https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Ft_7n3eUytQ
Welcome, everyone, to Voices with Viveki. I’m joined by my friends and colleagues, Jordan Hall and Drake Enriquez. I’m sure many of you have seen both of them before, because I’ve had multiple conversations with both of them, but I thought I’d give them each a moment to introduce themselves. What we’re going to do today is we’re going to enter into the dialogos about trying to explicate and elucidate the connections between our works, various work, and see what emerges from that. So who would like to go first and introduce themselves? I’ll go ahead. Greg Enriquez, professor of grad psych, graduate psychology at James Madison University and interest in theoretical psychology, unifying psychology, so that we can guide our way toward wisdom in the 21st century. Nice. Yeah, so before we started the call, I mentioned that this kind of question is almost intractable for me. And one of the things that I noticed is a very distinct sense of resistance to trying to create a finite set of semantics, particularly anything attached to this notion of my biography, because it almost certainly can’t be the thing. Like, I could invoke some subset of my biography, which is always going to be a projection, some slice through the whole thing. But even that probably isn’t relevant, because what I can say for sure is that I’m definitely part of my thing, is I’m in some kind of journey into the future. And one of the big areas of inquiry is what is the self that is in that journey into the future, and what is that aspect of biography that is not coming along through that journey? And I don’t have a good answer to that. I don’t know. And a big part of that is a necessity to not know, because otherwise you may be holding on to stuff that’s not supposed to be coming along. No doubt. So that inquiry, that continual process of extending into that journey into the future, and the increasing capacity, I hope, to be able to be more elegant in that, to be more fully capable of making those choices on a momentary basis, I would say is the best way of naming the event that is sometimes referred to as me. That was beautiful. That’s what I thought he would do. He exemplifies, he doesn’t just speak. And what I found you exemplifying there, Jordan, is one of the primary, I don’t know what to call it, the metanoias, meaning that changing of noesis, how you notice, but also that sense of conversion, like religious conversion, that’s at the core of many of the wisdom traditions. You see it in Stoicism very clearly. You see it in Taoism very clearly. I think you see it in at least the versions of Buddhism with which I’m familiar, which is the shifting from the function, the shifting of the function of identification off of horizontal autobiography onto what I might call vertical ontology, where you’re identifying more with the ontological functionality of who you are rather than the autobiographical functionality of who you are. And I think that is one of the primary components of wisdom, precisely because, and this I think is very relevant to the way you’ve even situated this conversation, it is one of the primary ways in which human beings can respond profoundly and possibly adequately to the perennial problem of their mortality, where mortality doesn’t mean the fact that we’re going to die. That’s like in Ivan Illich. Ivan Illich knew he was going to die the way you know the two plus two equals four, but mortality in the sense that was really championed by the pragmatists like James and others, that we are always finite, vulnerable, and in transformation. And yet, nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that we can exist in a purely arbitrary fashion. We have to find a place between algorithmic certainty and arbitrary, you know, an arbitrary license. And getting to be mortal in that way requires that shift. And like I said just before we began, I knew Jordan would just, something in that moment, and he did. You just exemplified something that I think is central to wisdom practices. One of the things that I think is coming into articulation in both senses of the word right now in what we’re in, you know, the meta crisis, the meaning crisis, the complexity acceleration that you talked about Jordan, is both a confrontation with and a need to reconceptualize that mortality. Amen. I know you were checking out Tapp, Stuart Kaufman’s The Adjacent Possible. When I was reading his stuff, he talked about the unprestatable future. Unprestatable. And so how do we connect to the past and what I call the sea of effect that has happened and the sea of possibility that we ride the edge of? And see, and so, I mean, where that comes into what I just said was exactly that that’s, you know, to capitalize on Andy Clark’s phrase, you know, that’s the wave of uncertainty. And that’s the way we’re riding right now and Jordan and I have been talking about that. And so, I mean, that’s an interesting thing maybe we can explore. Because here’s a possibility. I’ll throw it out and we’ll see if it germinates. I think it obviously connects directly immediately to a lot of what Jordan’s doing because I just tried to articulate that. And then, Greg, you and I have had discussions about spirituality within psychotherapy in which I think one way we could talk about that is exactly this, that human beings have to confront deeply and come to appreciate their mortality as something not just in terms of their autobiography, but, you know, in terms of like a lot of the stuff you talk about. Absolutely. Right. No, I mean, it’s the, obviously, the existentialist, Frankel talks about the will to mean, will to meaning, right? And fundamentally, how do we align ourselves across the levels and dimensions of our existence on the time continuum that places ourselves in a juxtaposed situation? When I was, when I built the Tahrir Bala’s for the first 10 years, interesting enough to riff a little bit more, the metaphor, what I have, and I’ll show you at some point, is right the way. That’s what it was called. Right the way. Excellent. Awesome. Check this out. So you got like uncertainty and you got relationship with uncertainty, right? And there’s basically two or three basic modes. Like one mode is uncertainties out there and you’re like, oh, shit, uncertainty, I’m going to pull back, right? And in that mode, one of the subsidiary responses is, oh, I’m going to reduce the uncertainty, right? But that’s actually coming from the disposition of pulling back in the context of uncertainty. Then this is other mode, which we might call adventure. I hope uncertainty is the necessary condition for any kind of venture. So then the next thing is like, that I was feeling the felt sense of being a Polynesian, like way back in the day. I remember having a conversation with a new friend of mine about what was the felt sense of being a Polynesian, getting ready to go in the ocean. The key insight was this. There was this, we even talked about it, John, faith. There was faith. There was faith. And it was faith in the sense of groundedness, right? For sure, no idea what lay beyond the horizon and simultaneously, such a comprehensive connection with the milieu, like so integrated with the ocean and all of its languages, that there was just a sense of connection, of groundedness in the uncertainty that it was in fact, continuous adventure. Like there’s an openness into it. And there’s that ride the wave, right? You actually have to achieve or accomplish a level of embodied mastery of being in relationship with the flow of the reality that you’re in that allows you to be in relationship with uncertainty as the unfolding of adventure. Bingo. So it sounds like the two come together then, right? So, and I think the Polynesian metaphor is wonderful because that move to an ontological sense of identity, and you’re invoking it, Jordan, with the groundedness. It’s very participatory. Yeah, it’s participatory and respectable. Not that the propositional and the procedural aren’t there. They are, but there’s the groundedness, there’s the alignment. And then there’s the, it’s almost like there’s that, you know, Barfield talks about the felt sense and consciousness. There’s a sense of a, you know, of a stricken, right? You know, that there’s a, and Plato talks about this. You get that this gets aligned in such a way that there’s that trust. A synergistic rhythm, you know? Yeah. A synergistic rhythm that embodies you as you ride the cusp of the wave as a, especially if we can get it harmonized across units, you then have the collective. I recommend the boys in the boat if you want a description of it. That’s a great narrative of the 1936 crew team about how crew, how certain crew teams can get in such a precise rhythm that they become the whole. So aren’t those both, like I’m now I’m using like stereoscopic vision, aren’t those fused the way the left and right field are fused into depth perception when