https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=lqCM4ipDlr0
when they burn through the process, I don’t know what I’m going to be, right? It’s like the aspirational, like a transformative experience that Ali Paul talks about, right? I don’t know what I’m going to be in the fumes that are emitted by the burning of those ideas and beliefs. [“Symphony No. 5 in C Major, Op. 14, No. 5 in C Major”] [“Symphony No. 5 in C Major, Op. 14, No. 5 in C Major”] I’m joined again with the usual suspects. And so here with Theodore Barrett, Guy Sendstock, and Christopher Mastro Pietro. And what we want to do is we want to draw things together and put them into a really Socratic mode. And what we’re going to do in this episode is we’re going to, not in the same detail we did in 10a and 10b, but we’re going to get into dialectic and the dialogos, and the virtue that we’re going to be doing this about is dialectic itself. So we’re doing this interesting Socratic thing of applying the very practice to trying to more deeply examine and understand, potentially reform the practice. So what’s going to happen is we’ll do just a brief dipping into some of the preliminary practices that go into the preparation for dialectic and the dialogos, and then we’ll go into that. So welcome everyone. So we will begin first just doing a basic mindfulness practice, perhaps think about going through the three centerings, centering the body, centering attention, centering your attitude. We’ll do that for maybe two or three minutes, and then I’ll say we’re going to shift to the neoplatonic contemplation, and I’ll just give you, I won’t do the detailed explanations, I’ll just give us the benchmarks, and then we’ll turn things over to Guy, who will take us through a few of the exercises drawn from the circling tradition. And then Chris is going to give us a quick overview of the basic stages, just a reminder for what’s going on in the dialect, what goes on in dialectic and the dialogos, and then we’ll undertake it. All right, so let’s begin by centering. Remember to do the three centerings. I know these are tough, and we’ll do three for the dealing us with kind ofrolling. That’s not hard, okay. We’re going to move now from the meditation to the contemplation practice. all of your senses, not so much the content, but the how, the sense of contact, receptivity, reciprocal opening. Now into awareness of awareness, within and without. Reciprocal opening of Fuses. Suche. Noesis. Now how all three interpenetrate in the one wanting of Hinoesis. Knows us. Theosoph. Slowly come out of this practice, trying as best you can to integrate what you cultivated in this practice with your everyday consciousness, cognition, character, and Communiata. Just one round. Just bringing that awareness into the body, into internal emotion, thoughts, experience mostly within your skin, and then come to terms with them through this sentence stem. What I’m noticing right now is a warm hum, sensing a warm hum from my toes pretty evenly all the way up to my face. I’m noticing the movement of my feeling, the movement of my arms, the vibration of my voice and my chest and my face, and the mind, the space of the mind, like a warm clarity. Seeing right. Pressure against my lower belly. Quality of contact with my chair. The triness of the air through my nostril. And how still my body is. What I’m noticing now. The difference between the left and right side of my body, especially lower. Some tension and pain on the left side. Much more relaxed right. And then on the left, a sense of stilling towards the center. The sense of opening to the horizon. A sense of slowing down. More receptivity. And. A longing. What I’m noticing right now is a chill. Chill around the outside. My extremities. And a lead in feeling heaviness. Running up and down arms and legs. But at the center of warmth. And a lightness. And an upward movement. And a sense of stillness. Even as everything else seems to be pulling down. And as we stay with that cultivation of awareness that we’ve just called forth. And then I want to encourage everyone to be really conscious as you slowly open your eyes to continue to allow that sense of presence. To stay really close to you. As you come into relationship. With your visual field. And then. Without necessarily looking at anybody. Just becoming aware. And then just take a moment. Just begin to just look to the left and to the right. And just. Your present to. The thou. And then. What we’ll do this time is. The instructions are. Say something you’re noticing. With in this case Chris. And then. Come back and reveal yourself. So it would be Chris I’m noticing. And now I’m experiencing or now I’m feeling. So I’ll go with you first. Oh man Chris the moment I just. Got just present with you right there. I just felt like. Like a movement of love. In my heart that feels like it’s growing. And lots of affinity. And growing. I’m noticing. You occur to me as somebody more and more in my future. And I feel. Gratitude. And comfort. And something like family. Being with you. I’m noticing. And when I noticed that. In the stillness in your eyes. And. What strikes me is a tenacity and an. An unquestionable. Quenchable hunger for whatever this is. And a deliberateness. About. Confronting it being with it knowing it. And. Seeing that. Or noticing that. And I feel. Like a sense of brotherhood. And a kinship. And a deep respect for you. Being with you. I notice this very similar sense of warmth. And a feeling of just. More of a visceral familiarity with you. And a connection of. Belonging and closing closeness with you. That feels like from this trip in particular. And. Feel grateful for. I feel grateful for a growing friendship. Feel a lot of love for you. Yeah. And hearing. Saying I just did that but to say saying that or seeing that. I feel. Like. I feel like I’m at home. With you. With you I notice. Like this. I notice. Like a sense of. A sense of. A sense of my stillness that wants to like. Break through and. Like play. With you. Yeah. It’s like a. Curiosity and like excitement. Having said that I notice. A sense of. A sense of fear and anxiousness. How’s that plan for Chris? Yeah. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Being with you. It was like the energy shift. More up into my chest. Comfort. Some flavor of safety. Relaxation. Hmm. Yeah. Yeah having said that now I notice. Could like melt a little bit more into this chair. Hmm. Aware of like this energy. For me like building and emanating. My chest. Just feel this. Gratitude. Yeah. And there’s like a happiness. It’s like. For. What you do and for who you are. Yeah. And it’s like. It’s almost like this kind of nervous like a fluttery sort of energy. Yeah. Having said that. Notice a fuel. Go shy. Yeah. A bit young. Yeah. And. Touched in some way. Yeah. And. Yeah. And. Touched in some way. Being with you Chris. I’m always amazed by I feel like just suddenly and effortlessly I go to the depths. And there’s a kind of joyful playfulness there. And I. Enjoyment of that. And. Having said that I can feel this. Bubbling. Cheerfulness in me. And I. And a longing to see more. I just. I feel like often with you I’m. Listening like to music. And I really just. I love it. Really love. Hi being with you. I’m noticing you calling a stillness out in me that seems different this time than before. And. I feel a kind of deepening of resonance because of that. And having said that. I’m appreciating the wisdom. Of you. And I really sort of felt sense. It hasn’t been as forefront for me as before. Feeling with you Taylor. I immediately. I get I get this sort of. I feel excited. I feel. A kind of what’s going to happen. And I feel like. I feel like. I feel like. I feel like. A kind of what’s going to happen. And I feel this. Sense of security in that which I don’t always have with people. That it’s safe to do that with you. And I like the way it goes. And having said that. I’m feeling a bit of a grout right now because. You’re not quite as much in my life as I would like. I’m just not I hadn’t realized that until just now. Being with you guys just feel. Absolute sense of brotherhood. Family. Kind of ease and comfort that comes with many, many, many years. And yet in this case came without. And seemed not to need it. And having said that I’m realizing. How much clearer that has become. Just in these last few days. Even though it didn’t seem to need. To be any clearer before. Being with you, Taylor, I feel this. This kind of giddy. I feel like. I feel like. I feel like. I feel like. I feel this. There’s like something awry. Some expectancy. And the sense of having had. A hundred conversations. And having forgotten them all. And looking forward to having them again. So that we can remember what they contained. And having said that, I’m. Sensing that maybe. Maybe it’s mutual enough for that to be a real possibility. And I find myself looking forward to it. Being with you, my friend, I just feel like home. And no need to say anything else. And having said that. Having said that, I’m grateful that at this point. There really is no need to say anything else. I think we’re going to move you just doing a brief overview of. The steps, stages, and the roles. Dialectic into the logos. So for a fuller account of these. Episodes, 10 a and B. Of the series specifically 10 B. Contains a pretty lengthy set of instructions, not only the instructions about the. The process, but also sort of a foregrounding context of what it’s doing and what are the moves that are being made in each of the steps. So I would just refer people to that much more comprehensive. This is just a quick overview. There are four roles and four steps. The roles are the proposer. In this case, John, the listener, in this case, Taylor, the scribe, in this case, Guy, the Herald, in this case, myself to begin with. And then it’s going to rotate every turn. We’re going to start with a proposal that proposal is going to build as it moves from person to person. We’re going to stay on the same virtue. In this case, dialectic. We’re not going to change up the virtue as we move from person to person. The idea is that it gathers together. Each person takes what’s been given, uses it, reformulates it, builds on it, and moves it forward. Compounding exercise. So the first stage is called amplification. The proposer makes a proposal to the listener. The listener will try to induce the proposal to draw it out, ask questions, make inquiries, try and help the proposer to draw it out. And they’re really going to be working together on that. And that’s just both with the questions and the propositions, but also with gesture, all kinds of nonverbal cues. Everything we have at our disposal is used in that process to draw that proposal out. That’s the amplification. Then we have the appreciation. The appreciation is basically the listener having taken everything in, having helped to stretch and draw and need the proposal, and will then appreciate it in both senses of the term appreciation, to really acknowledge what is novel or interesting or insightful or striking about what they’ve just heard, but also to appreciate it in the sense of maybe to graduate it a little bit, maybe to lift it, maybe to add in reformulating it or in paraphrasing it and being more idiosyncratic about their formulation of it. Maybe something will be added that actually wasn’t there in the first instance. So it’s being appreciated. The third, which can really occur at any time, is aporia. Aporia being a moment in the process where maybe we’re at an impasse, something is trying to be said that can’t really be said. Maybe there’s a miscommunication. Maybe we’re not quite getting it. Or maybe we’ve actually reached a point where there’s been a great insight or something very striking. We actually just need to stop and pause on it, take it in, dwell on it for a moment and let it sit in the margins. That can come at any time. And then the fourth stage is the anticipation. The anticipation comes when the listener, having done the amplification, having done the appreciation, then calls into question what’s been proposed. Maybe there are ways in which it’s not exactly right. Maybe there’s more to the story. Maybe it’s not sufficient and it won’t be. So there will always be something to anticipate about it. What hasn’t been said that should be? What missing ingredient will help us advance the story and keep it moving? OK. Now, the rules of the scribe and the herald. The scribe is keeping track of the proposal. As it gets reformulated, the scribe is noting it, writing it down. In this case, we have a pad and paper. You can also do it from memory. It depends. But the scribe is basically keeping track of the letter of the proposal. Not every single word that’s said, but every time as the proposal is reformulated, the scribe is keeping track because the rest of us are bound to forget at some point in time. Before the listener moves into appreciation, after they’ve finished amplifying and drawing out the proposal, the scribe will chime in and reiterate what the proposal has been just to make sure that we’re all on the same page and we’re actually appreciating the same thing, just so that we’re all coherent together. And then the herald. The herald is doing something similar to the scribe, except for everything that is not said. This herald is noticing what’s actually happening between the two people, between the listener and the proposer. What kind of relationship is actually being called into effect. What’s passing back and forth between them in all of the things that aren’t