https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=mOvlDovR5sg
Thank you. Welcome everyone to a special session of voices with Reveki. I’m joined by two of my good friends and people who are often my, my partners in our iconic crimes. Christopher master Pietro and guys sense talk. And we’re going to be doing another dialectic into the logos workshop in July, we’ll put some of the information in the notes. So this is a standalone thing we’re going to do because this is part of a larger project. And some of you know I’ve been really exploring this with Daniels Aruba and your honest Niederhäuser. I did one with, with Roberts Gray and Eric, I forget Eric’s name was, but it was on Roberts Channel, the meditating philosopher. I did one of the podcasts with jack-o-lantern. I’m going to bring to everybody who will listen, or at least pretend to listen, because I’m very intrigued about this I talked about it with john Rusen. I want to bring back a very rich transformative phenomenology and platonic accounts of intelligibility and reality. So as I say to create it to create a living and lived neoplatonism that is informed by post nominalism by phenomenology and science, etc. It’s a daunting task. And I need all the help I can get and here’s two gentlemen who are very good at helping me so there’s a long preamble introduction but welcome, Chris and guy. Thanks john. Thank you. I just want to make sure we announced July 9 and 10, we have the next deal logos and circling multi layered practice course that will the three of us will be teaching so all that information. We’ll put in the show notes. That’s right. But we’ll be kind of in some sense for our attempt to enact the very thing that we’re going to be teaching the basics of in that course so if you’re interested in that. Check out the link and sign on up the people that come to it are just extraordinary. I love them. I’m having such a good time. I’m doing it like I’m practicing every week, and having seeing all kinds of interesting things happening in inside of me and outside of And so I am so, so fascinated by this whole process so this idea and looking forward to this conversation with the three of us because the idea of, I think what, well one of the ways I love something I noticed is I, I want to know everything about it, I want to know that there’s a, I guess it’s the erotic component of just wanting to consume and be assumed to buy it in some sense, right. I’m thinking about what deal logos. What Plato was getting at sacrilege was getting at the pre Socratic’s were getting at the sense of the logos that is so draws me in and makes me think about it constantly. I want you guys with my mind three in the morning, like philosophical questions. There is something. This is keeps it draws out thought, and, and I’m just, I just want to get closer to it. Yeah. And today I’d love just to get really kind of really do some do our diligence in terms of really laying out that, like the questions that we’re going to be asking in this series like what what are the questions like what are the, what are the fundamental questions that we’re facing and trying to try to articulate them and get really grounded in what we, what we want to look at, so we can, on that basis just really get an optimal grip on our thinking or thinking together. So, in response to that. I’ve been deeply influenced by third weight what’s called third wave Platonism. This is the scholarship of Platonism not something in the history of Platonism by, you know, typified by people like Highland and Gonzalez, and also by Schindler of going back and paying a very close attention to the non propositional in Plato’s theory, which means that most existing theories of the forums, tend to be conceptual propositional in nature. And it struck me that if Plato was on fundamentally about the non propositional it’s odd that we would be looking for purely conceptual propositional accounts of the forms. And this also doesn’t sit well with later neoplatonic readings of the forms. And it struck me that what he often does is give, you know experiential metaphors the word I does is the look of something it’s aspect. He brings in perceptual movement metaphors that are very phenomenologically laden and their transformative impact in order to try and point to he tries to do something like demonstrative reference and perceptually index the forms, rather than give what we what we all, what we all want to always want to put a bit never find, which is well but where’s the precise definition. Right. And, of course, many people in the dialogues, try to do that and fail, which is also instructive. I’m interested in two aspects then I’m interested in with in which, you know, who’s will have the identity reduction but I think that’s what Ponte seems to open it up. It doesn’t sort of close on a final thing you get I what I call identity deduction. It’s constantly drawing out. It doesn’t come to an end, but I’ve been thinking about how to complement the notion of reduction with edification. And I’m trying to pick up on two different meanings of edification one is to build a structure. And the other is also means to proletic, it helps to propel people into transformation. That was an edifying discourse is the kind of, and I’m trying to play on both meanings of the word edification there because it’s not just simply that we’re drawing out, but as I like to say there’s this through line. It’s an integrity to it, a centrality to it. But it’s, it’s more like Rusin says it’s more like a melody. Then it’s a definition or