you’re doing psychotherapeutic practice? Because presumably, I mean, you’re focused on the client, but you have to be like, you have to be aligned and in tune with yourself and you have to be riding the wave because they’re a complex system and they’re going to be unfolding in unpredictable ways because there’s, you know, because there’s factors that are unknown to them, unknown to you that are, you know, driving everything that’s happening there. So that must be something that’s very pregnant when you’re doing psychotherapy. Oh, absolutely. You know, I mean, I say good psychotherapy always starts with Rogers and Rogers fundamental task was to essentially empathize with the core organismic valuing process of the individual’s heart. Okay. And so you then have to get through the social self and the conflicts and the shit, you know, that is actually the defense against uncertainty and threat, right? That causes them to freeze, causes them to get rageful, causes them to flee, causes them to be obsequious. Those are sort of four poles and sort of, if you go into Polyvagal theory, you can see that embodiment of defense. Okay. You have to weave through that stuff and then start the process of honing and mirroring. So the person can actually be like, Hey, wait a minute, that is a potentially a way to harmonize with something inside of myself, my conscious self and the other, and see that there’s a potential here for this uncertainty to grow in a positive direction. Okay. So one of the things that I’ve noticed I’ve been really curious about now for the past say three or four years is what is the primary protocol for relationship in, so we can put this a little bit more context. Crew, the notion of crew maps very closely to the notion of tribe, which is to say that our instinct in the context of crew is to shrink the number of relationships to a small number that is cultivated over some long period of training together. Exactly. What I would propose is that that is going to be an error, that we actually have to learn how to create a capacity, a protocol for relationality that enables us to effectively crew on a flowing basis to move and enter like what we’re doing right now. The three of us that have a level of relationship, we are definitely not a crew, but if we can actually achieve this mastery, I hate to use the word, I should go with hyper instead of meta. If we can look at a hyper crew, we can effectively find a way to establish that protocol. What you just said I think is super powerful. It’s almost like, you know how in the process of development, we could pitch the entire history of evolution from biology all the way up. You’re saying is, look, when I first meet somebody, we’re going to have to recognize, we have to start at zero. So we’re going to engage in a mammal to mammal interaction. We haven’t even begun the process of communication at the level of neocortex. First thing we’re going to have to do is just have a primary protocol, which is allowing our bodies to come into a felt sense of, oh, okay, there’s a safeness and a non-defensiveness in this space that we can actually begin to communicate. Then it begins to build. That’s right. It’s called attachment security because attachment, obviously, when you were born, it’s to what extent does that relational system start harmonizing or not and become secure or insecure with the dance of the usually mother, but whoever the primary caretaker and then secondary caretakers are that lays down the phylogenetic to ontogenetic primate core. Then you have to figure out how to dance with that. What it’s tracking at its intuition is what’s called relational value. That’s am I known and valued here at my core or I have to fake it, do I have to hide it? What the hell am I? Then if you mirror with them and you’re tracking, then they’re intuiting, hey, does this guy trust me? Is he real have interest? Is he just going through a fucking protocol? He’s just checking boxes so he covers his ass. These are all the subtle tests that are happening when somebody comes into the office and is looking for something they don’t even know what they’re looking for. I’m wondering then if this, it sounds like this plugs into something that you and I, Greg, have been talking about, which is, and then Jordan, you and I and Chris and I have been trying to work out, is the problem and the guy who wrote philosophical companionships talks about this. The problem with therapy is it is focused on a particular individual and of course we need therapy. This is a no way a criticism of therapy. What we’ve talked about, is the idea about can we find a way to exact the skill set from things like psychotherapy out into an existential arena? I’m actually seriously considering whether I’m going to retain my license. I’m going through a bit of a professional crisis because as my vision of what the world needs, as to what needs to happen, I went from, oh my God, look at all these beautiful psycho technologies and then there are beautiful psycho technologies that are now cloistered in professional offices. Then behind the scenes and then at a systemic level, I’ve started wondering more and more over the last 10 years, what does it mean? You have your shitty relationships out here and then you go in and we create this cultivated perfect cloistered relationship where I mirror you as a professional and then you get this sort of known felt of existence and then you go back out into the real world. Trust me, it’s not uncommon then all of a sudden to actually say, wait a minute, you’re my best person who I want to talk to. You’re the person I want to connect to because actually you mirror me and this whole thing is actually gratifying my core needs in a particular way. Well, hello, this is not what it should be. If this is the core of relation, why isn’t that distributed across families and communities, across companies or wherever? Why are we actually, so actually I’ve been very, I’ve had a shift in terms of my own framing about what, and of course we need psychotherapy, but I am not certain that it doesn’t actually start to create a negative externality in the way in which we start to think about relationships and other kinds of issues and these are things that have to distribute into what I would call the meta culture or the culture into, this is the relationships for the civium. Yeah, yeah, so there’s a formal way of actually describing this domain. It’s called the commons and so the recognition to say, look guys, there’s actually three fundamental domains and we’ve eliminated one of them and we’ve been trying to navigate reality with just two. You’ve got the formal domain of the state, formal relationships organized according to some kind of objective sense. You’ve got the formal domain of the market, the relationship of therapists. You’ve got the commons, which is actually more fundamental. It is the basis of the other two. What we’ve done is we’ve actually eliminated the commons almost entirely and moved it into one of those two categories and what you’re pointing out is that fucking hell, this concept of therapist is actually just called friend in the simplest version. And by the way, parent is a subsidiary of friend. It’s just a different quality. Yeah, if we go to Aristotle’s version of what friendship is, absolutely. That’s what we should be. Exactly. So returning that, finding a way, and by the way, I think that’s also the answer to the point of the meaning crisis. The meaning crisis is nothing more or less than that. I think that’s right and that just drives on what I’m going to say next because the place in which we try to practice the commons and I’m going to introduce another term because I think friendship, I think we’ve lost the aristocrat sense too much. So I’m going to use a term that’s somewhat archaic but it’s good. Fellowship. We used to have a capacity for fellowship with people and the place where we practice fellowship, and this comes to my own upbringing, was in a religious context. One of the things that religion does was what do we hold in common? And then of course the very problem that we were talking about, it arises as a tension within religion and it’s basically, a prototypical instance is the Theravadin Mahayana split. Well no, the way you do this is you actually retreat into a monastery where it’s cloistered, to use your term Greg. No, Mahayana says no, no, we need it so that everybody can get access to it. Yes, we can have people in the monastery but we need, that’s not where it’s at. What that does is that’s basically, let’s speak that like a lab where we’ll test out stuff and one of the primary design features of that lab is it has to be, if you use Paul VanderKlae’s phrase, it has to be scalable. It has to be scalable and if not then it’s not actually, we shouldn’t be supporting that monastery. So I propose to you that yes, I think it lines up with the meaning crisis because as we’ve lost religion and as we’ve lost the relationship