I triggered joey a about italians and me being uh, anti italian Discriminating and yeah. Yep. I I succeeded in trolling joey. I feel very proud about that By the way, just in case everybody’s wondering so i’m most happy with myself but yeah, I mean The discernment’s the problem and that’s really what we’re talking about. What what bubbles are we going to tolerate? What are we going to tolerate inside our bubble, right? And why like we have to know why we’re doing this. Why are we letting somebody onto our discord server? That just wants to you know, make things different from how they are. Why would you tolerate that person? It’s a good question. Maybe you will like maybe the discord server’s dead and you need a reinjection of energy in this person Although they’re destructive bring a lot of positive energy in the situation. I don’t know like you can’t it’s not these things are difficult They’re supposed to be difficult. You’re supposed to use your brain. Everybody wants to be rational. Here’s your chance Things are hard. You can be rational about all the hard things instead of trying to oversimplify overreduce make them You know make them political or mere economic or whatever well, I think I think I think it’s also important to realize that When when we’re talking about these these processes of removing people these are high cost procedures, right? And i’ve always been thinking about all this re-education in jail and stuff, right? Like that’s all recent Well, one of the reasons that it’s recent is because it’s costly, right? Like it costs society a lot and you need to have an affluent society in order to sustain these processes, right? So Previously you you just kind of had to kill someone or or or banish them or whatever But like if you banish a murderer like he’s gonna end up at a different place, right? Like like is it okay to let them deal with the murderer, right? so there’s There’s a way in which which the affluence allows different solutions to the same problem and and When when you’re talking about something like a discord server a church or like a small company like there’s just a a limited capacity to to handle problems And and sometimes it’s better to just not take the risk of having to handle the problem to have an infrastructure that has to deal with the problem and and so it Letting people in is not only Decided by what you can do but it’s also like do you want to take the risk like there’s there’s there’s an engagement with the world Right, like if if you open your family house to to the people living on the street They’re gonna bring things into your house And like are you are you willing to to deal with all the mess that comes from that? Or do you want to keep a clean house and say no like it’s not appropriate for these people to enter my house Or it doesn’t have to be a person right? It could be a device like set A little hat tip to grim grids, right? Like yeah, you can you can have a tv or you can have cable I don’t have cable Right, you can have these things. But what are they what are they affording you? and then is that afforded something you can deal with like Look if I if I buy snacks at the at the grocery store and I take them to my house I will eat all of them probably Probably to my detriment so I don’t bring them to the house Although sometimes I slip up because apparently i’m a muppet still Right, sometimes I will buy it buy candy bars and then i’ll have candy bars all week after dinner or something stupid These things happen, but you can also cut them off like these layers that we have to deal with They’re very difficult to deal with and not at all straightforward If you think you’re a rational creature, you should be happy about that It gives you brain plenty of stuff to rationalize and decide about but the layers are real and separating the layers is important If I don’t bring the candy bars home, I won’t have the problem of constantly eating stupid candy bars after every meal Right, and then I can reserve dessert for special occasions which makes dessert all the more special from my perspective, right? So there’s all of these trade-offs and sometimes we have to restrain ourselves at the grocery store So we don’t have to restrain our impulses when we’re at a hole Because getting up going to the grocery store buying a candy bar because if I if I just went to buy it But it’s too hard and so but if it’s sitting in the cabinet it’s like All these things play into it we have passions we have drivers Right, that’s why we have to keep a clean orderly house because we have to be ready for company at any minute unexpected We have to be ready for a breakdown where you know, we’re not we’re not because we we do food and laundry You know in the moment when we’re not feeling well now, we can’t eat right and the laundry piles up Because we’re not prepared right? That’s why we need to keep in front of our tasks in some sense Right and and all of these things are helpful to have that structure and it’s that structure in your life It’s that structure in your bubbles. It’s that structure in your in your local government It’s a structure in your federal government. It’s a structure in your church It’s that structure with your friends that helps you so that when you’re not at your best because I don’t know about you But i’m not always at my best Uh, you don’t fall apart completely because you can’t Um what are the things that’s going on right now though is that you you essentially have this social pressure? from outside of communities basically coming into communities and and essentially saying You know you you need to restructure your community, right? You need to restructure your boundaries. You need to restructure your the identity of what you are right according to the zeitgeist, right? Right, and you can tell the zeitgeist to take two to pound sand, which is what I did. Yeah, that’s