https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=recITUO5R6Q
So, let’s start. So I want to try and so for a while, the relevance of this to dialectic distributed cognition and hyper objects will not be immediately apparent, because I’m trying to widen the base, so that we can ascend higher. To me it seems self evident this this this connect the dots. Okay, um. So, One, one. I want to post you that we there’s an important move, we have to make where we take the combinatorial explosive reality of anything. And we translate it into a. Let’s call it a melody of multiple perspective, multiple aspects. So what I start to do, so what does this, here’s an aspect here’s an aspect here’s an aspect here’s an aspect, but not just perceptual, it can be a phone, it can be right, it can be an example of a rectangle. To all the relevance realization machinery right, but what and then there’s an inexhaustible in this in that and that in exhaustible that is it’s moreness right. But what was well emphasizes is that, nevertheless, they are not chaotically related to each other. There is a through line of the through line isn’t that each aspect is identical right it’s not a logical identity, but somehow they belong together. And this role, I think, deliberately calls this the I dos alluding to Plato’s sense of the I dos of the thing. If you read Schindler, this is clear, and this is working with Dan Shafi, this is clearly what’s coming out right of what what Plato met by an I dos so here’s the idea. We have we have this we have an abstract truth of combinatorial explosion, we translated into phenomenological aspectuality. And then we move the and we extend that even imagineally that’s what Plato is doing in the Republic, when he’s reflecting on justice. We extend that multi aspectuality as much as we can imagineally and then we and then we realize what is trans aspectual what is running through that. And that’s the essence, but it’s not a logical essence it’s not a logical essence, because these things are not logically identical to each other, and we also. To the degree to which we begin to conform to the trans aspectuality we ourselves are disclosing our transformative identity and those are being bound together. Nice. How’s that so far as an argument. yep yep. I mean just to kind of like see it in a very different way. I’m. trying not to just like straight up crib forests stuff. The basic of the moves that i’m hearing is. We notice that in the omniscient mode. there’s a certain characteristic, which is this combinatorial explosion. yeah. And that when we address. hmm the experience the lived phenomenon phenomena by means of the faculties of the omniscient. there’s a particular challenge and things that can be done things that can’t be done when you unbound we try to un domain. We turn to not domain when you’re domain, you have a finite you don’t have a kind of commentary explosion, you have some boundary that allows you to make it finite which makes it renderable accessible to the faculties of the omniscient which I believe we’re going to end up calling calculated and communicative. Alright, so then, by the way, the omniscient now at this point, a little bit at a loss more, what do I do now, but then there’s this other set of faculties there’s the transcendent the transcendent has its own faculties. And that’s a key insight whoa we’re part of it, the transcendent is part of us, we are also transcendent we have this other aspect of self. That participates in this mode. Yes, in the transcendent mode, we are in relationship with the transcendent mode, which, in this case also represents the idos. Is the thing we will call the beingness of in the transcendent mode, and we have a faculty which I imagine will begin communicating about it as the contemplative maybe or something like that. Probably a set of faculties that are the ones that are appropriate for navigating and orienting and participating in that. Good good yes yes clearly clearly block what I’m doing that’s. Very exciting because you’re doing is big like you just threw something really big in the air and I somehow managed to catch it in a way that caused you to be happy so that’s good news. Okay, so we get that and so we get this idea. Platonic sense not in the blocking sense of a thought we get we get this conformity to an idos in transformative trajectory through its trans aspect reality and then we get. And then you get it’s of a unity that is not simply some kind of spatial shape unity, it is a it is a it is a it does not exclude that, but it is not reducible to that. It’s not right, and so what that and also we get a sense of the kind of non spatial unity that the self as in conformity to that non spatial unity of the idos. Right that’s how we start to get a sense of ourselves as ontologically extended and not merely spatially and temporally extended. That is that still tracking. Good. Okay, just want to so now the idea here is that. You can think of. You can think of. You can think of the expansion of the field of aspects as the moreness and you can think of the through line as the section us. Because what that ultimately represents is is the is the being for itself of any object, how it is ultimately integrated for itself it’s like spinosus canadus. Through it, and this is the ground of two things, according to Schindler following Plato, this is the ground of its intelligibility if you didn’t have both of those it wouldn’t be an inexhaustible fountain of intelligibility. hmm. But, as you just said, when you when you the mode of being like so when I do this, I am not trying to find any use in this thing. Because any use is to aspectualize it to I edit instead of it, and now you can see how this is moving towards the dialogue right I started right and what that means is. This is the deep connection that there’s a sense of goodness that is not ethical goodness for aesthetic goodness or even ultimately epistemic goodness. Here’s the idea that goodness is right ultimately grounded in the intelligible realness of anything. And what that means is. What that