https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=bsI3e6j26R4
All right. Welcome, John. Great to see you again, God. Yeah, it’s always good to see you. I just did, I actually just did your, wow, boy, it looks like I’m really opening up. This is the result of my meditation. Look. I just came from John’s class. The beginning of the Tai Chi Chuan that you said. I’m really loving the way that you’re layering it. Just the layering in itself has just been insightful about the way it works together. The one that was really evocative for me and has been lingering with me was when you went, Prajna and Metta, right? In breath, Prajna, out breath, Metta. The past nine Metta. Yeah, and the figure ground in that sense at some point they’ll interpenetrate each other. I was just like, that just, it not only just was the experience, because it wasn’t like I wasn’t experiencing that before, but it made something distinct and that distinction has been popping up everywhere. Just that layering of those things over the course of time just in themselves yields insight. Thank you. That’s what I learned from my teachers, the ecology of practice. Sorry for interrupting you there. I just wanted to make sure that just to get people are listening to the term. When you’re doing the in breath, you feel your chest expanding. You’re doing Metta, contemplative practice. We’re exhaling, you’re doing Vipassana. And then like she said, in Prajna, you’re alternating between Metta and Vipassana. And then at some point, it goes from instead of being out and in and out and in, it goes to being, like you said, all at once, interpenetrate. And that’s Prajna, a non-dualistic, a very active and dynamic non-dualistic state that is very conducive for transformation. And then, yeah, so yeah, I’m glad you recognize that because this idea of build like layering practices on each other into an ever growing ecology, that was the deep lesson that I got from the people who taught me because I was taught Vipassana and Metta and Tai Chi Chuan together. And so, yeah, now that we’ve done a much more, I guess, more than often it’s done much more embodied forms of Vipassana and Metta and then taking them into Prajna. Now we’re turning, as you said, towards the Tai Chi Chuan direction. I’m teaching people, Jigung, which is standing and Ichuan movement. These are parts of Qigong, the cultivation of the Qi. And that’s also to layer back on because you probably noticed that a lot of these exercises are now inactive, they’re inactive imaginal exercises. We’re enacting the yin, the expansion, just like in Prajna, and the yin, the centering. And then again, what happens is when you get sort of the Qi experience, you get that, again, neither in or out, neither moving or at rest. It’s beyond all of that. And then that and the Prajna start to do this with each other. Yes. That’s the whole point. The whole point is to give it the layering that’s the mutual according is to create a living structure that will take on a life of its own. It’s interesting. So when we went into the Tai Chi Chuan, it was just from those layers. Again, it was just one of those things of, oh, okay. You just place it out in the yin and in that hole, it just starts to hit these built up layers of distinctions and anchors that are in the body. It’s really great. I’m really appreciating it, John. I know a lot of other people are too. Well, thank you. Yeah, there’s more. For example, the first, the Jianjian, we did of embracing the tree. Right. And then I’ll go into review on Wednesday and Friday. That’s also connects to the core force of a past year. If you’re sure you’re centered and you root it like a tree. So embracing of the tree is the participatory knowing of what it’s like to be a tree, almost the perspectival knowing. And so there’s lots going on. It’s meant to be like music. layered vertically like harmony and then layered horizontally like in melody. And so the melody and the harmony, the musicality of intelligibility is being explicated and enhanced, articulated and afforded by that whole process. So interesting. So yeah, so interesting. And also the lectio divina. Oh, the lexio, yeah. That sense of bringing all those ways of knowing into like basically an idea, like a poem into a distinction, right? How all that fits together. And one of the things I wanted to talk with you about, a bunch of things I want to talk with you. I wanted to talk with you about your experience taking the group into dialogos at the wisdom. I talk about lectio divina. And it’s in the sense of what we talked about last time, how, and I’ve been thinking about this since we talked about it, which is your prediction that once people start doing lectio divina in a group, that there’s something about that just makes sense that that’ll naturally open it into dialogos. Right. And that actually had me think about what’s happening with when you read a text, right? And then what’s happening when we look at that, like translate that into dialogos or dialogue when it goes into dialogos, right? Of, you know, what’s the text, right? Who’s the reader, right? What’s the meaning of the text and start to play with those metaphors? Yeah. Well, I’m happy to talk about all of this. Lectio is an example, a really important example of what I call a bridging practice and the ecology of practices. So there are practices like we’ve just, we were talking about where you can layer them onto each other and then they interpenetrate and they inter-afford. But then there’s also practices that are designed to bridge between other practices. And so the way I see in practice, lectio, is it takes you from the silence of a siddic practice and puts you into speech, but a kind of speech that then prepares you, as you’re saying, for dialogos, which is inter-speech, right? And so, lectio for me is this really living bridge between dialogos and meditation and contemplation, between logos and prajna, if you were to ask me for sort of the ontological designations. Yeah, right. So prajna, what is prajna actually, what does it mean again? So it’s wisdom. Yeah. But in a sense, I was talking about this when I was talking with Andrew and Chris, in a way that sort of integrates Aristotle’s notion of both Sophia and Phonesis, right? So it’s an active dynamic. It’s when your fluid intelligence, the intelligence in action, in interaction, right, has become a self-liberating. So that dynamic of being self-organizing is self-organized. It’s auto-poetic in that it is self-organized to seek out, right, a way in which it’s self-transcending, self-liberating. And so you’re being freed from foolishness, parasitic processing, but you’re also being freed for, freed to flourish, connect more deeply. And prajna, so that’s its functionality. Its phenomenology is that it’s a state that emphasizes, I would say, this is non-traditional language, so clearly I’m speaking. I think the non-duality that is traditional is a way of foregrounding the trans-de<|ms|>?tactivity, the coupledness, right, the dynamic co-emergence of agent and arena. And so that, the point about prajna, especially if you see it the way I presented in the course as the stereoscopic fusion of meta-contemplation and past-da meditation, what it’s actually doing, right, is it’s sort of putting you in a space. So in meta, I’m becoming aware of the existential moding, right? And in vipassana, I’m moving to a place of disidentification that makes insight possible. So I get the deepest possible insights from vipassana, but what are they restructuring? Well, they’re restructuring what meta is making available to me, which is my existential mode. So I’m not getting an intellectual insight, I’m getting an existential insight. But it’s not a one-moment insight, it’s like in the flow state. I’m getting a cascade of existential insights that have that aspirational trajectory. Yeah, that feedback loop. Yeah. So it’s like with prajna is something like its wisdom. I keep getting the sense as you were talking about this sense of this affording of, for some reason I was thinking about apprehension and comprehension. Yeah, it is, but it’s also… But it’s like it’s very perceptive. It’s very perceptive, but here’s, let’s see, there’s some terminology that’s helpful here. Notice the word you used, apprehension. So why have this term for pre-hension, right? Which is the way… So how your mind perceives the world