nice. This happened last night. Well, actually, yeah, it happened last night. This guy who’s problem on Discord, you know, a couple of the members were being very nice to him, he came in to attack me and it didn’t work because I didn’t do anything wrong and needed to do Manuel, right? And he was upset because he didn’t get kicked out, but he got muted on the server because he wouldn’t behave the way we expected. And so what happened was these two people spent an hour explaining to him, you can do your thing your way. You don’t have to engage with Marc Emmanuelle. You can just have your own channel, do your own watch party and nobody will bother you and they probably won’t go to it, especially if you request that they don’t go. And he didn’t like that answer. His ultimate answer, and it took an hour to get him here, was, no, no, I want Marc Emmanuelle to change. And I told him, that isn’t gonna happen. You need a new plan for life. Your whole life is predicated on a change that will never happen ever. We’re just not going to be the person or people that you want us to be. That isn’t gonna happen, right? And that’s the issue, like it’s not going to happen. And so you need to be able to be intolerant of people telling you to change sometimes and criticism is important. This wasn’t criticism, this is just, I want you to be different. Not how, not here’s what you did wrong. There was nothing quote constructive in it. It was all just, I want you to be different the way you are in my head. I don’t have access to your head. I don’t know what that way is. I can’t help you. And I’m not done, because I just don’t care about you enough to make a change, right? So all of these things are factors. You as a community can say, you know what? We’re not gonna let these lunatics in. And when they’re there, we’re gonna throw them out. This is the issue of too much tolerance. If you let people into, let’s just say you have a church and they say, well, you need to be more tolerant of the four gay people in the world or whatever it is. And you believe them because it’s an insignificant percentage of the population guys, really. It’s four people, like stop catering for trying to cater to four people by changing everybody else, which is what they’re trying to do, right? It’s the tyranny of the small effectively. You can just kick those people out of your church and you should, your church shouldn’t say, we wanna be tolerant of the people who are tolerant of something that we shouldn’t tolerate. That’s not a good formula. And groups have to stand up for themselves and say, no. The government says we have to do this, no. Maybe they’ll pay a heavy price for that. Yeah, probably, probably not. Who knows? I don’t know. But those boundaries are important. Otherwise you don’t have a thing anymore. And post-moderns want to destroy all the things. They want no more structure, no more rules, no more anything. And because of that, there’s no foundation that we can all build things on. And Chad’s excellent point, without a foundation, there’s no framing. You need to have this foundation to have the framing be useful because you’ll have to gather around the foundation to enter into the frame. Yeah, you do. And I think it’s also important to realize is like, what is it they want, right? Because when you talk about these pride movements, for example, right? Tolerance isn’t enough, right? Because tolerance is, well, in some sense, the suspension of judgment, right? And I would even say, in some sense, it’s maybe mercy that they’re left to do what they want, right? And then because they’re in a state of mercy, that is effectively having the implicit threat of having that being revoked or something, right? And so I think that’s their conceptual experience, right? Like there’s this sort of damocles that needs to be removed from our shoulders because we’re carrying this burden. And the only way that can be removed is by positive affirmation as opposed to a neutral relationship to them. And so I think it’s really important to realize that the striving for normalization of something is, I don’t know, like I don’t think it’s an actual thing, but the security, the emotional security of the individuals that are involved, right? And so then the problem with that is, well, what does it mean to have emotional security, right? And Feige talks about this idea of the hermeneutics of suspicion, right, where it is the way that we’re relating to the information around us that largely defines what we’re perceiving, right? So if we’re suspicious about us being repressed, then we’re going to receive the signals as oppressive signals, right? And then we can start changing the signals and say, well, OK, this signal isn’t OK anymore, but then we will start perceiving a new signal as oppressive. And the only way to get out of this vicious cycle is to realize that, no, the suspicion is within me, right? And there is a set of signals that are oppressive and that do have to be related to. And these signals are only related to when they’re manifest, because the problem with these things mostly is that they’re relating to potentiality, right? Like, so there’s an anxiety that is expressed towards something that could happen instead of something that’s actually happening, right? Because in most countries, in the most civilized countries, we actually have laws now that protect people when these things actually happen, right? And so there’s a way in which they will get support from the government when they’re getting oppressed. Right, right. Yeah, we keep pretending like oppression is some universal and really big problem. Sometimes it is, but not most of the time. And then, like most of the time, look, Brett Weinstein might say influence is our biggest problem, not oppression. And he might be right about that. Like, I don’t think that’s incorrect way to think about it. I think