https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=wo9QlT8BjR8
John Ravecki and Sean Coyne have together authored a new book, Mentoring the Machines. It’s a book about artificial intelligence and the path forward that further develops the arguments of how to align artificial intelligence to human flourishing, and it sets those arguments into beautiful and accessible writing. Welcome everyone to Another Voices with Ravecki. I’m really, really excited about this. This is my good friend Johannes Niederhauser, and we have spoken so often together, either the two of us or with other people like Daniel Zaruba. We almost always very quickly get into real dialogos. And we share a common vision about the practice of filosofia and the cultivation of wisdom and meaning. I greatly admire Johannes. I admire his integrity. I admire the pathway that he’s carving for himself, the authenticity by which he does this. Many of you know that I’ll comment on many of his videos, and I got to spend time with Johannes February of this year at length in person. Wonderful. So we’re going to try and talk about Heidegger and one of the hardest things, and yet one of the most central things, at least to my mind, to talk about in Heidegger. But first I’m just going to welcome Johannes, and just tell us a little bit again about yourself, Johannes. Thank you very much, John. It’s a great honor to be here with you again, and to speak, and also to John briefly let me know the question he wants to get into. So this could be a Pandora’s box that we’re going to open when it comes to Heidegger. So I’m going to start with Heidegger. Maybe just briefly on what I do. I wrote my PhD on Martin Heidegger on death and being, and it turned out during the research that death resurfaces throughout his philosophical life. He, because he wants to understand being in terms of finitude, and time also in terms of finitude, and he sees death as absolutely central to, and death is, you know, he sees death as related with language, and death related to concealment also, which is his way of trying to overcome the, what Derrida called the metaphysics of presence. And what I’ve since been doing for the last three years now almost as I’ve been building my own online philosophy academy, and where we teach Heidegger and Hegel and early Greek philosophy and also Japanese philosophy. And John has been, since the beginning, very supportive of the works. I’d like to thank you also for that. And I look forward to our dialogue. So, Johannes has a course. I really recommend it on Heidegger’s being in time and that’s what we’re going to concentrate on. I’m not, I’m not, I’m not restricting us to it. We might reach out to other aspects of Heidegger, later Heidegger. So what I’m saying is we’re not just doing exegesis. We’ll wrestle with a problem and we’ll both probably dip outside of it. I want to at some point. But here’s, here’s the first pass at the question and even getting the question right is going to be something that we’re going to probably tumble around on. And I invite everybody, we’re like, when you’re with Heidegger, like, he often described his project as, like, the way you wander through a woods, and there are different pathways and they lead you and they come in different directions and they cross at different places, but there isn’t a simple straight linear path. And you may say, well, isn’t he just confused? No, I mean, there is, there is real reason, not in our modern sense but in the Socratic Platonic sense, there’s real reason why that is a good way to try and wrestle with the questions he’s wrestling with. So I’m asking people to get to frame it that way and follow us in that way. So here’s an initial presentation. So, being in time, obviously the book is about being in time, or else it’s really mis-titled. And then Heidegger is making a core argument about how to do what he calls fundamental ontology, how to get a deep understanding of being. Now, again, for him, this is not, even the word understanding isn’t, you shouldn’t hear it the way we typically hear it, which is from the analytic tradition, okay, what he’s going to do, he’s going to lay out some definitions, he’s going to escalate things, he’s going to remove confusion, and we’ll have clarity. That’s not, what’s going on with Heidegger is this hermeneutical phenomenological, he’s trying to get us to see, I think a better word is realize, because of some of the critiques he makes of the visual metaphors, right, right, to realize. To hear, also. Also to hear, to see, to realize being. And that, unlike Husserl’s phenomenology that is really oriented towards the transcendental ego, the structures of consciousness, Heidegger is focused on being. So first of all, is that a fair initial, I haven’t even posed the question yet, I’m just saying that’s what we’re directed towards. Well, if you, yes, that’s fair. And also if you say you haven’t even posed the question, the being in time itself is the attempt to even begin to articulate the question. Of course, this is philosophia in its purest form, because philosophy is always preparation. Yes. And it remains preparation, I would say, to a large degree. And I would just, you know, as I’m going, I have been going through being in time again for the course, maybe I should have mentioned this earlier. Just if people want to enroll, we begin with seminars for 10 weeks, sometime mid-January. And so there will be links down below in the description, etc. But let me just say that the clear difference between Husserl and Heidegger is, precisely as you said, is that he moves completely, he’s already completely outside of subjectivity. Or let’s say the transcendental ego, transcendental I, and that becomes clear in the introduction to being in time in the absolutely crucial section seven, which is on the method or the concept of phenomenology, where he destructs, as it were, he takes apart the very word itself and looks at phenomenon and logos together and then brings them back together. But he doesn’t look at the genealogy of the concept, he actually explicitly says, I don’t care, you know, when it was developed by Christian Wolf, and how it developed further and how Heidegger used it, etc. No, I’m just going to look at the foundational meaning of the words and then let that disclose something. And that is itself a very phenomenological exercise. So he brings and he’s so razor sharp and extremely precise how he makes a distinction between the phenomenon, obviously means appearance or phenomenon, but not everything that appears is a phenomenon, something that appears could just seem to be something. And then what is a real phenomenon, but also what has become a real phenomenon that introduces this sense of temporality but also, let’s say, dynamism, really, anything that you’ve grasped as a real phenomena can also turn into a mere seeming. Yes, at the end. So, and what we’re after. And I will give you the floor to pose the question obviously, what we’re after is being and time, but absolutely not in any traditional sense. Yes. So we’re not after permanence or substance or time or subject, right, or subject yes or yes yes exactly. I mean, this is important because I mean, Heather is actually also exemplifying part of his thesis is that all of these ways that we are traditionally talking and thinking about being have in some ways blinded us or made us fall away from a, a genuine relationship with being. And so I’m going to take that rejection of the tradition and sort of funnel it into the problematic that we’re going to wrestle with here. So, how do you guys, and each one of these things that I’m going to reject our, our, our, our sort of genuses for for ways in which people have made have mistakenly or So one is to think of that what we’re talking about we’re talking about being is we’re talking about things in the sense of individual beings, and either right or sets of them or even the universe as a set of entities. And then what how to go wants to say is thinking of being as a being is a fundamental mistake it miss it misunderstands being in a fundamental way so that’s one thing we’re trying not to think. Okay, and then the other one is, well, we might say something while we’re getting at the origin of beings, and then we might think of that as something like the, the first being or the supreme being some traditional notions of God, and how to go wants to. Yep, go ahead. The ends perfect them just to get the perfect entity. Yeah. And so the perfect entity so that’s not. So then you might think it’s oh well being is just the most abstract category go up all your taxonomic categories, and you get to the highest possible genus and that’s being. And that’s all we’re talking about we’re just talking about an abstract category and hide your says no, that’s not what I’m talking about at all. Go ahead, you’re honest you want to interject. Yep. And the, you’ll find this in section one of being a time of the introduction, where he lays out the three prejudices about being. And the tradition in that sense agrees or a highly agree to the tradition because the tradition would say it cannot be defined. It is not the highest Guinness, but it is still the most universal