is your mind doesn’t really perceive because what your mind picks up on are relations and patterns that are actually not visible or audible or tactile. You’re pre-hending the real relations and then you’re perceiving the real things, right? And so prajna is both pre-hension and perception. Right, yes. And that inner penetration of the two, right? Yeah, so like Dojin says it. So you’re in a state that’s beyond in and out. It’s beyond in the sense of beyond and beneath. It’s beyond and beneath in and out. It’s beyond and beneath mind and body. It’s beyond and beneath self and others. It’s beyond and beneath God and nature. Yeah. And then the idea is in Lexio, you bring that into the Dharma. You bring that into the wisdom teachings as a way of reading not for information, but reading to entrust yourself to transformation. And so that gets you into linking all the kinds of knowing together and then take that into dialogos. And that’s what I mean. Imagine that you can get what I described in prajna, right? Presencing itself within dialogos. Yeah. And that’s something I think very profound. Totally. And it’s also in terms of practices, it seems like the linking between those and because it’s that common thing that you always hear about of like where people can meditate really well, but they get up in the moment, somebody doesn’t give them what they want. It all goes away. There’s something about I think that dialogos seems to just bring just a sense of like bring that into the realm of interaction and how we go about the world. Right? Exactly. And then dialogos is to bring you into interaction with other people’s viewpoints and words and ideas and then things like the Qigong practices are designed to bring you into physical interaction with your physical environment. And then dialogos is to bring you into interpersonal and ultimately inter-ontological interactions. And so yeah, that’s why and you’ve seen some when I teach, I teach that how you come out of your Siddha practice is a part of the practice. I think it’s the most important part of the practice. That’s why I give people another bridging practice, which is the reciting of the five promises to yourself as a way of bridging because you should always be thinking of your sitting not as an escape, right? Not as a vacation, but as an education. It’s always meant to be integrated as much as possible with your everyday consciousness, cognition and communitas every day. Right. So to come to that, there’s a point about that. I get this question often and it’s a good question. That’s why I’m happy to answer it again and again. People will have to ask me, well, how do I know that I’m doing it right? And what they mean is they want some sort of some phenomenological marker that says BING! You’re doing it right. Right. That’s not what you look. Yeah. What you actually look is the integration happening. Are the patterns in your practice, are they starting to emerge naturally in your life? And then as they, and especially if other people notice it. Right. Right. And then does that mean that the pattern, right, that the patterns in your life are also now coming up in your practice? Yes. Yes. And that when you get the reciprocal opening, that’s when you know you’re doing it right. There isn’t anything in, I mean, I can give people guide, which I do, I answer questions. You know, well, if you do, like if your mind is getting really dull and comfy, you’re not doing it well, you can help people. But at the level of am I doing this virtuously, because that’s what people are ultimately at, right? Not am I just practicing it sort of efficiently, but am I ultimately cultivating wisdom and virtue? It’s like, well, you know, it’s in the integration. That’s why the layering and the linking, the layering of practices and the linking of practices is so vital. Right. So vital. And what, see, I’m getting very passionate about this. Right. What’s critically critical of is the oversimplification of these kind of practices in the West, where we take all of mindfulness. You know, think about the Buddha gave this eightfold path that is comprehensive of people’s lives. And then we reduce all of that to sort of the mindfulness aspects. And then we reduce all of the mindfulness to sitting in meditation. And then we think that this is going to accomplish the same thing as this entire ecology of practices. I think that’s a mistake. Yeah, it’s a total mistake. Yeah. So this, this, you know, this sense of, of, of where I think you’ve talked about this before about where that, that, that self organization, right? The flow of that, the, the, the logos of it, right? It begins to take hold and gets a life of its own. It shows up at the beach. It shows up in your listening. It shows up, right? And this is what I’m thinking about with, with dialogos is, is that there’s a way where we’re exercising and dialogos is like a practice, right? But then there’s dialogos in relationship with your own internal world and the way that you think and the way that you relate to reality. And in that, that sense of this is where it gets really exciting to look at dialogos as a practice, right? Yeah, I’m, I’m so. It seems got a little bit breakthrough, actually. Well, Chris and I have been doing a lot of work and I’ve been doing and then I’ve also been doing, I don’t know, I’ve been doing what I’m trained to do as a cognitive scientist and it comes off as a little bit arrogant, but it’s I hope it’s not, which is, you know, I often try and understand something by reverse engineering it. Right. And so, as you know, and with your help and Peter’s help, Chris’s help and Jordan’s help, right. And I’ve been taking a deep look and I’ve continued to do so in the help of many people like that’s all this. Rapé and a whole bunch of people more like what was the ancient practice of dialectic? First of all, when you as you as you follow it forward, especially when you follow it into the neoplateness, dialectic goes from dialectic is simultaneously interpersonal. But like you said, it’s also interpersonal and it’s interontological with people are moving within the layers. Here we go again with the layers of their ontology. And they’re also right. So Chris and I have used the metaphor of the interpersonal being the horizontal dimension and intraontological being the vertical dimension. And so just one more thing just might be helpful for people. I’m finding it helpful. And Chris and I are really trying to make this because I want to bring out something you brought you made there because I’ve been thinking about this a lot and maybe we’re more careful with our terms. It could help. Yeah. I notice like we were talking about the difference between when you do something, you do a practice, but especially if you do it in a layered and linked way. Right. The self-organization can even become auto poetic. Right. It can take on a life of its own. Yes. Yes. So I’m trying to reserve the term dialectic for practices that I can do, even layering and linking and then via logos for when it takes when the practice does that shift and takes on a life of its own. Right. Right. So the way I now try to say it is I practice dialectic to realize the logos. Yeah. Yeah. OK. That makes sense. Yeah. It’s like putting the logs of the propositions. Yeah. Yes. And then lighting and you get them. You start rubbing them together and like dialogue, dialectic. And at some point it just sparks. Right. It becomes greater. Yeah. Yeah. You’re making use of all kinds of herplade and platonic images. Right. Absolutely. And so at Rebel Wisdom, I got to practice with people mostly what I would call the horizontal, as I mentioned, dialectic. But I was also able to start bringing in a bit of the vertical, although a lot of the vertical also needs to be done by individuals on their own. But but that I was getting both of those. And what was interesting was also to see like where and when. Right. As to use your metaphor, it sparks and catches fire. And you can see people starting to get caught up. Yeah. And so part of the engineering was to think, well, we already know some of the conditions that will get people into the flow state. And the flow state is when I practice something and then it takes on the catches wire. Right. So I was trying to bring that in. And then, I mean, and I talked about I made reference to all of you guys at Rebel Wisdom repeatedly