means is. So you know uses this phrase itself for itself to try and point at this, that this is ultimately what Nishatwani talks about the real self realization of reality it’s. It’s not centered in us, we are we we get a reversal we realize our centeredness in it, but it’s not in it it’s centered in this in bow. And that gives it an interest so here’s a way of thinking about it. When we experience the conformity of self to idos we get at the like and you get this in deep meditative states you get this you get the sense of life for the sake of life. Emotion for the sake of emotion awareness for the sake of awareness participation in being that’s the that’s the for itself, but then when you’re in this conformity you realize that that for itself within you is not centered within you but centered within. Reality. I’m sounding grandiose and that’s why i’m talking to you because you’re going to rain me in, but you see there there’s so there’s no in fact there’s first of all two points to the to the face of reason there’s no fundamental difference. From my for itselfness and realities for itselfness so I can’t privilege mine over realities and secondly I ultimately realized that my for itselfness is ultimately dependent on and grounded in the for itselfness of reality so whatever. Goodness my existence has for me, I have to even more intrinsic goodness to reality. Yes, okay so the thing that echoes for me most cleanly here is is Nietzsche. Yeah, right and specifically what’s happening here is the. Remembering. Or the return to this ground. Yes, yes. Yes, Nietzsche’s point is we found ourselves we lost we lost we lost got lost. Yes, we started here, we already started here, we’re born here, this is not this is not confusing to do a baby. For a one year old, this is a very obvious point, but in our history we got lost and we ended up looking at this notion of value of rightness as you say of goodness as having a. It’s funny I literally am seeing it as going from a point like a one dimensional point to align. Yes, it has a dimensionality to it has an aspect cavity to it has a relativity and of course that relativity in this case maybe precisely me. Right, so what happens is I move from being connected to the whole to being separate from the whole. Yes, now reality is meaningful in relationship to me to my needs. Yes. Yes. And, you know, Nietzsche’s point then is something like we then go through a process, you know, the West went through a process where we begin to kind of investigate investigate investigate, and we come to a conclusion that I can’t ground value. So then I end up being a nihilist. Yes, critique of nihilism have to find the exact section in their history. It’s exactly right but then he also has what I thought you’re going to go with, and maybe you work is, but he says but you have to get back to the place where you do the great, the great affirmation. Right. But then you get to the day saying spirit but the same spirit is really a remembering of the fact that this whole journey was a journey that we took. It’s not a journey that reality took reality is still sitting here going, yes, reality is just a pure yes. And we don’t have to justify reality we don’t have to protect or defend or, or upgrade or anything else. There’s a basic yesness that is more primordial than as the fundamental yes this is the thing that you should point to so that, you know, it’s the, you know, the post The answer to the postmodernist scream is like, relax, really just take a deep breath. You’re connected to the whole. And by virtue of feeling that connectedness to the whole, as you said it just right like the language, beautiful, like I feel myselfness. And I feel myselfness has a goodness that is basic fundamental in need of nothing. Right. What is that called unconditional love is primordial. You don’t grant unconditional love unconditional love is, and then of course you end up with forests, whole formulation is is. You don’t really say a whole lot more than that as you begin to say more than that. You can do it but now you have to be very careful you’re doing poetry, or you have to be very careful so okay every word I say from this point forward is going to begin the process of separating is into a field of not is what I’m doing. So, and the content of is includes as an index as a was a was a phrase a characteristic and intrinsic. And the content of is includes as an intrinsic. Yes, affirmation. Good. It is good. He looked upon the world and it was good. Yeah, like God, at the beginning. Yeah. And I like the movie you made there because you actually moved outside of nature to spinosa. And that’s where what reaches. Yes, is ultimately grounded in a will to power. Right. It’s the nose to seize the Canadian’s ultimately is grounded in the intellectual love of God. Yeah. And, and it’s been those that makes it clear, the wise man never endeavors to get God to love him in return, because if he’s doing that, he’s lost this fundamental affirmation of the goodness of God. Yeah. Right. Yeah, it’s more the answer is more like just acceptance. You have to accept, you have to allow, you have to be willing to receive that which is always already present. So the the Neil Platon has talked about a profound kind of receptivity, which is a dynamical kind of receptivity, the same thing that that’s happening in this attorney just had an excellent conversation, at least it on my channel with Daniel as a ruba, comparing the Neil Platonic tradition to initial tiny and the relationship between dialectic and Zen, and how the two of them can actually. So, you know, there’s a lot there’s a, I’m getting a lot published by the way right now too which is really, really exciting. So that’s a good measure. Okay. So, I think we’re really, really resonating with this we’re really resonating with each other. And so, I talked about this before, I mean one of the things that I’m taking away from Borden and he says but he doesn’t foreground. What we’ve just done is in a sense show how every object is actually a hyper object. Right. So, right. And so, the more