between the monastery and the school, the university, we’ve lost fellowship and we’ve lost the lab for improving it and we’ve lost the way in which that’s supposed to then feed back into the commons. Brilliant, brilliant and that goes right with that science notion, right, of course that at a foundational level what we’re trying to do here is create the proper education in this time between worlds and we have to retranslate, right, and the other word that came to mind in terms of cultivating the commons in the religious context or in our west is agape, right, it’s like how do we hold and for me relational value is the term that I use is being known and valued by important others and really it’s if we’re going to network the commons together in a healthy way, it is fostering mutual relational value. Well I think that picks up on Pilla’s definition of agape, right, agape is the creative love that creates persons within a community of persons and that’s exactly the so we’ve lost the notion, I think, and these two get lost together, I would argue, we’ve lost the notion of personhood and we notice we started with that because that’s what Jordan was exemplifying, a different notion of personhood, remember, the vertical, we’ve lost these two notions in a correlated fashion, we’ve lost the notion of personhood as something that we all have to do together agapically and therefore we’ve lost also the corresponding notion of fellowship, right, so our culture we have been reduced to citizens of the state and consumers of the market, we are not participant persons within the culture anymore. Right, that’s great because the tree of knowledge what it what it identifies in matter, life, mind, culture and then it identifies well what are the nodes of operation in each and so basically an atom, a cell, an animal, and a person, okay, so the culture person and that’s our self-conscious justification in a noted network of justification systems then embodied in a set of practices, okay, so the fundamental thing is actually how do we network the culture together, we regulate it off to the goddamn state, right, and then mechanically oriented economically and then we gut it religiously, boom, the commons become shallow, empty, and broken. So that means we’ve sort of articulated two problems then, one way and you can see it in directions, one is how do we and I’m using this word very deliberately, how do we exact what we’ve learned from psychotherapy and how do we exact what we can remember from our religious history such that we can get what is needed now to get back what Jordan is calling the commons and I’ve tried to give a little bit of grammar to that notion as the place in which you know personhood and fellowship are being are the central things being cultivated. Brilliant. Yeah, my mind was turning to history, yeah, to the actual specific history that gave rise to where we are, okay, how did this thing come to pass and then what does that tell us about how we might then proceed into the future, excellent, and I was also integrating in the exterior, what we might call the socio-technical or the objective sociological mode, during the interior psychological and it’s okay we could do the same thing and I think it’s important to actually do it so you know if you’re looking at many of the biggest problems that we are facing today at the level of the objective has to do with the fact that we’re trying to solve commons problems using markets and states. Yes, well said, brilliant, brilliant. Actually, that’s a very, yeah, star that thing. Yeah, put a pin in that, just say that again, that is really good, that is really good. And I should mention by the way, I may have to actually literally take off and search for it because I had a conversation maybe a week ago with a woman in Australia who is like going to be my primary mentor on this because this has been her life’s work is exactly this question and of course there’s Michelle Bowens and the P2P people who’ve been working on the commons question for quite some time, there’s a whole crew here, right, right, that reference that crew in a big way but yeah so it’s funny I imagine I’m almost sure that if we actually spent the time to look at it historically there was a like a one-for-one correlation. You guys know about the the enclosure movement in England? No, I don’t. All right, so I don’t vaguely about it, yeah. In the transition of the time period that John you talk about the meeting crisis of that 15 to 1600s where a lot of stuff was going on in terms of mind and exactly that moment of course capitalism was showing up and one of the like first moves in capitalism is they had to engage in enclosure they had to move property land out of the commons that was being managed by a medieval commoning institutional structure into private ownership which did then be made available into the into the into the institutions of capitalism as it was beginning to evolve. Right, right, right. So you know that move happened, right, that’s it, we have a nice historical track of that and played a huge role particularly because it was England was the place where it first happened so the English were like pop this is what we have to do so there’s like a rendering available to an institutional structure that had certain kinds of I would imagine probably locally optimal capacities right rarely are these things entirely malevolent they’re usually just short-sighted and there’s a double coordination like let’s just kind of do the historical moment right my wife and we’re talking about education and I said look let’s put that into historical context you have the the movement of the mass movement of population in the period of the 1800s from the farm into the city and in particular from the farm into the factory and conterminous with that in the latter part of it you also had this notion of wait a minute eight-year-olds working in factories is a bad idea oh but wait we will we want the parents to still be working in factories so now we have to have a place to put the kids right so this is the beginning of the notion of educational institutions as day care was actually a secondary effect of the course the emergence of the idea we should teach not put kids in factories but no solution to the problem how do we deal with the fact that we still want to put their parents in factories okay we’ll put them in schools and so you actually glom day care on to education and the school set up like factories too and and right we had this the arc that tyson yonka percher brought to my attention most notably in his book about the the specific prussian model of of education right there’s lots of different models of education lived in western civilization the prussians who are a very unique character in the story right who just happened to have beat the crap out of the austrians right the austro-prussian one and then the frankenburg one yeah they they beat the the habsburg monarchs right then they beat the french like back to back there’s like the two big guys in the continent with the austrians and the french and so the prussians just show up as being like the holy shit well who the fuck are those guys they came out of nowhere they just won the champion back to back so everybody’s like oh we got a cop with the prussians william james actually talks about this problem uh in in in this conversation the continental um germanic philosophy was certainly rising up as being the big thing as the prussians were winning well the prussians the prussians had formally and intentionally adopted a hyper control structure in the way they did education they they they were the model of we want to create highly regular highly controllable um entire populace the way this thing works is everything has to be a rigorously controlled hierarchy and everybody is a highly trained soldier effectively and and soldier in the narrow sense like not warrior like soldier like frederick degreat’s clockwork army like playing a cog in the bigger machine and the thing is that particular approach this is the reciprocal closing piece that moves john you know i’ve talked about where there’s like why do people get into reciprocal closing well the answer is because it works in the first couple of moves i get this ability to extract energy in the short term which gives me a local advantage i can create this war machine i create this society which is hyper coordinated around controllable structures actually reg maps to this notion of uncertainty and control it’s coming from the same psychology right i’m stepping back have to protect myself i can actually create a defense mechanism that kind of works in the immediate term the problem is everybody else in western civilization got infected by it particularly in the u.s like at exactly the moment where the u.s was becoming a state they can be coordinated across that territory and and and the problem of industrialization was beginning to raise the bigger problem okay what do