because that what I’ve been trying to do is go over and, you know, Chris and I are doing sort of very high level theory. And then I’m doing very I don’t I don’t like to call it low level, but more grounded practice. And then and part of that practice has been to constantly review all of what we’ve been doing and what I’ve learned from you and what I’ve learned from, you know, other people and trying to draw it together into a fairly doable layering and linking of practices that I call dialectic that gets us into the elogical. So, you know, yeah. And I mean, if you want, at some point, I can go over what that looks like concretely. What happened? What happened at Rebel Wisdom, at least from my perspective, was it was very successful because there was one more sort of turn of the theoretical wheel that happened just before Rebel Wisdom. And it came up in my discussion with you. You remember our last one. You know, that the fact that all the platonic dialogues are about virtue is not a coincidence. Yeah, right. Because virtue is the place in which all of these things come together. And that, again, so that the that the dialectic, if it’s trying to become dialogous, should always be both trying should have virtue as a topic while exemplifying virtue as a response to that topic. Yeah. Yeah. And so what happened? I’ll just go through what it looks like. Now, again, I was clear I had to present a truncated thing because I see that this is actually something that people should do after they’ve done right meditation, contemplations, Tai Chi Chuan and circling. They have to have done those four things, I think, before they do this. Right. But what am I going to do? Well, before I teach you, I couldn’t do any of that. I had to present sort of this. Right. But I want that. Now I can say it. We’ve got some time to explore it. Like people, they have to be doing a meditative practice, a contemplative practice, a moving mindful practice, and they have to be doing circling. Those are the things they have to be doing. All right. Now, let’s say that that is given. OK, that’s a big given. I get it. But let’s say let’s presume that that’s the case. So then how it works is that. Sorry. One more thing, which was coming up also in the discussion from Andrew and Chris. Sorry for doing this. This is right on the edge of my thinking. And there’s all these people that are helping me right now. I want everybody included. Right. Yeah. Yeah. The other thing is, which is how do we bring in something? How do we make it more socratic? And how do we bring in argumentation? Yeah. OK. So at Rebel Wisdom, I couldn’t fully bring in the argumentation. I’ll talk about how I did that recently. At Rebel Wisdom, it goes like this. So people, you break them up into groups of four. OK. And this is influenced by one of Bateson’s ideas of warm data and the warm data labs. So what happens is that group, they decide collectively what virtue is going to be their topic. Let’s say it’s honesty. Yeah. OK. So what happens is one person goes first and the person picks somebody who’s going to be their initial amplifier. And so the first and you don’t make propositions, you make proposals. You don’t state propositions. You commit yourself to a proposal and need it in both ways. Not only do you grasp the semantic content, but you mean it like when you ask somebody, did you mean what you just said? Are you committed to it? OK. So full meaning. So that’s why I say, say, I propose that. Don’t say honesty is. Say, I propose that. Right. So I propose that honesty is X. OK. And then the amplifier, their job is to, and this is like from the few person, the past section side. And you’ll see circling, right. And you’ll see why circling would really matter to this. Person is amplifying. They’re not supposed to in any way challenge at the amplification stage. What they do is they, well, I noticed that when you were when you when you first talked about honesty, you were leaning forward. You’re leaning back. And, you know, you know, is in my mind for there is you because that’s what you do. You do that. You notice what people are doing. You notice their gesture. And this is also came from the work I did on the focusing. Well, you clenched your hand there. Go back. Clench your hand. What’s that like? What’s going on for you right now? Right. And so can you tell me more? And you were silent there. What’s happening when you’re silent. So the amplifiers trying to get the person to become more reflectively aware of their participation in the proposal. Right. Right. Amplify, amplify, amplify. Then at some point, the proposal, the proposer is going to get towards kind of an aporia. We’re going to go. Right. Yeah. And then and then. And what happens is, you know, and now the amplifier speaks. It switches to what I call appreciation. The amplifier has to first say what they what they really got. Right. So they have to repeat back to the person who spoke. This is what I heard you saying. And they have to do that until the first person says, yeah, you got me. You understand. Right. So appreciation in the sense of understanding. And then and then this is what I value about what you said. This is what is good. This is what this is what I hadn’t thought of before. This is what I had forgotten. Right. So they do that. They do the appreciation. Okay. Right. Then they are going to turn to another third person. What they’re going to do is they’re going to do anticipation of their proposal. They don’t jump into their proposal. And what they do is they have to say this is where they are now challenging. But they’re not going to actually confront the person. They’re going to. Right. So what they’re going to say is, OK, this is what I thought was missing in that proposal. Here’s a part of honesty that I really think is important. It was missing. Here’s what was mysterious in that proposal. I found that strange or odd. Right. And then finally, and I emphasize people don’t put the emphasis on this one. You’re not trying to be right. You’re trying to come into right relationship. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. You’re neither attacked, neither merely attacking nor merely agreeing. Yeah. This is the mistaken. And I try to break it back up into mistaken. Yeah. But how the proposition is wrong. But what is there an assumption? Is there a way the person was taking? Yes. You want to call into question. Right. Talk about that for a bit. And now the other third person amplifies the second person during the anticipation. Right. Right. And then until the until that second person can now say, OK, now I’m ready. I propose that honesty is this. And then they get amplified. And then at some point they stop. And then the third person does the appreciation with them and then turns to the fourth and does anticipation until they make a proposal. And then it cycles all the way around in the fourth. So you do that until everybody does this. Yeah. And you get groups, groups that come back. It would be good to at least have four groups, right, to come back into a common space. And hopefully, usually almost always, they’ve done different virtues. This honesty. Right. Remember, you like when you’re amplifying, you’re trying to pick up on how the person is exemplifying, not just doing exposition. Right. Right. So. Right. And because it’s virtue, people, it really bridges for people. The four groups come back and now they’re all together. And now this is what they answer. They don’t answer in closure, but this is what they go into. The logos. You ask them, what is virtue? That is what is honesty. Not what is current. And what happens is they do the thing where they zoom into their particular virtue and their particular and then zoom out and zoom in and zoom out. Zoom in and zoom out. Yeah. And what happens, right, is they get into they get into the logos and they get a sense of, right, they get a sense of the moreness and the suchness that they’re like virtuous, so complex and dynamic. And they feel that they’ve come into a better relationship with it. And then, and I didn’t have time to do that. That I like what you could do is you could just have open reflection after the process. Or, you know, I thought that there might be another transitional thing where people go back just into circling and they just go back into circling. Then they that’s all just resonating and vibrating