prompt because they’re spatially temporarily hyper object to privilege them, but that’s because we’re privileged in a spatial temporal sense of unity and I’d ask which is ultimately not the ultimate sense of the unity and the Ida’s. Yeah. Yeah, that’s I can, I can feel the next few moves. So, the idea here is what, what we want to do is, we want a way of enhancing. So, I want to use the term, the adoption, you know, swirling and other people use that. So, you know, adoption is to draw out, and it’s related to education, it’s related to deduction and abduction, right and induction but it’s more basic, it is the realizing pattern of order that’s deduction. And so we’re doing what we’re, what we’re talking about here is an identity deduction so the question can now be asked, how can we enhance identity deduction. Because what it is, is, is the affordance of the realization of the goodness of being such that we fall in love with it as we’ve been discussing about here is the ultimate kind of wisdom. So now the idea is, well, the best way to do that the best and we talked about this last time and and the work that Dan check in our going, the most appropriate cognitive machinery for a hyper object is distributed cognition. Yep. So the idea here is the best way I can enhance the identity deduction is dialogically dialectically, but it has to be dialectic into the logos. What I have to do is I have to extend, like, the multi aspectuality. But I also have to be off to constantly be seeking in a Socratic fashion, the trans aspectuality, the find it. So what is courage, and we do all the multi aspects but none of them are sufficient, but we try and we try and you know you and I talked about We try to get the continuity of contact of the trajectory of right the trajectory through the transact sexuality that points to the hyper object I does the essence, and we’re doing it, imagineally, and we’re doing it with each other. And that that’s dialectic, but we have it, if it doesn’t afford the reversal. If it’s ultimately about me, or even me persuading you, then we don’t, we don’t get the IDOS. I like it is something we can commit ourselves to. But, right, if we don’t catch the for itself, Ness of reality. We haven’t actually practiced the logos. Yep, yeah yeah and I think you said it very nice. The way I was hearing it, or the piece of what you’re saying that came to the foreground for me was precisely, you know, an echo of somebody else which was, you know, if it’s for me, or me persuading you, which we might think of as an egoic. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We’re coming from an egoic place and egoic base, then we do not have the items. I mean, that’s the new we’ve now created a very strong way of framing that little proposition. Yeah, very powerful proposition. And what does it mean we don’t have the ideas, but one of the things that happens we don’t have the ideas, so we can’t actually do the hyper object stuff. Yes, exactly, which means and you see the move. We, right, so we do this for its own sake, because it is fundamental to our humaneness. And I mean this now what I’m going to say very. We have to do it religiously. Yeah. And so we cannot be doing it for the following reason. religiously, but it enables us to afford the kind of cognition that is necessary for prop getting into right relationship with hyper objects. Yes, which is how the whole notion of how do you sacred the sacred that’s the same now. Yeah, so we’re closing a lot of loops. Yes, so there was a proper. Okay, I can’t move me almost like to a Japanese sensibility. It’s Musashi. Huh, funny. So Musashi me more to Musashi like the father one of the fathers of Bushido. So, the point of the teaching is, don’t fear death. The only proper way to actually be a samurai in a dual is to reach a state of radically not fearing death like not recklessness or courage or any of those things like that but being so at one with life itself that the notion of your death is actually not even something that you can comprehend like it’s not a good thing that can have traction. And, by the way, as it turns out, if you do not fear death, then you cannot be defeated. And so, now, if you seek to not be defeated, you’ll be defeated, you’ll be defeated. Right so it’s perfect it’s always through that that’s like always the thing where, in many ways, obviously Bushido and Zen. But that’s it right the point is there’s a, there’s a proper in Hawaiian Pono. It’s a proper mode of relationship. Yes, it’s proper. Why do you do it, because it’s Pono, what do you mean, there’s no more I can’t go any deeper than that, like I guess the second I say anything other than that I’m actually getting further away from the thing. Okay, you are you and you, you you you well become you, I be are are yourself are into this. Why am I doing it because that’s what you are. Yes, you are yourself well so now you’re here. Yeah, nice. Okay, now, what is you. Bring your business bring your business to this moment, this moment is calling your business fully forth. Bring your business fully forth I’ll bring my business fully forth and we shall become, we shall is together in relationship with is this and is this in proper, if we are properly in is this, then, bizarrely enough. Now the idea is available. You could if you want to, you could run the loop this way. You know, if you want to unlock the lock you’re going to need a key. But the point of the key is, you don’t come that through that door that door is not the door to come through. It’s beautiful. Right. Yeah. Enlightenment enlightenment is not found by seeking, but it is never found by anyone who does not seek. Yeah, yeah, it’s a, you know, that’s the it’s the it’s the paradox and the paradox is beautiful, right paradox is absolutely beautiful. And you’re there. Okay, you’re there. And of course that’s the third term right so just to do the forest thing. You go through the omniscient to the trend center and then you land in the imminent. And then you land in the relevant relevance realization the actual embodiment you’re now you’re