somehow, so it, there’s unclear it in the tradition itself. Even though the tradition never, but even though it saw these, you know, issues with being the tradition never pursued it further, according to never proceed. It’s just seemed obvious, but oh it’s just the most universal. Yes, but maybe, maybe it’s not. But it’s that there’s already here right at the beginning was introduced this is obscurity or darkness or hiddenness or concealment. Excellent, excellent. Now, the fourth one I’m going to say, doesn’t appear. It appears it’s marginalia, it appears in the margins, and then it gets taken up later but I think it’s fair I think was in his thinking at the time. And he also says, the last temptation is to think of being as beingness. Right. Some sort of property that all beings. Yeah, there, and he wants to reject that as well. And so, I hope that many of you, if you’re following this are wondering like well what the hell remains. Right. Like, like what are there alternatives to those for like what’s left over. And so, for me, that’s always been the problematic is, and, and here’s what I want to say about that. I think, first of all, there’s something deeply right about it. I’m not I’m not. I’m the problematic is not. Here’s why I’m building towards refuting Heidegger or anything like that. But the issue is, is, I, I’m convinced that the appropriate way to resolve this is not just conceptually there has to be something trans conceptual going on. I think this is given by the very phenomenological approach he’s taking. And it’s I’m trying to understand what is. I think this is fair what is the transformation required of me in order to see. I’m going to use that word I use early on order to realize my way through this. And so that I get an apprehension I’m trying to use a broadest term as I can, being that properly articulates what Heidegger is trying to convey. So, is that’s that’s how I want to pose a problem. Okay, I’ll. I think it’s the first word of being in time is a great word. And it’s there long there long means obvious. It’s a quote from Plato’s sophist. Yes, yes. So, in the quote reads, two and a half thousand years ago. It seemed obvious to you what we mean by the word being but now we have become perplexed. Yes. So in the sophistic in the dialogue on sophistry and what is sophistry I always point out it’s not just about you know, running from market town to market town selling knowledge. What sophistry does is it destroys access to the phenomena. Yes, because once, if you just teach let’s say virtue, but you don’t know what to go to Plato’s Meno dialogue. You, you. Well you give someone let’s say the rhetorical tools to talk about virtue, but not become virtuous or understand what virtue is. Hence sophistry destroys access to phenomena so right from the beginning of being in time the first word is, it seemed obvious, it is no longer obvious. Heidegger reminds us we must again, this is something that the tradition did not pick up on. So we have two and a half thousand years of quivering about being either not, you know, and it, it, but it must, in some sense, every generation must ask the question again, and not just take Heidegger’s word for it. And because precisely because the phenomena change, they are historically conditioned, let’s say, and hence the question must be asked again but it’s also tied back right from the start to the tradition, but also overcoming the tradition. And insofar as the philosophical tradition of ontology and metaphysics was not capable to consider what being and time, because what he arrived said also in the introduction is that being was thought of as was here, which he doesn’t translate as presence, but unvaisenheit, which means, sorry, which doesn’t translate as substance, which is the usual translation but as presence. And was here can also mean homestead. But here and being in time we’re still. He still understands was here really as unvaisenheit which means presence let’s just say presence, but when we think of presence. What we would have to consider is time. And that’s where the tradition really what were the Greeks sort of. I don’t want to say failed or made a mistake but they didn’t time did not become an issue for them it didn’t become a question didn’t become a problem didn’t become thematized time was a being amongst beings time was understood as, as the now for example for the most part, but it didn’t become itself an issue. So once we try to understand. If we have to ask for a presence that gives rise to the way which beings are present. Then we have to ask for time. And one could also speak not only of the forgetting or the oblivion of being, but the forgetting of time. Excellent. So let me just respond, then to that. I think that this is a softball in a sense to you because you know what what what I mean. One can think here of August of Augustin. I know what time is until you ask me. Right. In the sense that well, what do you mean. Surely the Greeks knew about the past and the present and the future, all that. And you know what’s more familiar to me than time every moment I’m aware of time and everything’s happening in time right. And right. But, but, but, but, but heidegger’s point is this is also that that same familiarity that actually blinds us is the case for being as well. So, like, yeah. So the what I’m saying is, these two things seem to be related in my mind. We deal with the familiarity and weirdness of being by by by relegating being to the opposite of becoming right this is sort of right and then becoming and then becoming and temporality get added up. And then being gets identified with the eternal and then that and then and then so that’s and then that means that the question of time, we don’t have to really address it because it has been decodemized separated profoundly from time. So, time has been made irrelevant to the question of being and then the project of relating to being is then understood as the project of relating to eternity, which then of course easily also gets subsumed under relating to the most eternal thing and God, etc. Is that a fair move to commit. Yes. So, one of the things we have to do then. This is sort of a fifth thing that is we have to ask what being is and try to forget that dichotomy that makes it so natural to align being with eternity, and put time with with becoming with appearance with with opinion, etc. This just touches on the philosophy is a bit mad. The German word for this is fair, which translates to crazy or mad but fabric can also mean to be displaced. So the initial displacement of the philosophical questioning is, as you know, why is there something rather than nothing or how is it that there is. And, but in order to be able to ask that question you also have to be withdrawn already from just everyday concerns of beings. So the hardest most let’s say the distinction or the difference between being and beings has opened up. And that’s the beginning also of being in time, which for Heidi can now has to be thought again or thought a new in a post metaphysical times and that’s another part of the project, and hence also time comes in, because when Heidi the seas is after nature. And I mean we’re speaking of becoming becomes the realm of temporality that’s appearance. I mean that’s plates and ism and that’s not played to play to an ism. Yes, actually this this is the world of, you know, the two world theorem. The eternal world of appearances, somehow connects to the eternal world etc. And Nietzsche says, both worlds have become a fable, everything has collapsed, and what’s left is a will to power and the eternal recurrence of the same which is for Heidi, the, the last ditch attempt to think and understand time through an eternal recurring so basically an eternal becoming that is no longer really a becoming it’s so, hence we are really at a dead end. And, and, you know, we talked a lot about crisis. But this is not a recent, and I’ve said this to you so many that we’ve talked about this off. It’s not a recent development the crisis for some reason, starts to spread as phenomenon sometime after Hago, the one one of hiding his teachers is also who is a lecture course on the, the crisis, or crisis sorry of the European sciences. Yes, another teachers is Paul Nate’s work one of the neo Kantians, who’s never mentioned in my book, he speaks of a in a lecture course in 1921 of the great field of ruins or that the tower has fallen. And the new can’t determine Cohen. He was aware of this also I mean they tried with reviving can’t to overcome Hago, and to revive philosophy again, and provide the categories necessary to make sense. Yeah, so crisis at the time of heading arrives the book has been around for what 5670 years. And he, so what the attempt really is is not just that, let’s get being right, and it’s sort of abstract academic discourse. But let’s make sure let’s make sure we have an access to what is that we can articulate it. Yes. Okay, so we’ve we’ve we’ve added to the problematic. And we, we, we know but we’ve explained its pertinence, and you’ve you’ve you’ve you’ve elaborated on why I do not think this is a conceptual issue, I’m not saying that concepts will not play a role in, because we’re talking