we do with all these kids they’ll say we’re now going to create adopt emulate the dramatic model of formal education and boom america has that structure right and so so let’s move this up to the top right remember the meta piece here is this forcing everything out of the commons out of the family out of real relationality out of people deliberating on things in some different model into one of these two modes right the market and the state right and we can kind of track i don’t know if it’s useful we can certainly do the process of tracking any given element of the interior and the exterior over the past 250 years or so of that movement and that will then let us tell us a lot about where we are now like we can say how we got here and you’ll tell us a lot about where we are now right and then the next question of course is going to where we go right right well that reminds me you know i work a bit with Rachel Anderson her work on metamaternity okay emphasizes the nordic secret which was the educational structures that the nordic countries started to which was basically character development okay so they shifted and they basically took personal and communitas kind of development emphases and that took them from a really difficult condition over 100 years to a flourishing society at least relatively speaking so the philosophy of education that bildung that’s a term for it that emphasizes a bit more personal development a bit more character a bit more community and commons would have that commons flavor so that is part of it to me then the ideas about well what what kind of educational process and what kind of orientation is appropriate you know for us in the current age given the completely new landscape of problems and possibilities that we are facing so yeah i’m familiar with that argument too great thomas bjorkman makes that argument yep i mean they wake it together you know they’re the co-authors so so the that it’s interesting to try and sort of pair so like when the enclosure movement is happening you get the rise of lock right and then you’re going to get and you’ll get the english civil you get the rise of individualism which really goes well with both in the enclosure movement and with kind of the automatization of the individual that capitalism really really works with so and then when you get depression and Frederick the great who’s his philosopher it’s Kant and with art you get right you get the you get the reduction this is a little oversimplistic but at least this is at least how the popular version of content i can put it that way you get the reduction of religion to piety and to duty and where duty and piety are ways of understanding religion that are now removed from participation in the comics you lose you in fact you’re suspicious of what what layman paschall calls the overflow that is actually one of the defining features like and when we talk about it here when we talk about the logos we get the overflow when we come into a comment like you know the proper locus of distributed cognition is the comments and the state and the market do is they keep trying to say no no we are the proper place in which distributed cognition functions and what what we keep and you know and this was Kafka’s great understanding right is you know the the the manifest and the latent functions come apart repeatedly Weber’s idea right Weber’s also part of this whole right Weber’s Weber is the first one of the first sociological to use your where you put us Jordan you know critical responses to depression state right you know the Protestant work ethic and the whole idea that what you have right is if you if you do this homogenization if you get like the and you got what he what he lumped the two together in in terms of this process he called bureaucratization that everything is everything is becoming bureaucratic and he said exactly what Jordan said you get the intoxicating salient of the manifest function that says look at how rapidly we can get things in order and get things running but what you have is the latent function the latent functionality is right all that common stuff all that persons and community stuff doesn’t go away but what it does is it gets subverted and undermined so for a concrete example is the bureaucracy has the manifest function right of making everything ordered but it has the latent function of diffusing responsibility and shifting blame so that people cease to be listen please they cease to be persons within community and Kafka gets that and he holds it up in art and he says look look look he keeps doing that again and again and again and this like we could look back to the conversation about therapy like that’s that’s the experience right that experience of this it’s industrial model right i’m taking things what is it fucon right the disciplinary society yeah i’ve got this bizarre thing that the thing that is the most fundamentally human which is real authentic relationship has been fact commodified i turned into a product put into a formal relationship which bizarrely enough i can imagine this sort of thing like you know well our hours up we’re not even i don’t even know you anymore stop talking immediately well the boundaries of the professional relation and the termination when it’s over and i mean it’s unbelievable yeah which is like like walking off the factory floor like you’ve just left the factory floor i don’t can anymore i’m not canning you know soup anymore i’m now like coming over this place like those discontinuous transitions and and now you know as i move away from it you see the weird alienating aspect of i’m going to professionalize this very intimate personal relationship right and we’re gonna we’re gonna have to navigate the codes of my profession and then intersect them in the genuine relationship i taught this all the time about how to navigate it but i was inside of it now i’m much more outside i was like shit you know we gotta undo that somehow and reverse it to get it into the commons to use the brilliant word you know that really describes what it is that i so i mean i’ve been trying with all with your the help from both of you guys collaboration and other things you know i’ve been trying to you know work out this notion because there’s a there’s this whole family and it should be a family i’m not trying to be reductive but this family of practices like that engendered dialogos and i’m trying to bring back the psychotech of you know dialectic and you know there’s circling and authentic relating and insight dialogue and the list of these is just pervasive right but but they and and again i think that plurality is a good thing i think they and i mean this very seriously i’m playing with vickenstein’s notion but i’m double playing on it right there’s a family there’s a family resemblance and a family relationship between all of these modalities and trying to get them trying to figure out like how to do what i keep circling back on what you just put your finger on right how do we how do we transpose from the second what we’ve learned from psychotherapy but also how do we transpose what we learned from the ancient philosophical practices around wisdom right where like the phylia the fellowship around wisdom was how you coordinated uh distributed cognition for persons within a community of person how do we get like i’m trying to draw on those and say what can we how can we get um you know a family resemblance family relationship set of practices that will give people back well i think what we’re talking about here but i i come to a deep recognition and appreciation of i think jordan’s point that all of that if you’ll allow me a somewhat obsolete metaphor now all of that software work that i’ve been talking about depends on a significant hardware change that jordan is trying to talk about with with the civium project that i mean there’s enough truth in marks that if you don’t change also you know you know the socio-economic habitats of people you can only get so far right i was i’ve been impressed by how all of these traditions like the epicureans retreat to the garden the stoics have the porch right and the plateness have the academy which is a grow like what they do is they try to resituate human beings into environmental cultural environmental contexts that are conducive to our you know our evolutionary history the fact that we’re primarily hunter-gatherers right that do that but nevertheless try to put on top of it this this project that we’re talking about so i think that i mean i i think well i i’m trying to i guess evoke from jordan the the how everything we’re talking about here has to be has to be coordinated and again i’m doing this with their hands because i don’t know what quite this looks like but the software and the hardware have to be coordinated so they’re mutually affording in some way yeah well there’s a lot here agreed completely like super profoundly completely i think of it actually is in some sense more of