https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=G_D3ULPVlhw
Good evening and happy Sunday everybody. I hope you’ve all had a blessed day. So Dr. Peterson and Bishop Baron had another conversation this week, posted on his, on his YouTube channel and probably all the podcast formats I think on Thursday or Friday, and I had an opportunity to listen to it and I think this was probably one of the best conversations that Bishop Baron and Dr. Peterson have ever had. They really were speaking clearly, you know, say they got in a flow state, however you want to say it, they really were lining up well with each other. That’s not to say that it was a perfect conversation, and I found Dr. Peterson’s comments about theology and larger language models to be a little bit puzzling and overly materialistic. So I’ll just throw that out there but we’re not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Now when they got to kind of the middle portion of the conversation, they started, started talking about certain teachings from the Gospels and I think the teaching that they were really speaking on could have been briefly summed up as it is more blessed to give than to receive. And I know that that’s not actually in the Gospels, it’s in the letters of St. Paul, but it is the word of the Lord recorded there. And, you know, Bishop Baron, he spoke of it first in like commentary on Scripture, as you might expect, and he also spoke of it using the framework of St. John Paul II. This idea of the law of the gift. St. John Paul II articulated this idea in that human beings don’t really properly fulfill their capacity. They don’t really properly fulfill their potential, unless they are giving freely of themselves, unless they are giving freely to others in love, that that’s actually how human beings reach their fulfillment, not by striving to to bolster their own self and their own ego, but in a life of loving service. And St. John Paul II wrote about this a lot. He was, you know, both before he was Pope and after. This was kind of a common theme of reflecting on that. Dr. Peterson took this idea, and he thought about it a different way. He talked about, and, you know, him being an academic, he used an academic example, the people that he observed, professors, tenured professors, research scientists who were most free with their students, both in terms of time, always having time available for their students, and also, you know, not saving the best research for themselves. But if they had a good idea, and they thought they had a promising student that could fulfill that idea, he would just freely do this. And as a result, these students flourished and became top researchers in their own right, and, you know, had an awful lot of good things to say about the good professor that they had in grad school. And then he did a very Peterson move here, and you’ll see this, this very Peterson move over and over again. He began to talk about the dopaminergic system, right, neurobiology here. You may say, oh my gosh, how can these gospel truths and this neurobiology, the science, how can they actually be compatible? How are these the same thing? You know, Bishop Barron’s up here talking about theology up in the sky, and Dr. Peterson’s down here, you know, slicing people’s brains open and figuring out how neurochemistry goes. I do think sometimes Dr. Peterson’s commitment to the scientific method and to material causality can maybe hold him back a little bit, but in this particular case, I think he was just talking about how things on earth reflect and mirror those things of heaven. What is a neurology? What are these adders that are encoded into us? Well, they’re almost like you’ve got this heavenly principle, right, that it’s more blessed to give than to receive. That this heavenly principle, if Peugeot was here, he would be talking about sacrificing ourselves to a higher purpose and to a higher identity. That would be the way that Peugeot would talk about this. So all of that being kind of spiritual. Well, in order for it to really exist on the level of human embodiment, it has to be put into our flesh. It has to find a home kind of in our, even in our bodies, right? And we can look at it especially in the brain, in the brain, the brain and, you know, not thinking of the brain only being contained between our ears, but also kind of diffuse throughout the whole central nervous system. That being the primary way through which the soul moves the body. And so if we’re going to have this heavenly principle, it’s more blessed to give than receive, needs to have its earthly embodiment. And that earthly embodiment, of course, is more perfectly seen in the activities of people and what they’re actually doing and how they’re participating in the world. But I think it needs to cascade all the way down even to the level of neurobiology that can be described by scientific procedures. And so even on the level of our neurology, brain science, all of that, these spiritual realities ultimately get encoded. The real danger then, and this is always the danger, is looking down to the bottom of things, to the material causes of things and thinking that that’s primary rather than looking up, seeing the spiritual as being the primary, the spiritual is that which is moving the bodily underneath of it. But that might be a danger that Dr. Peterson falls prey to, so we’ll just continue to watch him, see what he’s doing, and yeah, keep on going to church and keeping the faith. So that’s what I thought when I listened to that conversation. And maybe some of the rest of you have listened to that conversation. Maybe Andre here listened to that conversation. I don’t know. Welcome, welcome Andre. How you doing? I haven’t listened to conversation, but I saw your post pop up on Discord and simply from the title, Incarnational Neurology, I’m like, I’m joining. All right, all right. I’ve got the learning or like I’ve got things to discuss. It’s a curious topic. Yeah, yeah. So I mean, I think even at the basis of Catholic theology that, you know, it’s like the body is the expression of the soul in three dimensions and time and space and all of that. So, you know, even going down to the level of the dopaminergic system, I don’t think that’s illegitimate at all. Hmm. Yeah, it’s not far-fetched. I, this is a far-fetched idea, but if you have that and you can go down to the level of neurons and the dopaminergic system and so on, you could sort of have patterns happening in that material. And those patterns could be like a conceptual idea of like, shame could be happening, expressed through like the ethereal rather than the emotional or something like that. You could connect those things up if you go to like the very micro macro level. I probably don’t know enough to sort of prove my point, but I think it’s interesting to consider that that if we can map the material physicalist layer of the brain to sort of our emotional state, why not do that through the Catholic idea of the spirit doing it too? Yeah, and, you know, I think it actually, it manages to explain our behavior a little better than just material causality. And, you know, we could look at, especially the way that we talk about the gods nowadays as these, you know, different archetypes and different ways of human beings will behave and this idea, they use the word possess a little too freely, you know, but that we can be moved by these different spirits. And even when you think of like, neurons, right? Yeah, it’s like, they would only work if they were and I mean, like, not just like computer neurons in a network, but like the real thing where, you know, we’ve got not just electrical charges and things reducible to math going through, but also, you know, chemical changes and the movement of the soul and all of that. Like these, the structure of the connections, like you could abstract that out and just get the pattern of how things might actually fire. Yeah. It’s like the pattern is actually more important than, you know, the stuff that the brain is made out of. That’s interesting you say that because I think you can sort of map that in a way because most people when they think like do the brain model to sort of, it’s like a computer, like a neuron is like zero one. It’s not actually that much true. When we look at it, we have action potentials and I think it’s negative 70 millivolts. You have to have that signal rise above before the the pre-synaptic membrane will fly off from the dendrites and so on. And so axons to the dendrites on the other side and so on and so forth. So there is a bit of threshold there. But interestingly, you’ve got like a gradient sort of neuron where it’s not like an honor off, but a certain amount of it will shoot or it won’t, I think based on frequency. So you can if you viewed say your own view as like a sin in a way like you either do the sin or you don’t do the sin or you’re close to doing it, but you don’t quite do it and it doesn’t actually fire off. That could bring to the spirit, but then you could have the gradient sort of potential being like that could be growth and like orientation towards something good in a way. So that doesn’t just fired off. You’re not just like being bad and then fire good. It’s you’re moving towards it slowly and the more frequency there is engaging in it, like the closer you’ll get there and the stronger will fire off. And I think I also think the different chemicals, right, like all of the different pheromones and hormones and all of those different things, which we don’t, I imagine, actually have properly mapped because it’s super complicated. And the fact that, you know, unlike any of the computers that we’ve ever made, human beings are properly autopoetic, meaning we can sustain ourselves. We’re like a self-destaining reaction and we can manipulate the environment around us in order to make it more favorable for human beings. So here I am in a house, right, and the wind is blowing out there because it’s North Dakota and it never stops. And the wind isn’t getting in here and I’m very, very comfortable. So, so yeah, very, very complicated stuff in order to get spirit to be even somewhat manifested in three dimensional space. Yeah, that’s that’s assuming they have order of operations, correct, which is that everybody ignores. And it just turns out the deeper they look, they have order of operations incorrect. And so, well, it’s always which physical reaction comes first. And then it’s OK. It’s not that one because this right. This is this is actually where the determination determinism argument comes from. It says, hey, wait a minute, something is going on and then you take an action. Well, you know, it should actually kind of be obvious. But but when they try to look at the material cause, it’s not there. So they go, OK, well, there’s no material cause and you’re taking an action. Therefore, the world is determined like it was a predetermined action of no choice. That’s actually the Sam Harris argument for real. It’s wrong. But whatever, it’s complicated to why it’s wrong. But, yeah, I mean, even I talked about this in my stream, right? Like, yeah, it doesn’t work like control and combinations of chemicals. And it turns out that action potential does weird things like it determines how many neurons fire off as the result of irrespective of number of connections. Like, well, that’s kind of weird because I mean, that means there’s all kinds of stuff going on in there whose math is combinatorial explosive to use to use some fancy vervekey words. But but but the difference between science and religion, roughly speaking, is which comes first. Right. Which is primary. The ethereal, which is the religious case or the material, which is the science case. Right. And that’s why they like the Big Bang until you tell them, yeah, that was literally made up by a monk. It was a Jesuit. It was a Jesuit. Well, I thought it was a Jesuit monk, though. No, they don’t do monasteries. They’re an act of order. But it but it was a it was a smart religious guy who came up with that as a shortcut to say, stop asking stupid questions, morons. It’s problems introduced by Einstein’s cosmological constant. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, that’s it. You know, when did you learn about Einstein and the shortcut he took? Right. And it’s like that in everything, though. Right. Because people do this with temperature all the time. They go, well, Celsius is superior measurement, which, by the way, it’s not by any any stretch of imagination. But when you look into where Fahrenheit came up with his scale, it works at multiple layers of math. And you’re like, oh, that’s very interesting, isn’t it? And it happens to match any I mean, he wrote about this. It’s not a it’s not a magic trick. You know what he was doing. He’s a smart dude. It turns out that that matches your phenomenological experience the most closely. Right. It just turns out that way. Right. Like the movement of temperature versus the movement of how you feel in that movement is roughly the same for humans. And interestingly, where things like Fahrenheit break down, your ability to tell the difference breaks down. That doesn’t mean that. Yeah. What’s below about negative 30? It all just sucks. No, once you once you once you get below 10, it’s very hard to tell the difference between negative 10 and zero. Very hard. Very, very hard. Like phenomenologically. OK. Yeah. You know, and it’s the same from Fargo can maybe. Maybe. Maybe. I have yet to see it. I have yet to see anybody who can. But well, and a lot of it’s wrapped up in in local temperature variation. So like where I live, the local temperature variation from here to five miles away is 10 degrees. It’s huge. It’s huge. Yeah. And I’m usually cooler, which in the winter really sucks because then I’m like, oh, I tried to get away from this. But in the summer, it’s so good. And there’s so much more summer than winter that it’s a win for me overall. But yeah, there’s a lot of times when it’s below freezing here and I drive three miles away and, you know, 34 degrees. It’s not it’s not too bad, you know. But but even on the high side, telling the difference gets real tricky. What’s it doing between 96 and 99? A lot of people can’t tell the difference. Well, near 99, you start to boil water. They can in the proper scale. You would see it right. You can’t feel it is my point. Yeah, you can see the material effects. Are you saying it’s more measurable in Celsius, but it’s more powerful in Fahrenheit. Right. It’s an analogical designation. That’s that’s basically. Yeah, because mercury roughly matches. If you look at the properties of liquid mercury. Yeah. Right. It roughly matches our properties at temperature in a different in a slightly different domain, obviously. It turns out we’re complicated creatures who knew. But but yeah, when you when you make the physical primary, you you don’t understand anymore how the world works. And then what it does is it prompts you to go into more and more detail. I was like, well, OK, the neurons don’t fire. There’s this action potential. Yeah. And then they start looking at different aspects of the action potential and how those different aspects actually work. And then it’ll be something else next week. Don’t you worry. It always is. But it’s interesting with action potential because a book I was reading on phenomenology was saying like, it’s not just like a computer like one or zero, five, five, fire. If you it was a phenomenological theory that if you model your own firing more like an oscillator and that it’s always firing, but the frequency of the firing is changing just like an oscillator. So it’s like something’s always sort of going bang, bang, bang. But then one part of the brain gets more excited and more energy or whatever. And now if I were faster, it’s more consistent. Yeah, I think the oscillation moves around. I talked about that in my stream on Friday, actually. It just turns out that this is enormously complex and it’s likely that in fact information moves within the brain. That would be a more efficient way to store it. It’s also more error prone. Right. So there’s a trade off there. But there’s advantages to having an error prone. Right. So you don’t get PTSD every time something bad happens. It’s type two fun, right? Yes, yes. Type one fun is when you’re doing it, you’re like, oh boy, this is fun. There’s type two fun when you’re in the middle of it, you’re like, this is awful. But then when you’re looking back on it, you’re like, oh, that was a great time. That’s a good system. I never thought of that. I went on a nine day backpacking trip when I was in middle school with my dad and a bunch of other crazy boy scouts. And this was in Montana. Right. And you know what Montana is named after. Right. The mountains. So I’m going up the mountain, down the mountain, up the mountain and down the mountain. I don’t remember how badly my feet hurt, but I remember the beautiful, the magnificent mountain vistas. Just totally worth it. Totally worth it. So yeah, type two fun. And you’re telling me that my brain makes that work. Glad to hear it. Right. Well, and mountains are a good example. I used to climb quite a bit, a lot of hiking and climbing. Used to climb out Washington like every summer. And you start climbing out Washington, it’s so much fun. You’re out in nature and you’re about halfway up. And it’s like, all right, whose idiotic idea was this again? Like, who thought this? This is stupid. What? Right. And then you get to the top and you’re like, maybe it was somewhat worthwhile. It’s a pretty good view. You know, I’ve actually seen the ocean from Mount Washington. Mount Washington is down near the ocean. It’s very hard to do. You’ve got to get really lucky. Yes, Mount Washington, New Hampshire. And you know, you’re like, oh, reprieve. Right. And then what people don’t realize, going up does not expend as much energy as going down. So then you hike down the mountain and you’re like, all right, we’ve got to consider whoever’s idea this was. They need to go up on charges against humanity. This is ridiculous. What are we doing? And and then, yeah, you look back on it and I’m like, boy, I wouldn’t trade any of that at all for anything ever. Right. It was so rich. And and even those moments when you’re like, and the reason why I remember those moments is because it didn’t work. Like I wasn’t at my end. Like I felt like this is a bad idea. I’m not sure I can continue. I think we’re at the end. But you keep going and then wonderful things happen. Right. And it is in the depths. It’s that oscillation again. Right. It is in the depths where the beauty sort of reemerges. And I think this is to know Boethius. I think this is another incarnation of a spiritual principle there. Yeah, we can we can see this most clearly in the resurrection. Right. The resurrection, something that happens after the crucifixion changes the meaning of the crucifixion. Also, all of human history before it and all of the creation after it. Right. So when something good enough happens, it can redeem and transform some of the evil you got there. So I said it’s no longer no longer remembered. That’s yeah, that’s a good point. Yeah, I like this. So this is this is another way that our biology actually reflects these spiritual realities by making us forget how much our feet hurt and remember how beautiful the mountain was. Yeah, I need that right now. My feet is very, very swollen from medication. It sort of hurts to walk on them. So I should look up some mountains online. I don’t think that will have the same effect. But I wish I’ll look at your head, Mark, and I’ll be like, wow, that’s if I could only scale that. Cannot. It is a big head. Yes. I don’t know about that. But in some ways, perhaps. Yeah, I know it’s it’s it’s interesting the way those things are mirrored and and how yeah, that that sort of outline that you gave kind of works. It also it also women have more than one kid often, not all the time, but often enough. Why? Because you remember, oh, it’s just it’s some woman thing. I don’t really get it, but they love the babies. That’s that’s what I’ve been able to figure out at this point. Really? Yeah, yeah. It’s deduction based on evidence. It’s a little bit inductive, but I think it’s pretty solid, actually. Sounds to me. Where’s your where’s your scientific paper? Where’s the peer review? Yeah, where’s the peer review? One of the mothers in the chat, they’ll they’ll peer review this. First, we get first we get the paper, then we get the peer review, then we question the peers. Yeah. And then we do the meta study on the reliability of the peers. Exactly. I think you guys are reminding me why I’m so much happier as a priest than I would be as a scientist. You just go up and you preach and nobody asks any questions. Well, and that’s the that’s the thing when you get you get to looking at, say, like, what’s what’s this meaning crisis? You know, what are what are people on about? Why are why are people getting nihilistic? Right. And a lot of it boils down to the lack of understanding of concepts like influence. And and it’s weird because if you actually read science at all, even a little bit, just one one little tiny bit, what you start to realize is that especially in something like psychology, psychology is great for this. Right. If you if you actually go to the early psychology, you realize so there’s Freud and there’s Jung and, you know, they’re two giants of the field. And they come up with these great systems that just explain a bunch of stuff. There’s no question about it. Wonderful descriptive explanations of behavior of human behavior. And they independently come to the same conclusion, which is there is an unconscious or a subconscious and that that’s doing a bunch of work. And no one ever talks about that. And you can’t study it experimentally, you know, directly. And and and which which, you know, there’s a lot of criticism of psychology for trying to study that or things that that, you know, led to that or whatever. And that’s the problem is that we we’re not taking into account the fact that even the great scientists kind of know there’s something else going on here that we’re you know, that we’re not aware of. And I mean, they did this with the with the I mean, they actually called this thing the God particle. And then they were like, when we get when we find the God particle, it’s going to answer a bunch of questions. And, you know, they find the God particle. And guess what happens? Or zero questions are answered. Forty new ones appear. And I’m like, good job, idiots. You’ve been doing this for over 100 years and you haven’t figured out the pattern. Every time you dig down into a layer of of of scale through a scale layer, you get more questions, not fewer. You get more. Even the who figured this out. The simple things you see are all complicated. Yeah, but what’s interesting, Mark, with like, particularly Jung, like stuff can’t really be like studied properly and like research and so on, like what you said. But then. And this is only really with you, not Freud. Towards the end of his life, he starts getting a bit mystical and then he starts writing the Red Book and then he has what was it? I think it was in like a state of a like delirium or something for two weeks. And he wrote it like a black book. I can’t remember the title of it. And that was his like idea of like the theory or like the like the outer realm. So he thought there was something outside that we couldn’t sort of just put down to the mind and the brain. It had to be accessed through a different realm. So he even wised up to it. It’s not conscious and unconscious, subconscious and unconscious is all the stuff we can’t explain using psychology. That’s basically what it is. Right. And then they they guess at it. That’s where the ego, the id, the stupid ego and all that come from is, well, there must be these components. That’s all speculation. Yeah. Up to that point, like it was like sort of the scientific method wasn’t really used because before them you had Tichner and William James. So you had structural structuralism and then functionalism. So it’s like, is the brain like a thing like structured together or is it for functions like which is the right one? And that can’t be sort of like tested like in the same way. Isn’t like 1880s 1890s. And then we start to emerge to like Freud and Jung who is speculating again like, well, if we have like a structure and functions like where did like these concepts sort of like, where does your outer sort of self sit and so on and like where’s the id? And they’re just sort of like poking at straws in one way, but they can’t test it. They can’t use a scientific method on it. But the way that in Vienna that psychology and psychiatry was working in like 1910s, you’re getting a lot of like, like sexually repressed women and men reporting to like therapy. And that was being reported highly. And that was just like the method of doing things. You go down on the couch, you like stay away from like a counter transference or transference. The case is written down, but you can get a massive evidence and then go through that and find those patterns and be like, so this is a neurosis. This is complex and so on. But it’s still not scientific at that point. Right. Right. But to your point, the thing that people don’t realize is science is amazingly new. It’s not 1700s. It’s not 1800s. It’s actually early 1900s at best. Yes. And people are like, no, science started with Galileo. And I’m like, no, not even close. And they don’t really realize this is way new. It’s way, way, way new. And a lot of the stuff that we built science on, and I think this is part of Jonathan Peugeot’s point, which was in your talk, talk to you on this other channel with Briarley and some woman, I forget the name of the channel. Some British chick. It was interesting though, because you was talking about this like science is embedded in something, right? Because you talk about it all the time. But it starts somewhere. But there’s a lot more seemingly scientific starting points that science started from that no one ever questions. And then you end up with sort of weird, sort of, you know, weird, weird, weird, weird stuff. And then you end up with sort of weird situations like lobotomies. I mean, the history of lobotomy is so I don’t actually recommend anybody ever research this. It’s beyond horrific. And then that was all medical science. All of it was medical science. All of it. And the thing was, it was reproducible. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The effects were reproducible. This reproducibility thing is not all it’s cracked up to be, my friends. It’s really kind of dangerous. And again, the greatest scientist by any possible materialist measure, but also any other measure likely, if such things exist, would be Edison. Still, it would still be Thomas Edison. Because he was dogged in the try it, record it, modify it, record it, modify it, record over and over again. And, you know, that’s super important, right? Because people don’t, people think that they equate science and education. And that isn’t how that went down either. A lot of science is just them claiming things that they have no right to claim. Well, and acting like science is one coherent thing is ridiculous. It’s like, how could science and religion have any kind of conflict when religion is a lot of different churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, and other cults versus a bunch of random people running experiments? It’s like, that’s that’s those are not we’re not having one thing go against one thing. They’re just a bunch of different aggregates. As far as I can tell. Then I could get a griggle. We don’t do a griggle talk here. Talk about the metric system. And then you’re talking about a griggle. I’m going to put another banner on just for you. It’s tripping over all the all the boundaries. Yeah, it’s interesting that I like the way you couched and I’ll have to listen to the to the talk. I like the way you couched the fact that it doesn’t have to be seen as sort of adversarial. It can be seen as a mirroring. And maybe Peterson is in that mirroring. You know, where he’s he’s just he’s just a foil for mirroring the the theological talk in the materialism or somewhere in the science, sciencey talk or something. I like that way of thinking about it a little bit better. Yeah. Well, I mean, it’s either that or he’s just stuck in the mud. But I don’t think it it matches to say that he’s just stuck in the mud of materialism because he keeps on talking to people and then they listen to him for a while. And a decent percentage of them go to church or go to church again. So, yeah, well, there’s something there. I mean, I mean, you know, I’m part of the part of the archetype of the fool is that he exemplifies things without realizing it. That’s what a fool is. He’s doing doing things in the world that are unintentional in some way. Right. And and so that I mean, I think that’s super important to to to take into account. And so if he’s accidentally exemplifying the right answer, who cares? And I think that’s sort of inevitable. I mean, the more you look into it, you know, read read Book Ten of the Republic, the more you look into it. That’s actually a really comforting thought right there. Like the fact that if you’re just making an honest effort to orient yourself towards the good, you’re probably going to be accomplishing good things that you don’t realize. Yes. You don’t have to intend, you know, every good thing that you accomplish. Right. Which takes the responsibility off of you. Yeah. Yeah. And that’s actually how things work. I think I’ve told this story before about, you know, I was a deacon. It was my first time preaching on Ash Wednesday, and I was just going to really let the people have it. You know, I go like a laundry list like, OK, guys, here’s the bar. And if you do these sins, you’re not you’re not you’re not living up to the standards. And it was, you know, I use like a sports analogy, like if your kids were out there, you know, not playing by the rules and doing fouls all over the place, you’d be disappointed in them. Right. Well, how much more that kind of a thing. And then the next day was talking to a woman and she said, I felt like you were preaching that homily directly to me. And I was like, oh, funny that you would admit that. But then she said, you know, I’m going through a real nasty divorce right now. And my husband was doing almost everything that you said on that list. And I finally heard from somebody with authority that that was wrong. And I’m not the bad guy for getting away from that. And he was gaslighting me. Yeah, I couldn’t have planned that. Zero percent chance that Deacon Eric Seitz could have played that. Well, and that’s the thing. And that’s the thing that, you know, if if if goodness is a concept that is reliable at all and consistent, then. When people are aiming at it from their perspective or oriented towards it in their perspective. Other people are going to be oriented to edit to from their perspective, but it’s going to be totally different. They’re going to hear something totally different or see something totally different or experience something totally different. But it will still be in that same orientation towards the good. And, yeah, that you know, you want good news. There it is. So here we go. We’ve got another moment of this incarnational principle. There’s the idea that goodness is diffusive of itself. Right. That goodness, goodness wants to spread itself out and bring other things up with it because it’s it’s the. It perfects things and pseudo be the atheist here. Yeah, God is ultimate truth, ultimate beauty and ultimate goodness, which is why when you preach well of him and worship him well, good things happen. So praise God, praise God. Praise God. That’s all I got to say. Don’t you think, Mark? Or it’s all sus. It’s all sus. All sus. These priests are just in it for the money, right? Yeah. Yeah. Well, strange things do happen all the time. I saw a I forget. Oh, I think it was Chris Williamson’s channel. He talked to that YouTuber, Destiny. And that’s the that. So he said the thing on the thumbnail said people are getting dumber. And I’m like, OK, dude, that would have a mirror. Destiny, dude, you’re the one getting dumber for sure, pal. You are not learning your lessons. You are definitely sounding stupider by the day. I was just like, well, yeah, that’s kind of how these things play out. It’s just, you know, it’s very funny. Every time I think about it, it actually cracks me up. And I’m happy to have that in my life right now. Like, yes, all I have to do is think of that thumbnail and happiness emerges. Oh, goodness. Yes. The irony. Yeah. Yeah, boy. You could just stop there and meditate on that for a little bit and then wonder what we’re projecting out into the universe. But never mind that you can save that for your examination of conscience tonight. Hopefully, goodness, hopefully, goodness. Hopefully, goodness. Yeah. Hopefully. And so far, I’m going to cheat for that exam. Or is it just like open book? Sure. It’s called the called the Beatitudes and the Ten Commandments. You just go through all of those. Yeah. I mean, the two of those, you should probably be able to figure things out. How long is this Peterson? It’s a Baron convo. Hour 15, hour 20, maybe an hour 30. And then they’ve got the special daily wire plus section. Yeah. No, you cannot wait for the illumination of conscience. You know, neither the day nor the hour. That’s all I’m saying. It’s interesting to me that I like the way Peugeot was talking about it. He’s he’s OK using the term. And I’m always like, I get no problem to use that term. But why don’t you define it for me? Because I know no one can. So it’s a term. It’s a trick. Consciousness. Consciousness. Consciousness, which is fine. Like, I’m not I’m not against magic words at all. I’m just saying, like, you know, you’re using a magic word, right? That you’re not able to define, right? And they don’t know that, which makes it funny. You know, they have no idea. I mean, that was one of the disappointments, we’ll say, if there were any such things at Thunder Bay was talking about consciousness, but not again unconsciousness, which is arguably more of the work and the more important of the work of both Freud and Jung and a bunch that came after them. Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform is in the process of performing or has already completed. That’s not the way they’re using it, for sure. OK. That’s what’s in the catechism. This is probably one of the earliest and best philosophical and psychological works that talks about consciousness. So psychology from an empirical standpoint, Frans Brentano and the simplest like it’s not all encompassing, but the simplest way like he sort of came up with what consciousness is, even though it’s not really explaining anything is like we know where we know we have a consciousness like we’re aware we’re in it, we can like sense it. But it also has this product called, I think, directionality. So we can point towards that, that feeling, go, we’re seeing this thing, we don’t exactly know what it is. So it’s sort of like a meta thing like you’re sitting behind your head a bit and looking at the consciousness floating above your head and be like, I’ve got that, but I don’t know what it is yet. And that thing, it’s like where all my experiences lie and how I view this and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But as far as like structuralizing it and like detailing it, we know we’re even close. But he was sort of like… They use it as ground truth. Without realizing it, we’re in a root cell. I think that’s where I am with the starting… They’re taking it… It’s a starting point for all the other arguments, right? It’s an axiom. Yeah, I was going to say it’s axiomatic. They’re doing it ad hoc and taking it… It’s a term. It’s like a priori. It’s like, well, if we use this idea of consciousness, be like, okay, it’s true, then we can do all this other stuff. And they don’t think, well, we don’t actually know if that’s true yet. But we can push forward, do exciting work based on that model. Which I don’t think is wrong, but it’s not necessarily right because you may waste years and years and years on something that’s not going to ever work because we haven’t dived into what consciousness is yet compared to like, well, we can build an AI that’s like a man because we can get close enough to like what our consciousness is. It’s like, well, we can’t really because we don’t know what it is yet. Right. We haven’t defined it. I think there’s this concept in the later scholastics, which I learned about long before I was capable of understanding it. You’ve got like first intentions or maybe it’s first order intentions and then second order intentions. So your first order intentions are things outside of you that your mind intends towards either to understand or to do something. And then you’ve got the second intention is when you reflect upon yourself as if you were the first intention and the contents of your of your intellect and memory and all of those things. So I think I don’t know in order to really understand human consciousness, we have to remember that that we are our volitional beings that we want things that we have purposes. We have desires that we have ends that we set for ourselves. And it’s really only kind of in that that we could really understand our consciousness rather than rather than from some kind of, you know, ghost view of the above the match above the spectators or as a spectator. That that seems like it’s got to be somehow fundamental to consciousness because we don’t really I don’t know. Maybe Mark was conscience and utero. Who knows? But I don’t remember anything before I was about three. So the memory and conscious consciousness seemed to be really necessary. Like like they’re they have to go together like this because that’s how we’re able to keep our intentions from one moment to another. Thingness and memory are the same. People don’t realize thingness and memory are the same. OK, so thingness when you’re talking about thingness, do you mean our existence as a person or do you mean our ability to know a thing correctly or incorrectly? Because it doesn’t solve the incorrectly problem. You could label something with three letters, which I will not utter that is not still not a thing or never going to be. You could, but you’re still wrong. Right. You’re still wrong because you can’t identify it. Nobody can really get their hands around it. Right. But your ability to perceive what we might call objects in the world, however you want to conceive of those, you use the Petersonian need model or or the wrong objective. The wrong objective materiality