and we’re reflecting, but this is not just a conceptual issue. This is a more fundamental issue. Now, I, so let’s say so in addition we’re not talking about, like, even that question why is there something rather than nothing think about how you’re just initially attempted to think there’s a causal answer. That’s a causal question. What was before this that made this. And of course that that actually isn’t the question that’s being asked. Right. But we so it’s not a thing. It’s not a super thing it’s not the perfect thing. It’s not the highest abstract category. It’s not beingness and now it’s not that which has been pointed to by the two worlds mythology. Okay, great. Good. Right. So, what any mean, and I’m not trying to be unfair, because you know Heidegger doesn’t, he literally does not complete the book. And so I understand that. Heidegger thinks that if we properly frame the question and the relation that we will make progress, I take it. And so, let me let me let me let me let me point to you on one move I see him making on the basis of phenomenology that is that might give us an initial sense of how do we step out of these things we’ve been talking about. And what has to do with that dichotomy that you just in the two world but that’s not the only dualism. Right. And when I, one of the things I think Heidegger gets from the phenomenology is, is a fundamental inversion. In a sense, not in like the neat, the critiquing mates of Nietzsche, what is, we, we, we have proceeded with a framework of here are the things here the two, the two, there’s always an object an object or, you know, time, time and a turn it, we have all these and then we try to build the relation out of them. And, right. Or it runs it or it runs into dialectics. Oh yeah, yes, yes, yes. Or the last ditch attempt to metaphysics. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yes, hagel sense of dialectic not Plato’s. Yes, and, and what what high and what Heidegger gets from phenomenology and I think, I think in one sense from host somebody does something very important. And, you know, right, those, those things like subject and object subjectivity and objectivity. Those are abstractions from something that is not a dichotomy within the phenomenon I’m trying to use that term as broadly, as you’ve been indicating here, if we really, really pay attention and comport ourselves to use one of his terms to what’s going on. We see that our experience. I hate that term, because that’s laden with everything we’re talking about. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But our experience, right. Does not. It’s not prop properly, like I, I see all the phenomenology is trying to get us to pay attention to how intelligibility is actually unfolding for us, and getting us to realize in the sense I talked about earlier that there is something before primordial to all these Yes, what, and, and that’s that was a speech sorry but no no but this is this is this. So, there’s a lot of things that but this is what Heidegger will come to call the clearing the list. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that which initially clears before anything else can at all appear or even become possible also in terms of a philosophical method. Something else that’s important that you briefly touched on is the other dualism or dichotomy let’s say the subject object dichotomy so something that people are concerned with probably also will listen to you or much is the subject object dichotomy or Cartesian subjectivity. So one of the reasons also for Heidegger to write being in time is that he says we have an ontology that’s based on, let’s just simplify on Cartesianism, which means the I, I am I thinking of myself, this is certain. And how the world is out there is thanks to the guarantee of the hypothesis God. And, but there is a split introduced now between subject and object or human being and world, which leads to all sorts of issues ontologically but also psychologically etc. And what Heidegger says was that the sciences have run into crisis. Yeah, precisely because they are based on this ontology, hence the need to establish or write or manifest a fundamental ontology, which finds its foundations and what Heidegger calls or refers to as which can only be thought of as being in the world. And now the reason why, as you mentioned this briefly, the book isn’t finished so the second volume wasn’t written which would have been a destruction or destruction of ontology. So, there are moments in which he destructs for example the issue that time was forgotten by the Greeks leads to Descartes understanding the world, overly simplified as objectivity yes but as presence at hand. That means it’s something that’s just perfectly available. And hence, mathematics nothing wrong with mathematics, but only math and math, a purely mathematical access becomes the only access to the world, the world becomes a secured resource. And so, the, he sees all of these, he kind of he sees all of these issues metaphysics coming to an end. The crisis of modern ontology. And hence, he has to write, he wants to destruct it build it all down, as it were, to provide a new foundation. And I think the reason why he doesn’t write the second volume is because in writing being in time, what you just were getting at which is going beyond being in time with it that there must be something initially having opened itself up the clearing, which for heidegger is always related to and can never be separated from concealment and withdrawal. That’s what he realizes writing being in time. And there are two moments in the book which is section so section 44 which is on truth and Aletheia. Yes, that way he begins to think he retranslates Aletheia the audacity you know to go and say, Well, look, this is how you understood truth for two and a half thousand years let’s say. Leather is the river of forgetting. L’entarno means I conceal. So let’s just translate Aletheia as unconcealment. But let’s not forget the concealment. So any unconcealment is predicated, we could almost say predicated on concealment. And then there’s another, the second division begins on death. So right after truth as Aletheia when concealment, you know, to think of truth that these weird passages were hiding it says, Dasein is simultaneously in truth and then untrue, which means Dasein is simultaneously in disclosure, but also in concealment. Yes, any, any disclosure that we make this make this very practical any discovery we make any scientific discovery that we make simultaneously covers over. We don’t know the hell what it covers over. There’s no way of you know it’s not oh we’ve covered this. Oh, no, we don’t. You don’t even know, because the process itself is simultaneous discovery. Yeah. Could I could I interject here because, yeah, because for me. I mean, I know you have criticisms but you know, Dreyfus is inspiration from Heidegger on this led to the discovery of the frame problem and the frame problem, relevance realization and my work on relevance realization I think dovetails with this, that the disclosure of truth is always relevant truth and relevance is is always bound up with what has been ignored, ignored as irrelevant, you cannot ever have one without the other. And so I see there being a fundamental connection there between what we’re talking about in Heidegger, and the kind of work I’m doing in cognitive science, do you think, do you think that’s fair to make that connection. Yeah, I think that’s fair to make that connection, yes, but you, it, it would have to be even more radical because ignore it can speak of ignorance or ignoring has already. And that’s what it sounds like to me at least requires and sort of realization. But the, the, right. No, no, that’s the point with relevance realization is not that kind of ignoring it’s not, I ignore it. In that sense, it’s, it’s the sense that I never, it never becomes a possibility for me to consider it, because if I tried to consider all those things and then chose to ignore them. I would hit combinatorial explosion. No, no, it’s a it’s a much. That’s why I said it’s very much like a Zen poet, you’re in town, like there’s a kind of intelligent ignorance going on that sounds contradictory and oxymoronic to our ears. So I think it. Yeah, that’s fair. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. And so for me, like, for me. I’m just, I’m trying to make a, I’m trying to do a concrete a little bit more concrete of a connection for like the point you made about Heidi’s point about how this gets into the sciences, and the issues about subjectivity and objectivity are crucial issues in in cognitive science, because that’s the science that tries to understand knowing and subjectivity. Right. And then this issue, at least I’ve been arguing is something that has been slowly sort of making its presence, making its presence felt within cognitive science. Right. And the understanding that wait, wait, this is a fundamental thing that we’re not properly recognizing in our science. So, if that’s right. Okay, then here’s, here, here, here’s something I want to get at. And don’t lose your part about the connection to death. Like I’m trying to get at. Because you didn’t you didn’t come, you’d only did phenomena, you didn’t do logos. Logos is, well, I didn’t mention it but logos is the same. So I don’t like this, this translation of discourse in English I would say saying or articulation in an apophantic sense. So to let something see in a, but it’s communal, and not every way of speaking is that specific logos apophanticos. Yeah, so I think it makes it for example he says, oh yeah, which means to bag or to ask for something is not that logos apophanticos that relevant sense, but it is a communal speaking in which the speaker becomes the medium and by the way just to finish now the point on phenomenon heidegger says that we should understand the word phenomenon is coming from finest die, which is is a middle voice form in the Greek grammar. So that’s to say, the phenomenon itself doesn’t, you know, it appears but yes but it can also appear in something else or actually appears through a medium and that medium is logos itself. That medium is the communal speaking and hearing. Okay, great, because that’s what I wanted to get at I wanted to get at the middle voice communal. I wanted to get at, like, and this is what I see what he’s maybe trying, like, for me this notion of intelligibility, and the way it’s bound to being seems to be getting closer to what we’re talking about here, because intelligibility, the intelligibility of this and the intelligibility of this are not the same thing. Right. I’m trying to get something. Yeah, right. Yeah, that gives me access, like what that gives me access in my experience, such that I like, so that I can come to the clearing so that I can come to the place for which I can apprehend being in this way we’re talking about this apophatic logos that you’re talking about. Right. Like, like, that’s why I was making the connection to relevance realization, I’m trying to get the sense that right that right there. That the way things are primordially intelligible to us is what heidegger is trying to get us to awaken to, and that that intelligibility is not a perfect presencing, but it’s always a realization, there’s always the shining in, but there’s the moreness beyond what’s that’s what I’m trying to get it, but it’s that a red herring, try to make that connection, because I’m trying to get back to what where the Greeks were not where they have something to tell us about. Oh, they have no they have everything to tell us so this is very important, by the way, so also the presence itself let’s say is never present. So it’s never a being the presence itself draws in the sense that show me the presence in show me time, show me, but the ink the inconspicuousness that does in German is this one shine bar we talked about this in London also that which that is not something that doesn’t appear but it, it doesn’t shine but it still gives rise for something to shine for the weather for example, I mean show me the weather, you know, this is a bit of a prestigious example but there’s different phenomena of the weather by the way, I’m in Italy and in Italy, you don’t say it’s raining you say pure, just simply pure but there’s no, there’s no it’s there’s nothing doing it is to kill the pure rain, rain, rain. So, um, but yeah I would that connection I think is fair. And the, so the presence is never present. What I really want to avoid is, and of course you know how to go when he writes being in time he’s a, he’s a young man and you know what young men are like, you have to make a mark for yourself so he his tone changes over time. So in the beginning you know he actually does speak on the very first page of being in time he says there’s a first time this so that a failure or they meet the Greeks missed this. Yes, yeah. And he’ll. I think there’s also moment when he speaks of almost a catastrophe or so in Plato. But, but that that disappears the older he gets. And it becomes, I think the. What’s instead of understanding heidegger someone who says everything is wrong up until me. It’s better to understand him as saying every way of understanding being has its epoch, and it’s time. But simple for us now but it’s, we have to find our own. Back to what you said primordial path to the phenomenon, but always in in in dialogue with the tradition. In that regard speaks of to feel, which I think he takes from football which he called soccer and Northern American English to feel is the, when you’re playing the ball to someone so that he can. Yeah, so, okay, fourth. Okay. Okay, so this is helpful because then I want to, I want to propose another way in which we can get mistaken about this, which is we can confuse intelligibility with semantic meaning. Yes, okay, now we have to talk about propositionality etc go on. That’s right. That’s the point I’m making that right so one of the one of the ways in which, like, given everything we’ve said, the temptation is right that what what what what what intelligibility is is semantic meaning it’s a relation between propositions. And I noticed that what is sought for I can get clarity, I can get pure right, a pure disclosure, a pure presencing of the relations through the conceptual analysis, and then that will give me the meaning. And that is what intelligibility is all about. And if the argument up to now is right, then this this converges with arguments I make about how relevance can’t be a propositional property right then we get another profound way to think about it. And that’s the way in which, like, this isn’t a confusion about being this is a confusion about how we try to understand the relationship between intelligibility and being because if we miss apprehend apophatic logos as semantic relation, then we are again blocked from the kind of thing that Heidegger is trying to get us to see. That’s a proposal I want to make to you. Yeah. So, but then there’s a problem. There’s a deep problem. And here’s my. And so, here’s now more of a challenging question to either. What are you doing outside of the propositional to make this possible. What is the purpose of the propositional to get us free from that confusion, because I would argue that if you if if if in your approach or your method, you take that as your first identification, identification your first step, you’re going to get locked into all these other things in a very profound way. I’m not going to make a false or a proposal I know but I’m willing to argue it but let it for the sake of argument give it to me and then like it’s like, I think that I want to know this what I meant about. I don’t think you can answer this question conceptually I’m not saying concepts don’t matter, but there’s, what else are we doing. If we grant. If we grant the is not conceptuality, it’s not semantic, eating, then what do we have. What we have to grant, and now it’s every now I’m going to attract all the wrath from from everyone who deems himself a rationalist experience, hiding it can keep I mean you know, we’ll say more but hiding it continues to say that he’s made a certain experience and his thinking by the way this can now, I can now bring this briefly back to death. Death is the beginning of the second division, and something happened so I wrote my book on death. And I thought, you know, it is a few things and being in time obviously very important. But death continues to reappear. And the reason I think for this is when you read this and you don’t read it. You know there’s different ways of reading also mean being in time itself is a self investigation of Dasein Dasein gets to know itself for the first time. And it gets to know its existential here. So, and all of a sudden, and this is the only reason why he can understand truth all of a sudden in terms of being in the world which has to do with hermeneutical discovery that is itself a different form of understanding or to use your intelligibility that we would usually because it is one that really is in the average everydayness, which is not proposition of the world does not light up to us purely or appear purely and purely proposition. It appears in a weird familiarity, it appears inconspicuously etc. But in death, reading these passages on death. What one can witness, I think, is that Dasein here is pushed towards its title calls it almost possibility of being, which at the same time shows Dasein that it, its impossibility of existence. So in this intensity of getting closer to one’s most authentic possibilities, it all slips away. And I think heidiger sees this exactly in this is why he doesn’t write the second volume I think is because he ignites here as a thinker, namely, he ignites as a thinker who sees I have to follow this with this withdrawal, I have to follow that draft that disappearance that way of disappearing. And then the language changes the language and the second division of being in time changes. It’s less academic, it becomes not all not the entire division obviously but parts of it are really bloody weird. And, and hence also the later turn to the poets because for heidiger poetry can articulate this better than maybe proposition language can. So that’s just a few introductory remarks I don’t think. No, no, no, that’s great. Yeah. Go on. No, no, sorry I didn’t, I didn’t mean to stop you. No, no, no. Yeah, yeah, I’m