living in, you’re actually in life, living life in relationship with life, coming from and grounded in being. So now you have the ability to be, you know, in relationship and you’re yourself now has a proper expression. And so that that meaning crisis done, no meaning crisis, meaningfulness itself which is an intrinsic. You don’t need to make or impose or create or do. It’s an intrinsic, you just have to connect with become proper become opponent become aligned, become self right all these things are all just like different ways of saying the same basic notion. And then you have I dose, which now means that the capacity to make good choices to make effective choices is available. It’s grounded, you actually have the ability to discern yes from no. So make that and that’s, whoa, that’s very powerful. I think we also just finished Macintyre’s beyond virtue, or after virtue, after virtue. Yeah, yeah. Right after virtue problem is very simple. If you’re ungrounded from being, then you’re playing out an intrepid collapse of a formalism that was grounded in being, and it will end, and when it ends you’ll have chaos, you will not be able to distinguish up from down left from right and good from bad. Okay, that’s fine. That happens. Being is here, you are part of it. Just find it. Excellent. Okay, so here’s a follow up proposal. I’m going to, I’m going to make it. I’m going to, first of all, talk about three kinds of reasons. There’s a calculative reason, which is predominant, a calculative reason fix it’s an eye at relationship, and what I’m doing is, I identify the object as its, as its aspect of use to be. Right. There’s communicative reason and communicative reasons in the middle, and this means it’s, it’s nature is determined by whether it’s oriented up to contemplate a reason, or down to calculative. Right. And so communicative reason, right is where we are creating distributed cognition. If why I’m creating distributed cognition is I want to marshal you and use you to enhance my calculative control. Right, then we have, like, basically what goes on in sophistry. What I’m doing is I’m trying to, I’m trying to convince you to let me use you and manipulate you the calculated reason, the communicative reason can look the other way to look up to contemplate a reason and contemplative reason. So, the sophistry, again I want to make here now is why sophistry is anti dialectic. So, if you look at some of the things that Plato says about the surface. Right. So the surface is, you know, what’s the use of this, and they want, they want us, they, they, right. Talk about everything, but not say anything deep about any particular thing. So what what what Plato contrast is he contrast the superficial, the speedy superficiality of the sophist, who has a technique that can write win any argument in any domain, and because of that, it, it has pseudo universality. Right. And so, but then, Plato says what the philosopher the lover of wisdom is doing is they, they have and this goes with pons critico in the center of time, they say no no we have to linger and long for the logos, it’s a long for it. And so, if we get it easily isn’t the logos. If we if we if we feel if we’re in a rush and stressed and we got to get to the bottom line, and then we can’t hear the voice of reason we’re not available to logos, so he put right the point about the sophist is the sophist is actually right, trying to get a superficiality that simultaneously masks the moreness with pseudo universality and masks the suchness with how useful and practical. It is does that make sense as an argument. Very much so. Absolutely. Because many many different things get implicated in there right. It’s funny even like, we have now a language, artificial intelligence. Yeah, we can actually notice that sophistry is artificial intelligence. Yes, yes version of AI that we’re dealing with now just happens to be a advanced, and, you know, more machinic version of that same. Yeah, very much. We have. We have like a piece of the story of how things go, go awry. You know how it is that we end up locking ourselves into self extinguishing short term trade offs. And how, how we end up making truly truly in some sense, obviously terrible choices. All kinds of cool stuff that’s implicated. We even have like things going on inside the brain, like orienting towards certain neurological cognitive functions as opposed to others or the whole, there’s a whole bunch of really interesting ways you can take this story. But the. Yeah, the story is where my where my mind just went was the conversation I was having. I don’t think I actually had the conversation with Tyson young reporter I think I had it with my mental model of Tyson your reporter. You know, trying to get right down to the nub of, I guess the sense is, you’re due Christian routine boom dialogues. Yeah, yeah, I read the dialogues I’ve read both of them I didn’t know they had a dialogue. It did. It’s great. So Christian emergency keeps asking the question, more or less like what went wrong, like, how did we get off track. And you contemplate that question, how did we end up. Indigenousness Tyson your reporter is aware of this problem. Yeah, it’s not like they’re naive to the problem very aware of the problem. There’s, there’s one sin in universal and indigenous cultures it’s narcissism. Yeah, it’s that is the subordination of isness to for me. Yes, yes. He’s like and we’re not like we’re serious about like if you get called up for being a narcissist, like the thing that happens you just get your ass kicked like everybody in the village beats the shit out of you and throws you out, and then you’re welcomed in, you’re invited back in under very specific protocols, and so it’s not like it’s fundamental. Okay. So how did it get wrong. How does it go wrong, like what’s the thing that actually kicks us out of the Garden of Eden. How do we lose contact and lose the ground and find ourselves now wandering this increasingly sort of psychotic desert of sophistry, like we’re all sitting ourselves right how do we lose that ground what’s