an opportunity than a challenge because what it does is it allows you to like if you run into a problem that feels very intractable in the domain of say psychology heuristic switch to the objective domain and perhaps you actually if you if you make a shift over there it actually completely prunes a whole bunch of problems that you’re facing in in the psychological domain and maybe vice versa is actually a way of getting a synergy value from that the woman’s name from australia by the way is kylie kylie stedman oh thank you i’ve only just begun to have conversations with it but her focus as far as i can tell is actually on the question of the objective like how do we do things like the rainforests and the atmosphere that said i haven’t spent enough time so she may actually have a lot of insight into the into the subjective and the interest objective as well um crap oh okay so one of the things that i saw as you were talking john was i was remembering the comment commentation about the notion that there’s a right relationship between the monastery and the community yep and i think there’s actually two roles there maybe one that’s when it’s kind of been a little bit a little bit more secret which is the relationship between the uh the appendix and the and the gut biome brent weinstein points this out it’s like hey guys the appendix isn’t actually not it’s not uh obsolete what’s the word vestigial it’s not vestigial it’s a it’s a it’s a place that hold that is so fully disconnected from the gut that the gut biome can be highly destroyed by lots of different environmental factors and yet a microcosm of a full gut biome is stored in the appendix and so and so what happens is it’s basically a source of regrowth so there’s like the monastery actually plays two roles on the one place it’s cloistering enables it to survive and hold to some level the seed corn the seed bank culture codes and also innovate on them so that as the larger culture like becomes uh the ecosystem begins to degrade there’s a way to actually go back into the monastery says she’s we need to bring come back out of the monastery we shouldn’t have done that appendectomy we should have let that thing there so we can recalibrate we can recalibrate yeah so that’s awesome so there’s something there too okay there’s something about the reactivation of the monastery and the opening of the gates and the returning of the monks back into community to to bring these culture codes back into community but the problem you’re naming is you know that is it man and i think that aligns greg also with the conversations we’ve been having around the notion of what’s this transformational threshold which is just basically the last move of culture space exactly what’s that thing right so so right so if we now situate ourselves in the landscape afforded by the tree of knowledge you then sit yourself so culture has evolved into a particular point the culture person plane uh this is the behavior of persons mediated by systems of justification that then legitimize informational control both of our actions and of the material environment situated in a on the ecology of the earth okay and but what the material culture was different okay for a separate a tool although an extension of mine is not feeding back on our systems of justification in a particular way that changes when we start writing so the first techno that really starts to fundamentally change the way we justify in terms of because it creates this external memory okay and then the civilizations you know in writing and then all that stuff starts to get networked together in this industrial code and the modernist industrial code then we’re talking about the ways in which now it’s trying to regulate the behaviors and create institutional codes that actually are alienating it for us from the commons okay but from the particular angle that the tree of knowledge affords is you’re saying pay attention to the information processing within systems and communication between systems because those are the planes of existence that then result in potentially qualitative shifts okay check this out man all right so the metaphor that i use a lot that really helped me is the movement from complex chemistry into neurons right the point of that movement is that neurons have a very high degree of fidelity and precision right given an input the output is always the same and lots of noise gets filtered out okay now transpose that into the level of culture right every move at the level of interpersonal relationship that shows up as noise is the thing that actually has to be eliminated from our relationships so particularly every move that is intentional noise i.e. being a dick like in all different forms right right right the problem of bullshit and manipulation right one level right and whether and there’s nope there it is we got it we’re back in communitops back in the comments yes that’s the way it should be right it’s funny if you think about it like our lack of haircuts and our lack of formal clothes is actually a really powerful reminder of the force and we return to the comments i will go ahead and shift us to keep the jive here but yeah go ahead um yeah so the move that move at the end of culture space at least one fundamental like probably a third is precisely the mastery at all nodes of techniques of a showing up authentically and b noticing when noise is being injected into the relationship and rapidly exiting that out of the relationship right absolutely this is okay so this is so in terms of the own psycho technologies that are embedded in this unified theory of knowledge that i built okay um is how do you track what’s called the jai dynamics i just this is in the chapter i did for uh john’s book jai dynamics refer to the justification okay so this is the frame of our language systems our investments what is the vector of our the direction of our intention okay and the influence which is how are we bouncing off of other people and our jai dynamics in harmony or not okay so when we’re jiving jai dynamics are in harmony we have shared justification we have shared intentionality our investment systems are intertwined then boom something happens you get kicked out okay or you realize somebody’s got different divergent paths somebody’s going to get hurt then you drop into your defense now you’re going to protect yourself you’re going to justify defensively you’re going to move you’re either going to get fearful aggressive etc okay so that’s now all of a sudden you get bumped and now all of a sudden there’s a totally different harmony this happens all the fucking time right you know all of a sudden somebody makes an accusation somebody slips up somebody does certain things now you’re here okay so now that when that happens that’s the defensive place where bullshit and defense starts to occur right then everybody’s going to try to return to equilibrium i’m going to try to get my justified state of bling so my relational value is secure so i’m a good person and you can’t put me on trial and accuse me and cost me that’s where people go and so then you pull in your defense attorney lawyer press secretary bullshit and you start the process of hey i’m going to do this okay now active manipulators do this systematically right they’re trying to then gain social influence they don’t give a shit about relational value but they’re actually going to manipulate the structure so the outside consequences they get more influence in the end all right so both of those are very very dangerous all right so you have to commit to a value structure for me be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity those are my big three meta values which which orient then the transcendent say this again say this again dignity okay so this is a fundamental respect and it actually goes to an ultimate aesthetic value and really stick is the value of value in humans okay each person has dignity it also justifies human rights in the universal declaration of human rights okay well-being is happiness with the worthiness to be happy to quote conch okay and it refers to the fundamental orientation of your subjective your health and functioning in the environment to foster potential growth okay and then integrity is honesty honor and soundness all right so those are the and they often they can tense there’s tensions between those all right so i try to align my being with those big three that’s what and that’s what i invite everybody what i what i think about you know what’s a person of good faith okay it’s somebody that has some form of universal value structure that is committed to them above their ego right it’s a love or some sort of some sort of notion some ultimate concern as i say it’s more important than me and i’m going to orient myself to that so what you’re talking about is if i understand this you’re talking about it’s a simple back of it you’re talking about a normativity on the vertical dimension exactly