being said? How is the virtue that is being induced and called into question, what effect is that actually having on the two people and their relationship in the moment? And then how is that progressing as we go along? That’s the herald. So the herald and the scribe are basically kind of picking up on two different aspects of what’s going on, but they’re just looking through very different kinds of telescopes. And they both speak to the listener after appreciation and before anticipation. After appreciation, before anticipation. And so then the rules switch, right? The listener becomes the proposer, the scribe becomes the listener, the herald becomes the scribe, and the proposer becomes the herald. Right. We’ll do one round of that, and then we’ll go into some free form. Okay. Proposer. I propose that the virtue of dialectic is the cultivated capacity to orient and to track how what in dialogos is beyond what is normally found in dialogue. That that’s a virtue that is not found in dialogue. How what in dialogos is beyond what is normally found in dialogue. That that’s a virtue that helps us track that in dialogos, which exceeds everyday dialogue. So the following kinds of things. Just to summarize, I just want to make sure I got all that. The virtue of the dialectic is the capacity. The capacity. To orient and track that which in dialogos exceeds the everyday sense of dialogue. And in that sense, to be oriented on to the logos. Orienting and tracking it. Following it. So specifically, I think we’re talking about things like that. Unlike in dialogue and dialogos, there’s a reciprocal and shared flow state. There within that there’s an intent to presence, a we presence above and beyond a you and I presence. There’s a sense of moving beyond what’s in normal dialogue of my autobiography and your autobiography and what’s negotiated between them into something beyond both of us. That there’s an orientation on the how and the making sense, not just the what that is the focal point of the dialogue. And that there is the proper aspiration to actually exemplify and thereby begin to cultivate a particular virtue. And none of these are typically present in what is meant by everyday dialogue. And all of that constellation, the virtue of dialectic is the capacity we create through the practice that allows us to say, there it is, properly orient towards it so that we can navigate and track it. And the it being the logos. Yes, exactly. And I’m not giving a definition of the logos, I’m giving some criteria by which we can mark its presence. Because the defining of it would be actually to undermine it. Yeah. So I think you simply said it at the beginning, it’s this function of tracking the logos. That is and that is the defining feature is what I’m hearing of dialectic that is not present in everyday dialogue. Yes. Yeah. So I’m trying to say that there are many, many different ways among many dimensions in which we’re modifying how we’re orienting, how we’re taking up our own identities, what we’re trying to achieve, and an emphasis on the how of making sense as opposed to the sense being made. There’s this constellation that I’m trying to get at. These are all features. These are all features. Because what I want to say is that the proper virtue of dialectic is to orient and track the logos so that you can appropriately follow it and afford how it will unfold for itself. For itself. Yes. Can you say that in another way? I want the virtue makes me desirous that the logos take on a life of its own such that it can challenge me to take on a life of its own, such that it can challenge me to go to places that are not comfortable. I want the virtue makes me desirous that the logos take on a life of its own such that it can challenge me to go to places that are not comfortable. I often need to instantiate the very virtue that’s in the practice in order to follow the logos. Again, this is a very deep difference from dialogue in which we typically, even when we’re disagreeing, we are in autobiographical positions of comfort and we’re trying to make a point or convict somebody. Yeah. That sounds like another defining feature too. We’re not trying to convince like we would in normal everyday dialogue. Right. Right. Very good. Yes. There can be argumentation, but the virtue is not the attempt to convince, but to coordinate what is emerging from you and I such that we can both orient onto the logos and how it is helping us engage with the virtue. Yeah, that’s a lot. Yeah. So I have one other dimension too. Well, and this is because I think dialectic is a virtue of virtues. Yes. And that how they’re related together you also see in the dialectic. Yes, I think dialectic insofar as the dialectic is the incarnating the presence of the logos as I described it, the way it exceeds dialogue. The logos, right, is disclosed is I’m trying to say something it’s disclosing to us, not just any individual virtue, but how the virtues all interpenetrate almost like in a holographic manner. It’s almost like the logos of the virtue, and then the logos of the, we call it the many. Yes. Yes, yes, that’s good. I like that. And so I’m not cognizant of the fact that this is kind of a backwards stuff proposal, I was gonna say definitions, not definition backwards proposal because what I’ve done is saying what it is the virtue affords us to do. But I haven’t spoken towards what the virtue virtue, like what the phenomenology of the virtue is how I what it’s like to inhabit that. So in addition to that ability to orient and trap all the dimensionality of the logos that is above and beyond everyday dialogue. There’s something about the virtue that is a way in which I come in to question myself. And I’m being I’m being examined. It’s a self examination in which I’m I’m being examined by the logos and not just autobiographical. Yes. That’s like reciprocal. Yeah, yeah, yes, yes. Yeah. Yeah. Like that. Oh, okay. Yeah, I think my proposal’s done. Would you like me to read the initial proposal and see if that still fits? Yes. Okay. The virtue of dialectic is the capacity to orient and teach that track, I’m sorry, yeah, track that in in dialogos that exceeds in everyday dialogue. Right. And what I would add to that is just some of the dimensions that have been drawn out and also not just sort of the teleology of the virtue, what it’s aiming at, but also the experience of the virtue is this experience of being examined. It’s semi autonomous. It’s not like I’m not involved, but I’m being there’s a self examination in which I’m being examined by the logos. And that is part and parcel of being able to participate. That’s what I that’s what I got you. Okay. Okay. Appreciation. Oh, that’s right. The Herald. Yeah. There’s something quite funny going on here, which is that I there’s this real