an essence. Just real quick edification you said two things one was production with what was the other one. Well, the edification is the generation of a structure. And then the other is like a proletic function that it helps propel us into transformation. Jacobs ladder, as it were right and sort of you can you can sort of collapse these together right you’re building an edifice that reaches, and you’re climbing that edifice as you build it. Yes, right. It’s one of the things I was, I was unhappy with. Well, I am I happy right now with just the notion of reduction is it was leading, it was leaving out that Plato finds right, a kind of there’s there’s an aspirational affinity that’s going on there’s the anagogic process. So that the disclosure of the forms is not just a passive spectacle that we observe, but it is one in which we are inherently being transformed, and we are being conformed to a structure that right that we are participating in. So I’m sorry I’m really struggling with the language but you understand there was a dimension missing in understanding it just as I dedicated action. And with. I mean, there’s three. Yeah, sort of contenders for what I does is one is one part of Aristotle, Aristotle has multiple parts, where it’s something like an essence and then that was later understood, as they said of necessary and sufficient conditions. So that’s almost completely in the conceptual propositional mode that I want to put aside. Right. Yep. Then there is something that is properly in the phenomenological disclosure side, which is what I’ve turned in the past the structural functional organization. As a wiki talks about this and talks about Plato, right, not really having a theory of the gestalt because you can’t really do that. And there’s something right about that. There’s something right about the idea. So I got to talk for a bit to set up the problem. This is not a problem like go to go to the left and go to the right this is like, how do we save our marriage, it’s that kind of problem right. It’s complex and requires transformation. Building the step that we just took, right. It’s kind of the same problem. When you think about it to how do we save our marriage. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I hadn’t thought about that. So, part of it is right this idea of a structural functional organization what Spinoza would later call the Canadian. There’s an inherent way in which something is self organizing, so that it behaves as a functional whole. The problem with that the inadequacy, see I now see to that. So I’m doing some self criticism here, there’s something right about that, but the problem with that, and even already structural functional organization isn’t the same thing as shape. It’s more like the formula of a thing. But the problem with that is it’s static. It’s, it tends to collapse it into, like, the, the multi aspectuality of a thing is not being properly displayed or emphasized by the notion of a structural functional organization. Right. Yes. So there’s something important there, something to not be lost but it’s not something that is sufficient anymore. Instead, I’ve got, we’ve been talking about this other thing and working it out with people like Daniels Aruba and you’ve been working it out with Daniel Guy and right and this idea of the through line, the melodic through line. So all we actually never ever see any object in completion. We actually only see right, it has an indefinitely large number of aspects, but the aspects do not do not present themselves as a They present themselves as a melody, each aspect somehow scaffolds the intelligibility of the next aspect. Right, like a melody. The notes aren’t repetitive, they’re not the same note, and there can be even sort of surprise and novelty but the novelty always makes sense of the past and make sense in terms of the past. Right. And the idea is the form is this through line in the inexhaustible intelligibility. Yeah. Okay, but the thing is, It’s not just multi aspectuality. It’s, and this is of course the point of the logos, it’s it’s multi perspectival. It’s not that it’s not only that each thing has a through line that is never perceived right and this is the thing we have to remember. The through line is not itself an aspect, it is not a thing. It is not any aspect. It is that which binds all aspects together, but not but is not itself an aspect. Right. Yeah. So there, there’s that. And then of course it’s multi perspectival, and this is the great point of the platonic dialogues, right, this perspectival disclosure of things is also non propositional, and it makes the, it gives extra dimensionality to the through line. It’s not just the through line for this person. It’s a through line for that, and somehow all the through lines have a through line. It’s a meta through line, which is getting clumsy but you know what I’m trying to. And then, And reading with Dan Schiappi, Okskul’s book, the book that had such a huge influence on Marlo Ponti and Heidegger, the psychologist that Heidegger cites the most, right, a foray into the worlds of animals and humans, and a theory of meaning. And then Okskul talks about the fact that there isn’t, there isn’t one environment. Right. So he introduces, and this is the only way I can put it, a trans specific phenomenology. He says, okay, so you’ve got this flower. It means this to the girl who’s picking it for a decoration and a bouquet. It’s a road for an ant. Right. It’s a drilling place for the cicada. Right. And it’s, it’s food for the cow. And he