the thing there like that’s the, for me that’s the key trouble, like if we can, if we can get to the base of that, and then how to hold ourselves cleanly consistently in ground under, you know, some number of contacts like really really broad variety of contacts, like let’s say post climate change when she’s seriously getting bad. Right. Then we’ve done something. Yes, then we’ve done something that has been been the journey has been worth it, because we had to require that much of a journey for us to be willing to engage in this level of work to figure out how to kind of reground ourselves here. Yes, yes, that was well said. And I don’t know, but I just say a few things optimistically. Yeah. I love you. Yeah, like that was gorgeous beautiful powerful profound well said well considered heartfelt and I just like the way that was you’re gathering in and pulling in for me like pieces of all kinds of other stuff that I’ve experienced, and have been holding in different ways. And I guess it’s sometimes like reifying it but just putting it in just a nice to such a clean. It’s like it’s grounded. Like it’s, it’s wholesome rigorous rich like it’s just a, you know, it feels like the kind of it’s like, it feels grown up, feels mature, you know, feels like the kind of thing that civilizations are built around. Yeah, it’s like, sitting there. I remember as a young, you know, very young first first reading the dialogues, like 12 or 13 or something like that. And hearing you know people talking shit about the office. You know, you go okay, make sense. Guys are bullshitters I get it bullshit is not good. I’m with you. And then being an adult and go wait doesn’t everybody remember office or bad like why why are we letting office run everything right there. We know. We know thousands of years ago. What happened. Okay, you know they were there there was a there was a wisdom that is probably hard earned right hard earned wisdom, and somebody somewhere is able to come up with a new way of really grasping it grounding and like integrating all the harder and wisdom into a new which then becomes a container that holds a new step of new step of consciousness like a new step of our collective capacity to do this distributed contemplation grounding distributed cognition. That’s what you just said that phrase that’s a great phrase. Yeah. Thank you for that. By the way, I love you. Yeah, no I mean that’s that’s a getting close, we’re getting close. Well, I want to propose something it’s not the answer, but we need it within the answer. I’m taking it from the epistle of john. The Bible. Okay. I think, at the core, the one of the fundamental truths and when you say it, it’s trivial, but when you realize that it’s one of those, I’ve been ill at moments, right. We have a choice between love and fear. This is Spinoza’s big argument to. And we’re in a situation that in which the self fulfilling prophecy of the prioritizing of fear is an ultimate kind of bullshit. Yeah. Right. And so we decide we don’t decide but we get taken up by the salience of fear. And we turn our eyes away from the love of being and that’s ultimately what truth is ontological truth is the love of being for its own sake. We love to return. Now this sounds trivial but I’m trying to get at something here. There’s a turn and then once you’re into fear mode, you’re into it, you’re into control. And the problem with that is it becomes self fulfilling self promoting, and therefore self evident that this is how things really are. And it makes the ultimate bullshit claim of being the most realistic way of being. Wow. Yeah. It makes the ultimate bullshit claim of actually taking the position of being seriousness itself. Yes. That’s a good move. Get it. Nice move bullshit nice move. We’re in trouble. Well, yeah. Well if you’re in trouble what you should do is you should talk to me. Yeah. Right. Why, why I’m the guy who understands how to deal with trouble. We’re in real trouble. I’m the guy you should talk to. Why, because I’m the serious guy. But that guy. But that guy has a waste of time. Yeah, it’s funny that you see it interior. Yeah, exterior, right. What is your do always an authority. Hey, over here. Yeah, serious guy. I’m going to do the problem. Me. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah it’s funny. So, hmm. There’s a phrase like primordial knowing. I can hear. I remember talking to my daughters. In the context of my dad. Right. But they were there with their grandfather and he’s like telling them stories is a very like a moment of like hey let’s convey some wisdom. Right. Girls, one of the things that might be really powerful right here is to notice how you feel in your body. When you’re hearing your grandfather talk because this is what I’ll tell you. Your grandfather is an honorable man. He’s a deeply honorable man. And so, when you feel the feeling of that of what you feel when you’re interacting with him in this mode. And so, when you’re interacting with him in this mode, you’re not feeling that he’s an honorable man. And if you’re not feeling that he’s not. So trust yourself. That is the thing that you can trust. And if you learn how to trust that you’ll be making deep choices. Well, it’s for making deep choices. It’s not for making shallow choices and make for deep deep choices. This is what it’s for. And if you get good at it, you’ll make deep choices well it doesn’t mean you’ll be right. You’ll be bouncing off the walls with a little more elegance. And that’s, um, hmm. So primordial knowing that sense of like, and as I’m hearing this like I’m with you I’m like feeling on all the different registers that in my life I have learned to trust right I didn’t come into this naively like I’ve done things in life that have had a moment and have complexity, many things and I’ve learned different kinds, and I’ve learned which aspects of myself, if I listen to them. They’re the ones that have tended to be the ones I should have listened to. And so I have, you know, so what I’m seeing here now is a being of that particular kind of instrumentality going. Yes, there’s