sense of seriousness about this one. A proposal is made about a virtue. We can just sort of throw it out and see what happens. And I sense in this case, because of this, the stakes, right? This there’s a set of stakes on this one that weren’t though isn’t true of the other ones. Right? Because we’re, because we’re proposing at the very thing that we’re doing. It weighs very heavily on the proposal and the volume and girth of the proposal, which I sense Taylor is just trying to cling to lest it crush us all has something to do with those stakes and the heaviness of those stakes. And there’s a lot of care and a meticulousness and I can I could feel a heaviness of it as you’re both talking, especially. Mm hmm. That’s really good. Yeah, I appreciate the, the multi multifaceted attention that you have on the proposal of sort of like there’s this there’s what it is or how it occurs to you. And then there’s the sort of the defining features of it. And there’s also the phenomenological experience of engaging with that particular virtue. So it feels in so many ways like comprehensive in it like checks off so many boxes of my understanding as well. So it’s just like everything’s like, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yeah. I think that’s, that’s where I’ve left with it. Yeah. Oh anticipation. Oh my god. I feel playful it’s like what’s left. You know sort of reflecting the girth of the proposal. I am thinking a bit more of, you know, maybe in that area of, and I guess I should be probably anticipating more towards you. I’m thinking there’s something maybe still mysterious here about the experience of the engagement in the dialectic, and how that would be different. So maybe picking up a bit on John’s, you know, more of the reciprocal seeing in perspective I think that could be expanded upon. In engagement. You mean the engagement with the people in the, or with the virtue or… Well I think I was thinking more from sort of the individual participation so sort of the participatory experience of engaging in dialectic. I think there might be more there to explore. Right. What else seems mysterious to me? I think I noticed more of a gravitation to that area that feels important. So that’s probably where my proposals come from. Great. Yeah. Hmm. Okay, so. So picking up on everything that John said, I feel no interest to modify any of it. And I would propose the experience of engaging in dialectic calls upon a vulnerability. The experience of engaging in dialectic calls upon a vulnerability. It calls upon other virtues. It calls upon other virtues actually. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think I’m noticing something about that. Yeah. Courage needs to be online. Humility needs to be online. Yeah. What do we call it? Like openness? Receptivity. Yeah, it seems like it calls upon so many virtuous foundational capacities to fully engage in the dialectic. Yeah. So all these capacities, right? You’re seeing it calls on all of them to fully engage. So engagement, is it linked to all these capacities? Or all these capacities, are they the means of engagement? Are they what call forth the engagement? Well, I think some of them call forth the engagement. I think probably the courage is probably the one virtue that would call on the engagement. And yet to do it, to allow the thing that John’s talking about to sort of be examined. The humility probably has to be there. Otherwise, it’s being blocked in some way. Same thing maybe with the openness. Yeah. So something, whatever the virtues that make me more receptive, more open, allow me to more fully engage in the process. Whereas if those are less defined or of a lower capacity, they will create maybe bottlenecks in the dialectic. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I like that. Something about that feels right. Great. If you just sit with that feeling of right. And if we ask ourselves, are you engaged? Are you in the engagement in that feeling of right? Are those two connected right now? I like. Yeah. Yeah. What just happened right there? There’s just something like felt more solid. This is, I don’t know why this is the motion, but this is the motion. Yeah. Well, you looked up there. Yeah. And then you went like that, kind of in that direction. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You said something feels more solid. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don’t know quite how I would articulate it other than. It seems I mean, I’m silly. What am I doing? Yeah. But I’m like trusting something like landed like it came in and it like the answer was yes. See, so from there, the question, what is dialectic? Well, now I notice I want to bring in John’s proposal. Do you want something like it read? No, no, it’s something more like maybe I’ll use slightly different words that fit more with this moment. It’s almost like, yes, there’s a following, but it’s like a trust. Like I’m engaging like my following isn’t like trepidatious or cautious. It isn’t even necessarily that full of curiosity. It’s almost feels like a calling, almost like a flavor of like a deep trust. Yeah. Maybe that’s the connection to the right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So you just noticed that actually part of what has you follow where the logos takes you right is a trust. And you said something interesting. It’s not even necessarily curiosity. Right. That seems like an insight. Yeah. Something about that seems counter in some way. Like, oh, that shouldn’t be there. Yeah. Yeah. Something about that feels right. And if it’s there right now, that trust, if it were to just feel the trust, I’m mostly asking the trust. What is the trust in relationship with? How’s it know to be trust? Hmm. I like the question. I don’t know if I have the answer. I can feel something here in my body. Like this is where the sensation is. Yeah. Yeah. Right here is where the sensation is. Yeah. Something like it came online when you asked the question. Yeah. And is it like the sensation? Is it the sensation letting you know that you trust or is it telling you to trust? I think it’s something like the relationship. Like the question, what’s it in relationship to? Yeah. It seems to be here. Right here. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And there’s like a wonder to it. It’s like, and I don’t know how to make sense of it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You don’t seem to be anxious about not knowing how to make sense of it. No. How come? The easy answer is that’s the trust. Yeah. We start getting a little bit of a Yeah. And in this place, yes. It’s a yes. Yes. So I have a question for you. What is dialectic? Would you like to hear the correct iteration of it? I don’t know. And yet, that’s interesting. It’s like I’m out of words. It’s like I’m aware I could repeat myself and that would still feel true and yet it seems slightly insufficient. Yeah. What if we just allow that no word and maybe consider it an aporia? Yeah. Let’s give that a moment or a space. I noticed being with you in this aporia or this space of silence. It feels very solid, but I also feel like I’m dissolving at the edges. Right. Like we could just dissolve the other or something. Yeah. Yeah. I think language exists here. Yeah, it’s like that faculty is failing or not working. And yet it doesn’t feel like confusion. I mean, I’m more confused about the state. Yeah. But not about the idea of there being something to add or a new answer to what is dialectic. Yeah. Which is? Hmm. Yeah. Nothing. I would just go back to trust. Trust. Yeah. Okay, great. Is that do you feel complete? I feel like, yeah, there’s nothing else that I think I can add, especially in this place that I’m in right now. Great. Yeah. Do you feel I understood you? Do you feel understood? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, great. Sweet. Thank you. So I will go into appreciation or do you do appreciation and then describing the world. Yeah. Yeah. I’m appreciation just the couple of things. John’s as you mentioned, the seriousness of it, right. And the articulation of John. And then then this went into a very almost a nonverbal kind of place that was very simply about trust, which is really interesting to me. And that was also really interesting to me. And I appreciated the contentment was staying there. Like, I could have easily imagined that being an anxious experience or something like that, but it wasn’t. I think what’s. Yeah, there’s my appreciation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so Scriven and Harold. So carrying a little bit over from John, the definition, the proposal, excuse me, that we have is that dialectic is a following the logos, but understood as a deep trust of the logos, a trust that calls upon the other virtues as fundamental capacities. Yeah. Great. So as Harold, I saw and felt this shift. And it was definitely a sort of head to heart shift. And then I also found a slowing down of how things were unpacking. And so there was more of the articulation by like by by by putting space between things. It was really, really present. That’s what I saw as the Herald. Great. Can you read that one more or whoever the scribe is, I just want that read to me one more time. So the proposal is right now that dialectic is the following of the logos, but as a deep trust in the logos, a trust that calls upon the other virtues as fundamental capacities. Right. Right. One more time. The beginning of especially the proposal is that dialectic is the following of the logos. Yes. But as the deep trust or in deep trust. Yes. Of the logos. Yes. A trust that calls upon the other virtues. Yes. As fundamental capacities. Okay, great. What’s what’s the question I have what’s mysterious to me is. So there’s the following of the logos, right, and everything comes out of the following of the logos. You’re the listener right now. Are you about to make a proposal, you’re still into still in anticipation. Yeah. So the, the senses I get it so so far I really I get the that that it’s about following the logos, right, and that there’s something about something about when you come in contact with the logos and dialectic that there’s some there’s some kind of trust that seems participatory body and that we both experienced in that that seems to be one of the ways that the logos actually speaks in that way that affords the following. I think what I’m anticipating is there’s something in there’s something in dialectic that seems to already announce There’s a, there’s some way that the logos speaks in the inclination to do dialectic at all. There’s some way that it’s present in some way that I’m interested in how what that is how I hear it, there’s something. There’s something like that so I think I want to go into that. Okay. Okay, cool. I’m just curious what you’ve you’ve heard so far. If you’ve heard anything. Nope. Okay. Got it. So I want to talk this this through a little bit so when I think about dialectic, right. And using hair clituses metaphor symbols of the log in the proposals being something like the log of a fire. Right. And a log is you could say is is is well it’s literally stored light. Right. But it’s, it’s in a form, and that the dialectic right is you can imagine is the rubbing together or the interaction of the propositions or the logs, and at some point, it lights. It’s mysterious to me where the logos is in the log, right and house how dialectic actually does the rubbing, it actually allows the living logos to come alive that we then we then catch and we trust and we go into it because it seems that there’s something about dialectic and looking at the difference between dialectic and say dialogue. That that possibility of dialogue goes right it catching on fire seems to be present from the start in some way. Right. And I want to know what that way that is present. Do we hear it. Do we. Do we, is there something about the for the formality of making a proposal that already announces that the proposal is going to be. There’s something more than itself, right, that is contained. And because there’s some way that it seems like the dialectic is the following of precisely what the proposal doesn’t say. Right. dialectic is the following of what the proposal doesn’t say. Yeah. I’m gonna say dialectic is the following of what the proposal doesn’t say. Yes. Is that your proposal. Sounds like it is. Yeah. Yes. dialectic is the following. I’m getting the side I don’t I, I understand you not to mean it’s, it’s the thing that comes after by the following, but it’s the action of following. Yes. Yes. In the way that it’s after Socrates of following Socrates. Yes. Because otherwise there’d be no reason to engage. Right. Right. Right. If, if the if the proposal basically like just said the logos. There’d be no reason to engage with it. There’s something about the way that the proposal. I don’t know I want to say, holds the logos, but also points to or speaks to what it doesn’t say. Right. Which is that there’s a sense of more. So, so the logo. So the proposition doesn’t fully say the whole thing. Right. Right. Thus, thus there’s. I just want to make sure I’ve got the proposal. Dialectic is the virtue of following what the proposal does not say. Yes. Is that is that. Yes. Is that a fair representation. Yes. Sorry for interrupting, but it was it was introduced a little indirectly. I just wanted to make sure I got it. Yes. Okay. This is very interesting. Dialectic is the following of what the proposal doesn’t say. Okay. So I get the sense when you say that, that you take the following of what the proposal