says, look, right, some features go come more foregrounded for this organism and other ones are backgrounded. So there’s also this foregrounding and backgrounding right that is cutting across species, but it’s not like it’s not like it’s not an object. Right. So, this is where I bring in the imaginal and this is where, and a Plato, right, and this is to give a deep and important, even central role to mythology within Plato, because the mythology is trying to do this kind of imaginary extension to take us into, you know, other environments and other beings, the gods and whatnot, in order to try and do something like what Okskul is doing by getting us to see what the fly’s world is and the cow’s world is and the dog’s world is. Right. How do you see the name of that author? Okskul. U-E-X-K-U-L-L. Jakob von Okskul. Huge influence on 4E cognitive science. The notion of the umfels. The book is A Foray into the World of Animals and Humans, a Theory of Meaning. So this, he introduced the term of an umwelt, right? Organisms and environments form this umwelt. He’s a precursor to Gibson in some way too, right? And so now when you do this imaginal extension, right, and you do now trans-specific dialogue and eidetic deduction, your sense of the multidimensionality of the through line now is a kind of a universal, right? Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. So this is almost overwhelming, yet it is somehow bound up with the structural functional organization of the thing, because all of the properties somehow behave as a causal whole, even though all the properties are not being aspectualized, are not being sort of foregrounded by the fly or the cow or by John or by, right? Do you see that? And so it’s like, ugh, like, and so, and then people might be saying, why does any of this matter to me? Right, like, why should I care about it? Because one of the things we are trying to do in the workshop is return people to a proper reverential right relationship to being, to things like honesty and courage, and what people often discover is exactly this property, right? That courage is multi-aspectual, it’s multi-perspectival, and there’s something trans, even trans-specific around it, because you can talk about the courage of a dog, you can talk, is that appropriate, right? You can even talk about different historical or mythological beings and the relationship to courage. People will invoke Frodo to talk about courage. It’s like, Frodo is a hobbit. What the heck? Like, what are you doing there? Right, that’s like, oh, it’s full. That’s an imaginal extension. And so, right, it sounds tremendously abstract, but what I’m trying to get at, and asking for help, is I’m actually trying to get at what you’re doing moment by moment, and right, and what you’re not doing, and what is, what both what you’re doing moment by moment when you’re making sense, and what’s also available to you, transformatively available to you, aspirationally available to you, moment by moment, and this is a way of bringing the heights and depths of our ontology into the guts of our experience so that we can fall in love with being once again. There, I’ll stop my speech, but that’s the problem. That’s the problem I’m wrestling with. I’m trying to get, you’ve got the structural functional, we’re putting aside the definition. We got the structural functional organization, we have the melodic through line, but it starts to open up in, right, in dimensionality when we do move to multiple perspectives, and then it opens up beyond that when we move to imaginal extension. Yes, yeah. And then you say, and the question. You are wanting to ask for the, how do they all come together. Well, so I have a preliminary idea, which is right, because I’m trying to map it onto the best account I’ve worked out of what, you know, making sense is relevant to it, but this is sort of the structure of the functional organization is a limiting, it’s a selective constraint. Right. Yeah. And then, and then all of this multi dimensionality, even in, in, even in imaginal extension this is the variation, but what we’re doing is we’re constantly moving between these And so I don’t quite understand how so the question is, how do they fit together is that the right proposal is, is it something like that, that you know the melody can never violate the fundamental integrity of the structural functional organization, but the structural functional organization can never close down or stop the unfolding of the melody, there’s something there’s, you know, there’s an opponent processing. Well, I’m proposing I’m not sure. Somehow going on here and I’m trying to, I’m trying to understand what that means. And you know what it reminds me of, it reminds me of the numinous in this way. It’s, it’s fascinating in that it can pull us in but it’s terrifying because so there’s an organizational focus. Right, but there’s also the opening up of the, of the terror of the horror. Yeah, yeah. Really struck really. So, so the cut the. I think one of the things that just got is, in some sense, Chris, this is what we were talking about. In our last in our conversation that just actually I think it just aired today. But this whole thing about how does, how does, how does a mode become the place from which you reside, what, what is right, what is, how does one become enlightened. How does one become wise when those things by definition or if you say that you have them you don’t have them. Right. There’s something about what you’re talking about here that seems to get at. I think we can