model. Oh, yeah, that’s correct. But that’s completely definitionally dependent upon memory. Yes. None of that works without memory. And so memory is kind of tied up. And then there’s four types of memory, allegedly. And what what implications are there for that? Well, that means that essentially is just four aspects of thingness that you can perceive. Well, so you’re saying like in order to like conceive of a thing being there and like know that the thing is a thing and like you could perceive it, you see it and so on. It has to be storable in memory. You can’t have like it can’t be non-storable. You have to you have to store it. You have to store it in one memory and compare it to another memory. And that yes, yes, that’s first. Yes, but you have to the relational system, but you have to know about the human intellect is that it brings things to our level. Human intellect always bring things to our level. So we very often bring things which are beneath us up to our level. So you can domesticate a dog very successfully because we have over a century millennia. We’ve brought them up to our are they really like equals to us? No, but we’ve brought them from the wolf pack, you know, into into into the home. That’s also why when you’ve got like a computer or a car or something that isn’t working, you talk to it. Right. Or you reason with it. Or you name it. You personify. Why do you personify things to bring it to your level? But also, like when you get blackout drunk, right, your your thingness changes, like is your perception of like things around you, how you see them, how you like like how you navigate through the world is like all blurry. It changes. It’s like vastly altered. And then you notice that there is a certain point in the night where it’s like, I remember, I remember, I remember, I don’t remember any of this. Now, if thingness is linked to memory, as you say, one to one or like directly, it would make sense that like when you’re not able to control that thingness and have that discernment level, your memory sort of goes like, I’m not going to remember this, like, because this is not the I’m experiencing properly. Right. And also the same with other forms of unconsciousness, like, fortunately, I don’t remember having my wisdom tooth removed. You know, I got to be asleep for that. Thank God for the fruits of modernity, which has brought us anesthesia. Yeah, I’ll take it. I’ll take it. We’ll we’ll we’ll deal with the consequences. That’s right. Right. Well, Sally had the best best example there in the chat like that’s why babies babies take well that’s why babies take a while to know that what their hands are right because they have to remember that their movements are related to the hands and that that has something to do with the thoughts that make their hands move. But the sensation that they experience in their hands are actually related to this thing. Right. But right. And that takes repeated experiences with memory because it’s comparing two types of memory. That’s why you have a long term and short term memory, by the way, with the relationships and those relationships take time, time to build. And it’s really it’s always been weird to me that people don’t know this and I’m just like, and then people frown a lot about psychology and I’m like, psychology is really kind of like four things. What and also that short long term is not sort of hesitate to like bring up like a postmodernist one this type thing like you know, rather better narrative and grand narrative like there’s a long one short one. But the memory is like you have a short term memory as building out like what’s happening and like short term events and then the long term memory that’s being stored. You’re building that your psychological narrative and sort of almost spiritual narrative as that is being consolidated from the hippocampal region to the neocortex. I don’t I don’t. Yeah, I don’t see any evidence for that. That’s that’s the evidence. Well, they had but it turns out this is why they talk about the structure of the brain all the sudden you’ll hear this all. Yeah. In different places. I’m like, hey, it’s like, right. Right. Because they’re with that near anatomy then like long term and short term and long term memory. Would you say that that could turn we’ve the narrative, they’re materially located in different spaces. We actually know all this known all this since like the 60s or something stupid. Yeah. Yeah, that’s like Alzheimer’s right. Oh, they’re, they’re, they’re, they’re short term memory gets wiped out and long term memory stays and it corresponds to the brain and all that like we, but we knew that. That’s very this is what I mean. Like, so you don’t think you get up and you don’t think you can connect. But that’s why they’re talking about structure because it turns out that they’ve actually have been able to measure things like we’re not only where the long term memory is destroyed, but where on average certain types of memories go right because different memory regions that map to parts of the body and on and on. The level of detail stupid. I don’t recommend you look into it because you’re just going to waste a lot of time and not get any any interesting pragmatic information out of it that you you or anyone else can can or will ever be able to do anything with because it just sounds like my life a lot. But it just turns out that the way they know what the regular things are by the outliers, but then the outliers just prove the regular things and then they and then you realize you can’t use the rule because the rule doesn’t work. Yeah, but it’s not wrong. Right. It kind of works. Right. And that’s why they’re talking about brain structure and I’m like, Yes, there’s a brain structure, but the reason why they’re doing that is because AI has a structure. Right. And even though we know that’s wrong again because it’s action potential and not neurons firing neurons don’t fire. That doesn’t actually it’s not the way it works. And so what ends up happening is that they go and take the smaller model that they built on the computer and then try to map it to the more complex thing. Yeah, yeah. Originally modeled by the computer. And I’m like, Do you guys understand what mistake you’re making here? Were the mistakes about four of them that you’re making in doing this? On the other hand, there, there is a structure. It’s just not a physical one. And once you understand that that the relationships between your short term and long term memory or the four types of memory or both, however, it’s divided up doesn’t matter. This is what I’m saying. Don’t look into the details. It’s not relevant. The relationships are not material. They’re not measurable. And because they’re not measurable, you can’t actually do anything with them. But they are the determining factor. And so the determining factor turns out to be ethereal or non material. Okay. That’s why it’s the unconscious rules you your passions. The Greeks knew this. Your passions rule you. They said it that way all the time. But it’s not unclear. They were they already had it figured out. I don’t know why we can’t just admit that. But apparently, we’re not wicked mad if we don’t rediscovered ourselves stupidly over decades for some stupid reason. We just read it in the book. Yeah, yeah, I got the benefit of the blessing of just having things delivered to me in a book. And all this talk about memory reminds me of St. Augustine. And he he like he gets in to become a Christian. He’s become a Christian, you know, he knows that Christianity is good, starting to really put the Bible together, seeing all of the other things line up and, and then kind of near the end of his life, he’s like, okay, I’m going to get to the bottom of this Trinity business. And he came up with the best model that we have for the Trinity, we have not topped St. Augustine’s psychological model of the Trinity. And he mapped the three persons of the Trinity on to the three most important faculties of the human soul, the psyche. That’s why it’s a psychological model. They didn’t have Freud yet. So it couldn’t have been that kind of psychology. The father corresponds with the memory, which lines up really well with what you were just talking about, about how like, thingness, and like the origin of consciousness, and the origin of our identity, utterly dependent on memory. And without that, we can’t go anywhere. And then the intellect was mapped on to the son, the word, coming forth out of the store of the memory and articulating the memory. And then the Holy Spirit being the bond of love, the will between the father and the son. So just in case you thought all of this talk about human beings being the image and likeness of God was just a bunch of church people talk, that is another way that the heavenly is incarnated into the human person. This pattern just keeps on working, Mark. I know. That’s weird that Augustine said all that. That’s rather shocking to me. Yeah, I didn’t come at it that way. So like, okay, I mean, and that is more what you see, right? You see, you know, Jordan Hall converts Christianity, Baptist for the moment, apparently. But but like, you just see the inevitability of the utility of the conclusion once you actually do the work. The work is hard, especially if you’re materialists like that. Like I said, like, just, it takes a long time to exhaust details. So that you give up, right? But you never exhaust details. You get an answer because details just they just keep going. I mean, this is the this is the problem with string theory. I mean, it’s wonderful. I’m like, string theory is the dumbest idea anybody ever had about anything ever, technically speaking, because all it does is create more problems than it solves like immediately. What about is it is it worse than Hagel? Is it worse than Hagel, though? It’s worse than Hagel. Yeah, well, oh, whoa, whoa. Hagel was a theologian, and I think he would have smacked you if you caught him a philosopher to his face. He doesn’t know no self respecting human wanted to be a philosopher back then. So you must really hate string theory. Okay. Yeah, I mean, he was a bad theologian. Fair. But he was theologian. He wasn’t trying to solve philosophical. No, no, no. Yeah. That was always not that debate. I was just making relational. Yeah, no, I’m still a no on Hagel. He really did a lot of damage to the world, or at least the misunderstanding of his work. I haven’t I haven’t dived in. It’s so bad. It’s not even wrong. Yeah. Well, I remember the day I was watching something on it. And they were like, Yeah, this guy went back to 1871 or some nonsense thing in a book and found out that you could do this particular math equation with neutrinos. And he said, I wonder if you apply that here if it also works. And I was like, Oh, my goodness, that’s the hokey is beginning of a scientific mathy thing that I’ve ever heard. And yeah, it just turns out that immediately you run into the question of, okay, that explains the Big Bang. Wait a minute. What explains where all the stuff came from then that now cause the Big Bang? And what explains the Big Bang happening within that stuff? And what explains the origin of all that stuff? And you’re within the system. So you see, you’ve got the Big Bang that causes string theory still needs to be explained, or at least a question of that magnitude. And then all men call God. Right. And then where all the stuff comes from, and then why all the stuff is moving, and then why all the stuff would just happen to do what it did to cause the Big Bang. Right. And oh, by the way, you didn’t actually get rid of the Big Bang. You didn’t answer the Big Bang. What you did was you just added stuff around it. And nobody understands it. I’m like, guys, guys, do you not see what happened here? You didn’t explain anything at all. You kept the old thing. Like, no, that’s not doing away with it. That’s a good thing. String theory is not a dogma for me. That would be pretty, you know. Everyone’s off the string theory train by now, I think. But it’s still, I accept maybe Brian Green, but I think everybody else has come to their senses about, hey, wait a minute. This doesn’t help us at all. In fact, it makes everything worse. Nice. I don’t know. Right. Exactly. Exactly. I do a little XKCD posting every now and then. There is a, I think it’s called Yelly Robot Comics or something, is one that’s like similar to AI. It’s like, I’ve invented a robot that just screams at you all day long. And he goes, why did you invent that? He goes, I’m not sure. In the background, the grabbers is going, ah, and they just look at me like, hmm, like reconsider what they’ve done. Well, and that is the problem. If we don’t have a unifying principle, we’ll say above our flat world ontology, because all ontology creates a flat world, by the way. Hint, hint. Then we can’t get together and cooperate to process the world, right? And actually know things in a way that is wise, because