I have better ways of thinking about it maybe, but like maybe oppression isn’t the big problem right now, but influence is, that’s possible, right? Or maybe the big problem is incompetence and not oppression or influence. That seems more possible to me, right? Or maybe all three are equally contributing to a problem. Yeah, maybe. You know, I don’t want to judge that. Like to some extent, I can’t. To some extent, I can, and I can make claims about, well, maybe this is the problem. We just, you know, I do want to address sort of Joey’s thing. Most communities are lacking ideas, guys. They have too many contributors and not enough critics. And this is especially true for internet groups. Yeah, I mean, the problem with the internet groups is that most of them aren’t groups. They’re spaces, and then people get together. And then those people get together around, we’ll say one or two issues or along one or two axes, and then they don’t have enough intimacy with one another. And that’s the problem. These people don’t sort of understand that there’s more to a community than a single issue, right? A healthy community has more than one axis of agreement, which is not to say that things that we’ll say only about Dante aren’t valid, quote, communities. It is to say that they aren’t rich and able to be generative. So, you know, that’s what you have to kind of be careful about. Well, and it’s also part of a community is implicitly, it’s gonna be a sort of morality that’s specific to that community. So just like you were talking about the Verveji server, right, there’s kind of a way of being that goes with being a part of that server, right? So like when I’m on that server, it’s a little bit different than a different server that I’m on, you know? But, you know, you kind of like, once you get a feel for that, right, then you will also understand that to kind of go against that, right, is in some sense to violate the community, right? And- And if you have a community, right? The Verveji server never had a community, right? Because the only thing we had in common were John Verveji’s work, but there’s five or maybe seven different aspects to his work and people were interested in different pieces. So even if you have 10,000 people, if they’re all interested in different of the five pieces, and it’s not much of a community anymore because it gets watered down by this politic. Right, right, right, yeah. And, but I guess just, you know, always really trying to get at is, you know, so we were talking earlier about like, you know, kind of the government laws and restrictions and stuff like that. Yeah, and sure, but there’s things that you can do in other contexts, right, like we were talking about, right, that would effectively violate your relationship with that particular community, right? And that should be called out and maybe you should be kicked out of the community if you do that. Right. And maybe that’s not a bad thing, right? No, it’s not. This is- Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah. This is the argument I made to Paul on Friday in the Q&A. Too much tolerance is a bad thing. You should think more about tolerance, when to apply it and when to withdraw it, right? Because you’re didn’t, it’s not about you, although it’s also about you. You’re denying other people their sanity, their ability to know tolerance, to apply wisely the tolerance principles. You’re denying the distributed cognition, the sanity to work this stuff out. So the more tolerant you are, the more, you know, the closer you get to war, right? The more problems you personally have and the distributed cognition, the community has to understand when to take action, when to discern and when not to. So you’ve got to exercise your tolerance by being intolerant, otherwise tolerance doesn’t make any sense. So we were watching this IT guy, this AI guy. And Peterson and Peugeot were really tolerant towards them, right? And one of the issues that I have with people often is they don’t realize, right? Like when we’re here on stream, you have a different relationship to me than when you talk to me privately. That doesn’t mean that I like you less or more on the stream, but what it does mean is that the role that I enact towards you is gonna change. And like I’m gonna slap you on the wrist on the stream for something I would tolerate without issue in a one-on-one relationship. And well, why do I do that? Well, the reason is because when you do something on the stream, there’s a bunch of people watching. And as a consequence, what you’re saying is not only affecting me, but it’s affecting a set of people, right? And so when we’re talking about being tolerant, where you can tolerate a lot more things in your personal space than in a group. And when you start applying, and this goes back to the bubble, right? Like when you start applying the rules of your bubble in a group, right? Like if you allow someone who is a noisy signal to get a lot of attention in a group, you corrupt the whole group, right? Like, cause everybody’s spending their time, energy and attention with that person. And they’re not spending it in union with the spirit of the group, right? And the group manifestation itself is frustrated, right? Because like there was a purpose for the gathering and now that purpose is not manifested. And so like this is one of the criticisms I have towards Paul and like, not even Paul, right? Like I have to Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Beshaw. Like they let this idiot, like a literal idiot, although he apparently works with AI, which is also amazing that idiots can do that. But they let this idiot talk for an hour and a half as a supposed expert on stuff. And he was just spouting bullshit, like literally. And they were not contesting this bullshit. And it therefore gets put into the ether. First of all, as a valid signal, right? Cause