doesn’t say to be in the direction of what the proposal means. Not wayward in some direction. Yeah. That is not meant. Yes. Yes. Right. So, for instance, let me just maybe give an example. Right. If dialectic is following what the proposal doesn’t say, if you were to make a proposal and I heard the proposal and the proposal provoked in me a memory that took me away from this conversation and threw me off into a completely different direction, I would be following what the proposal didn’t say. But I guess that’s not the kind of following that you mean. Yes. So do you mean that the following of what the proposal doesn’t say still has to tie itself to where the proposal is intended? Yes. Yes. It’s like the proposal points. Oh. Okay. To what is beyond the proposal. So you would have to get triggered and then go towards the direction of the pointing, right, for it to be following it. Okay. Yes. Okay. Okay. So just like right now. So if this is the… Like what you’re… Actually, right now, like, so you’re following the proposal. Right. Right. Right. Because when you made the proposal that dialectic follows a proposal that the proposal doesn’t say, I had a sense of where the proposal was going and I gave you an example of me following the letter of the proposal, but I knew, I knew intuitively that that’s not where I was going. Yes. Right. Yes. So you’re saying that the instance of what just happened between us is actually an instance of the dialectic. Yes. Because I was tracking your meaning by avoiding tracking the letter. Yes. Right. But you… Just like, however, the letter matters, right? So it’s like, just like with a log, when the log catches fire, the fire on one level, it’s transforming the log, but it’s doing it precisely in the contours of the log. Right? Okay. So that transformation, so following the log is really important. Okay. Okay. So if the log is the proposal, in order for me to follow what the proposal doesn’t say in the way that I would need to, to follow the proposal, the proposal would have to be made in such a way that it had a shape that was followable. Yeah. Can I put it that way? Yes. Yes. Right? The fire would have to be able to catch along the lines of the proposal so that it could burn through. Yes. In other words, it couldn’t be wet wood. Yes. Right? Yes. It would have to be able to conduct. Yes. Yes. Okay. So what is the difference between a proposal that I can follow so that it burns through and a proposal that I can’t follow because it might not burn through? I have this sense like I know there’s a difference. Yeah. But I can’t, I couldn’t tell you what that difference is. Yeah. What does that difference feel like? The question is like there’s a proposal that we can follow through, right, that burns along the contours of the proposition or the log. And then what happens when the proposal doesn’t burn through? Well, I think it’s so interesting. It’s like we can hear that it doesn’t, right, in some way. So there’s something about, this is where it goes back to, is it goes, it goes, it’s, would you read the proposal again? Right. The original proposal is dialectic is the virtue of following of what the proposal does not say. Yeah. Then you added to it, the proposal points to what is beyond the proposal. Yes. And then you added to this, following the log while transforming the log is very important. Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. So I would imagine as you’re following along and it doesn’t say it, what are we, in relationship to what, right? It’s like there’s something that tells us, it’s like, it reminds me of what we were talking about yesterday with error, right? This part where, oh yeah, it doesn’t, the proposal doesn’t totally say it. In fact, it’s saying everything that it isn’t. That negative space or that putting skin on the ghost starts to happen. But I would say even in not being able to follow it, tells us that there’s something not to follow. What is that thing to follow? That’s what kind of comes up in answering your question. Okay. Boy, oh boy. Okay. Okay. I’m going to try and say that back to you. Okay, great. Let’s see if I got it. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. So we start by saying the dialectic is following… Do you need me to reread it? Yes, please. So dialectic is the virtue of following… Sorry. Dialectic is the virtue of following what the proposal does not say. Do you need any of the other things? No, I think I’ve got… Thank you. So dialectic is the virtue of following what the proposal doesn’t say, but that the proposal points to. Yeah. Right. So it’s following what it doesn’t say. It’s following what it doesn’t say. So there’s a negative proposal, right? There’s something to be avoided. Yes. Right. So now I have… There’s a boundary. I get the sense like you need to somehow provide somewhere to avoid. Yeah. Yeah. So I’m getting the sense that part of the dialectic is knowing where not to go. Yeah. And then knowing where not to go, then there’s something else beside the knowing where not to go. Yeah. Right? And those two things, I see them almost as lanes. Yeah. So dialectic is following what the proposal doesn’t say, but there’s not just a negative index there, right? There’s a negative index, right? What it doesn’t say, but what it… But what it… I almost get the sense of shapeliness of proposal is the thing that keeps coming to me, right? When I think of the way that a fire traces along the log, it is the shape of the log and its texture and its density and its properties. Yes. Shapeliness, figuration, geometry is what I think of, right? Yes. So it seems to me like when I hear what you’re saying, of course, geometry brings Plato back into the mix and that seems intuitively to be onto something. So what I’m hearing you say is something like, it’s not the measurement of the proposal, but it’s something about the geometry of the proposal that determines where it points. And that the shape of that proposal, actually, I think of the way that… I’m imagining it coming to a point, right? Fingers pointing at the moon, right? Like that old expression. Yes. Right? Is that in the area? Yes. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And it speaks beyond itself. Oh, more lights up. Right. Right. Because it lit. Right. More lights up. And then there’s more to propose that won’t quite say it, but points beyond it. And this is the following. And all the things that you just said about the virtues coming in the trust, I start to form with it and become shaped by it. Right. You were following it. Okay. Okay. So there’s a sort of a difference. There’s like a relational difference that I’m hearing that wasn’t clear before, right? So we’re following what it doesn’t say, but it’s not simply that we’re following what it doesn’t say because we’re actually… It’s like what it says is something that we could look at. But where it points is something we have to travel through, right? So we have to travel along the shape of the proposal to know where it points. We don’t know where it points by hearing it. We know where it points by actually traversing. Yes. Right? So there’s something embodied and active that our relationship to the proposal in dialectic, that dialectic has something to do with the way that we interact with the proposal in a much more embodied manner. Something to pass through, not something to say. Absolutely. Okay. Do you feel like we’ve grasped this together properly? I feel like we pointed beyond it. We pointed beyond it? Fully, yes. Okay. Okay. Would you like to read it one more time? Well, if I’m doing the full thing, I should give you both the proposal and its progression. Please. So the original proposal was dialectic is the virtue of following what the proposal does not say. It’s a major move. The proposal points to what is beyond proposal. And then the log came in as a metaphor. Following the log while transforming the log is very important. Being told what not to follow tells us what to follow. And then this came into, and I couldn’t quite get like a literal statement, but I put in something like the geometry of the proposal and enacting it in some fashion. Okay. Okay. That’s helpful. So I think what I think is coming up now, like what I’m appreciating is that what seems to be gathering together is the idea that whatever dialectic is and does isn’t that the following of the logos is something that is a, that following the logos is not something that we train on just with our attention, but it’s something that we have to pass through in our entirety, right? That the body of the individual actually travels through the dialectic. The dialectic isn’t something that passes between us, but something that we pass through. Or maybe both at once. You just described my whole relationship with Heidegger in my 20s. Okay. Okay. Don’t forget also to listen to the Herald. Yep. So I’ll just finish the appreciation first. So what I’m appreciating is that our relationship to the dialectic, almost as though we had a subject-object relationship to the dialectic and we were all subjects beholding the dialectic as the object. That’s an imperfect analogy, but just sort of stay with me. What I’m now getting a sense of is that it’s actually closer to the reverse, that we are had by the dialectic when the dialectic is actually taking effect. And that’s what makes it participatory, right? It’s not something that we have in hand, but we are had in its hand. And the way that we follow the contours of a proposal suggests that it is hosting us, not the other way around when we’re surrendering ourselves to it properly. And so before I anticipate, maybe I’ll ask the Herald. Yeah. I mean, what I noticed that really stood out for me is, Guy originally sort of leaning in and you seem very pensive trying to sort of get. So I had this image after it was named that Guy was really rubbing the logs together with you. And then there was these moments in which you came in and you both sort of came alive, you were really in the dialectic. And I imagine that caught fire, like the rubbing of the logs together. Those were those moments. But then there was a moment of like coming back and like a pause and like, again, like a contemplate, then a re-engagement. So I kept seeing throughout this sort of this vision, you know, and that was very present is this imagery of sort of these logs and the way in which they catch fire. And it seemed to be happening through your proposal. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So what I’m anticipating is here, but yet to be said, is the relational stance that makes the dialectic possible, that makes the effecting of the dialectic possible. Because what we’ve been gathering together, this sort of this more sort of theoretical, geometrical idea of what the dialectic is. What’s the relationship between the dialect and the proposal and the way the proposal is used and the relationship between the proposal and the logos, right? The relation between the part that is the proposal to the whole that is the logos and the sense that it has to bridge and the sense that there’s a continuity. But that continuity has to do with following the shapeliness of it and not the letter of its speech or semantic content. And I think that’s all like that’s all really that’s charged. That’s excellent. The thing that I anticipate that’s missing though is that it seems because of the way that we’re actually trying to enact it that the relational stance that we’re all actually demonstrating or trying to is actually essential to bridging it, to hooking it, to catching it, right? The I vow that we’ve been talking about so much in the last couple of dialogues has to be brought now into the proposal, right? It’s not something that I’m just doing in isolation. It’s something that we’re doing. But where is that in the proposal? So we have to add it. Okay. You’re going to make your proposal? Yeah. Okay. So we’re switching roles. You’re now the scribe and you’re now the herald. Right. So my proposal is that dialectic. Dialectic is I’m going to basically take what you’ve given me first, right? Dialectic is the following of a proposal, following the proposal, what the proposal does not say, but points us to. Dialectic is the following of a proposal, not in what the proposal says, but in what the proposal points us to, such that that proposal becomes a vow to us and we become a vow to it. Okay. And just to be clear, that’s the practice of dialectic and the virtue is the ability to do that. I’m trying to get where the virtue is. So the virtue, let me make sure I understand you. So the virtue of dialectic is following the logos and following the geometrical contours of the space opened up by the proposal. But what you’re adding is such that an I-thou relationship now comes to exist with the proposal. Have I understood you correctly? You’ve understood me. Right. And when you were doing it, you were doing this. What was happening there? I think there’s something about the relational contact. I think there’s a couple of things happening here. One is that there’s a gesture of invitation and gratitude that is suggestive of the relation we have to have with the proposal itself. So you’re enacting it. Yeah. Symbolically. Right. As though you’re the proposal. Right. Right. Right. Right. So there’s a gesture of thanks and invitation to you. Almost like a stay or something. Yeah. Right. Which is a gesture of coming to know you. Right. Right. Coming to understand you. Coming to realize that I don’t yet know you, but need to and want to. Right. If you’re the proposal, I don’t yet know