this is an infinite amount of knowledge. It’s just that you can’t engage with most of it, obviously. And knowing the good knowledge from the bad knowledge is wisdom, right? Wait a minute, wisdom is picking the right knowledge. And that’s why it goes back to relevance realization, which is really, it’s funny because all this stuff ends there. Right. I think Peterson actually touches on relevance realization. He doesn’t call it that. Which is how do you know what to pay attention to? That’s a good question. How do we know what to pay attention to? And I would say you have to include the prioritization in that, right? And then that still doesn’t describe how you know what to pay attention to. Which goes back to the memory problem. And it was interesting, too, I read something on Twitter, it was the past couple of days, might have been today, might have been a couple days ago. But basically saying the singularity of the memory is the singularity of the memory. And all they’re actually saying when they speak, I’m so glad I didn’t have to tell everybody this. Somebody else said it first. I’m so glad I didn’t have to tell everybody this. Somebody else said it first. I’m so glad I didn’t have to tell everybody this. Somebody else said it first. At least publicly, I’ve been saying it for years privately. That’s just an axiomatic statement. So let’s slow this down a little bit. They’re not talking about the gravitational point at the middle of the memory. They’re talking about the Any singularity. Any time anybody uses the word singularity, they’re stating an axiomatic point. They’re not talking about the gravitational point at the middle of a black hole, are they? Any singularity. Any time anybody uses the word singularity, they’re stating an axiomatic point. Okay, so more people, I think, would apply this in terms of a technological singularity. Would we create machines that can create even faster machines, which create ever faster machines until it all accelerates infinitely, which is actually impossible because our little computer chips here are running into real physical limitations on how fast they can go and how much electricity they can handle, even though this is just a little i3-9100F that I have lying on my desk for unspecified reasons. I’m impressed. You beat me. You beat me. I’d have to go into the shed to get tech to show off it’s all in the shed. So all of that to say, yeah, no, if you’re convinced that that sort of thing is going to happen and it’s just a matter of when, that’s all basically the same thing as me being convinced that someday our Lord Jesus Christ is going to return the same way he left. Same pattern. It’s actually a pattern. But it’s like, it’s going to happen. I can’t tell you when, but it’s going to happen. It’s going to change everything and make it great. And it’s a unity too. It’s a unity, right? It’s this neoplatonic unity problem all over again. And I’m like, okay, fair, but like maybe there’s a better unity story and a worse unity story and yours sucks. And maybe someone else has a better one. I’m just, it’s almost, it’s almost as if, you know, human beings are built with the imprint of certain patterns inside of us such that we’re fundamentally receptive to certain sorts of things. And so maybe we’re fundamentally receptive to the idea that the King is going to return at the end of time and it either, you know, gets incarnated like me where I think it’s going to be Jesus or you think it’s going to be computer chips that we’ve created. AI, emergent AI. Well, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t frame it that way at all, Father. I’m horrifically disappointed. It’s almost as if there are patterns, which we can try to rebelle against. But there, outside of us that lead us in these directions, but it actually matters which, you know, which aspect we have towards them, right? Whether they’re positive or negative patterns, that would be the Gnostics versus the Christians, roughly speaking, right? And also what our starting axioms are. And there’s only two starting axioms that I can tell that make any sense, although happy to have people come up with more. Emergence is good or being is good. And I think all the other axioms probably boil down to that. Although I’d be happy to be proven wrong on that. That’d be an interesting discussion. But ultimately you need those two things, right? You need the goodness in both the starting axiom, right? The starting assumption and you need the goodness in the aspectual purview, right? Where you see this as a good thing, because if it’s being is good and I’m being tortured, then God must be evil. Then then we have Gnostics. That’s that’s where it comes from. But the pattern either way is sort of unavoidable. Hey, Valerie. Valerie. Do it already. Go ahead. Just solving all the world’s problems here. But hey, string theory is worse than Hegel. We got to that tonight. That was big news. I was like, wow, I was here for that news break. So you don’t think that being is evil is an axiom that somebody can start from? I mean, it won’t end well. Like, let’s be clear, that doesn’t end well. No, they can’t start there. You’d have to start with being. You still have to start with I think therefore I am. I mean, what’s his name? Descartes. Descartes not wrong. That’s the problem. Descartes not wrong. And I do think that’s a mistranslation, although I forget the exact letter translation. I would actually want to look it up in the original text to see what the context is. But I studied meditations on first philosophy in seminary, and it was, you know, Descartes trying to come up with utterly consistent and logical theology that couldn’t be doubted. Right. He didn’t know Gödel. So fair enough. I think it’s more like the fact that I can think, which is closer to the definition of consciousness that people use, means that I am. Yeah, that’s what he uses as a starting axiom. The trouble is he gets stuck in his head there. Right. Right. It’s well, that’s emergent. And so that’s an emergence is good argument. Right. Rather than a being is good argument, although it could be a being is good argument. It really depends on whether or not you’re OK with the idea of creation. So when you lose the sense that there’s something outside of yourself, you don’t know where you end and other things begin, creation goes away. The problem of creation doesn’t occur. But now you have to explain why you’re constrained. Well, that must be emanations from above, which makes totally no sense, by the way. Sorry. Sorry, Dr. Vervicki. But that’s backwards. Completely backwards. You know, because because then you get yourself. It’s the things above us like society that constrain us so that we’re not contaminate us. I think he sees it as constraint, but either works and it’s probably both for so even. And it’s like to me, it’s you guys can’t see these patterns. Well, they were taught to be in seminary that like all of and I’m going to use the term mark. Are you ready? Modern philosophy, which which is the standard term. And I don’t have a better term for it. Maybe we can call it post Cartesian philosophy. Maybe that would be a better term for it takes post Plato. Well, yeah. I don’t have to think about that takes his axiom of, you know, I think, therefore I am and I cannot doubt that. It tries to build everything on it, but they end up getting stuck in their head. Right. So like, hot makes causality one of the categories of understanding. So he says causality happens inside of our head. Right. It puts things together out in the phenomenal world. And it’s like, OK, well, how does the real the very real world that we can’t access the numinal make the phenomenal? And he says, oh, it’s grounding. It’s grounding. Oh, are you sure that’s not causality? Because that sounds an awful lot like causality. Grounding and causality sound like they’re basically the same thing. And then the whole, you know, it’s like the whole thing falls apart there because it’s incoherent to try and start their inside inside your head. You know, you got to start with the whole world, which you would call creation. And I would also call it creation. We have to start with not only the whole world around you and outside of you, but the whole world before you. That’s where everybody misses the mark. They’re always compressing time. And I’m like, no, dude, you know, because because I mean, at some point, Peterson kind of talks about this. Like, what if everything you do matters? Oh, no. Right. Because it is just kind of like, whoa. But but what if the only reason why you’re here is contingent upon the works of billions of people that you could never have met, right? Who gave up who knows what so that you can not only be here but have what you have. That the weight of that debt is crushing. It’s absolutely crushing. That’s why I have a lot of sympathy for the people who talk about Jubilee and the idea of debt forgiveness on a regular cyclical basis and, you know, things like that. It’s like, oh, that might be an important part of the puzzle that we’ve been missing for a while. Is this idea that, you know, because a lot of people talk about, well, money systems collapse over time and blah, blah, blah. Maybe they’re supposed to. Like, maybe that’s a good thing. Right. Like, maybe when you maybe when your money system gets stale because it will because entropy or something, you just need to burn it down and start over. Or you need to let it collapse and start over, you know, whatever, whatever the case may be. Cycle of the flood coming back in. It’s almost like that pattern gets embodied in us every night, but not for another 45 minutes. Is that is that all is that all you’re giving us for the 45 minute countdown? That was clever. I like the 45 minutes. Yeah. Yeah. But that. Yeah. Like the cycle. So, I mean, Matthew Peugeot wrote about this in the language of creation. So basically dogma now night is a flood state and you go unconscious and things are chaos. I had the weirdest freaking dreams last night because I ate too many Doritos. Doritos. So, yeah, I was I was super dehydrated. I had to get up and get a drink of water, but not before having just wacky, wacky dreams. And that’s a flood state right there. And it’s a natural cycle. Right. And it’s a cycle that is embodied in us in, you know, kind of in a daily way. And then, you know, maybe even an hourly way where you got to take a break and just be like, OK, I could have think for five minutes if you’re doing something difficult. And then, you know, we do it in a weekly way with with the Sabbath rest, which we do on Sundays now because we’re Christians. And then we also have big festivities right where, you know, you really shouldn’t work on Christmas and Easter if you can if you can avoid it. And then maybe it also happens societally where where things just kind of collapse. Yeah. And you have to be prepared for that. Yeah. It’s even embedded into our neurology. That’s that was where I was going. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, a lot of the talk lately in all sorts of places has been patterns, patterns, patterns. Right. And so people are sort of catching up finally about about patterns and the importance of patterns and thinking about patterns and talking about patterns. I was talking about symbolism is all about patterns. And I’m like, yeah, that’s why my YouTube channel is called what it’s called. Thank you, Manuel, who came up with the name. It is about recognizing the patterns. And when we try to do something like economics or so-called macroeconomics or the nonsense, they’re coming up with their Voodoo garbage name this week. We fail because we’re trying to understand something much bigger than us. And we just can’t do it. And then, you know, it’s you’re extremely susceptible. And I’m going to use the technical term here. Extremely susceptible to bullshitting yourself in economics. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Because it’s like if you are an optimistic and happy person and you think you’re going to make a bunch of money, that all of the economic signals that you’re going to pay attention to are, you know, up to the point. Whereas if you’re cynical and don’t trust anything, you’re going to just look at all of the negative signals out there like, oh, yeah, even when the stocks go up, that just means we’re puffing up another bubble right here. When that bursts, everything is going to come crashing down. And, you know, subscribe to my personal Patreon so I could tell you the three things you need to do when you’re going to make a bunch of money. I don’t know if they have that in South Carolina. I bet you they do, but they definitely have it here in North Dakota. Some of the preppers, which, you know, you make friends with preppers. Well, yeah, even when you’re making fun of them. What do you call, you know, what do you call preppers? I mean, a lot of the people down here in the South in particular, like stores are not closed. I don’t know what to do. My nearest gas station is three miles away. I could walk to three gas stations and have the Massachusetts pretty easily go get a can of gas, come back and fill the car if I want. I never had to, but I could have pretty easily. Right. I can’t do that here. It’s three miles in one direction. Now I can come all the way back. That’s today’s work right there. If you were to do that. So anyway, the economics is like you’re going to believe what you want to believe, basically. And then you look at all the different schools of economics. What do they do? They all just believe what they want to believe. Right. Right. Right. And they have different utility in different areas. And so they fight about, well, no, we can do this and you can do that. And so they fight about, well, no, we can do this and you can do that. And so they fight about, well, no, we can do this and you can’t. And therefore we’re better. And it’s like, relevance realization, which your priority, what are you trying to understand? And it is there’s too much of information containable in the thing above you, which is economics, certainly. And so you have to filter out what to pay attention to. And yeah, you get different schools of economics. It’s not that hard. It’s the same pattern with everything that sort of affects you. And so you have to filter out what to pay attention to. And yeah, you get different schools of economics. But it’s the same pattern with everything that sort of above you. And I’m always a little surprised that people kind of haven’t, haven’t really noticed. But was there other, I mean, sell me on this on this Peterson Bishop Barron talk? Because, you know, I don’t like Bishop Barron for his language reasons, but did they talk about? Yeah, there was the gratuitous Latin poured into everything. Oh, no. OK. I thought that was kind of like his branding or something. Yeah, but it’s not helpful. And it’s not helpful. something. Yeah, but it’s not helpful. It’s I mean, here’s the thing. Here’s the thing is, he was a seminary professor for a while. And by the time you get to like you’ve been in seminary for two years, right. And I think he was usually teaching guys who are farther than that. You could just say Summon bonum and everybody knows what you’re talking about because it’s a seminary and they’ve studied both philosophy and Latin and like putting those words together is not art. So I think it’s just a habit of speech. He’s got from his seminary days. But like, I don’t know. Why you couldn’t just say highest good because that’s what it means. And It’s a It’s a Yeah, yeah. And like, honestly, I I mean, the ball, the Latin obviously doesn’t bother me because I know what he is saying it means when he talks about it. But then other people pointed out and like, yeah, yeah, that’s not that’s not very like The only time I ever bring up a foreign word in like a homily is because I’m going to highlight that and like I’m going to explain. Yeah, this is metanoia right Which isn’t quite captured by the English word repent. It means have a transformation of your mind. So it’s more than just, oh, I did something bad and now I need to do good. And as I know, we We can call it a conversion experience. We can call it a spiritual awakening, you know, like that would be the kind of context I would do. Um, yeah, yeah, I mean I liked it. I watched it too. So I’m interested to hear your thoughts too. There’s, there’s not a lot of those moments. So it was very smooth conversation. I look at like Baron and Peterson’s first conversation and that was bumpy. Right. And like, you know, maybe that’s that’s just a part of life where we’ve got like Peterson’s not familiar with religious talk and then, you know, Baron kind of made I’ll say error and it did be easy error to fall into and it’s easy for me to armchair quarterback that when he started talking about Aristotle and You know, said, oh, yeah, well, you know, humans are supposed to be happy. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that. So anyway, there was a lot less of that. They were just kind of vibing on the Gospels, staying in the Gospel narrative where they would have a lot more common ground between them. And I thought, I thought Peterson’s insight about the law of the gift, which I was talking about at the very beginning, were interesting. And how he linked it to the anticipatory function of the dopaminergic system where the more you give and the more you see the goodness in that, the more you’ll actually enjoy giving of yourself. That was mildly interesting. But I also thought that Peterson’s point about the large language models and how they could be used to map terms onto God, like true and good and beautiful, was banal at best. Like, I was just like, oh my gosh, dude, please just… How are you mapping non-physical or non-material things? It’s basically like, statistically, God is most likely to be spoken about in this way, as the true and the good and the beautiful, right? And then they do this. I’m sure it’s really interesting, but it does improve what I think he thinks it proves, because we have these things called theology departments. And in order to be in the theology department, you have to write a doctoral dissertation, books and articles. So you’ve got lots of people in theology departments just constantly producing written words about God, and they’re not gonna be talking about how God is evil. So basically, this goes back to your point, Mark, which you’ve made over and over again, that the large AI systems are only as good as the data you’re putting into them. So all you’re saying, Dr. Peterson, by saying that these large language models prove that God is good, true and beautiful, is that that’s what human beings are most likely to say about God. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, you’re making a statistical case. And it’s just like, my dude, you’re not dumb, but how are you making this error? Because he says it’s like a refutation of postmodernism. Right. Like, the postmoderns are ridiculous. Just let them refute themselves. Right, right. Well, and expose their trick, right? They just, they remove the grand narratives they don’t like until they find one they like, and then they proceed from there. Yeah. What else are you gonna do? So, yeah, it’s just, and that’s, right, it’s not even their trick. Like, they’re copying post-J. Cart, right? Where you just, yeah, you’re not doing the hard work. You’re just starting from somebody else’s hard work and then leaving out all their axiomatic assumptions and using their thing as the axiomatic assumption. And it takes a long time for people to see stuff. See, that to me is the more interesting thing. It’s like, why don’t people see this? It’s pretty obvious, but people have a real hard time with next steps. They just can’t link things together anymore. They just can’t understand this leads to that always. It’s a slope argument. Right. Well, right, and that’s the problem. It’s like, because, and this would be the Christian side of that, is that there’s no slope that Christ can’t fix. Right. Like, well, no, it’s more like you can get dragged back up any slope. Maybe. Well, that would be him fixing it for you at least. Yeah. And that’s the problem is that, yeah, the slippery slope isn’t exactly correct, but it’s also not exactly wrong. And that’s because certain things lead certain places reliably. And I think, like I said, you do a deep dive into this stuff, including just Plato, and you’re going to bump into the reality of the Christian story being at least concurrent with all of that work in a way that nothing else is. Right. And what do you do with that? And they don’t take it that next step. I mean, I’m still, I’m going to do a video on book 10, the Republic at some point, because that is just, man, I don’t know why anybody’s even talking about the Republic and not talking about book 10. It doesn’t make any sense to me, especially the very end, because it’s just a whopping conclusion. Yeah. So anyway, if I’m going to sell you on this Peterson conversation, the large language model talk ends about 10 minutes in. So that’s me selling it to you. And then they get on to much more interesting stuff. OK. OK. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe I’ll try to find some time to get through that one. It sounds like it might be worth it. I don’t know why. I don’t remember seeing it in my stream. It was like they were listening to each other much more better. Maybe that’s just because they’ve had a few reps now that they’ve got back and forth, got a feel for each other, and they were able to move a little bit more quickly. And sometimes the technology causes delays and stuff, so you think it’s OK to talk and the person’s still talking or something. That might have been something from previous or whatever. Yeah, maybe he’s got like the daily wire money is giving him ultra low latency when he’s video conferencing with somebody, right? Probably. They just film the correct fiber optic light cable. I find the set interesting in the background with all of the logs, firewood. I’m like, that’s so him. It just works. And I’m like, is it a real place and they just are filming there or did they actually build this set? I have no idea. Yeah, because Bishop Aaron was doing the classic, you’ve just got a bunch of books in the background, which is every Catholic podcast ever except for mine. Got an image of our lady, so I hope that’ll suffice. I don’t know. It’s interesting stuff. I think not a bad or a good thing, but from a writer’s perspective, the whole thematic thing, he is very, very much about communication and using the right words and formulating your thoughts and stuff. And so to him, that might be why he’s attracted to this thematic thing. That might be what’s going on. You mean with the large language models? Yeah. That way of helping to be precise in your speech. That could be why he’s attracted to it. Yeah. But also, look, I went over this on my Friday livestream on my channel, people who are articulate want to believe conversation is going to save the world. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a game they play well already. And so they’re like, oh, my game can fix things because I’m good at it. It’s all unconscious or subconscious, granted. But you see that pattern is everywhere. And then people who are good at art want to believe that beauty is going to save the world. Of course they do. They’re going to contribute to that. There’s a number of science. They all have a wrong definition of science. They want truth to save the world because that’s their thing. So they do. Then they’re in the club. But that’s not how that works. But at best, all of those things that you’ve said can maybe help some things, can’t help everything. Well, they’ll all be corrupted. Sure. If they remain kind of in themselves. So we’re doing conversation over here. We’re doing beauty over here. We’re doing truth over here rather than them all coming together and orienting towards the same sum of bone, which is Latin for highest good. Oh, OK. Nice. I got you. I got you. I thought you were doing a Harry Potter curse. Yeah. If you don’t put it in the good, it doesn’t work. And nobody likes that answer. But aside from connections and relationships and next steps, which is really relationship, is it? Knowledge of relationship and knowledge of next step are very closely related. Same thing, but they’re real close. Same skill set. You can’t get to the good. And if you can’t, then well, we don’t want the good to be the answer because I won’t know the answer. Right. So it’s all I it’s just beauty. It’s just truth. It’s just it’s just it’s just conversation. Like that’ll fix it because they don’t have the tools to go to the good. And they know that at least unconsciously or subconsciously or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, I mean, that was one of the helpful things that Pete Pastor Paul said about revival and that one of the things you see in a revival in the church level is everybody is working towards the same good. Right. They’re all oriented together. They’re all cooperating together. And so like, you know, the architects are designing beautiful churches and the artists are putting magnificent paintings up in there. The workmen are coming to build it. The bishop comes and consecrates it. The preachers come in and preach all of it. And people come in and it’s just it’s like the whole the whole body comes together, all operating towards and this is all about that law of the gift again right where if you try and hold something to yourself, it corrupts and decays. But if you give it up and give it away, it actually can become itself properly where, you know, the artists and conversationalists, the therapists, I guess, and the scientists and the scholastics and all of the everybody. If they’re actually allow themselves to submit to the good and to the common goal, they actually become themselves