a lot of yes, a lot of yes here a lot of strong yes a lot of going in this direction yes. I’m going to go with groundedness, distributed cognition. Right fear bullshit. The availability of return. Right. And then the epistle says, only fear cast us drive about drive. I’m using Shakespeare language, only fear drives what only love drives away. I’m pretty sure john spoken Shakespearean language. Yeah. I was brought up with the King James so when I’m speaking rapidly I fall into it. I’m reading my way through David Bentley hearts new translation of the new test. So, I mean I’m doing like to do you know which is really helping. But this idea and then until it talks about that in Spinoza when he’s talking about Spinoza response that he said, Spinoza got the idea that the only thing that will overcome the way we’re driven by fear is a fundamental love. The only kind of love that is not beholding to fear is a love that does not require it is return. Yeah. So you get to these things and you know I can and I can hear some Christian sort of like well of course we knew this all along but my point is, but if you do, or if you did. Why are we in this place. There’s something there’s something that has gone fundamentally wrong, such that these truths that this wonderful beautiful Cathedral of ideas and practices, you built up. They are no longer they are they are blocking the son of these truths, rather than affording them right egress, so I, there’s something going on there. Sure enough, and you can feel it like if you just like run the history back. Yeah, pick any point in time in history of the history of the West. There’s a lot of fear in the church. Yes, lots of fear. Yes. Okay, kind of that’s it done. I don’t know why like what I don’t know where when that maybe didn’t happen in some sense even the very nature of the origin of the church, the capital C has a characteristic of protection from. Jordan that’s a, that’s a very good point, because I think that the by valence by directionality of the sacred. The sacred is supposed to provide a home home in which the practices have the safety frame that affords serious play. No home, no serious play no serious play no development. So the church has a real right and responsibility to homeless, but it also has to expose us to horror. It has to do both. And what happens I think is the appropriate tone offs creative tension between those two gets lost, because it’s easier. The tension is hard. It’s easy to gravitate to one of the polls. Yeah, and I would also mention something like context. So, the metaphor that popped in my head was just like mothering. Right. Right. We’re talking about parenting as well right. Parenting has to create home as great a context where the child has the safety to be grounded, and also to grow. Right. Yeah. And, you know, what ends up happening is is that you can default into either the neurotic mothering, or the permissive, not on. And generally speaking that happens when there’s overwhelm. I was overwhelmed and can’t hold the integrity of this because of simple overwhelm, right, by whatever means, then a kind of default or defense strategy, you know, fuck it, or, ah, right, I’ll say I’ll simplify I’ll settle for, you know, you didn’t die, I’ll throw away a lot of stuff. And by the way, as a parent, spend a lot of time over here. A lot of time over here you don’t get to spend a whole lot of time here because parenting is overwhelming and let’s just kind of add agricultural civilization was very overwhelming for hominids. Yeah, and the majority was very overwhelming for people. So, you know, each each sort of wave that we’ve gone with my throne more and more our capacity to just hold. And, and then it gets overwhelmed. Once it gets overwhelmed you start getting kind of a procession, like a spiral, where beyond a certain level of integrity, the movement out of the basin of holding this starts to create a feedback loop of bullshit starts to create a destabilizing Yeah. And would you say you said something about, like, fear bullshit and then the bullshit begins to self fulfilling prophecy that then actually tends in a bullshitty fashion to be the self evidence of reality. But then, but then you’re thinking about what you said earlier. And so, although this is, we are not. This is not what we seek. We nevertheless get it in the seeking. Right. The training in identity deduction teaches us how to find the through line and transform to it. Oh my god, respond to the overwhelm. Oh, gosh. Wow. I apologize I was I was sort of listening to you and also. So an animal cannot fall. I can take a dog. And I can put the dog in some very bad situations, the dog is nonetheless going to be connected to the ground. Human can. That’s what we are. We are that kind of thing that aspect of reality that can become ungrounded. Yes, Zach said this in a conversation yesterday, the opposite of humaneness is not animality. We don’t become animals. We become demons. Yes. And, and that’s because we have choice. We must consistently choose, and the scope of our capacity to choose is a real problem. It’s a real thing like we have a real capacity to choose that’s it, we have. But what I’m saying is the capacity to choose and the, and are, and the, and the threat of overwhelm are inter defining things. The capacity, like, and being able to discern the through line of to find. So here’s all these things. This is overwhelming this is common toile explosion. Yes, but can I see them as multi aspects of some underlying thing. Maybe, and then if I can find the through line in all the multi aspects welly, then I can discern how to reconnect to the ground. Right, which is you know, wisdom and life. Yes. Yes. Right, because you’re just saying like if I do that developmentally, which I think is a proper way of putting it, you know, I’m, I’m flowing as a being as a human in life. And, you know, I will be kicked off, you know, be kicked out of my equilibrium by by life, life just does that. If it’s a relatively well held life, right, so now I’m going back to my indigenous, broadly speaking, I’m