understand how all of this comes together. Right, and start to relate to it with more distinction, it seems like that seems like it’s almost like we’re kind of back, we’re backwards engineering enlightenment or something. Right, it’s like it seems like enlightenment and in what it is it to become deeply masterful at something I just got the sense that this time, as you said, I’ve gotten before. Yeah. Well there’s some resonance, let me see. Say, so a model I have an analogy, and then I’ll connect it up. So there’s an analogy and Corey Lewis talks about this for a former student of mine. Laws rule out and models rule in. The laws say what can’t come in. And that’s like your selective constraints and then the models give you but these are all the things, these are all the things that should be included. They will, and of course, and the thing is laws tend to be very limiting, like narrowing and models tend to be multi aspectual you can pick up on different, different models of the same thing. I’m trying to get that sense that the, the, the, the idols is something is ruling out so we can’t just do anything. Right. Yeah. Right. But, but there’s also an aspect of ruling in. Right, but it’s. So, figure out, and then where that connects to what you just said is, I take it that that’s what Aristotle understood a virtue to be right so what you do is you set up a select you set up selective habits and enabling habits, enabling habits, prevent vices of deficiency, and the selective habits prevent vices of access, the golden mean is not an average the golden mean is the fact that the cycle of development is constantly being being guided between these two things it’s being virtually engineered. So I argue there’s a deep connection between virtual engineering and your R sense and virtue, and then virtual engineering lines up with this, this sort of like ruling in and ruling out the right the, the, you want something that doesn’t excess semantic drift or whatever we want to call it. I’m doing an Umberto echo but something like that, but we also, we want something that doesn’t impoverish the richness of the reality of the thing. Sorry I’m really struggling here gentlemen but I’m trying. That’s why we’re doing this I’m really trying to get it. Lots of this lots of things. You can’t do you can’t, if you jam, and you don’t know how to do music, you just get junk, you can only do jazz, like when you get this sweet spot between the constraints and the improvisation, right. It’s the same kind of thing over and over again, which isn’t a coincidence. Let’s maybe bring in a few terms that seem to be orbiting around this that we’ve discussed before but let’s bring them into the center they might be helpful. So, so you’re talking about the tension. I don’t know if I understood you correctly. That’s a big if, but I’ve understood you correctly talking about you talking about the tension between the, the exact specificity of the aspectualization that invites a particular form of participation such as the cicada drilling into the stem right of the rose. You’re talking about the kind of infinite ization of that, which is the object of participation that can take on multi aspectual forms of life, depending on the vantage the perspectival vantage of approach. Right. So, on the one hand and then me on the other hand as I pluck the rose and put it into a glass jar. Okay. I want to add in a third dimension. See that I’m trying to get Schindler’s for itself, this the Canadian’s, there’s the structural function for there’s a, it has it has a for itself, this that right. That has to be taken into account in both of those. That’s what I’m right. Okay, okay so there’s a continuity of identity, there’s a continuity identity between the suchness that’s what I want to bring in such as in the morning, because they’re speaking in those terms without using those terms to my mind. Right. So, the suchness of the aspect that seems to be seems as the object of participation, right, we were using that term a lot the other day, guy, the seeming the seeming of the aspect. And then the moreness that kind of that potential that kind of that kind of infinite reference that infinite extension of aspect into multiple possibilities that that aren’t delimited in any which way whatsoever and so there’s a continuity between them between the suchness and specificity of the structural functional organization and its presentation. And then the infinite aspect that is the kind of potential to take on any aspect, depending on the particular perspective of participation is that fair so far. Yep. Good. Okay. Okay, so, so that that so that that’s a kind of a classic dialectic tension by the sounds of it. And then the question is, what is it that binds that continuity of identity between the aspect, any one aspect, and the infinite number of aspects, and what binds them into coherence. So my question is, what is the difference, because when you talk about structural functional organization. That’s one way of often. It’s one way you often describe and define the logos. Yes. Okay. So then what, let’s maybe start here. What is the difference. This is a big question I know it’s not like you’re going to just have an answer ready, or maybe you are. What is the difference between the logos, as it’s, as we tend to define it we tend to define it as something like that, like the structural functional organization, and presentation of that which is. So does that differ by definition from the I DOS that is somehow at the center, the centerless center of the tension between