trying to get at that. I, okay. So, right, and yeah, so. So, I mean, in the poesis you’re getting into the sense making, and you’re getting into right. This inevitable tone us this creative tension between things becoming present to us well they also would, I mean, the whole point about poetry is it’s constantly doing that things are being said and conveyed but they’re also being withdrawn. Yes, in a non propositional manner grammar very often. And this is not data is in our 20th century poetry and form really disappears but this poetry of good to this is the poetry of early. For example, who were grammar disappears. And, and still the phenomena themselves. They’re there, we can see the world. So, what then. So first of all, I don’t I don’t think I’m thinking about dialogue. What is it a dialogue with this, what’s it called that little dialogue with a Japanese person, what’s the title of that. I think it’s just something like, sorry dialogue with the Japanese scholar. Yeah, I think so. And there’s as far as I know. Yeah. And he’s probably an illusion to DT Suzuki or something right and there’s, there’s, there’s this deep discourse, but it was in and of course the Kyoto school is deeply influenced by Heidegger and said, so I’m trying to get at does Heidegger, I’m not denying this. I like I’ll use your language and it’s poetic so it’s example, the igniting of experience. Right. I’m putting two things you said together the igniting of experience in his work, but are there things other than reflection on poetry that we should be doing to more properly ignite experience. For example, like the, you know, Nishitani would argue that you have to do. You know there there’s various meditative and contemplative practices that are needed. Yeah, order for you to get the, the these deepest disclosures the deepest kind of alafeya. I’ll get to this in a second by a bit of a detour to make this clear again I mean that so to make this a bit clearer. How Heidegger understands what he comes to call metaphysics or philosophy in general, which let’s say begins with Plato and Aristotle and continues all the way to Hegel, and maybe also niche. Right, somebody green nature but need to need to is already at the very edge so he’s already actually in the collapse of metaphysics. Yeah, all of this for Heidegger speaks within Yes, and, and now this ties in this leads to your, your question in what way can one tune oneself to. Yes. Now, I think, when you look at Heidegger himself. It’s, it’s, it’s a giving up first of all on subjectivity that would be the beginning and one would have to give up on thinking of oneself as an acting I think also. That doesn’t mean you cannot say I, but that would be perhaps one initial starting point if you like. Also, sense that it’s a, it’s, it’s a in a rereading of the tradition that’s well that becomes. So you see the way academic philosophy is for example, yeah academic philosophy is analytical analytical this is, this is very strange to think about it and analytical philosophy begins in the moment when metaphysics has collapsed, and it collapses into a positivism basically, which wants to be empty historical. Yes, it wants to be this is this is significant. Yes, this actually they speak of the end of history before any basically they say we don’t need nothing anymore it’s complete It’s complete for tourism or futurism just being cut off from anything. Yeah, so that’s so, but that didn’t work out right not everything can be formalized and now you have entire his departments of the history of analytical philosophy. And at the same time, there’s, there’s now a reading backwards off the tradition which very often can some purely amount to applying certain isn’t or models of our time to the waspinosa on idealist was he realist, but, you know, let’s have new realism let’s have new skepticism that will lead to a new idealism so you know we can turn this forever, but hiding it says why should we have all of these epic going on renaissance is and instead not try to read the tradition, what the tradition didn’t pick up on so there are these these seeds almost that no one picked up on. And those we need to turn to and see whether we can provide the fertile ground, so that it can. Well, it can grow and become our own but also in a way always in this term word for it which is an affair one. So we appropriate something. But we appropriate it. So that we become transformed. Yes, but also it become, but also it. Right. So the, in some sense, the future begins to alter the past. Yeah, a reciprocal reconstruction I get that. So, let me. Let me get pushed on this though. I like what you’re saying. Well, I have taken it and other people have to, or, you know, somebody we both know guys send stock and other people you Thomas Stalinger and others. Take it as one of the ways in which we try and actually put into practice with Heidegger is, is we would hide it is doing is we try to give up on the monological model of reason. The bottom on the monological model of how you philosophize. And the idea here is, like, if you’re saying all these sentences like we’re saying, but you’re still bound into a monological frame you’re still all you’re still working with fundamentally within the Cartesian grammar. And that what we need to do is to. I don’t even want, let me use the word reconceived but I want to use conceived not only as thought but to give birth. We want to reconceive. Right. Our ability to philosophize as something that is properly dialogical in nature, you know, I’m not I’m not trying to be coy. This is a this is an argument I have been developing. This is a way I’ve been trying to say we need, we need. This is a way in which we can put into practice. A way of breaking out of that grammar, so that we can now pick up seeds. The dialogical seed was clearly there and Plato’s dialogues, and it’s not picked up philosophers write some dialogues here and there along the way. And there’s some neoplatonic philosophers who really, you know, a Regina realities inherently dialectical things like that. But for me, that’s, that’s a concrete example of what you’re talking about. Right. It’s not a proposition. Oh look we should have thought the trees are actually mammals. It’s not that it’s like no no no. Right. Yeah, we pick up on something that would actually enact us breaking out of that Cartesian grammar in a. Well, in a direct in a directly transformative and in the sense you’re using the word experiential way can ignite experience for us in a way that we could see. Realize apprehend being in a new way the intelligibility of being in a new way. So I’m saying that’s something as a concrete proposal that I’ve been engaging in. And other people I’m not taking so credit. I’ve named a bunch of other people that are doing the same. That’s what I’m saying. Right. It is right. Are there things beyond what Heidegger. That’s trivial. Of course there has to be. But what I’m trying to say is I’m trying to get at like that. I’m going to maybe I’m being too coy with myself. It seems to me that to we need an ecology of practices to properly follow Heidegger on what he is proposing. Yeah, we need a. If you forgive me a de institutionalization of it also. Sure, sure. I’m not talking about what you’re doing, but of philosophy itself, because once it’s it’s it’s to come back to being in time if the so this is also important though the base self does man. Yeah, which makes no sense in English for you should know anyone who’s English out there should know in German we actually speak of man man man all the time. And it’s an ominous self. You can have personal sentences that are completely just concerned you yourself, and you will say ma, it’s not just others ominously out there. It’s an existential of being human. It’s to be taken over by a certain desire for being released from the burden of existence. And anything that institutionalizes for Heidegger. And actually, one way or another, turns into. If it becomes too overbearing is taken over by this month, so I think what one must develop is this sort of I talked to guys thanks for the purpose. A playful engagement but also with with with the withdrawal with concealment. Yes, one has to be mindful and accepting also that one is never oneself fully enlightened. We are taken in by the clearing is a clearing for self for concealment. It cannot so it would have one would have to accept that. Also that it’s this one cannot reach let’s say a yeah a highest level or state or so but that it’s the authentic cannot be separated from the inauthentic that clearly. Okay, so let me see if that this is how it’s landing with me. This goes towards something I think we’ve talked about I think you and I and Daniel talked about it. That giving up another, the giving up of the sacred as the, as the complete as the finished as the final as the totalization and that idea instead of trying to find deeply meaningful and vivifying the inexhaustible, rather than seeking rest, rather than seeking finality, rather than seeking completion. James Carson’s idea of playing the infinite game to pick up on your play metaphor. That seems to me to be also something that requires. Like the sacred is not that that you change just by