properly. But they’re more themselves than if they were just in their own cloister away from everybody else. Yeah, yeah. Things are going to decay. You should give them up. Right. And that will make it better. But also I like what you were saying, too, like the cooperation super important. Right. And it’s the cooperative process. Something I meant to say in my in my opening monologue was, you know, John Paul II talked about this as the law of the gift. And so, you know, we talked about this as sacrifice towards a higher good, higher aim and and Mark would talk about this as cooperation and participation. So cooperative processing towards the good cooperative processing towards the good. And that’s what revival is. It’s cooperative processing towards the good. When you start to cooperate with others and towards that higher goodness. It’s always this is the thing about revival is it’s always the Holy Spirit calling people in. It doesn’t start with. Gosh, I don’t even know how it would start. I mean, so sometimes it starts with a person, but that person always receives inspiration. Well, doesn’t call it a vision. It doesn’t start with them. Right. But nobody but they receive that if Steve something it manifests through them through them. Yeah, yeah. It always starts with the Holy Spirit. You know, and if there were one person that it started with, that would have to be Jesus in Catholic or Christian theology, broadly speaking. But but yeah, and that’s the we keep we always confuse that for territory. The person’s the map of the territory, except it’s not real territory. And when the territory is ethereal and you get a map for it, you get these terrible maps. Yeah, yeah. But we can imitate Christ. Right. I have a question. So I’m kind of curious. I’m sort of dealing with thing in the story and my own podcast thing is I want to do a piece about wisdom. And I always thought from a Christian perspective, wisdom with the right application of knowledge and also, you know, book of Proverbs and all that kind of stuff. But maybe you could articulate it for me and then I could write it down. I’ll go back and watch the live stream and write it down. Write it down from a Catholic perspective. How you view wisdom. Yeah, yeah. So you’re going to get a little bit of Thomas Aquinas here and a little bit of Aristotle. So Aristotle would say that the wise man orders all things well, puts things in their correct spots. And so I think you’ll see a lot of like the book of Proverbs when it’s talking about wisdom is doing just that young man. Don’t worry about this. It’s really not that important. This is important. And this is the way you should behave. If you do this, bad things will happen. But if you do this, good things will happen. And then it’ll say, you know, sometimes contradictory things to do the little frame breaking trick. So that’s that’s pretty cool. So that’s what we get kind of in the Old Testament. And then you get to Thomas Aquinas is really interesting. He treats wisdom primarily as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And we’ve got this whole theology of the gifts of the Holy Spirit where so when you’re constituted in Christ, when you’re baptized, you’ve been redeemed. All of that got the Holy Spirit inside of you. All of your natural faculties are able to be oriented towards God. You’ve got the grace to meritoriously we use that term meritoriously bring your life up to God. You’re also given the gifts of faith, hope and charity, which connect your soul to God. And then you’ve got these seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are not your own power and functioning going on their own now. But they’re they’re sort of the Holy Spirit comes and takes a more direct control of what you’re doing. Now, it’s not like your free will is flattened in this because you could always decide not to follow the spirit’s promptings. So you’re still an agent in the world. And the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Like the bush that doesn’t get burned. Like the bush that doesn’t get burned. Exactly. Exactly. And the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, knowledge, understanding, counsel, fortitude, piety and fear of the Lord. So we put wisdom in its highest sense as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And Thomas Aquinas does this this etymology, which is really interesting, of the word wisdom in Latin, which is Sapere. And he links it to the word for tasting. You get this taste of divinity and it’s sort of the sweetness of the presence of the Lord kind of orients you to the word wisdom. Orients you towards him and gives you the sense that this is the highest thing. I need to place this above all other things. And then the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit also perfect the different virtues we were talking about. So whatever is lacking in your in your human work of virtue can be perfected by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And the gift of wisdom is linked with the virtue of charity. Right. So that the virtue of charity is that what actually bridges the gap between us and God, where we love God above all things. And it brings our soul, our whole of our person into into union with God. And the wisdom strengthens that in a supernatural mode of action. So that’s I really appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. I was wrestling with like I had a live stream with Christian Golden and we were talking about the love is from Corinthians. Verses and stuff. And I noticed that, you know, love, hope and charity and love, whatever the phrase is, I’m blanking out. But love was the most important one. Charity it was. And wisdom was not listed in all that stuff except for being a resounding gong. I had all knowledge of the world and then yet a lot of the Bible talks about pointing towards, you know, encouraging people to pursue wisdom. Like, despite any bad stuff like for poor job, still pursue wisdom. It’s good. And so you articulated some of the bridging of like it lifts wisdom, lifts up love to. To fulfill what love is supposed to do. Yeah. And I really appreciate that. Thank you. Another thing that St. Paul says is overall put on charity. And Aquinas takes that and says that charity is that which brings all of the other virtues together to its final end. That being loving God. So, you know, you’ve got your prudence, your justice, your fortitude, your temperance, your faith and your hope. All of those reach their final completion in loving God above all things and loving your neighbor as yourself. And so without that, right, without that charity, which gives that proper form to all the virtues, which brings them to where they’re supposed to be going. It decays and you become a clanging gong or a resounding symbol or just another talking head on YouTube. I’m going to become one more. So, yeah, one of the one of the sort of great insights by John Bervege was that knowledge is not it. And therefore we need to move towards wisdom. And so you’ve got to separate the two. And wisdom is more about ordering because knowledge doesn’t give you order. That’s why they talk about ontology in the sense of categorization all the time, because that’s closer to wisdom, right? Because ordering your knowledge has to be knowledge that orders knowledge. That doesn’t make any sense. So it’s more about that sequencing, that ordering again. And what comes first? Is it the physical manifestation or is it the ethereal, right, or non-material manifestation that comes first? Well, it just turns out that it can’t be the physical. And no matter how hard they try to make it that, it doesn’t work. So I wanted to help encourage other people, like people who have disabilities or caregivers, to kind of break away from the monotony of just dealing with the daily chores and dealing with the illnesses and everything like that. I wanted to encourage them to pursue learning in some form. And so I had a whole thing that I’ve written up about the path of wisdom and it includes the learning journey. But how do I articulate it that learning is good and pursuing knowledge is good, but not to make it a god and to order, you know, pursue that proper ordering of the knowledge? How would I articulate that? What are your thoughts on that? I mean, I think the more important thing is to study the right things. And I think if you, I mean, I imagine you’re not going to be having them, you know, study all of the treaties that were signed in the 1970s by the United States State Department, right? Like when you talk about studying, you want something that’s going to be have a broad appeal and some utility for people. And I think, you know, nobody gets excited about the process of studying itself. Nobody gets excited about, I’m going to sit down and read. No, they get excited about, I’m going to read about this thing that I’m interested in. Nobody’s like, oh boy, I get to make flashcards to memorize vocabulary. It’s like, oh, no, I’m going to get flashcards to memorize this because this is important. And so all of those things that come with studying are going to be drudgery and just painful and torture, unless people have a real joy and a real hunger and a real desire for it. And so if I had to recommend something for you to study, it would be some of the great literature. We’re going to read great stories. They’re going to be a touch challenging and you need to you need to adapt it, you know, your expectations for your audience. I don’t know. I don’t know your audience. You do. There’s a where it’s it’s at that zone of proximal challenge. That’s a nice Peterson Peterson thing. So where it’s like, it’s not so easy that they can get it just by reading it. So, you know, reading bad children’s books might not be good, but it shouldn’t be so complicated that they get lost. So something that requires a lot of study like the Iliad or the Odyssey. There’s just so much context that’s lost on those sorts of things that you might not be able to. There’s been some people you might not be able to get them to the point where they can enjoy it. So part of it is I wanted to give them autonomy to find the thing that’s interesting to them to follow that shiny thing. I call it the next new shiny thing. But I also didn’t want, you know, something about myself and I was thinking for other people, whether they be a creative person, content creator, disabled person who just has time on their hands and they would like to actually do something productive instead of just listening to music or watching YouTube videos. I find just watching you guys and Paul Van der Kley and Richard Baron and, you know, the people in our little area and also other things like Rabbit Room and all that kind of stuff. I find that interesting and enriching. And so I figured, well, I don’t know what other people’s shiny things are. But how do I point them to encourage them to pursue something that they’re interested in while helping them to gain wisdom during the process of whatever they happen to be learning on? So like an entrepreneur trying to learn about marketing or entrepreneur just trying to like learn how to do accounting. That’s the problem. Right. Yeah. I can’t point at shiny things. Right. Look, look, let’s let’s let’s see what happens if you point at shiny things. Go to the bookstore. Tell me what the biggest section is in terms of types of books. It’s almost certainly romance. That’s what shiny to to a lot of women is romance. Right. And so, I mean, it’s very, the most attractive things in our society are not good for us. So on average, when you point, when you say you should pursue the shiny thing for you, you’re going to send people with a pretty reliable. Not all people. I don’t say the word shiny then. OK, well, I always think of a star. So it can’t be their thing. That’s the point. I mean, that’s that. That I think was the earlier point. You want to point them in a good direction. That’s what you want to do. Whether it is their their preference or not, you want to point them in a good direction. And I would say that the real problem is going to be even if you point them in a good direction, because I’ve seen over and over again, if they don’t have the right aspect towards it, it won’t help. It’ll make everything worse because if you’re doing the drudgery work and you’re not able to find joy in it, you’re already in trouble. And fair enough. Like, I’m not I’m not trying to downplay that. That’s that’s a real problem. The contrast that you’re talking about getting people out of their drudgery work is to highlight the joy they get from going back into it, because that’s what you need. You need joy to do that work. And that doesn’t have to be the kind of work you’re talking about. That can be like the endless dishes or laundry twice a week or three times a week, whatever it is, or grocery shopping. Like, there’s all these things and the tediousness, the tediousness of being very limited in nobility and