talking about a normativity by which people can understand and get in get into right relationship all of these different levels of who and what they are exactly it’s the oriented towards the ultimate concern or transcendent you know you know right it’s it’s the ultimate end for an aristotelian or a rustatilian perspective right it’s sort of what is what is it there that is good uh that transcends infinity i mean you know that is that is the orienting point okay so then yeah yeah go i was just going to say that that affords a question that comes to my mind then i think we’re on the edge of articulating a question at least i find it an important question to ask because it has both theoretical and factual input how do i distinguish the bullshit manipulators from the people how do i distinguish how do i distinguish bullshit from emerging beauty right james starts his notion right we’re talking about justification systems right the thing about that he’s got the noise is not an intrinsic feature right noise is relative to what you find relevant right signal noise differences and so if i like if i’m in this justification system then xyz are going to count as noise but if i move to this justification system xyz now may be central this is the whole kuni and the anomalies become the center of the new paradigm right you and i were talking about something like this yesterday so how do i distinguish people who are not playing the game fairly because they’re bullshit manipulators from people who say no no i want to i want to play an infinite game here rather than a finite game and i want to i want to get right i i enjoy yes yeah right we’re with you we’re with you yeah right there’s not first off we know that there’s it can’t be a simplistic complicated code for this because as soon as somebody has a simplistic complicated code they’ll just use it and bullshit you right so it is that you have to be in a participatory jazz riff regulatory structure to see them in context feel where their motive is but they from my vantage point they should be committed to some sort of metacultural value structure in other words there has to be some notion about what good is okay and then i have an integrated pluralistic frame for that so i want to know what is your ultimate concern your ultimate purpose right so that’s and at some level then but i didn’t finish the thought in terms of four people of good faith the whole comm mo the little black dot represent on the tree back there represents what’s called comm mo and that is four individuals of good faith you jump into a metacognitive observer stance so we step outside say wait a minute what the hell just happened if somebody get defensive and bullshit based on ego concerns okay then if so that’s okay we get curious accepting loving and motivated toward valued states of being to get back on a healthy jay dynamic track okay so it’s a it’s a psycho technology that says well wait a minute if we start to get bumped because we don’t get each other and then we start bullshitting because we see the other as threat okay if we are people of goodwill we should be able to step outside of that apply the principles of curiosity acceptance loving compassion and motivated toward valued states of being and then reestablish at least where the hell we are in relation let me let me let me throw in i think i think i can handle i think let me just throw the pieces coming up for me okay and i think if i frame if i frame it in the context of parenting i think it actually gets a lot easier okay because what i’m talking about basically is boundaries so this is the the inverse side right of at least what greg’s bringing up so i’m going to measure it in terms of my capacity and by my i mean whatever the we is right our intersubjective capacity to hold the other right okay now if the other is a hyper sophisticated sociopath i’m just going to define it as my capacity to hold the other isn’t inadequate that’s it my ability to be in right relationship with you just isn’t up isn’t going to work i cannot find a way to get around that now you’re still asking the question how do i what’s the signal that lets me know that that’s what’s really happening but step it back for a second before we get there because the higher issue is okay there will definitely be circumstances in the immediate term all over the place and in the long term still irreducibly probably for a very long period of time maybe forever where our collective capacity to hold the other is inadequate to maintain the relationality therefore we then need to have me have boundaries right boundaries that emerge in that environment and hold the relationship at a level that it can be held appropriately exactly okay that’s that and which by the way this actually shows up is like the nordic version of of jail it’s like look you know you’ve got this bad habit you tend to kill people willy-nilly we have not yet figured out how to move you out of that bad habit so we’re going to move you into a context where the right relationship can be held and that’s actually called a place that has walls that you can’t get out of it yep right but there’s a very different vibe there right it’s the vibe is very much one of this is on a continuity of relationship and it entirely has to do with the this we’re both we’re both part part of this game yep i can’t hold you you can’t hold me there’s something going on here and it’s a weed it’s the problem we’re just trying to figure out how to get into a place where the relationality has can actually have continuity completely i’ve got a whole system of dimensions called the 5c dimensions which layers where you are in intimacy all the way from ultimate connection which means you’re fused all the way down into conflicted and controlling which means you’re literally in conflict trying to control the other person so there’s a whole dimension so the next thing i’m going to bring in is crude right and i don’t like its crudity but there’s something also i think probably fundamental so perhaps throwing it out there which is in some sense going back to this notion of like the protocols built as a layer of stacks and so so my short answer to your question is i know i know like i’m an interaction with an experience if i just listen to the way my body is responding to the experience if i just listen very closely i know i know whether i’m about to experience something of tremendous joy and beauty that is actually struggle going on the noise is noise in the context of a shared intent or a transcendent effort to create and when the noise is actually having to do with something along the lines of deep levels of manipulation but i can’t say that my knowing is super high fidelity right i can’t actually guarantee that i know for sure and i definitely don’t have a level of skillfulness in my knowing my sense my sense to be able to articulate and express it well clearly and i definitely definitely don’t have a skillfulness of relationality to manifest that in a context that can actually bring it into the right place right but there’s something about that stack like the reality of going back to our evolutionary history and saying look something about the you know mammalian like uh or the social animal aspect like some somewhere in that stack there was a huge effort to figure out how to actually have extremely high fidelity sensitivity to this particular move and you’re making a move in that domain and you know the space between my belly button my scrotum is right now telling me that there’s something off in the relationship so we’re gonna have to slow the fuck down i don’t know what’s going on like yep that’s that’s maybe part of the answer well right and actually what go ahead yeah there’s all good guys um and but there’s it okay and i want to respond oh sorry i want to resonate with you what both of you just said there’s something in both of it but let me put what i think there’s one tail end of the curve that you were talking about but i was actually more i was concentrating on the other what i meant by this is uh let me try it like this um let’s say we do have i’ll pick up on both what you said greg and what you said that we have like we have sort of ultimate concerns in terms of personhood and what it is to be a person and a human being right and and all of the values that you articulated right there they’re sort of transcendental in a contian sense they’re constitutive they’re they’re necessary they’re like conditions for person for for personhood flourishing i get that right and then and then and then we have this we have this instinctive machinery when the stack is in place because we we’ve co-evolved with conspecifics across so many species that we there’s there’s a lot there however let me still problematize this because i think we’re on we’re onto something here right i’m just i’m trying to be a good soccer coach here yes absolutely not that you guys are not that you guys are glow crown or arimantas or anything