talking differently about it. That is to not properly apprehended as the sacred. The sacred has to be that. Go ahead, go ahead. No, I think it’s just sorry, no you should go on but it’s really crucial and I think this is, you know, why I’m trying to do what I’m trying to do. Which is to. I sometimes I’ve been wondering these past couple of months of what, what am I doing. I think this is, it has this really been happening am I really teaching in the way that I’m doing what why am I doing it. I don’t know, but I think it’s becoming clearer again to me because there’s no there’s no so there’s no prestige in it. There’s no status in it there’s there’s nothing it is probably just ridicule in it from from at least from the institutions. What what what happens during the seminars is because it’s so completely free from any instrumentality. Is that they become electric. Yes. So, you see, this is the way we have to, I just wanted to second what you were saying because it’s not just coming up that we need to go into the, if you like, the practical or the deed of it also so it needs to become communal and where what really is at stake is this attempt to Reconceive this experience of being or bring it about or try and be a midwife to this new experience. You know, this is I think this is also how you can escape institutionalization is remains an erotic play. I think that’s right. I, and that’s the, the notion of the sacred as bound up with, right, the, the, the falling in love with being again. And for me that that’s part of what is coming to the fore. Yeah, that’s beautifully put that’s that falling in love again because that means to fall. You have to let go. Yes. You have to be willing to fall. Yeah, yeah. But it’s not but it’s not empty thrashing. It’s not that kind of fall, it’s the kind of fall that’s also the falling in love it’s the reciprocal opening. It’s the participation. It’s the commitment. It’s all of that. So let me. We didn’t even get to time yet. But we’re making good progress. We’ll get to time. Yeah. If we have time. That was a bad joke. Okay, because I want to. I want to, because I think there’s something deeply resonant between love in this sense. This is also another seed from the platonic Christian tradition. I want to try and pick up in some fashion and and and reconceive it. I think love has something to do with, you know, so, so heidegger talks about these. I don’t know what the what the English, the three dimensions like that are important for understanding temporality and even eternity is part of temporality if you properly understand it right but these dimensions of thrownness projection and concern. Right and they, they roughly can they roughly correspond I don’t know what the right verb is here to the past, the future and the present as experiential things, not just linguistic pointers. Because I think this is going to be an audacious claim. One of the ways we can re understand love is precisely how it engages those three in a profound way. You fall in love, you’re thrown into it. You’re deeply concerned about it, and it projects possibilities for you and who you could radically be that you were not otherwise not available to you or discernible by you love is properly doing that in a very profound way. First of all, does that even land as a proposal for you. Yes, yeah. Right, so I’m trying to make a connection with this capacity for falling in love with being again, and the way in which it gets us properly inter penetrated with our temporality in the high degree and sense because of the way it calls us into makes us reverberate with our thrownness our concern and our projection. That’s. What do you think about that as a proposal about making that connection. Yeah, very good. We. I think you should. Yes, let’s move into time. Obviously, just to be pointed out these three dimensions of time already that how to go sees, which are connected to the three dimensions of time that the, as he calls it the ordinary understanding of time also presents as the past, the present and the future. Right, what he sees as an issue though here is that these are disconnected from one another. And that the positive the future flows into the present flows into the past. Well, we’re mostly concerned with this the current now, the past maybe becomes of historiographical or so interest, but he’s, he sees, he wants to understand time as x or y and his dance time as ecstatic, meaning, out of itself or taking us out of ourselves. Yes, and also, this is something perhaps that he actually he mentions only in passing, almost. He asks in the question. Why is it that we think of time is fleeting. And he says it’s because of our is because we haven’t really faced death yet. It’s our fleeting knowledge of death that leads to our fleeting understanding of time, because we haven’t considered time it as our almost possibility. And if you understand time for example purely as linear, then projecting possibilities also become very different from, well project possibilities and make static sense, which by the way ties to how we understand how we can understand or relate to the tradition as ecstatically throwing something at us and throwing us into something, which we can project as a possibility towards a horizon of possibilities. And some of which we will act on and others we won’t. But the most important perhaps part is perhaps to understand that the past is never just past the past is given design or an English translation of time. The past is never just past the past is given design or an English that which has been an as such continues and comes towards us from the future the to come is coming towards. By the way, also briefly because this is something that is important when we speak about love and falling in love with being the German word from for possibility is mobility and possibility is a perfectly fine translation for mobility for the most part. And it makes sense, but Morgan Heidegger understands, especially after being a time sometimes also in its verbal meaning to maybe sky then it’s very meaning of Morgan which means to like and to love. Oh wow. Oh wow. Yeah, so that’s a profound. In the letter on humanism. He calls does sign is does make leach it, which in English that he does make leach is so he, he absolutely wants to show us that he means Morgan, in the sense of to like and to love. And that’s translated into English as being is the possible which makes no sense. So they didn’t get it translated it didn’t pick up on that. But it’s, it’s right there doesn’t move to being is that that means being is that which likes us afford itself to us, gift itself to us, if we like it and love it back. Right, right, right. Okay, that’s, that is really powerful. And, you know, for me, I like, so let me just stop. What we’re saying here is really relevant to, I think, a misappropriation of Eastern philosophy, which is the idea that only the now is real. Only the now is real and the future and the, and so being in the now is all that matters. And I think that’s a, that’s a radical truncation of what mindfulness means. Sati means to remember to remind, which is already an inherently temporal notion. And to like, you’re just not right. And that, you know, and then of course, eternity is often the eternal, the eternity is the, the, I don’t know, the, the now without limit or something the the the the unexcended now, or the infinitely extended now or something like that is how people. And for me, this, whenever I try. I remember doing this when I did a course on the philosophy of time, and you know you do, and Brooks on talks about DeRay, and I’m trying to get at. I’m trying to get at DeRay right I’m really trying to get at this, this notion, and I’m really, you know, and of course he says it’s intuitive and all that but the point I’m trying to get at is, as soon as you try and do the now thing you get to the specious present like, like, when people do that move, they don’t realize how corrosive it is. Right, because because it goes like this, it goes like this like this like this, you don’t get eternity, you get you get what Han talks about you get the complete automatization of time until it becomes this, this, like this, what did James call it the specious present that that like, right, and then all of existence, all of reality is reduced, right and such. And why the hell would you love that that is not anything in which anything that can bear love or that can even constitute love for me that that that do you like, I, I’m, I know you weren’t saying this but I’m saying what what you’re saying or what you’re, you’re voicing I’m saying it’s a criticism of this whole thing that is becoming very prevalent right now and without a recognition of how corrosive it is and how atomizing it is and how ultimately it’s nihilistic it’s deeply nihilistic. Yeah. And it takes time again as a being amongst beings. Exactly. And so, but this is maybe crucial as you pointed out. You know I had a conversation conversations last year with the professor of mathematics at Berkeley and I’m not going to mention his name but he said, it strikes him that probably hiding the things after time because time is for us become. So, and that to me is crucial maybe