kind of in a growth mode. Right. So my, my being kicked off creates an unstable equilibrium, which then I have enough support and capacity to reintegrate into a larger hole. And now my, my self has grown in more relationship with reality, there’s more complexity and reality that I can hold while still being grounded. Now I step back out into the broader world like is keep iterating that there’s home, I can always return home. And then I adventure out and I return home and I adventure out and I go. And, you know, if something happens where home itself is destabilized, then it’s a harder thing like this is orbiting procession. And of course I began to bring damage back to home as I start getting out of equilibrium you create this really big orbit, which again, like I said earlier, can become a big learning. Yes, I know for able to come to the end of it and go. And integrate it, bring it back into a much larger hole that is now taken all of that, whatever 10,000 years of civilization, and come back to being grounded. Big learning, big wisdom. So we put two things together here that Schindler explicitly puts in the book. What I’m calling contemplative reason. And I said this earlier, it cultivates our human it cultivates our human humanness. But it’s also. It’s a, it’s a way of enacting a commitment to our humaneness and our commitment to the whole. One moment, one moment sorry. Okay. Yes. Would you give me a Richard scary book. Yeah, scary. Yeah, cars and trucks and things we go to the best. Well, Richard scary. All right. Have a good time for library little one. My little one my almost three year old has a library card. Oh, and she’ll be going to the library under her own name for the very first time. That’s to share that with me in a big way. Well that that’s that should have priority. Absolutely. That’s what I felt I felt. I looked at her, I noticed that there was something not just like, like banging on the window. Yeah, it was like a desire to communicate it’s like okay, let’s go let’s go meet that. So you just exemplified what I was just talking about about contemplative reason as a, an enactment of our commitment to, as we said earlier, what about contemplative reason is to cultivate our humaneness. But it also enacts our commitment to a greater whole to the whole, and you just did it. Right. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be some deep, you know, meditative state, it can be just that state where, right, where you’re doing exactly that. Yeah, and it’s like a little bit of naval gazing here might be useful so the context is that we have a relationship that allowed that to be part of the story. Yeah, I was able to I was able to perceive the possibility. Yes, of that, and then contemplate that that possibility was the rightness without being foreclosed by the conversation saying no no, like, I own this attention it was like no this conversation is about this conversation is actually invoking me into a higher intentionality I suppose. Yeah, that’s exactly it. So that’s that that was actually fortuitous because that’s what I mean about communicative reason, being in the service of contemplative reason, rather than calculate, so you could have your daughter’s communicating with you and it’s like don’t interrupt me. And then you go into, how can I get her out of my hair as quickly as possible. Yeah, you could have done that, but you didn’t you instead went, okay, this communicative reason binds me into a relationship, but that relationship itself is ultimately is a relationship that is not owned in a comprehensive set of commitments. It’s. You’re running this down right you’re recording it good. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They’re gonna say like in some sense it’s very simple. It’s very simple. In other sense I can barely even hold it all. The hands fly in the bottle right. Yeah, you have to do all of this. Right, Keith, right, some people interpret him is that we’ve just dazzled ourselves with which ourselves with language, but there’s a newer reader, newer reading of wicked son coming on board, which says no no, you have to always remember the proper place of the mystical and different styles. The place isn’t to return as, you know, while and hacker others to sort of common sense everyday life. In one sense that’s true, but you let the fly out of the bottle because it releases you back into these, these mystical realizations that are simultaneously the most simple the most grounded. So, I’m trying to get the place where I can properly appreciate that. Yeah, it’s very very hard. I find it very very hard in some ways. Well, I noticed in myself that there’s a almost like just like a feeling of connectedness. There’s a feeling of connectedness that grounds the simplicity. So that the simplicity has. It doesn’t need to be any more than it is. Right, because if we are looking, I mean because it’s already the whole nexus of the moreness of the suchness to try, trying to do anything with it is to, to, again, place it in service of something other than itself, which is to misapprehend it in a profound way. So then you enter into the interesting question of communication. Yeah. By definition, no one can be convinced of contemplative reason. I just read the chapter on that in Schindler’s book, and it’s entitled, the truth is defenseless. Right, right. Okay, well then what do you do, you is sorry we’re back to that again. Well, you is, but I mean, there is, there is a way of ising that it is self. It is self important to cultivate and Schindler’s argument is ultimately that Socrates is exemplifying that in a way. And so, the dramatic, where we take the dramatic to be the exemplification of something for people in an attempt to disclose its intelligibility to them. Socrates dramatizes contemplative reason. Plato says, because you know Plato consistently presents Socrates, not being able to convince other people. Yeah. But Plato says in the seventh letter right. What, what, what will that do. Right. What happens is you see people wanting to spend more time, they want to