like you could put it in the ether and say it’s an invalid signal, but they put it in as a valid signal. But even if it was put out as an invalid signal, you’re still putting it out as an authority for some people to relate it with it. Like you’re putting a light upon darkness, not in the way to illuminate it, but you’re making it bigger. This is why you don’t name demons. Like, no. Right. And it highlights another couple of problems, right? Like one of the problems is that you’re legitimizing a voice that isn’t legitimate. Like a lot of the things that Jim Keller said, I can tell you are technically wrong. He just made a bunch of statements that were false. You can look them up. They were false. The statements that he did make that everybody liked were we could, oh, can we? How are you so sure about that? And some of those we could statements are false. We know they’re wrong. I don’t know what papers he’s reading, but he’s not reading the papers I’m reading that say, no, we can’t do this. He’s not doing the math that I’m doing and I can’t do math. So this is pretty sad. That say that’s never going to work. Right. And we know this and we know lies. I don’t know why there wasn’t enough pushback, but this also goes back to the larger point. Just having any two or three people or any group trying to talk things through on the internet is not necessarily a good idea because the conversations that Manuel and I have, say on the Discord server where we’re sitting in a room by ourselves, a change the minute somebody enters, right? Unless they don’t, like there’s a few people that, it doesn’t matter if they know what we’re doing, right? But B are all about exploration. And so because we’re disagreeable, we’ll make these statements and we know what we’re doing. We’ll make these statements and proceed as if they’re true even when we’re totally not sure at all, right? We’re just exploring ideas, okay? You should not necessarily do that on YouTube. Like I don’t refer in front of a large audience at all. I don’t think that’s valid. It can be, I’m not saying never ever, but most of the time, no. You have to be sure that your audience understands that you’re exploring an idea that you don’t have answers to and that you’re gonna proceed with a level of certainty that you don’t have. And I know Skyler, he has an excellent talk on Agape orientation, Manuel’s excellent YouTube channel. It’s a bit long, but it’s worth listening to, right? He talks about this. Like he had an excellent philosophy teacher that would teach you, dive into some particular philosophy and then present it as though he believed it, the teacher. And then he’d say, I don’t believe any of that. And here’s the next one. And he’d do it over and over again to teach you, you can get caught in a frame really easily and think that it’s true because it has some explanatory power or descriptive power. And that’s the problem. It’s like, well, but what if it doesn’t? What if you’ve just been fooled? And what if it has no prescriptive or predictive value? And that’s one of the problems is that that can, that can run into issues. You don’t wanna boost those signals to people who aren’t ready to hear them and don’t understand them. And you don’t wanna boost bad signals like Jim Keller. Jim Keller just made up a bunch of stuff. He said a bunch of stuff that we know is not true. He actually did. I was furious. I was actually furious. I was like practically screaming. I was so angry that anybody would take my beautiful profession and just lie about it, left, right, and center. I’m sure he didn’t know that that was what he was doing, but it doesn’t matter. You can’t let people like that go uncontested because it does people that way. Yeah, and he contradicted himself within sentences, like multiple times. Like, I believe in people, but you can’t trust them. It’s like, well, you gotta pick one, dude. Like, you can’t say these things and like proceed as if you said something intelligible. Like, cause now it’s like, why are we talking about something that, like what did you say? Like, did you say something that I could do something with? Like, and he’s making this not as, well, I have these personal problems and therefore, no, he’s making them as statements about people, right? And about his being in the world, which it’s, yeah. Yeah, no, it’s a problem. I wanted to address this. My views on AI are a lot of the AI is hype, almost all of it. The idea of artificial general intelligence is literally a waste of time to think about. We are so far away from anything remotely resembling artificial general intelligence. It’s not even funny. A, we don’t have a definition of intelligence. B, we don’t have a definition of what general intelligence would be. And so C, we can’t measure it. So how would we know that we achieved it? We wouldn’t, okay. Where, one of the statements that Jim Keller made is that, oh, the AI’s we use today map the brain. No, they don’t. We know that they don’t. So you can look at the work of John Vervaeke, for example, in 4D cognitive science. They have four types of memory. How many types of memory does AI have? Actually close to zero. You can make an argument for non-zero with long-term memory with LTSMs. You can make some arguments about that in RNNs, kind of have a short-term memory, whatever. They don’t have four types of memory. We’re not mapping the brain. Neurons have multiple in-out connections. Neurons and neural nets do not have multiple in-out connections. You can simulate that through deep learning, which is what Jeffrey Hinton did in the 90s, big breakthrough, University of Toronto. Very good stuff, love his work. Also, he used different algorithms. You’d have to be a real technician to know all this stuff, and I happen to be somebody who’s been into it since the 90s. So I actually do know most of the history and all of that stuff. A lot