mobility, mobility, which is, I think, something that you’re dealing with there. Yeah. Having limited use of your hands, difficulty speaking, these sorts of things. And it could be kind of isolated. Yeah, and it’s isolating and there’s not much to do. And, you know, I just wanted to instead of just watching TV or listening to music or reading fiction books nonstop, I wanted to encourage them to edify their minds in a way that would, you know, they would enjoy. You know, it’s like some people like learning about writing like I do. Some people like learning about, you know, history. You know, there’s a whole bunch of stuff about history that could be learned about. Valerie, I’m going to sound like a priest right now. Okay. So what you’re looking for is something that’s going to be orienting people towards the good, pointing them upwards. You’re also looking for something that’s going to have the broadest possible appeal. Right. And now we don’t want our broad appeal to be something that’s just fashionable and change worthy. So we need something that’s past the test of time. So basically what you need to do is a Bible study. I’ve done so many. I know they’re important and they’re good. But I was like, if you think it’s if you think it’s burned over, maybe it is. But it’s like that’s people don’t get tired of Bible studies. And if you can if you can refresh those stories, like they they they’re just endless, endless. And they will more reliably orient people towards the good than even Shakespeare, Lord of the Rings, the great works. Lord of the Rings is a great work now, by the way. I know it hasn’t been out for long enough, but but I’m I’m calling it, man. I’m calling it Lord of the Rings. You heard it here first. You’re here first. Lord of the Rings is now a great work. Breaking news breaking better breaking news. Thank you guys. I appreciate it. Yeah, I mean, I think we live in this society and this allegedly individualistic society where we think that if people pursue what they find exciting, it will be good because they find it exactly backwards. I mean, the things we pursue. Following your passion is the worst advice you can give anyone, because if I followed my passions, I would just sit around, eat ice cream and play video games. Yeah, I’m not complicated. I needed something to tell me. No, that’s not a good way to live. Just think how good you’d be at Walkama at 40k. Like, it’d be amazing. I’d be able to be able to run Dark Souls, no hit blindfold. 100% glitchless. 100% glitchless. Yes. Oh, thank God I haven’t developed those potentials. It’s a dark well. Yeah, long, deep, dark well. We have so many newsbikes today. Yeah, well, you know, I’m just playing with it. I’m playing with the with the banners. Is that cool? I didn’t get in a candy store, getting a candy store. I liked when Jacob did the one of PVK’s sacks of Fired for a moment. That was funny. That was a good one. Yeah, you gotta have your toys. You know what, Father? You need more more what I do with the flashing things up while you say them. Yeah, yeah, it just takes time to put those together. But, you know, we do need Brought to You by Thomas Aquinas. Oh, yeah. Totally. Totally. We need something like that. You can flash up. Are we going to call it branding though? Yeah. Oh, yeah. I call it whatever we want. That’s I learned. I learned a bunch about that today, too, by the way, for the YouTube algorithm. So I’m looking forward to it. You’re going to manipulate the algorithm, make it work for you. That’s what it’s for. So if you’re not doing that, it was keywords. It was keywords. Man was made for the algorithm was made for man, not man for the algorithm. I’m here for it. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Branding is important, though, but it’s got to be real branding. It can’t be fake branding. And people call it. You know, they change. Yeah, that’s not branding. Yeah. Yeah. Branding that is brand. Yeah. Sally. That’s woman’s work right there. Oldest story in the world. Oldest story in the world. Inky do coming in from the from the forest and he can’t run with the animals anymore. That’s what they do. Women domesticate. They know it best. Well, I. Goodness, Ted. How come we didn’t get Ted this week? He’s probably attending to his wife and four children. I’m going to cry. I just saw your comments. Thank you very much. Why isn’t he here with us instead? We need more. He has bad priorities in life. Where his second family in a way. Now, where is first family? Oh, yeah. OK, first. We are second to none, sir. Where the spiritual family that this is biological family. There we go. He is the he is. Ted definitely is the spiritual father of that family. He’s well. He is not trying to offload that onto his wife. I’ve seen it happen where they’re like, ah, well, is she the spiritual father of the family? My dude, that’s not how this works. Your wife should not be a two headed monster. Right. Father and mother. Well, sometimes it may have to happen, but it’s better that it doesn’t. Father, I got a question about Latin and I don’t know if this is a ritual like not. I found out the other day. I can’t remember why we’re translating things, but I went for soup and a bunch of words came up and one was juice. But when you retranslate juice, it comes up as a bunch of other things like justice, law, justice, right. Yeah, yeah. And I thought, is there some sort of link is like when we say we serve justice that could go back to Latin is like your served soup and that soup is yours. Like something is served. Oh, boy. Just justice is like a soup. All right. Is that just too much into it to form? Yeah, I don’t know. That’s right. So I have the way of getting to the answer on this, but I’m going to need to sign into my Amazon account and pull up the Lewis and short Latin English Dictionary, which is the most marvelous Latin English Dictionary in the world on my Kindle on my Kindle. See my content library. I feel guilty Dallas. No, no, no, no, no. This is going to be fun. This is going to be fun. Oh, good, good, good, good. No, no. You’re ruining Sally. Now she says she wants to redo the virtue cards with soup. No, no, no. Ministerity that the call see of the or justice. All right. It doesn’t fit. It doesn’t fit. Basically, what I’m going to do is see if there’s any link between those words. Oh, goodness. That’s going to be a nightmare to search. OK, let’s go table of contents. I think one of the problems is that, you know, to Plato’s excellent point in the Republic, justice is above us. And so it has to be served, but it also has to be made up of lots of parts. Right. And that’s what the soup is. It’s you know, it’s meant in both senses. So I’d actually be really surprised if that weren’t like explicit in the I would be surprised if soup and justice were related in the way you guys are talking about. I don’t think that’s how the Romans would think. Yeah, I don’t think it is either because it’s an idea I came up with. We have set the course to knowledge and we are trying to get to the bottom of this. But the Kindle Cloud Reader on Amazon is moving very slowly. Where did you get the translation originally, Andre? Well, I put in soup and the original one it gave me was how many to do this again. So it gives me pull minty. Yeah, yeah. So it was originally pull minty. Is it stew? Is it chowder? Soup, soup, soup to soup. Right. Well, there could be multiple words for the same thing. I then went pull minty and that translates to soup and I clicked again. And then under the translations of soup, that’s what I looked at. So like using synonyms. We’re going to turn the text size all the way down. That’s better. Lus, I don’t see just I see Lus. Yeah, Jehovah begins with an I remember. So the letter J in Latin is a. That’s right. I have the letter L, which is still the letter. It’s giving me it’s giving me L and J on this. Unless I’m reading it wrong, because it does say J in here. There’s just so. And I am on Whitaker’s words, guys, we just need to hold on a little bit. This this stream will end with bolstered knowledge. Oh, see. No, just is right. Law legal system code soup sauce. Court broth binding decision, right? Because soup is a binding. Yeah. Oh, gravy justice duty, right? Claim title privilege. I like it. I’m on. Well, then there’s the there’s the French adjust. Right. So. But yeah, binding decision is more where I was going. Yeah. Yeah, that looks very much like the Latin. I did not remember that from failing Latin for however many ridiculous number of years I felt Latin for. I didn’t actually technically fail. They kept giving me these because they knew I was trying. But they’re also teaching it in a stupid as possible way. Do they give you like a day or like a dissent or something? I mean, it was or now you got to this. This is ridiculous. Friendship always comes with just. Yeah, yeah. And I think that’s the that’s the problem is that it does talk more about binding or or thinginess. Well, yeah, when you mentioned binding, I’m like, yeah, the little does bind things together. So there’s something there. Right. Well, just together, too, like just yeah, it determines the society. That’s why there’s no such thing as social justice. Yeah, I thought that way. I still feel like it. My idea of like the soup is probably still a bit of a rage. But when I saw it, it was like too many things that would be like, well, there’s that and that and that. And how could it also be that word, too? Like, it was just too coincidental for me. I’m like, if I ask someone who actually knows about Latin and like a bit about law, the either be OK, that’s a stupid idea. Like you just translated words wrong. Arthur Bradley did not teach us that you spent soup in General Norm’s one. I will say that. Yeah. Well, I would think it would be Paul Mente, like the original translation I got. But we reduce in English soup and then generalize it to a bunch of things because soups and stews. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And a juice is different from a soup or a screw. Yeah. And this is the problem. We just use this word for everything when that’s not right. And then when you then this is the problem with word translation in general, especially back to Latin, because Latin is really strict. It’s Latin should be a programming language, shouldn’t be a spoken language. It’s fantastic. You know, because we equivocate on these words, translation only works in one direction. It’s just well, sorry. Could it be like trying to decompress like a bunch of meaning from one translation? Right. And then you get get like spread apart. It’s like, well, I can get meaning there, there, there, there, and then recompress it into like, well, this is now all like important concepts. And this points to that where unless you’re like uncompressing, compressing, like taking everything, it’s not really like the same process. Like you have to take everything. It’s not symmetrical. Like we. Yeah, yeah, it’s selective. It’s like we’re not in the symmetrical world. We never were. We never will be. That’s why you can’t reduce things down to the individual. Right. That’s why quality doesn’t work because we’re not equal. Did you ever see the meme, which was like someone drew a picture of a shirt and they went I went to a symmetrical world and all I got was this lousy F shirt. And it’s got two slaves on the side. No, that’s that’s cute. That’s just eating MS Paint. So funny. Very funny. That’s cute. I like it. No, I know somebody who would know more about this, but you check in. I haven’t talked to him in a while. He’s stuck up in New England still, I think. England. That place is complete wasteland now, unfortunately. All right, guys, I am not finding it. I and S and it’s like this Kindle Cloud library is just awful. And if I just try to put an I US mm hmm. It’s going to bring up a ton of everything because that’s a super common ending to words. Yes. Yeah. I think it’s fine enough that I asked you the question rather than just kept in my head because I would have let me like, yeah, this must be something interesting. So, yeah, and it is it is that confusion over. Yeah, I think you’d like just to do with this point, right? Just just means juice, right? The culinary interpretation refers to liquid extracted from boiling herbs or other ingredients. Yeah. Oh, no, extraction of extraction as such, right? Because just for, you know, for our juice is usually meat juice, basically. Well, I found an interesting thing. It’s just not as interesting as it could be. Well, you know what? The the fake etymology may have real insights. Sometimes that happens. I came up with a fake etymology for response once that was very, very informative or responsibility that was very informative, but had nothing to do with spoken Latin. So it happens. And as it does happen, the time for a chaotic descending into the underworld has come. I will be going to bed soon. So good night and God bless you all. And bless us. Great story. Nice seeing you all.