linger with Socrates, because they’ve clock is longing for the logos, and eventually, Plato says something catches because of the exemplification. And so, he’s not actually convinced somebody other. And to my mind, and Schindler does it very gently but nevertheless firmly. This is a profound critique of what has happened to professional philosophy philosophy has fallen away from this kind of commitment. And profound. That’s, in many ways my. I was a philosophy undergrad. Yeah, yeah, it was self evident to me after just a little bit of contemplation that pursuit of that as a profession was in violation of the reason I was attracted to it in the first place. Yes. Yeah, it seems like what ends up happening is something like your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends, your friends are not as helpful or heartful or wholesome or there’s something, not sure what it is, but you know, if you aren’t obsessing, if you have not capitulated to this way, then all the other aspects of yourself are kind of like, maybe a little bit more of that, kind of pointing in that direction. You know, you’ll lean and I think when it’s happening, certainly was my life experience, is you begin to trust those pointers, which means you also get better at listening to them and they get more clear and stronger and the context that you’re in becomes more wholesome, which becomes more supportive. And you get yourself a, we’ve talked about, it was a positive feedback loop in the upward direction. Yeah, and it does it. Yeah, and then there’s moments of chyrus, sometimes Socrates takes his given hemlock or given an opportunity, an invitation to take hemlock and you get a discretion. That’s the ultimate dramatization, because I cannot convince you the unexamined life is not worth living. I can dramatize it for you. And this is like, this is his an analogy, maybe it’s helpful. Unless you catch the taste of my enthusiasm. I cannot convince you to travel to a country you’ve never been to before. Yeah. In fact, if you’ve never traveled. I remember reading in high school, just really I can’t, I can’t find it. This story, it was a beautiful story. It was, you know, we were talking about the Intelligent Will Spear project we were talking about these, these things that are like foundation, the short story called travel is so broad. Travel one travel is so broadening. There’s a story about this couple and they’ve been traveling, right, they’ve been traveling, and they’re telling their friends about it. And what becomes apparent, and then they keep saying travel is so broadening but all they see wherever they go is just everything that right, they, they are bound to a kind of parochialism that they can’t bring free from. And that made this huge impact on me and it’s like, what’s the difference between the person who travels and never leaves the prison of the parochialism and the person who travels and travel is genuinely broadening. And this is Plato’s metaphor. The broadening travel you will have to see the sun, and you come back. And most people can’t hear you’re trying to point to a country that they do not know about in Narnia it’s as land country. They can all date, there’s nothing you can say that will convince them, unless they have thought that that first flash of the broadening of travel. Yeah, the taste of your enthusiasm I like the, the set of words there’s just right exactly they can, ah, like even reminded that all right, I’ve had that experience Yeah, it’s funny, because you can do it. Okay, you take it back, remember as a child like find a spot find any spot any point where you’ve had that experience okay cool. Now let’s work from there, let’s sit in that place together and let’s work out from there. Yeah. Unless you become as little children you cannot enter the kingdom of God. Right. So, so, so then, then we have a, are we done, do we run out of time. I’m almost out of time I want to hear the next thing you say that I could feel. I think we’re sort of in many ways that sort of a combination of a. This work continues, but a big piece of this is a therapeutic piece. Yes. The therapeutic piece at the individual level at the inter relational level and then at the, at the level of the larger social context. And that’s where the, that’s where the work I’m doing with Greg and Zach is so pertinent, because it’s trying to find exactly that point, the meta psychology that can give you the pedagogy, the therapy, and the contemplative reason that we need. Exactly. Like, and I’m not saying we have the answer but like exploring that profoundly. And Greg and Zach are both brilliant, and they’re bringing terrific frameworks and ideas and reflection to bear on, and also, you know, a deep kind of Socratic commitment. I feel like I’m at the beginning of a tale of two cities, this is the best of times. This is the worst of times. Yeah. Yeah, of course. You know, in some sense, of course. Yeah, even like I remember very personally, the process of getting divorced at a very similar sensibility to it. Yep. When something is out of integrity when something in some sense should not be the process of it shifting back into integrity is painful and also joyful. Yes. Well my friend I need to go and you have. You have honed my presentation beautifully. You entered into it with and FIAS. And, you know, deeply appreciated insight. So thank you very much for that. I think I might want to post this publicly but I still want to do what I want to do it again and go deeper. I love it. I love I love even the playfulness of what that possibility would look like. I do two versions of the same one and post them next to each other. Yes, you can come to patient take to what, what just happened. Can you notice a difference to anything happen. Yeah. Well, yeah, that was intense. Thank you. That was really intense. I’m glad you appreciated it. In both senses of the word. I foresaw that you would, but I also foresaw that you would take it beyond what I could do with it myself. And that’s why I wanted to enter into the discussion with you. I’m in. Take good care of it.