of the stuff they’re telling you is bullshit. You can put a sticker on a stop sign. There’s a white paper about this. You put a sticker on a stop sign, and then the AI can’t see it anymore. That’s not good pattern recognition to me because the car will run a stop sign and kill people. So I’m not a fan, right? Also, still can’t take a left turn. 10 years of development and the car can’t take a left turn. So I don’t know. I mean, AI can do some neat things within some very tight boundaries, and it’s really good at that. And when those boundaries are removed, you can’t do anything at all. Sorry. So, you know, and I’m a big fan of AI, and I use AI, I’ve made many, many, many AI models. I’ve used pre-AI, symbolic regression, all this other stuff, support vector machines, you name it. I’ve looked into all of it. I’ve played with code for all of it. I’ve coded a lot of it from scratch, like line by line in C from scratch. I know a lot about this. It’s all hype, right? Which is not to take away from what it can do. It’s obvious. AI’s are really good at recognizing faces now. In fact, they’re really good at recognizing people from behind better than humans, but there’s some downsides to that. And Jim Keller didn’t talk about any of the downsides, which is a good hint. A good hint that he’s not being honest with himself, maybe. Right, I’m not saying he’s a dishonest person. He’s not being honest about the technology. Because if you can’t speak to the downsides while you’re speaking to the upsides, maybe you shouldn’t be talking about it, right? And then maybe you should. Like, maybe it’s a, you know, if you go to an AI conference, don’t say anything bad about AI, fair enough. But if you’re talking to the general public, you shouldn’t present it as an untrammeled good or something. Because AI is certainly not that. And it’s not as successful as it seems because you don’t realize all the AI failures. Because there’s a lot of failures. There’s things they’ve been trying to do for 50 years that they haven’t been able to do. And they just don’t talk about that. And like, fair enough. But you know, you should point out that it’s not all win, win, win, win, win in AI by any means. Well, and I think there’s something like an is, I, gap, right, that we need to think about when it comes to AI as well, right? Yeah, yeah. I mean, the way I usually, you know, whenever we, you guys start talking about this, I always think of, you know, kind of like, you know, like AI’s might have intelligence, but they don’t have wisdom, right? But, you know, because this is how we are, right? And this is what people do, right? What we’re gonna do is we’re gonna say, oh, the, you know, this AI is so smart now. So let me ask you a question like, what should I do about climate change, right? Or, or what should we do about euthanizing, you know, the disabled, right? You know, whatever, right? We’re gonna start asking you questions that we have, that first off, like even scientists shouldn’t be asked, right? But we’re gonna start asking that to the AI and the scientists probably are gonna be hunky dory asking that question to the AI because, you know, that’s science, right? You know, and- Well, it’s time to resolve the intelligence problem. So if you think that epistemology is what runs the world and roughly speaking, that’s what we’re living with. We’re living with a bunch of people who think knowledge is the most important thing and can solve all the problems, right? Without realizing that knowledge creates more problems than it solves on average, right? Because science actually indicates that, believe it or not, right? But if you believe that knowledge is the issue, right? Then something that has more knowledge than you do or could have more knowledge than you do will win the day. But the bottom line is there’s a big difference between information and actually for making, starting to see this, which is good, knowledge, which is processed information and intelligence, which is what you’re doing with the knowledge that you have and how you’re applying it, roughly speaking, right? And when you don’t have a sophisticated model like that, it’s very complicated and perhaps even complex, then you’re missing the real problem. And I like Mohamed’s comment here, right? Other than actual pragmatic application, my theory is a limerent fantasy to escape our own lives rather than take responsibility and fix our own damn problems, right? We wanna outsource the problem solving for the things that some people might call the megagores, for the spirits that are moving us. And we want a solution and we want one solution. And we make this deep confusion, and I wanted to mention this earlier, between things that work at scale me, one person, and things that work at scale many people, right? And there’s more than one of those problems all the way up the stack, right? Ways you can solve problems for yourself are not the same as the way people can solve problems in a group, which are not the same as a family, which are not the same as a state, which are not the same as the federal government, which are not the same as the world. And so when we go, ha, I have an answer. I know how to solve climate change. I will drive an electric car. Okay, that only works for you. It doesn’t work for everybody else. It can potentially maybe work for everybody else, until you scale up and realize we don’t generate enough electricity in the United States to do anything like that, right? And even if we did, we can’t transport that electricity. So we’re not all getting electric car. That cannot physically actually happen in the material realm, right? And so that solution doesn’t scale. It’s also not the best solution to the problem, but you can see the way in which a solution that could work for you individually and get you out of your personal guilt about harming Gaia or whatever, you