there is something weird about our time in so far as now time seems to be everything you know we use your at 12pm Toronto time I would say, yeah, the time has become one of the parameters by which we run the globe. But this behind me here is not that it doesn’t exhaust time that the time is a parameter by which we can steer the cybernetic globe that you know that’s one part of it, but it doesn’t exhaust the full dimensionality of time. And so it seems to become an issue really for us for some reason. And that perhaps was something to ponder but maybe this withdrawal into the now which seems to be prevalent in. Yeah, certain, you know, people who look for help or, or guidance by focusing on the now maybe that’s in some sense the attempt to again cancel out time. Yes, it were but but then remain with time. And that’s basically still predicated on the ordinary understanding of time is linear and just passing us by and flowing away and never to return. Whereas, we think of time is ecstatic that is as taking us out of time itself is not is time proper is arising, and this giving. And that is also the connection to the later understanding of higher than of being which is being as gift or giving itself. Yes, of course the human being in a receivership a gift is not you know if I give you something you need to consider it and look at it is not it is not a gift has to be accepted received appreciated. So, these are the deep connections he’s drawing between thinking and thanking in that sense, the deep right. Yes, right, right, right. But then that means, right. So there’s, there are virtues that need to be cultivated if we’re going to properly realize time. Right, because if we cannot have patience and gratitude and receptivity, then this is this what we’re talking about here is not going to be anything other than words to people. And actually I think gratitude and patience is an interesting word because it comes from pass same, which means to suffer. Right, yeah, yeah, to, to undergo and yes so the, the, you know, to just to stay on IDA, he himself gave lots of talks in the 50s 60s to philosophical layman either to his to in his hometown is the talk on glass and had release meant. He says, don’t don’t condemn technology, say yes and no. He released towards things and be open to the mystery. So here we have to, because you’re asking before and obviously you know it’s sometimes it comes a bit later but to say modes of being or ways of responding that one can call today. Release yourself into the world that manner but also be open remain open to the mystery. So that in and this is some of the, you know, we’re getting into different topic best but in how to get says in technology there is a sense waiting to be discovered that we haven’t seen yet but that’s just the cyber so yes there are moments where you can find those in Not in being in time to be straight because that’s you know that’s a yeah it’s not it’s purely descriptive. Yeah, but one can cultivate of course, coming from this certain comportments to use also his language so certain ways of behaving that’s a beautiful English word. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, to be in the half. Yeah, same time. Yeah. So, I mean, which you invoked I mean that that release meant. He gets it clearly and I think computer makes a good case for this. I think it comes out of Eckhart properly. And that that brings me in. I mean, one thing I want to talk to you about some is the relationship between Heidegger and Christian Neil Platonism because I think it’s a lot more intricate than is often understood, especially through people like Eckhart, and of course it’s no coincidence that Suzuki also picks up on Eckhart in order to try and make DT Suzuki to make connections, but I want to try and get at because you know Eckhart makes the argument that glasen height requires this fundamental metanoia. This fundamental radical kenosis is radical emptying like what I’m saying is it requires. I’m going to use this in hado sense it requires really profound spiritual exercises to realize it. Now that doesn’t mean that it’s only for elites because Eckhart is giving his sermons to the peasants and he’s proposing something that they can engage in even in their peasant life. If that doesn’t sound elitist I don’t know what other term to use. And so, again, this brings me to. I want, like, the cultivation of glasen height. I think is a very radical in the sense of going to the root, and also opening up possibilities that have not been opened up. I’m trying to use both senses of the word radical. I think that’s a very radical proposal for a human being. I think it like, does this. I think, does this, does this lead to a conclusion that I think is prominent in the neoplatonic tradition especially the Christian neoplatonic tradition and spinosa even has it, you can hear the last echo of it within the Cartesian framework within the Christian spinosa, the truth is actually the deepest truths are only disclosed in transformation in profound trends, so that truth is in that sense, you know, we only know it. I don’t I don’t I don’t want to say purely retrospectively because we have the prospective longing, but we only completely realize it in the transformation that we’re called to we only know it, so to speak, by how we have moved away from illusion or delusion and how we will ever grasp it itself it’s like time in that sense. Right, it is it is what affords the propulsion of intelligibility but it’s not anything that we actually itself grasp. This is what spinosa tries to get it when he says truth is its own standard, you only see it. When you realize what was previously false, you can’t just sort of do it like have it directly. So the argument I’ve made, Gleisenheit in Eckhart is bound up with profound transformation, and that’s bound up with the neoplatonic often Christian neoplatonic claim that the deepest truths are only disclosed in profound transformation, and this is the opposite of the Cartesian proposal that it’s culmination and Leibniz the other to spinosa right that no we can come up with a universal calculus. Right. That does not require us in any way to undergo all we have to do is know how to use that technology and then we’re fine. So that’s, that’s the argument I’ve made to you. And I think, maybe just to add to this in without the last one highlights is also the is letting oneself into, but also letting beings appear in us in. So that one. Well, it’s to use this word, de centering of oneself to begin to see that we are. We are passing the suffering participants also patient sense, but not only of course, off. Well, of the unfolding of being itself, and that that hasn’t ended is simply the responses that were given that that that really have exhausted themselves. And so, by, however, beginning to see. You can almost say oh, it is grander, almost cosmic. Well, I would, I would really say this difficult because there’s no word for you. I always try. It’s not history, because history in English means mostly the past. And of course we can say history is unfolding where that means events. Geschichte is, is, is the past, the present and the future coming together in one ecstatically forming one but of course you know this coming together isn’t again, it’s not a totality. It really, it actually is one, let’s say, bubble that begins to form that bursts and that forms, a million others. But the, the. So what I think would. I don’t, I’m not sure. I’d like to hear more on on on the new plates in this and what the clear connection, or maybe, you know, but then you see so that maybe I can say something more directly on it. Yeah, but last night for Heidi he’s. In some sense for him, the, the, the future let’s say lies in a complete disregard for some complete abandonment not as real abandonment of any sort of subjectivity. Hence heraclitus becomes also so important where there is no acting subject. It’s, it’s, it’s the unfolding of, and he goes to Homer for example certain passages in which when we translated in the proposition then as we’re used to today, then it’s a disoys himself who’s who’s, you know, he’s crying because he said, but no, the tears come over him. He’s taken by it. And so that sort of way of thinking is that’s maybe a, if you’d like a certain practice also that one can. Yes, in saying or in in languishing in articulating something. Not going to the general you are some sort of propositional articulation, but an attempt to say something without the subject that acts. Yes, and instead, going into this event character of the pure occurring and try and say it in that manner and see what changes. And that to me, you know that could be released that could be a really, it’s not a release and you know, I release myself off myself. Yeah, yeah. Away from Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So, I think what you that what you just described was something that you can see the neoplatonic tradition, especially when it enters into Christianity, or an articulation of, of, you know, of participation in the platonic sense. Right. Participation is is what I think you were that that what you’re doing with your hands right. And so what, what, what I’m trying to get to