you, even though I’ve cast you out in front of me. Right. Right. Right. So there’s that. And I think there’s also just this sense of contact. A kind of social contact, relational contact with the proposal. So there’s a contact this way, and then there’s an initial contact, but a kind of like not ignorance, but almost like learned ignorance. Yeah. Like a sense of like, okay, contact and there’s contact. I’m trying to get at what’s in the I-vowing. You must do with the proposal what you do with a friend that you’re coming to know. Right. That’s where the proposal has to become a vow. Okay. So you’re doing this. So what’s this? Repetition. Repetition. So there’s a sense of repetition in the sense of gathering together and exceeding, gathering together and exceeding, gathering together and exceeding. That’s the repetition. So and that is adding to the virtue how? Like you’ve given me the mechanics. In what way is that more virtuous? Because it’s a reciprocal opening. Ah. Same thing. You did that. Yeah. Open. Yeah, yeah. What I’ve described to you is a reciprocal opening whereby the proposal… So when you come to know somebody, what begins to happen is that you’re coming to know the person is also you’re coming to know in some sense everything else as well. Right. Right. That when you create a reciprocally opening I-thou relationship with someone and their perspective becomes available to you as a means of contact with the world. The world itself comes into perhaps incrementally and maybe even imperceptibly comes into clearer and clearer resolution because you’re using not in a purely instrumental sense, but you now gain access to the world around you in the care of that person’s reach that you didn’t have a moment before. So as that person becomes more mysterious and as your understanding of them exceeds the one that you had a moment before, more and more and more becomes available. Such is also true I think of the proposal in dialectic. Great. I’m hearing the thou side of the I-thou, but you keep also drawing the circle close to your chest. So what’s the I side of the I-thou in that transfiguration of the proposal into a thou? Because the I-thou are always like they were reciprocally bound together. So how is the I changing when the proposal is thou-ing? Well the I becomes a thou to the proposal, right? It’s a bi-directional relationship. So what does that mean? It means that as I deepen my understanding of the proposal, the proposal is a reflective surface. Right. It means that I become known to myself in ways that I wasn’t before because the ways is expanding its width and its breadth is also casting my reflection in the same proportions. It means like as I reformulate the proposal and deepen it, I’m actually doing to myself what I’m doing to the proposal. In one sense I-thou is always spoken together. Right. Right. Okay. So I’m getting that. Can you now clarify how that’s integrated by what you were saying with Guy about it’s not so much we’re doing the dialectic as it’s doing us? Because once that process begins, the emergence of what we call the Geist out of that process, right, which is the persona of the Logos as it faces us. Ah, right. We come into its custody, into its carriage, right? Or maybe the best way to say it is we come into its hair, right? And so it becomes the governor of the process. And the virtue has something to do with giving oneself to the emergence of that process and opening to it as it opens. So you did this, giving oneself to. Yeah. There’s sort of an implied sacrifice there, isn’t there? Yes, yes. Right? Yeah, yeah. Which is- Is that what it was to you? I think so. An offering up, right? Offertory. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Something like that. What’s the offering? What’s the nature of the offering? I think the nature of the offering is we are willing to give up whatever we have at our disposal that we can either cling to as the idea of ourselves and the idea of what things are or the law. So I have an idea of myself and what kind of a person I am and I have an idea of what the world is and I have an idea of what’s real and what’s not. I have a metaphysics and I have all my beliefs and they’re very important to me and I can do one of two things with the ideas I have, right? I can understand them as being possessions of mine, as things that by virtue of holding I remain myself or I can offer them as logs to the fire, which is to say that when they burn through the process, I don’t know what I’m going to be, right? It’s like the aspirational- Right. Like a transformative experience that Ali Paul talks about, right? I don’t know what I’m going to be in the fumes that are emitted by the burning of those ideas and beliefs, but I’m surrendering myself to the transformative experience and I’m drawn to the belief that it’s worthwhile by the process of the logos itself, right? By following it. And this sounds very, very far from dialogue. Yeah. Most of them. I think we could go on forever, but do you feel that you’ve- You’ve- Yes. Yes. And so I’ve understood you to bring in this added dimension, what everybody else has said, there’s this transfiguration of the proposal and there’s an I-thou. The proposal becomes a thou and then I become a thou in relationship to it and that is an offering out of oneself and one’s belief into the fire of the process. Have I understood you? You have. So here is, I’m going to do the appreciation and then we’ll stop there because anything else would take us back into the circle. First of all, I want to appreciate everything that everyone said and then what I particularly appreciated about what you did, Chris, is I had not thought enough about the existential stance and how integral a role it plays in the virtue of dialectic. I think that was a gem, an absolute gem and I really appreciate that. I’m very grateful and I’m understanding the virtue and thereby the practice much better because of that. So I deeply appreciate that. And that’s where we’ll close here. What would happen, of course, is we’d get the report of the scribe and the herald. I would then go into anticipation and then we would circle. But we’re running out of time and we’re going to pick up on what we’ve given birth to about dialectic and the dialogus in the next episode when we talk about why is it that so many people in so many places are generating these communities of these kinds of practice and seeking the cultivation of these kinds of virtue. So thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your time and attention. It seems to me that the choice that Plato made was to create a form of recorded dialogue, a form of record that could undermine itself. And in undermining itself could create from itself a process that people could participate in and symbolically work through.