know, hurting the earth, right? Doesn’t work for everybody. And it doesn’t work for everybody all at once. And it’s not necessarily a thing that everybody can do. And so, you know, all of these things are big problems. Like your ability to solve a problem a certain way doesn’t mean anybody else can engage. I think we wanna take the word technology serious, right? Like techne logos, right? Which is like, it’s like an interface to relate to some, well, to the world, right? So when we get a better interface, right? Like we extend our capacity, but thinking of it as somehow separating from you is then you’re making a mistake, right? And like that shouldn’t even be the purpose of a tool, right? Like the tool is supposed to do something. And the problem with these tools is that we don’t know what they’re doing, but we’re still using them, right? So there’s this hidden aspect to it. And then, yeah, like if you’re using things to move the world where you don’t know what they’re actually doing, you don’t know what the expression of your agency is, and you can’t take full responsibility. And that, yeah, like that’s a bad development and that needs to stop because we’re already really bad in taking responsibility, right? So I’m gonna go back to where we were, right? Like we need to find a way to address questions that we’ve made in the past and they accumulate side effects, right? So when our transgression is manifesting through AI, in other words, manifesting through unintelligibility, how do we apply corrections to the error? Right, right. And how do we even understand what the error is? Like what’s our measuring stick? Yeah, so that is really problematic. And I think we all, like I really like this framing, right? Like there’s this buildup of clutter in whatever way of intelligibility there is, right? And technology is only gonna increase the way that the clutter manifests because it is distancing us, right? Like the techne is a skin between us and the world, right? Which means that we don’t get hurt as much by our failures, which means that our feedback systems are less direct and the need to correct our problems is also removed from us. And you could even go further, right? Like with the microplastics, for example, right? Like in some sense, it’s not our problem, right? Like now it’s the world’s problem and my personal responsibility can’t be linked back. And then it’s like, well, but I’m not completely responsible for the microplastics because the microplastics are manifested throughout the whole line of production. Before I was born even, right? Before I was born, right? And will continue after I’m gone. So how can I have responsibility? What’s my level of responsibility? Right, because like you can say, well, I’m gonna buy this product who doesn’t have microplastics, right? Now you have to have a way to judge how that is true. And then you have to be able to judge it for all your products, right? Like it’s impossible to take that responsibility as an individual. Yeah, right. And we want AI to solve that for us instead, right? And that’s the problem. We want it to fix a problem that’s bigger than us without acknowledging that there are problems that are bigger than us and the implications of that realization. Like, wait a minute, I’m just a small Muppet in the world. It’s like, yeah, you’re a small Muppet in the world. And you were born into things like plastics that you had no choice over, right? Or past transgressions, whether it be slavery or your religion attacking another religion or an ancestor that was a killer. Like, who knows? Like, I don’t know. There’s all kinds of things that happened in your past that you have to be able to deal with, integrate with in your current time. And that’s, to some extent, what we’re struggling with. So what do you think about the idea that the motivation for creation of AI is the motivation of creation of children? Well, yeah, problems themselves are in the context of the forever survival game. I don’t know if I agree with the problems being in a context of forever survival game. Look, lots of frames work, kind of, right? And we get caught up in that. Like, oh, you can think of a problem this way or you can think of a problem that way or you can, right. And that’s useful, I’m not saying don’t, but that doesn’t mean that they’re fully valid frames or they’re the best way to think about a problem. So yeah, I mean, look, a thing like AI, and I have to come up with my formulation again, I had it years ago. We don’t do things for a single motivation. Like that never happens, okay? Things that we do have to satisfy multiple layers of analysis. And to use a Peterson framing, right? Multiple layers of analysis must be satisfied. And so we’re not merely doing AI to solve a problem that’s too big for us. We’re also doing AI to become the creators and birthers of something that otherwise would not be born, right, which means a special and unique parents of something. That’s definitely part of the motivation. So in other words, part of our motivation is egoic in the local frame. Like I want to do something that I can be known for contributing even if I’m the only person that knows it. At least I know I did this, right? And some people, me knowing it’s not enough, right? They’re grandiose or something, right? They’re the marketing types, right? But also I want to do something that outlasts me. Yes, everybody has that. And also I can use, well, this thing will be smart enough eventually or my contribution to this effort of AI will lead to something that will eventually be smart enough to solve the climate crisis or whatever, right? Like, yes, right? All of these motivations stack up in a line. But again, it’s not a simple equation. Like, well, you want this or you did this because of this, right? And a lot of times you can’t look at outcome, right? Consequentialism is dumb. Like it’s