right but here’s the thing all of them machinery is based on either instinctive or inculturated notions of what a person is and what some of the great people did is they and this is what nichi was trying to get out with trans valuation they altered the notion of what a human person is so if if i save you no no i’m ultimately committed to xyz value what i’m doing is it’s locked into a particular conception of human personhood and what i’m suggesting here this goes back to georgian’s very first move in this dialogue is what is in transition now is exactly that fact that’s what it is to be a person i’m not saying please i’m not saying we ignore all of our rich history all of the philosophy all of the religion i will psychology i’m not saying that but i’m i’m also what i’m saying is we can’t just let that go forward in an inertial fashion i think what is in question right now and therefore and therefore it puts into question all of those values which is not the same thing as saying i reject those values but it puts into question what does dignity mean when my fund like what jesus of nazareth does is change what it means to be a person so that some of the older notions right are fundamentally transformed and there’s huge resistance to this because the people the context of the time saying you’re violating the law the law the law is what protects our humanity and then say but jesus and saint paul says no no but i’m trying to change your notion of what a human being is that’s you know you know human beings aren’t made for the sabbath the sabbath was made for human beings like he’s trying to change what it means to be a human being to be a person and that means new virtues and new values like the greeks don’t have faith pope and love they have justice right and softerson and wisdom and courage which we don’t throw those out but the christians give us new ones you see the problem i’m trying to articulate oh yeah so how do i distinguish somebody who’s trying to launch us into what i think need right now which is trans valuation if you’ll allow me the nichian term from somebody who’s doing what greg is mentioning the person who’s manipulating now i agree jordan that whatever we’re proposing it’s got to plug into that evolutionary machinery but it oh it has to be educated it has to be educated in some way all right so yeah i know that we actually have a bunch of uh i don’t mean this in anything but actually uh fellowship and love we have a bunch of christian lurkers that will sometimes comment on our conversations yeah and i just heard the voice in my head when you’re asking is how do you distinguish between christ and anti-christ yes yes yes the anti-christ is defined i believe as perfectly simulating right it’ll actually be more salient the anti-christ shows up as the super salient christ right yes so everything that you would use to try to discern christ to the anti-christ will show up as being even more so right yes so it’s a hyper problem like it’s the problem you’re stating it’s most intense as far as that does that resonate with you john yeah yes it does and then you think up on the christian metaphor what christ does i mean this is renee garrard’s notion right christ right is within a particular justification framework right and then he dies he dies within it and he breaks and that’s the way in which he tries to break us out of a whole way in which we try to manage the ultimate concerns around personhood and gets us the socrates does the same thing he tries to reorient how we care all of these individuals if you’ll allow me a haple metaphor they open up the field of human personhood of human and correspondingly human experience and i think that is what we need right now and so again yeah how do we distinguish between the carcass is here too right carcass is right on this right you’re asking the same question how you distinguish between the the person who’s truly playing the infinite game yes and then the person who looks like they might be playing the infinite game but it’s actually doing a really sneaky finite game yeah and that is very very important right now i put to you that’s what i’m proposing to you guys that that is kind of one of the central problems we’re facing because of the way the cyber technology can super inflate it can give such a simulacrum of somebody playing the infinite game because there’s all this complexity and there’s all this information flowing and there’s all of these diverse models that can be played with but that person is still ultimately right ultimately just being the anti-price well so some interesting things this is almost i’m almost like random walk space but check this out so the infinite game has continuity yes it’s almost the definition of continuity is the infinite game the finite game is always has discontinuity it’s like a digital matrix layered on top of the fundamentally transcendent if you can engage in a uh stochastic hop from model to model this actually by the way throws off sociopaths like crazy um the lack of continuity will show up does that make sense what i’m saying yep absolutely and it you can decode it yeah it plugs into what you and i were saying jordan about the new this new notion of faith as continuity of contact yes continuity of contact with the continuum of reality yes yes so by the way this is part of the secret of what i do is exactly that like the the inside of being of doing paradigm and domain switching on a stochastic basis to maintain to filter out those who are trying to actually parse things through a semantic cognitive fine game methodology and only hang on those who are actually operating from soul okay yeah so this is okay so for me this is quadrant quadratic coherence okay so quadrants refer to the will bary and perspective can i spell coherence with the q now so i’ve got the three q’s do it man absolutely coherence how’s that all right so so now but then the issue right is the coherence and integrity of the system obviously if this is something so crucial to human consciousness is how much are you filtering between the private and the public all right you have to then organize and if your emotive structure is actually to deceive in relation at some level there’s a there is a disconnect in the frequency of behavior across the different levels and and dimensions and seeking that epistemological ontological coherence across time and and that to me that would be an indicator chris a very strong powerful check indicator yeah what i’d be looking for and by the way in a context where the underlying context of reality is shifting very rapidly this is john our conversation the other day about the end of paradigmatic mind if the context of reality is shifting within the within the time frame where you can actually rethink your lack of fundamental integrity then you’re going to start freaking the fuck out right right because then you get disco they get decoherence because you try to harmonize it because it’s already you’re trying to force the issue so keep key message here by the way for those who are interested in the next move if you want to endure the transition under which we are going dispense with in lack of integrity in self because part of the reason why you’re freaking out is you can no longer maintain your lack of integrity if you respond and reduce back to fundamental integrity then the complexity or the chaos of reality no longer will hit against that surface they can’t hold and by the way that’s also the step of the return to the groundedness of meaningfulness the return into fellowship which by the way also shows up as the return into the commons so those are these are all happening simultaneously i’m tracking that same invitation right so yeah you’re getting sort of a very complex multi-level uh reciprocal opening going on kind of thing is that my understanding absolutely cross levels and dimensions we can get you can achieve coherence or not and then and the the bullshit sociopath dynamic has an incoherent in it almost by definition by definition by definition right okay so this this then plugs into an aspect of cars and it also picks up on whitehead so this idea that these kinds of these kinds of anti-price perversions wow i wouldn’t know that uttering this sentence right they they once um whitehead said the the one saving grace we always have is that evil is ultimately self-destructive that there’s that right that yes right right because it’s engaged because it’s ultimately doing stuff that reciprocal narrowing and incoherent it ultimately is self-destructive and this is why you see like but so let’s do the prescient state you know the prescient state um is going to have difficulty long terms um and what you see is initially those states take off uh think of world war ii uh yeah the germany takes off right but the nazi state precisely lacks a capacity for self-correction it right it has no capacity for continuity and the democracies actually eventually overtake now there’s also all