the such of the aspect, and the more of the infinite number of aspects, what is the difference between those two ideas. Here’s the difference. I think the first is the for itself, this of the thing that Schindler emphasizes. The other is its inherent relationality, and what Nishatani would call the circumsensuality of everything. Right, so there’s two, there’s two ways in which we disclose the reality of a thing. One is right. Like, like, like, you know, the idea that. So when I’m doing the aspectualization, I’m doing all the ways, all the properties. All these words are a little bit inadequate, but all the properties that are disclosed in relation to other things. Whereas the logos is supposed to be something that that’s why I was invoking spinosas canada’s. It’s a fundamental the way the thing relates to itself. Right. The way the thing relates to access. Right. Right. I understand logos is the self organizing property. Right. And then the idetic, the idetic deduction discloses that that self rolling wheel, right is is moving through a multi dimensional space that discloses all kinds of properties of it that aren’t And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Right. And I think that’s what I’m trying to get There’s a sense in which the for itself, this is an ultimate non categorical suchness of the thing the way it is. It’s suchness is is a is a non categorical self organization for itself. This right with the intrinsic nature is as Russell might call it. Right. So then is the one way of thinking so based on that is one way of thinking about the logos. A term for the self relation of the Ida’s. Yeah, I think it is. It’s it. That’s so. And I don’t think I’m alone in this. I think that’s how Kerrigan argues. No, Kevin Corrigan, I should say argues the tiniest things of logos. It’s it’s so so right. That’s why I shifted to spinosis sense of the Canadians, right, the, the, the, the, the self organization self preservation, sort of the way in which we extend metaphors of life to inanimate things. Right. Okay. But that’s right. That’s that. But then you have, you have Nishatani but Plato has that and Plotinus brings it out you, you have the Indras net you have the multi as factuality you have the through like you have the through line that is disclosed an identity deduction. Right. Yeah. It’s kind of like with the will say that we’ll have the dance of the logos, right. In a relation with itself. And as logos brings more and more things together. How do we know when I dose through line starts opening up. But I don’t think it goes sequential like that that’s the thing. Yeah, that’s what metaphor and that analogically speak right dimensions axes of the same fundamental different axes describing the same realness. Right. Chris you’re exactly right to map these two things I think onto the suchness and the moreness, the identity deduction discloses the moreness but as I like to say, the moreness is both induced and edifying it’s it’s not a, it has a, it has a structural integrity, but it’s not the same integrity as the canadus of the thing. Right, right. Right. There’s some help, but they are not in any way separable from each other. Right. That’s a strange question. Does, does. When you were, you were this, I keep my head I have this beautiful image that you, you spun of the cicada on the stem, and as being an aspect, an aspect that participates in the IDOS of that stem that stem being not its material description of that being that which that in virtue of which it is what it is. It is an attempt to understand the full panorama of its actuality, all the way to the act and interrupt. Right. Okay. And the it is. What’s the it. The, the, the, the IDOS. Right. Right. Yeah. Because. So, does the. So, okay, just as an idea. So the cicada in that, in that motif. The cicada seems to be in that when it’s burrowing into the stem seems to become a function of the IDOS is relatedness to itself. Is something in which the cicada participates. Is the cicadas participation. Necessary for the IDOS to relate to itself is its relatedness reflected by the participation of the cicada, and is the cicadas participation, necessary to reflect that relation, and how does the low, if so, how does the logos figure back into that relationship. So first of all, the first part is, yes, because the, the, the one of the functions of the IDOS is to bring sense to appearance and show how appearance can disclose reality. And there can only be appearance of appearance to right. And so, the first I think is yes, because that is one of the central functions that Plato tasks the IDOS with doing. Right. So, what that, how does that relate to the logos is to re ask the question that I’m asking, which is, how does that management of all the appearance, all the aspects and remember, extended through perspectives. Extended through I imaginal, trans specific, right consciousnesses or whatever verb we want to put whatever now we want to put in there. It’s not important to me right now. Right. So, like, how does that management of appearance, which is, which hangs on the balance hangs on the border between an epistemic and an ontological function relate to the for itself ness that gives something a reality independent from all the ways in which I can conceive of it, or, right, or experience it, because that’s one of the functions, right that Schindler talks about right that the thing that things have a for for themself ness that guarantees that they cannot be consumed into our subjectivity. Right. Right. And you’re asking what is