for them. Oh, yeah. That’s how the process ends. Yeah, that’s interesting. So that’s the horizontal. But you see how to get it. It had a bit of the vertical in it. Right. Right. It was a bit of the movement with the ontological. Yeah, absolutely. I like that that sense of starting with something like virtues, particular virtues, and then the meta idea that unites those, right, and going in between structurally that just seems really deeply penetrative. Yeah. What I want to say right now, it’s really important to me because I care about you. I care about your work. I hope you see your influence in all of this. I hope you see. I’ve tried to incorporate a lot of what I’ve learned to you and try to do it justice. I hope you feel that. Oh, yeah. Oh, totally. Yeah. Yeah. Well, now that’s important to me. Yeah, I really I really do. I really do. Big time. Big time. And I feel that too. I feel that in our in our friendship in our in the way that you continually note it. But also just in the in the fact of the mutual kind of penetration of these ideas and you know, like constantly talking on text and and it’s a it’s a it’s a it’s how it lives for me. And you do a great job of. Well, I saw that interpenetration. Well, I didn’t see it. I heard it. I listened to you when you were on my Discord server. Thank you for doing that. By the way, that was wonderful. All right. Yeah, I just saw that. That was wonderful. So anyways, you like, I’m not like again, imagine individuals who were doing like the mindfulness ecology, meditation, contemplation, moving, kind of the Tai Chi. And then, as you said, then they bridge from that into Lexio. Yeah. Group Lexio. And then maybe out of that, a particular virtue, right, comes up. Right. And then they take that into the logos. Right. Right. You have that whole. Yeah. Would just be very, very powerful for people. Absolutely. Absolutely. And if you think about it, too, it’d be. If you run a few of those and then just think about like, okay, so. How would that just catch when somebody just starts to talk about their life. Yes. Yeah. And like, you don’t even have to, I would imagine that you don’t even have to put many frames around it after a few cycles of those people are probably just, you’ll probably notice that people go and start amplifying. They start doing all the components. Right. Yeah, totally. Totally. And I would hope that they would also start to notice how the various practices inter for each other. Right. They would start to listen, perhaps when people are speaking more, more poetically. Yeah. And then they bring the mindfulness to bear. Because one of the promises we make is the promise, right. To use speech mindfully, carefully, lovingly. Right. Right. And so, and then they, oh, but as I’m listening, like, to this person, like it’s Alexio Divina, I’m also practicing the mindfulness. And then they’re also looking for what, but what is being exemplified here? What virtue is coming? Like, yeah, I could see, but that is what happens. Right. Yeah. And then the point is we get, right, not just propositions, we get the proposals of ways of being. Right. Virtuous. And ways of life being exemplified. So now the more recent piece I did, and this is something, I mean, I want to talk to you about, and it was, it’s just come out on Andrew’s channel, it will come out on my channel on Friday, is. How did it mean something like argumentation? And so what I was thinking is, is instead of just a sequence of propositions, right, what it is, is it’s a sequence of proposals, right. That logos that gather together and mutually afford each other until, right. Right. And then what you do is you basically make a proposal and then you do some dialogue about it. And then the person makes another proposal. What you might let them do is what I did is put a present, the sequence of proposals, and then you go back and do the logos and you try and sort of jazz your way from one proposal to the next. Right. Until they all come to belong together and mutually afford. Right. So that’s what I did. So I had a particular argument. The argument I was making an argument that virtue is the beauty of wisdom and what that means and how to understand that. And then what I did was I had a sequence of proposals and then we did sort of deal logos around it. So you do deal logos, if you allow me this metaphor, around each proposal and then between each proposal until you get this intuitive, a kind of, you know, a proj of proposals where you’re seeing all the proposals in each and each and all. Right. Right. A proj of proposals. Yes. I’m seeing t-shirts. That’s awesome. Well, it’s also the thing that you just laid out there. I mean, on some level, I bet. I mean, you’re exemplifying. I mean, isn’t this what you’ve been doing on in all your discussions? Right. Is you’ve been doing just that or you kind of have an idea and you’re playing with it. Right. But it seems like that’s what I sense is that you, there’s something that kind of emerges and you have an idea. Maybe it’s this and this and this, like, oh yeah. And then we go into dialogue about it. Right. And then something, something happens and it, it puts the next thing. So if like, we just watched all of the discussions, you’ve got everybody, I wonder, I bet we fit, we, we, we, we’ve got a lot of discussion about this and then we’ve got a lot of discussion around it. I think so. I think that’s exactly right. And that’s, I mean, that has been sort of the, the teacher guiding me in, in this whole process is to try and see what patterns are taking shape. Yeah. Right. What principles are coming into process via those patterns and what processes are being principled in those patterns and seeing all of that working together. So that’s what I keep looking for. You know, here’s a pattern. Yeah. What, what principle is it bringing in and what process is it going into? Well, here’s a pattern. What process is it bringing? Is it, is it, is it explicating and bringing in normativity? You know, so I always think of this emanation of principle and this emergence of process and that, and the logos is the patterning. Right. So that’s what, that’s what I’m looking for. Yeah. That’s sort of the method I use when I’m trying to get a sense about this. And then, and then as a cognitive scientist, what I do is I reverse engineer. I say, okay, what do I know about human cognition? Yeah. Right. And how could I fit, how could I articulate these practices such that I could fit them best to, I could reverse engineer them for human cognition. Right. That’s, that’s what I’ve been doing. Totally. Yeah, absolutely. And so it’s interesting, like as it’s coming out, it’s as you’re formulating it, right. It’s interesting. There’s that sense of, there’s that sense of in a certain sense, like, like I’m bringing it like more to your awareness right now. Isn’t that what you’ve been doing on some level all the way through? It’s like, here’s that, that thing about, then you talked about the teacher, right. That deaf, that invisible deft hand that’s that on one level, it looks like, I was thinking about this with, with, with rapport, the difference between creating rapport. And then the experience of rapport is more like it’s revealed. Right. It’s like, there’s always that sense of like, when I’m in a rapport with somebody, one, you find yourself into it, but it’s not this sense of like, I have created something or something. It’s more like, oh, there you are. It’s like, oh. I think that’s right. I mean, that’s so Chris and I, well, you’ve read the, the chapter in that sentence. We talked about this as the movement from logos, little L to logos. Right. So the idea here is right. The moreness of intelligibility, logos with a big L the way, right. The logos that ultimately is part of on to logos, the logos of being right. That’s always precipitated into, right. It’s impregnated into our spoken, our spoken logos and our gestural logos. Right. And so what would, right. And then what we do in the deal logos is we like, it’s the conception, but the pregnancy is right. It’s developed and the midwifery. And then what you’re doing is you’re giving birth to the logos, but it actually affinds you. And you and I’ve talked about this. Yeah. Yeah. To the logo. And that, that’s where the virtue comes in because virtue is ultimately right. Every virtue is a way of being wise in a particular situation. It’s a way of finding the logos in speech act. Yeah. And the logos of being. And so that’s, that’s, that was my attempt to disclose, cause I was talking to Chris about this. I say, guy is always doing that. And that’s not a complaint by the way, right. Guy is always doing that where he’s saying, look at how we got here, a place we couldn’t get to on our own, but it’s, but what we discovered was always there. That’s why I point, I brought back that term inventio. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. The area uses in the book on Augustine’s invention of the inner self. This inventio means both to make and to discover. Yeah. Right. And it’s that sense. So what I think it is, is again, like the way dialectic makes possible, but it isn’t the making of the logos. Right. I think the via logos, the dialogue part, the logos between us, right. Right. That, that, that, that’s the making part, but what is discovered, right. Is the logos that was already there, always there underneath it. Absolutely. Absolutely. And concealed, that whole thing about like concealed and revealed and the hiddenness is the, is the, is not the, not the, you know, the Gestell hiddenness of where it’s like you conquer everything and then you even conquer hiddenness. Right. It’s more like the hiddenness is what we follow the whole time. Right. And when it reveals, see, this is the thing about it. Like I think one of the things I love about Rilke and like poetry really is it has this ability to reveal, you could say the unknown without, without making it known, but it retains its unknown, its mysterious, its mysteriousness in its disclosure. Right. So it becomes. Right. So, so, so I think about this as a trajectory of transformation that always extends metonymically. Yeah. Right. So the logos, the dynamic unfolding of the logos gives us, gives us a sense of trajectory in a transformation, but that ultimately is a finger that’s pointing towards the logos. Right. Right. Metonymically. It’s, it’s not separate from it. It’s, it’s a metonym. It participates in it, but it also points beyond itself in its participation. This is so Neil Platonet. Right. So that’s, that’s how, so I think of the movement that happens, both the movement out of my own subjectivity into the Wii space. Right. And then, right. And then, and then the movement of that whole space, right. That, that trend, that trajectory. That’s, that’s me. That’s us. Me and us pointing with our whole being. Yeah. Right. Towards the logos, but the ability to point embodies the logos. It’s not something separate from it. Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. And that sense of, of where you, you in that, I really liked your last video with Chris and, and Andrew. Is it not Andrew? Yeah. Andrew Sweeney. Andrew Sweeney, yeah. Well, you guys are talking about, I think you said something in, kind of in passing, but it’s, it kind of struck me of, of where, how Plotonus puts the, you know, the meta logos, right. It’s all kind of like in, in this, in this infinite all at once-ness, right. Yes. But we have to basically take that in dialogos and bring that into sequence. Right. Yes. That, that’s, that’s the function of soul. Yeah. That’s the, in Plotinus. Yeah. That, that’s soul takes what it, so intellect is the all at once-ness, right. Like, like, like here, like, like how each virtue actually presupposes the other virtues and that, right. So if I’m going to be honest, I also have to be courageous, right. Right. If I’m going to be honest, right. I also need to know how to be kind, right. Because, right. Because if I’m just honest without kindness, I’m not actually honest. I’m just brusque and cruel. Right. And so, right. And then, and you can think about how each virtue is just, like I say, how do I be wise in this here now-ness? Well, to be wise here now is to be courageous. To be wise here now is to be kind. To be wise here now is to be reverential. So you get Plotinus, that’s the, that’s the news, that’s the intellect, right. All the, all the principles of intelligibility, all the virtues are there. He often compares them like, like theorems in an argument. And this is why Spinoza is so important. They all, all interpenetrate and interdefine all at once. That’s news. And then news, right. That all at once-ness. The one, the one in mini points towards the one, right. Totally. It points up towards the one. But as you said, it also, it’s also, it emanates, it affords, it makes possible the, the dianoya. Yeah. The dianoya is the noya, but it’s in motion. Right. Right. Dianoya and the, the ologos are right. And that’s soul. And so what happens, that’s what we were talking about in the, in both that dialogue in the previous one, where soul is the mediator between muchness, sorry, between moreness and sectional. Yeah. How we participate in the inexhaustible, right. Yes. Yeah. But how that comes into the non-categorical, non-repeatable here now-ness, right. Of like the, the sort of the mystery at the core of time. Yeah. The suchness. Yeah. Is put into relationship, the mystery at the core of eternity. Yeah. The mystery of participation and the mystery of individuation are brought into relationship to each other. Totally. That’s the function of soul. If that’s what it is, that’s what it is to the Tainas. The, yeah, like, like, like almost, almost like this deeper sense of space and time mutually penetrating each other. Right. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Evidence and emergence, eternity and time. Yeah. This is like the stuff I’m, the work I’m doing on erogina right now is so important because that he, he’s the guy that turns dialectic, right, into like a metaphysical principle. He sees reality in this kind of neoplatonic dialect. Erogena, erogina. Yeah. Do I hear? Here, here’s a really good introductory book. This one right here. Oh, John Scott is. Oh yes. Okay. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Regina. Yeah. Cause he’s doing that in this whole, yeah. I mean, that’s exactly what he’s, and he did it. He is way before his time, right? Oh yeah. He’s like 900, I think common. Yeah. Yeah. So it’s, it’s unfair. Neoplatonic dialectic is not Hegelian dialectic and it’s unfair to attribute it to erogina because he’s way before something much more comprehensive and transformative. And the interesting thing is the Percipian, the division of nature is actually written as a dialogue. Yeah. It’s actually, it’s presented as a dialogue and it’s interesting because it’s presented as an interpersonal dialogue between two people, right? Basically the guru and the students, right? But it’s also, there’s four parts, the four divisions. So it’s also an ontological dialogue for the four divisions, right? That’s like he, and he’s, it exemplifies, like turning what we’re talking about into on one pole, a comprehensive way of life and on the other pole, a correspondingly comprehensive worldview. That’s what’s happening in his work. Yeah. God, that’s amazing. So this is also kind of gets you another kind of thing that I was, I was, I’ve been thinking about as well is you’re thinking about like, okay, so what is that? And I think you said it when you, when you, when you said soul is the, is the, is the, is the mediator between these two, which had brought me to the, it reminded me of this thing I’ve been, I think I texted you about it too, with, with Chris about like, well, we look at it. Well, what is, what is the medium? Like medium of this. And I started to think about play with that about, you know, like in painting, right, oil painting, right. And what, like in a, in a certain sense of like, and it’s the right medium in, in, in comparison, because acrylic, I can’t work with acrylic because it, it does basically the same thing. It’s hard to tell the difference once it’s all dry, but it’s, you can’t, it, it’s too constraining with time, right? So you have to like, you know, with oil, it stays wet. So you, you can really have, you can paint it, you can blend the colors and work with it on the canvas versus on the, you know, have it ready made and then painted in. And then I was thinking about what a medium does, right. The oil does is it, at one level, it holds everything together, right. It holds the paint together, right. But in holding it together, it also releases it into appearance, but yet the medium itself, to the degree that it’s