now is there’s a kind of transcendence happening here. Right. And, right. And yet, how do we get that without the two worlds mythology. So, we must, we have the task is to keep open the schism. Yeah, or else the phenomena also collapse into a sheer immediacy. That’s the story of the of the prisoners in Plato’s cave. They take in what seemingly immediate, but it is only through the schism that’s opening up by the suffering painful. Yeah, exiting the cave and the end the return. That’s the return into the cave that transform return into the cave, that we begin to see that there’s a what is and what is not can now be separated. So how does this not turn into Platonism. Yes. So what always has to distinguish between marks and Marxism, or hegel and hegelianism or plates and plates in this. Yeah, they, of course, you know this, it’s maybe a thing that’s impossible because you cannot stop the unfolding or how people receive. Yeah. Yeah, what the initial thought is that’s one of the issues about the authentic inauthentic you know, I mean, the nature suffers through the eternal recurrence of the same. He’s, he’s, he’s really I mean lose a lot may talks about this how he suffered from this thought. Yeah, and now it’s a it’s a and now it’s a, you can read it on Wikipedia, it’s a thought experiment. Yeah, you know, so the heaviest most terrible thought can turn into a five minute video on YouTube. But I think So, the, the, the, that, that to me is the profound question, you know, instead of, so that has to do ultimately comes back to how we teach and how we, how, how well how we teach and how that teaching and those. So, you know, what goes into that teaching before and if it’s just, again, if it’s just a propositional teaching that to use your language from before that speaks within the grammar of of Cartesianism, let’s say, so that you know tries to get something perfectly right or that this is not correct. So, that sort of leads to the same issues that we’ve had before but if the, the, I know the, if the teaching itself is a different one it can at least lead to. I mean, an intensity also with the students or the learners to understand that this is not purely something that can be, or that is just up for debate in an academic sense. But ultimately I think the, because it is the schism or the hardest most that must open up and that must kept open the, I don’t know whether whether the sort of some sort of two worlds issue or mythology or, or, or, or paradigm I would almost say. It’s not, you know, I’m not saying this is around the corner or so, but the, it’s nothing can be. It cannot be made. One cannot get rid of it I think because it’s it’s inbuilt in thinking itself. Do you see what I’m trying to say it’s insofar as the schism needs to be held open, but also then bridged again. Yeah. And brought together, you, it, it cannot be purified to such a degree that to such a degree that now this will never happen again. Right, I think rather I think rather to come back to this. There’s a return into the cave. So the cave doesn’t disappear. Now that’s striking. Why doesn’t he, he comes back down and he’s faced with death and everybody ridicules, whoever was freed. But he goes back down out of also compassion, by the way. Yeah, virtue of compassion that’s nice. Yes, there’s a copy too. Right. Yes. And so, it’s a good. It has to be achieved again and again. Again and again, hence, how to get set to a student wants a here, we don’t hide a Gary and I see. So don’t use my language. This is an attempt of saying, you have to find your own language which is not to say your own private little personal subjective language that no one understands but this is something we have to. Almost, you know, fight out but work out again and again. And, but you probably have your own thoughts so I’d like to hear before I keep monologuing. I think that’s fundamentally right and yeah I’m trying to get this notion transcendence that we find in time and love and being that isn’t well described by the two worlds mythology I agree with you that that that that mythology is in some sense. We will, I’ll totally agree with the statement. We cannot purify our experience so that mythology will not arise again. It will continually arise. And there’s something about continually overcoming it. That is part of the kind of transcendence I’m talking about. Right, not transcendence within the two worlds mythology but a continual transcendence of it. That’s non completable. I totally grant that. And for me, that has deep analogy. Maybe not even analogies something stronger than analogy to what happens in love. You keep thinking you’ve got the person. And as soon as you do that you’ve killed love. Right, you have to you have to get the person so that you’re willing to give it up so that you can get the person so you’re willing to give it up so that you can get the person. That’s the kind of thing I’m trying to point to. And it seems to me that that is also the proper experience of time. It’s like, there’s a giving that we receive in order to give it up so that we can receive in order to give it up so that we can receive. And that’s the connection I’m trying to draw. And so I totally agree. If people understand my project is John is trying to purify things that will never do that. No, I’m not doing that at all. I’m not. Right. Right. But I’m trying. But I am doing what I’m trying to propose to you right now. And also to be able to see it. That’s, that’s, that’s, yes, that’s half the ticket, let’s say. Yeah, yeah, to me. Because it is it is an issue that that’s, again, it’s fundamentally at the heart of the crisis. Yes, the collapse is the collapse of that to a paradigm, because it gave it gave sustenance to the realm or the world of appearances. And not with, and not with, not without good reason. There was good reason why it was able to do that. Right. Like you say, it fits into so much of how our experience, like presents itself to us, upper and lower our language. Yes, but but but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t collapsed. For me, that is part of the, the, the, the bite of the meeting crisis is like, like, yeah, that’s, yes, no, that’s, that’s the issue of our time is that this is what I alluded to before. And I think that’s where, where is, where is philosophy now for the most part, the tradition is fully available. We’ve not had those texts and from any of these texts and Heraclitus is text and everybody Aristotle, everything that you know, type it in and you can read everything And that doesn’t mean that this access that’s there in terms of pure availability is a genuine access to, you know, yes, an access to the problems. And we can fight forever, you know, whether Aristotle contradicts himself here that it doesn’t what that actually doesn’t matter. This is part of the simulation as it were of the simulacrum. If you like after the collapse. There’s some sort of impasse or embarrassment about what to do with the tradition. So let’s just problematize all of it. Or as analytical philosophy tried in the beginning, let’s just think history doesn’t even exist anymore. But instead, the, we have to take seriously it has collapsed, we have to see also its merits, however, yes, and at the same time, because it has it is it comes almost naturally you know, used to be that we spoke of the metaphysical birthright of the human being, which is to say we’re born in this dimension also, but that dimension doesn’t speak to us anymore. I don’t think it does we try to replicate it technologically perhaps also. But what we have to, we have to what we could might perhaps get to or allow ourselves to, well to open us up towards is, is the reading the tradition again, in such a way that it, it, it’s, it’s not pure intellect academic interest, but it is genuinely let’s say transformative. Yeah, and and and and transformative in a way that it, it, you can see it almost spreading as it were, you can. You can. I mean, it’s, this is what I’m, you know, philosophy is real, that’s what I mean by this is not, it’s not played to had a weird thought. Who cares. Yeah, but no, these thoughts carried the world in some sense they they make up. If you’ve never heard of a car doesn’t matter. You still live in the Cartesian world. Yes, yes, yes. And probably they cut never read communities he still re articulated the fundamental principle of Western philosophy was identity of being and thinking. So, that’s the funny, the weird thing about thinking is you don’t have to have read everything. You still live in this world. So let’s, we, yeah. Hence we have to find their own way. So my friend, I’m going to need to bring this to a close. I thought this was tremendously rich. Progress isn’t quite the right word, but there was there was a lot that was unfolded, that, and it, and it kept weaving together and it. But I just want to give you, like I do with all the guests on my channel, the opportunity to make the last word it doesn’t have to be summative or cumulative, but just your last word. Thank you. Thank you very much john that should be and thank you everyone for listening. Thank you so much, my friend will be will will be in touch and we’ll be in talk. Yeah, yeah. Again and again.