kinds of other but their capacity for self-correction where where what’s going on there then if i understand it this is a duian perspective is that what what the the i don’t know what to call it that there is or maybe it keeps this idea of an ideal there is we’re looking for people who have a component of wisdom enhanced relevance realization that can discern when they are they are involved in a process that has the self-correcting capacity to maintain a continuity of development is that is that is that capturing it well that’s that’s that’s working for me and i’ll actually let me let me track it into the updated tripartite model of consciousness you know i talk so that’s a experiential phenomenological coming out of the whole brain and the the layer there is the attentional filter okay where’s the witnessing function pulling whole brain and on top of that you have a narrator that’s narrating the witnessing function what it’s seeing and creating a justification narrative of identity then you have a public self that is now saying i’m going to justify what it is that i’m doing in relation yeah right you call those what the attentional filter the pradian filter the legerian filter is that bingo exactly right and so that’s where the disco here decoherence is going to be right somewhere in there there is an attentional system that’s hiding an episodic memory a justified intent an other an othering of what the actual game is that’s being played and through the attentional filter the the freudian filter a rogerian filter there is not authenticity so we’re tracking the filters through the interface between phenomenology narration public justification so this is then this is the botanic argument which is a compliment to you greg it’s not it’s not meant to be the idea that um outer justice right within within the commons has to be completely anagogically resonant with sophison inner justice absolutely right you need the vertical horizontal coherence or else you’re not gonna right so but i’m i’m what i’m doing then is i’m i’m trying to make i we’ve got we’ve talked about the vertical we’ve talked about the horizontal but there but there’s also i mean the horizontal isn’t the same thing as the developmental right okay right right right it’s across the time dimension right it’s okay the time dimension when it’s developmental i mean the horizontal time in one sense okay i’m trying to propose it as a developmental axis right i’m having i’m on it i’m on it and so i want to go ahead i just i want to quickly just invoke the q continuum just fyi that’s my modification out of the three cues um in in the sense that continuity if it’s continuity is continuity with the whole so we were just kind of looking at it from the lens of continuity more or less in sort of the sense of self and self in relationship and then we did that inner subjective but that notion of like the polynesian continuity and nature and the birds right and continuity is continuity right once you begin to hit on that and you can hold that and recognize that once you are out of integrity you’re out of integrity with the whole universe and once you’re back in duality exactly you’re straight out back in integrity and that’s the journey all right that’s good that is good the flow with nature that’s at the center of dowsim and at the center of stoicism all right and all the great wisdom traditions right really they plug you in they transcend the ego and then all of a sudden you’re in a non-dual oneness so we should we should open up the metaphor that you know i’m an ecology of functions that means an ecology of practices that will put me into the ecology of nature i mean that’s basically what needs to happen yes that’s right all right that’s right which is atonement yes yes coming back home and which the anti-christ fakes and we have to find that and then you know boom and have the walls of the civium is about bringing you know the good faith flow into that that’s right that’s exactly right and then and the bounty is in fact the recognition that we live in a moment where within the context of the walls of the civium and held by the fellowship the possibility of abundance is made real yeah absolutely yes and if we do it developmentally from you know to go back to the early phases of childhood if we start resonating early in the attachment structure and we do that healthy with the with the educational developmental structure then the opportunity to grow people ready through and through is much more present right because then you’re not corrupted yeah but then we need to change the educational system and this is zack stein’s argument i think i think we’re all in but this goes back to what i said we have to move out of a model of person that is exhausted by the notions of consumer and citizen we have to get what is we have to we have to enrich the model of personhood it is good and fine and right that we are talking about all the process but right people people have to have like they have to have a model of personhood that enables and affords and legitimates that process right so that i came across this guy peter or sorry i developed a thing called descriptive psychology i didn’t know anything about it but it’s this little sort of and and crucial to him is what is a person all right and essentially what he articulates very different than a human being a person is what a human being learns to become yes right and what he said is it’s i’ll put it slightly in my language it’s the capacity to justify yourself in a social stage and take account and responsibility for your actions that’s essentially what it is that a person is okay so then we put that in and our fundamental responsibility is the good faith participation in the commons in the in the harmonizing of the structure then you then now you have justifiable accountability now that the that the person then to become clean in relationship to that will become a concept that plugs in i believe to that structure yeah just again i want to kind of communicate back out to anybody who’s who’s observing that one of the very powerful insights that i think it’s not simplifies but reduces the weight is is to say look how okay how are we going to do this and you know there’s like two immediate flags this is absolutely not in the least bit utopian um and it’s also not particularly idealistic right what i’m going to say is this there’s gonna be a lot of practical questions how do we do these kinds of things in very specific cases and in almost every one of those cases my answer is i don’t know but i i’ve noticed just in this conversation that greg’s got some pretty cool shit and john’s got some pretty cool shit and as long as we’re all operating with those three basics we’re operating with a very strong orientation towards personal integrity interpersonal dignity and a collective orientation towards the axis monday of the of the of the well-being of each and all are mutually combined then i get the benefit of greg’s cool shit and so i can start saying okay well i don’t need to know it’s not my job to do the things i don’t know it’s my job to know the things i know to be very strong in those and skillful and bring them with generosity into the collective endeavor and then to be able to find the network the commons right the networks the commons combine those two words together right find those who have the peace and then empower them to bring their peace into the hole it doesn’t take that long right a little bit of getting that right you can start getting that have this visual this visual image of uh of like uh when the when the water comes in from the beach into from the ocean to the beach and it kind of fills up a low point and there’s just a tiny trickle of water flowing back to the ocean but it but every movement of the water takes a piece of sand that way so it gets lower so it accelerates and you suddenly have the whole thing come back like that’s what it’s going to look like it has that that’s the dynamic i like that especially uh the synthesis of networking and comments yes that’s so crucial i’m very very well said that’s very well said so i think you said it first in this conversation and probably michelle balance has been saying it for 15 years from from thailand okay well i think this feels like a good place to end for today all right so i want to we rode the wave yeah yeah yeah i think this is very very good and i think we we made some good socratic process a progress into the process um so first of all i want to thank my my good friends uh greg amicus and jordan hall um and i would pleasure i would like to invite both of them for for us to do another one of these um at some point because i think uh this is beneficial to everybody who’s coming into i mean into this problematic of uh how should we live well now but also how should we live well now for the future um and so again thank you guys very much very much appreciate it yeah amen very cool very cool all right all right great