doing its job, when it releases the paint into appearance while holding it together, it also, it itself simultaneously withdraws into that releasement, right. Yes. And so I was just thinking about like, what, so what would be the oil, right, of the, the dialogical, dialogos painting, you know, and, and it, Yeah. It’s interesting to kind of think about that, right. Well, I haven’t answered. I think, I think I do too. Let’s see, let’s see what this is. This is what I kind of came up with it. I was thinking about like, well, I think what probably makes it, what it, what it is, is that, that in some level, the realization, right, of the dialogue and dialogos, right, is, is actually where, where that which withdrawals on some level in, in the oil, it, it goes through, it realizes itself in, in like kind of a transubstantiation, right, or something like that. Like it’s like, it’s like, it’s almost like the, the medium is the always already the case, the invisible deft hand that on some level at the top kind of goes, ah, and then it all makes sense, you know, on some level. I think that’s right. Phenomenologically. Yeah, it’s about, it’s about the, it’s about what we talked about, about the, you know, phenomenon, the shining force that’s always the withdrawing. Functionally. And then the other time, the other time too, the other thing. Oh, sorry. It also has me think about like, well, okay, well, well, what is the medium though, right? What is the phenomenon? Right. And this is where I start to touch it. When I feel into that, I start to, I started to touch into, how do you say it? Nityashani. Yeah. This sense of emptiness of, of there’s something about that as well. So the emptiness that I think is, yeah. Okay. So I want to say, I’ll propose over here and then we’ll look for convergence. We’ll do, we’ll do the argument. There we go. Okay. Go. Because I think the medium, the thing that glues like the paint, but also becomes transparent. So we see through it. I think it’s relevance realization. Because what relevance realization does is it makes the framing that then withdraws precisely because it’s transparent and it affords me looking through it. Right. I do. Right. Precisely because I’m seeing by means of it, it draws into, right, into the grounding of my intelligibility. And then, but you have to remember that relevance realization isn’t mine. Right. It’s a way in which the world and me are co-emerging together. Yeah. So I think the emptiness is the fact of this deep coupling, the coupling that’s at the mystery of my suchness, which is what, you know, in a lot of Buddhist sects, you get the sense of, you know, the pure mind, which is the mind that is, is, is the, the existing power to become any particular form, but is no form itself, that’s, that’s relevance realization. And that, that mystery of the sense of suchness, right, is what keeps me coupled to the off in love with the moreness of reality. So the moreness, the combinatorial explosion of information, right. And the ongoing open-ended, that’s the emptiness, no essence to it, the open-endedness of the relevance realization, the mystery of the suchness. They come together, right. They come together in my framing of the world that, and the emptiness is the mystery of the moreness, the combinatorial explosion of nature, reality, the mystery of the suchness, the open-endedness at the open-ended evolution of my, of relevance realization. And those are the two coupled together. And that, and that, and taking your proposal, right. So the, the, so relevance realization is what you’re proposing is the medium of this, right, is relevance realization. And what I, what in, in it, in it’s, in, in, you could say the, the background, the more, like the, the background is like the emptiness, right. And, and in the foreground is the suchness, right. Yeah. I would say that. Or is that how you said it? I would say, I would say that the background is the section. It’s the background is your capacity for individuation, your capacity for here now fitting yourself to the situation. Yeah. But the world is not, the world impregnates each situation, but it’s always more than any situation. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So this is always reinventing itself. Right. In the, in the face of the world, always unpacking itself, always be more, both diachronically and synchronically, both horizontally and vertically. And then, and then relevance realization is the process of that being realized over and over and over and over again. That’s why I use the word realization. Yeah. Cause it’s simultaneously like detection and adaptive fitting, and it’s also actualization and coming into being. I’m trying to get both this objective and objective goals of this process by using the word realization. Totally. Cause it’s like, it’s like the, cause the realization, I really got the sense of like, this is why it’s the media because the realization is like, what, what I’m hearing you say is what’s realized that immediately brings everything. Yes. Together. And then if you ask like, well, what’s realized, right? What is the realization? Like what realized this realization? Right. And you look back, you end up back there, but in that process, I, there’s a sense of how world making that is. Right. Exactly. This is ultimately right. It’s about how things stand out exist within being where being is the right. The intelligibility that reaches to the horizons of intelligibility. Totally. And that was, yeah. So, and so, and then of course, naturally it’s like, well, what’s that glow beyond the horizon? And then you end up back. You and in some level you, you, you in, in moving towards that glow and realizing it, um, the thing that, yeah, this is why it’s the, the individuation. This is why. And we’re still in the app, like just to keep it, you know, this is, we’re still in the amplification part of it, I think, right? Like of, I just have to be mindful of like, yeah. Yep. That’s important. Right. I just, this is thinking about till, like, like the, like participation individuation tension, right? It’s like how this is me or you’re frozen. Just, oh, oh, let’s see. Okay. You’re back. You’re back. Okay. Cool. Cool. Right. Cool. I just tried to be, yeah, the gestures are so important. Right. Yeah. That sense of, of, of, of, there’s that quality of where, when you, when you have a passion for something, right. And you, you just engage with it. In some sense, it’s like there’s, there’s that experience of where you’re not thinking about yourself. However, at some point that you, you, it’s a co-constitution where you’re your face is articulated by what you’ve been looking at. Right. And then you realize, you realize the whole time that it’s been this mutually shaping, yeah. Well, and that’s Christopher, is it Christopher Moore? Moore, the Socratic self-knowledge. That’s his basic argument. He says that what Socrates tries to show people is that the truest deepest kind of self-knowledge is not gained through introspection, not gained through, right. It’s not gained through intuition. It’s not gained through sort of formal definition. It’s gained through how like your commitment and participation in what you just described that that’s where you actually know yourself. That’s why the Socratic self is inherently aspirational. Right. It’s not the romantic self, right. You’re not expressing it out. Right. What’s happening is it’s being induced from you as the world and it’s how you, how your co-emergence commits to the co-coherence of the world, the faithfulness, the love, right. That’s where you truly find out who you are. Right. Wow. So the whole point about Socratic, right, self-knowledge is you cannot find it except in theologos. Yeah. Yeah. But conjoined to that is that’s where you deeply, most truly find out who you are. Yes. Through, yes. Through that process. Yeah. This is, it’s just, it’s just, it’s just interesting. Like what I’m really kind of getting is like, it’s, it’s almost a, you can’t, you can’t be a Cartesian. Oh, no, you can’t. Right. Like I really kind of get this sense of this, both the, both Heidegger’s kind of pointing out what metaphysics both realizes yet hides, like conceals at the same time, there’s something about this where, cause it’s funny when I, when we well, what’s the, what’s the medium? Well, the what is, is the apprehension realization of everything that’s in a relationship with it having, being the thing that it’s relating, it’s like it gets deep in and it ends up outside while seeing itself inside, but deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper where there’s no, this is where I was starting to kind of feel like the realization of the emptiness, right? Yeah. There’s no thing there. Oh, there is. Because it’s, it’s, it’s that which makes thinginess possible. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And notice how the relevance realization is no thingness, right? Cause the one thing you can’t actually bring into the frame is the framing. Anything you bring into the frame as, as if it was the framing, it’s, it’s, it’s J, you know, it’s James’s eye, I, me, you’re always only looking at the me. You can’t look at the eye cause you always have to look through the eye. Yeah. Right. There’s that. And notice that relevance realization is always simultaneously disclosing and concealing because I’m, I’m finding a subset of the world relevant and that’s shining to me, but I’m also finding, although I’m not finding, in fact, I’m not even, if I was noticing it, I would hit combinatorial explosion. I know I’m intelligently ignorant of vast aspects of the world or else I couldn’t function. Relevance realization is always a revealing that is a concealing. That’s why it’s always evolving because whatever, there is no essence to the revelation, there’s no, nothing comes up in the revelation that captures, right? Relevance forever. It can’t work that way because it’s always a concealing as well as a revealing, it then has to open up to what was concealed and reveal again, and then open up to what was concealed and revealed again, and then again and again and again, and this is, this is soul. This is the dianoya, right? This is the attempt, the never completable attempt to disclose the intelligibility of the world, which is combinatorially explosive through time. And that’s what we’re doing. Well, I’m just kind of just, I’m just feeling like a little couple of things. I’m feeling the virtue of, of reverence, right? At play here at playing right now in the conversation. It’s like, you just can’t, there’s something about this sense of realizing that this kind of what’s doing the looking, what’s doing the talking, what’s doing the perceiving is the thing perceived on multiple levels going up and down. It’s like there’s the, it’s like reverence almost comes to a, like to a peak. Like awareness of finitude and limitation, but the infinity. Yes. So that’s New Highlands book. Reverence, right? Yeah. But I was thinking of her, her clitas, right? Listen, not to me, but to the logos in my speech. All things are one, right? That’s the reverence. And it’s that again, we talked about it, that, that movement of relevance realization, if it’s caught up in the virtue of reverence, that’s when you start to realize the trajectory and the trans framing, the trajectory and the transformation that extends towards the one, but can never get there. But that’s great. Yeah. Cause if we could get there, we wouldn’t be who we are and the world wouldn’t be what it is. Yeah. Boy, what a thing to revere not having, right? Like, like it’s like, it’s like, it’s to revere what brings it into reverence is that I can’t get there, but what the can’t get there reveals it’s there the way it’s there, right? That’s exactly. Yeah. So Robert Browning, a man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what is a heaven for? Tell them why. This is why I think it’s like, this is like the two fingers, right? Of this sense, right? Where Michelangelo in that painting, that painting was before, it’s interesting. You think about this is before, before the, like the re-emergence in a conscious way of the Greeks, right? Of the Medici’s, right? It’s like, that’s all coming up. You know, they’re digging it out and like Marcio Ficino and like the, the Neo-Platonists, right? And so you’re behind you. What’s that? Painting behind you. Yeah. It was pointing up. Yeah. And Aristotle was pointing down. Yep. Right. Yeah. They’re both extending. Right. Right. And that whole, that painting right there, every single part of it is telling a story. I don’t know what the whole story is. You see Arros in there and you see. Socrates and Socrates is there and he’s off to one side. Yep. Absolutely. The, the, uh, how was I going to say? Um, what was I, oh yes. The two fingers about it. It’s like before that, right. It was always depicted of like where kind of God is this kind of distant patriarch. Yeah. And man is this kind of meagerly right. Yearning for God. And all of a sudden, but in this, it’s like, man’s just barely like barely dawning to consciousness and hears God, right. With all the angels like, and, and they don’t touch. Right. And if, if it, right. And it’s like, if those, if the, if they touch, no one would wreck it. No one would even look at it. Right. It’s precisely that they don’t touch that is that divine kind of tension. Right. That is so, and of course, even the movie talk about, like, you know, it’s, it’s talked about as the agony and the ecstasy. Yes. Right. And I think what we’re talking about is that there’s in some way, you know, Like you can almost kind of make it kind of make a poster of this, right. Of where it’s like agony or ecstasy. What’s the difference that makes the difference. Right. And I think this is what we’re getting at. I think the difference is, is something about that thing that you said, which is the one, right, you don’t want, you don’t want to achieve the one, right. Because it wouldn’t be the one that like that, that aspiration, that reverent aspiration of like that. I think that’s the debt, that difference between the, the, the experience of agony and the experience of ecstasy with this. Right. And I think maybe dialogos constantly exemplifies that. Right. Yeah, I think so. I think the aporia is in dialogos are the, are the space that keeps the reverence and the tension alive. Yeah. But the whole trajectory is the sense it’s like, it’s an asymptotic. It’s, I mean, I always got the sense in Michelangelo, like it’s an asymptote that there’s a perpetual closing, but they’ll never touch, right. Right. Right. Absolutely. Absolutely. Because how else would creatures in time get any intimation of eternity? There’s no other way. If they get closure, that’s not eternity. That’s, that’s an idol in something that’s finite. Right. And if they, but if there was no sense of moving closer, this is the epic cases, right, of the Eastern Orthodox, some of the Eastern Orthodox fathers, God is the perpetual affordance of self-transcendence. You genuinely step transcending, but you will never complete it. You will never complete it because creatures that are in time only realize the truth of the eternal truths in ongoing transcendence. Right. Totally. Yeah. And that comes into like, this is where I think, you know, that like God is a vow is a, is a metaphor makes sense, right? Because it’s, there’s that quality of just when you get to know a person, right. There’s like, there, there is that quality of like, when you genuinely get to know a person, which is also the realization of your own shadow is simultaneously the recognition of, right. Like, because you like in the, in the, it’s always been that thing about how do you learn how to listen? Well, first you got to, you got to realize that you don’t, right. The moment you realize you don’t is when listening. But that’s a beautiful example of what I’m talking about. Um, the union idea that we can only know the shadow, uh, ultimately, right. Initially and ultimately only dialogically. Right. Um, it’s only, I cannot, I, I, it’s very hard for me to see how I’m projecting unless I’m in dialogue with somebody. And that point you just made, that’s brilliant. Cause when you reject my projection, right. You are an enacted a choreo that then gives me the opportunity for realizing the projection and in realizing the projection, I begin in that way to get a sense of my shadow. And I think that’s that union idea. That’s why Chris is writing in our anthology that you’re contributing to as well. Right. The second chapter, he and I are writing, I should say he’s first off on it, but writing it together about, uh, the union practice as an instance of the logos, because exactly this idea and that people have gotten too romantic about young in a sense, they, they, they only sort of think about young, um, interest psychically, right. But they forget that young is presupposing that all of this is taking place in a therapeutic dialogic context. Right. That’s the frame in which he’s. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. That you that that it’s only in something like therapeutic dialogue that you can genuinely become aware of the shadow. Yeah, absolutely. And like you, yeah, exactly. And that’s that quality, but that connection between the vow peeks through, right in those moments of where it’s like where my projection of you or my, my projection onto you. And this is what’s interesting. One of the things I’ve noticed in circles and in working with people in this way is a lot of times where things it’s the beginning of a big, of a big kind of realization is this sense of where I I’ve always thought about it. I really liked the way that objects relations psychology talks about it. Like there’s the objective pole, like the self or the, the self is actually always object subject pole with a, with a binding, uh, consistent level of affect. And where people kind of like, we’ll go on a rant, right? Where all of a sudden you’re talking about like, and they’ll just start addressing a concern that I don’t have that I didn’t bring up, right? But they’re talking about it as if they’re in response and you can start to tune into that stuff. And then you go like a so many times it’s like, who are you talking to right there? Yeah. And in all that, in that moment, there’s this, and if they really, they catch themselves in it, like, Oh, who am I talking? And it opens the question, right? And that begins. Yes. Yeah. This moment that they realize that they weren’t relating to the world objectively, if you will, as it was, they were input, it didn’t realize, but then that, you know, begins this whole process of disclosure, right? Yeah, that’s important. And so this quality of love of how a vow unfolds for us, it’s interesting to think about that this is where it’s like relationship in it. I mean, this is, you know, we’re indistinguishable from our, our sociality, our, our, you know, it’s like all the way down, but that sense of, that sense of the, of the realization of myself is, is, is allows the realization of the other, the vow, right? Yeah. That’s right. I mean, in that, you didn’t get that in the Alexia is the Alexia, right? Like it has to sort of, if you’re reading for transformation, the vow of the text, it has to, right? Yeah. It has to sort of catch you and lead you off beyond, but I’m also thinking practically what you just said was really important part of what. Like what I was describing as the amplification process is for the amplifier to maybe periodically ask, who are you talking to right now? Yeah. Yes. I hadn’t thought about that. That’s very good. I want to note that down. Yeah. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to turn away from the camera. That’s great. That’s a good insight. Yep. Okay. That’s good. And it’s a, and it’s a, you kind of feel that question where, yeah, that, where that question, oh yeah, you could pretty much, you could pretty much ask that at any point. And sometimes the answer is going to be you. Yeah. Sometimes it’s going to be like, Oh, is this, Oh, I was talking to the person that’s going to get me in trouble at any point, right? Like, like that’s what happens with like a lot of trauma, like, like, like a lot of trauma, like ends up with a lot of traumas. Those things, those structures become something that like haunts people around, right? Where they’re constant relating it to, right? This brings up an aspect that I, right. That’s brilliant. That was the two person, the past, which I can’t teach in the class, because maybe I’ll get Jason up. What you do is you go up, you sit, you feel like it’s like, um, you’ll, you’ll see how it belongs to this whole family of circling and all that. Right. You sit, um, um, and like you do the past individually with somebody present in your visual field. And then one person is going to be the speaker and then the other person is going to be the amplifying mirror. That’s part of where I got this idea. Yeah. But what the speaker does is when they’re speaking to the mirror, they are talking to somebody else. It’s like the empty chair therapy. So they talk to you. So you deliberately project, you project onto your dad and the, and the, and the, the person that’s receiving, they’re supposed to be, and this is a really sweet spot, you have to be as fully present as possible while also being as non-reactive. Yeah. So the person can play out the projection, like play it out. Right. And then, and then you switch roles and then switch roles and keep doing that. But this is a way of getting that in there. Oh, what are you talking to right now? Who are you talking to right now? That’s really good, guys. Thank you for that. Yeah, totally. And it’s, it’s also, there’s a sense in it in a way that’s not like there’s the projection catching, but there’s also this sense of, of, and I’ve started to notice this too, this has been something that started to articulate, like when you’re listening to something, what is it to really listen to somebody and get, it’s, it’s like when it’s when you start to notice the possibility that is that they’re, that’s organizing their attention, right? It’s like that sense of like, what’s going beyond the horizon. Because if you think about it, there is that sense that every, like everything that I do is, is impregnated with a something’s possible, right? This teleotic sense of it. Right. And so getting somebody isn’t listing out what they just said. It’s actually kind of getting, what is it that they are so like, that’s beyond the horizon that they, it’s, it’s, it’s the thing that’s constituting their very being, right. And that when that is lit up, that’s the experience of being gotten, right. Of like, or that experience of like, Oh my God, I’m totally seen. It’s like, you see the possibility that, that, that I can’t, that everything that I’m, I am is in relationship with, right. That I’m impregnated by, but I’m so, but don’t. That’s interesting. I think that’s very convergent how I I’ve been trying to answer that same question. I think I’m really listening to somebody when I’m catching their relevance realization, where there’s a contagion, right? And I like, like when we talk about emotional contagion, but it’s relevance realization contagion. Yeah. And so that, right. I, I’m no longer outside of your world. I, I, I, I’m in it because it was like, your relevance realization is to some degree being not represented in me. It’s literally being instantiated. And yeah, yeah, absolutely. Cause it’s like, it’s so, I mean, we are so future. It’s like, so it’s, it’s, we are so future. Like just everything about announces this, you know, this ecstatic sense of time, right. Yes. And also that quality of just that sense of when somebody, I mean, it’s happening. And I think it happens on multiple levels too, of just like there’s the personal rest, like about my own character or something like that, right. But then there’s like, recognition of these meta things when, when you get something, there’s a way where, oh my God, something became possible, but what lights up is you go back, right. And you reconfigure that possible, you re-impregnate that possibility all through, all the way through your history where you get a whole new narrative. Right. Yeah. In that sense of, I think we’re always doing that on some level and where it gets fixed, right. And stuck, right. Are, are the, are the places where, where we get stuck, right. I agree. I agree. So I have, unfortunately I have to get going. Okay. That was wonderful. This is really wonderful. Thank you so much, John. Yes. Thank you, Guy. And I’d like to, if you could send me the files again, I will. My channel. You got it. You upload it on yours first, I’ll upload it on mine. What should we call this one? Um, well, I don’t know. I think, I think what we were moving between talking about the dialectic and talking about the logos, we’re moving between talking about the practice and talking about the process that’s realized. I would call it something like dialectic into the logos. Yeah. All right. Sounds good to me. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Bye.