just observably stupid. You can’t look at outcome and say, therefore, that’s what they wanted to do. In all cases, sometimes you can. But it requires a lot of understanding of all the framing going on, right? To get the idea of that. So it’s easy enough to say that a dictator wanted to destroy a country. But you could say that Napoleon, for example, hated France. And that’s why he led them, especially in his last war, because he hated France. And he was pissed off that they didn’t manifest what he expected. But you can also recognize that he was Corsican and he never liked France because they took his family fortune away when he was young. And it was very traumatic to him. And so you could say Napoleon was always acting out the destruction of France. Even in his winning, he killed off a lot of French people and subjugated them. So of course, it can rule effectively, right? So it’s not really clear exactly what his motivations were, because he didn’t have a single motivation. And it’s not clear where that would have ended. I think it’s more important when I go outside and drive in a certain direction, right? You can say, well, I went that direction because I wanted to go that direction. That’s not true, right? I wanted to go to my friend. And I went that way because I wanted to go to my friend. And in order to get to my friend, I needed to pick that direction. So you can say there’s an explanatory power within me going that direction. But it does not suffice. It has not sufficient explanation for my behavior. And we start confusing them. Because when I want to go that way, it’s like, OK, that information might be useful if you’re in my way. Apart from that, it’s not useful. Even if you want to block me, I’ll just take the next street. So it’s like, no, that’s not helpful. So when you’re having these framings, or like, oh, if I make an observation, I can make an explanation about what’s happening. It’s like, no, no. The explanation about what’s happening is often not contained in the observation because it’s not accounting for my internal state when I do the action. And the internal state is always connected to a way that I want to manifest in the book. So I see a purpose. Like, I try to pursue that purpose. And in order to pursue that purpose, I manifest a behavior in the world. And some people pursue purposes that are the behavior in the world. And they have really limited ways of manifesting themselves in the world. Like, oh, I drink because I want to get drunk, whatever. It’s like, yeah, well, that is not something that will get you very far in life. And it’s important to know that the level of rationality and confidence you’re assigning to other people is likely unwarranted. So you can say that, well, I know why Manuel picked that direction to get to his friend’s house because there’s a lot of traffic in another way that’s shorter. Except maybe that’s not the reason he had it all because he knows there’s a house with nice flowers and it smells nice when you go past it. And that’s why he went that way. You have no way to know that. You might be able to guess, but you don’t know that. So from the outside, it looks like you made a bad decision. But maybe if his goal wasn’t to get to his friend’s house as quickly as possible, but to use going to his friend’s as an excuse to go past these pretty flowers, these things happen. And then also, let’s suppose that the route that you think he should have taken to go to his friend’s house is actually shorter, we’ll call it an intersubjective reality. But he doesn’t know that. He has a belief that it’s not shorter. And maybe because one time he went, it wasn’t shorter. Or it didn’t seem like it was quicker or something. Well, I can tell you, in actuality, I don’t take the shortest route because I have this racing bike now. And in order to go to some place, when I go long period straight, it’s faster and less effort, although I probably use more calories. Right, but again, I know what I’m doing, and I’m doing it for a reason you don’t understand argument. But the argument I’m making is sometimes people are doing things for reasons they don’t understand or they’re wrong about. They just have bad information. So it could be that maybe none of that’s a factor, but it’s something else, like your ignorance about the fact that this other route is more efficient. Because that happens all the time. We project out and say this person is a rational actor. Are they? Are they really? And they’re competent. Are they? Are they real? Are you sure? And then we project out they know what we know. Do they? Are you sure you’re the one that knows more than they do? Because I’m not sure of any of those things. Well, I can tell you from my experience, I just did this thing, and then I thought about it. And I said, OK, I approve. I don’t know what the other options are. So it’s not even a rational decision. Well, there’s an interesting concept that I don’t know how much was used outside of our economics department. But one of my professors had a term. He called it fantastical thinking. And so that’s what’s used to describe someone putting together an entire chain of really unlikely events, going the way that they want them to go, because they want to see this particular outcome. And that’s what shapes and motivates their actions. And I was just thinking about that in terms of the discussion that we were watching yesterday. Because what you heard basically the guy describing was what I would call fantastical thinking. AI is going to stay in its lane. We’re not going to use AI for the wrong things, and so on and so forth. And this is all going to work out to where in the end, I’m going to have been a part of building this amazing new thing that’s going to make the world so much better and blah, blah, blah. But is that really what’s going to happen? Is that even remotely possible that that’s going to happen? It was kind of a whole different question that he didn’t even want to talk about, because he was so focused on the desired outcome, I think. And kind of his view was clouded by that. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. I call it magical thinking. So I posted a link to my magical thinking video on navigating patterns, which is interesting, that people fall into this magical thinking. And you can hear it. I mean, Jim Keller was actually very careful at the end of the day when his language kept saying, we could, we could, we could. Some of the things he said, we could do, we cannot. We know this. I don’t know why he said that. But some of the things, maybe we could, maybe. But will we? Because that’s a whole different question. If we stop all AI research tomorrow, maybe we won’t. And maybe that’s unrealistic. But maybe one person realizes the danger or senses a danger, whether it’s real or not. And then Kibosh is a whole bunch of AI research that would otherwise be useful to AI. These things happen in history all the time. So I wouldn’t be discounting such things. People have been saboteurs for years, particularly against technology, and maybe for the better, I don’t know. But we have to come for that. Like we can’t just say, we could, we could, we could. Maybe we can, maybe we can’t. Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn’t. These are hard things. But if you think irrational, use your rationality and actually think about it. Take a long time. Do some research. Most people just don’t research anything that they’re talking about ever. Whereas I tend to do a lot of research on things. Before I start yapping about them, when I can. And when I don’t, I try to say, I haven’t really researched this yet. So do we want to get to some sort of conclusion? Yeah, I think it’s time to wrap it up. It’s past your bedtime over there, Manuel, over there in the Netherlands. No, no, it’s not. General people’s bedtime, yes. So we started this off with the distinction between mercy and tolerance. We have talked a lot about tolerance. So maybe we can give mercy, a little bit of mercy. So yeah, mercy is the allowing things to exist even when they’re not supposed to be there effectively. Yeah, I’m trying to get to the good part in that. Well, okay, well, Peterson talks about this, right? Because what is the thing that you have mercy to? It’s the remainder, right? Like that, which is not part of the whole. There’s a potential for a redemptive quality from there because it’s a perspective that is new. So it can get a purity, right? Like there’s a directness to nature in some sense that is on the outside, that isn’t there within the inside, because the body is shielded from the outside. And that brings with it a perspective that can spot the corruption of the body. And so mercy is in some sense leaving space for the opportunity of having correction. Or it’s how you deal with the fact that you left space for the opportunity of correction. And tolerance is the way that you leave space, right? But intolerance is also the way that you make sure that space is enacted, right? Because again, if you’re too tolerant, there’s nothing to be merciful for. You’ve already accepted it. So you can’t grant mercy, right? So tolerance destroys mercy. Yeah, oh yeah, Anna. So I think mercy is connected to virtue, right? Because like mercy is, well, I think, oh yeah, mercy probably has to do with the recognition of the good within the, well, bad, I guess, right? Because you judged it. And so there is a virtue in that. And I think we can decide that tolerance isn’t a virtue. And so then the being too tolerant denies us the development of the capacity of judging the good in the bad as well, which is also a problem. Right, anytime you can’t judge the bad, you also can’t judge the good. And therefore too much tolerance is a net loss. You lose your ability to discern the good from the bad. Yeah, so that’s the problem of too much tolerance is it actually blocks mercy. And I think the problem, I know Ethan was talking about this, the problem is people are confusing, and so is Sally Jo, right? People are confusing tolerance and mercy. And they’re sort of compressing them into one thing. Oh, let’s keep tolerance and then we’ll have given mercy. It’s like, no, that’s not how that works. You need that whole chain of discernment all the way up in order to have good decision-making processes and be able to separate the good from the bad or the good from the evil, or maybe both, because those are different things. Right, and then, right, like the remainder can have proper gratitude for being allowed in the whole, which also allows for redemption and stuff. Like there’s a bunch of things. Yes, tolerance cuts off redemption. That’s right, if you’re too tolerant, there’s no need for redemption. Redemption never happens. And so you’re denying them part of the Christian story, at that point if you’re a Christian. So being too tolerant is not good. It’s not good on lots of levels. So, Basani, you wanna have the end word on this? We criticized Protestantism, like that. That was implicit. Well, good choice. Well, thanks everybody for watching. And we’ll do this again soon. I think that went really well. Random topic that was on the mind. Oh, there we go. Come on, Basani. Oh, geez. Oh, okay. Okay, I think mercy should always be purposeful I think that’s part of it. Mercy implies a transgression has happened to begin with. And the forgiveness of that, the mercy for that, there should be a purpose around that. Otherwise it’s just giving license. Which isn’t, that’s something else and that I don’t think is virtuous. Anyway, just a thought. Yeah. Sign up for Navigating Patterns, my personal YouTube channel and Agapag Orientation. My personal YouTube channel. And redeem everything in the world. Thanks for watching. See you guys.