that. So, now, Chris has been very helpful what binds the logos of suchness to the melody of I dedicate action. That’s what I was proposing about there seems to be a limiting right it’s ruling out a bunch of things. Right. And then the more ness is a ruling in but the suchness is saying, don’t include this don’t include this don’t include this don’t include this, right. And then the more ness is saying include this include this include this include this include this include this. Sorry, I’m just I’m just doing hand puppetry but I’m trying tough. Yeah. Because, because, because, think about how transformation requires both of these. This is almost a perca guardian point. This is where Socrates and Kierkegaard really come together. Right, because if I, if I can’t do this. Right, then it becomes just something that I’ve consumed. Right. Right. But if I can’t bring it into my suchness, it does not become a proper part of who and what I am as a self. Right. Yeah, yeah. So then maybe. Okay, so that’s interesting. So then maybe one way of coming at this question. What is it that binds this multi aspectualization of IDOS to the for itself ness of the logos. And how does one attain to the other. Yeah, and, and, and maybe one way of coming at that question is to think about the, the appearances that host the forms of participation. So, the cicada being the first example, but then there’s a qualitative difference of very fundamental qualitative difference between the way in which the cicada participates in the IDOS, and the way in which the discerning human being, the self participates in the IDOS. And so maybe one way of approaching the question of, well, what is it that binds these dimensions into their originary oneness, and maybe the answer to that question has something to do with the facility of consciousness, brought to bear in the matter of spirit. And maybe that leads us back to Socrates and certainly to Kierkegaard. What’s your proposal? Okay, let me. I just, I just, I like. So let’s just abbreviate what’s, we’re asking what’s the relationship between the logos and the through line. Okay. We’ve gone all the preamble we got it down. And so Chris I want to understand more clearly. So you’re saying, right, we bear, we bear a different relationship to that, and we are the being, Heidegger, we are the being who be whose being is in question. And that makes us fundamentally open to both of these in a way in which the cicada is not. Is that a fair way of putting it? That is. I would add, I would add just one more. One more. I don’t know what it is, is it, is it an analogy, let’s call it an analogy which might help to state what I mean. I’m particularly taken. I, in what way I’m not even quite sure but I’m particularly taken with the Jungian idea that, again, this is an, this is an analogy for the moment. I’m particularly taken with this idea that that God requires the reflective consciousness of man to know himself. Yeah, fine. That’s a, that’s a astonishingly powerful and heretical powerful idea. And so, I mean, something along those lines in this proposal, which is that the binding. This sort of this this this this the proper relation, as it may be between the logos and the through line is made whole by the by the reflective participation of that form of attention that is brought to bear upon it, and that the training of that attention in service of that reflection doesn’t just serve the character of the individual who’s undergoing the transformation, but is ultimately in service to the good itself in, in the same kind of way. This is very loose like I’m just kind of throwing, you know, don’t don’t don’t misread my affect or anything I being provoked in thought. Okay. For me, there’s more than an analogy there you’re situating that the problem I’ve raised in another problem that’s also at the core but I think that’s a valuable thing to do. Let me explain why. Okay, so you you have you haven’t within neoplatonism that you have the procession, you have to what I call the two symmetrical problems. The question is, how do the normative whole, where do the normative holes come from and why are they ordered. Right, right. Well, there must be the platonic form, but the problem facing right emanation is, why does the one ever divide and how could it possibly divide and differentiate right and you need, and you see Dionysus wrestling with this, there has to be some sort of principle of receptivity that explains the attenuation of the emanation and right the possibility for variation and where the hell is that in the one, where can that possibly. And so I’ve been trying to propose sort of inspired by whitehead, the equal primordiality of the emergence and the emanation. Right. Right. But to me, that. Okay, and to me that’s the ontological aspect of what you were explaining existential way, which is because cognition and intelligibility do the same thing. But, so there’s a way in which you can think of everything gathering to a single self affirming logos, that’s the one, but everything also emanates into all the variations, like everything is just a, it’s, it’s just the multi aspectuality of the one. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. And so then those multi those those, the, the, the illusory discreteness the the separateness of elements the separateness of things that have processed from the one, their relatedness to one another is their relatedness back to it. Right. In that sense. Yes, yes. But what I’ve seen you doing though, correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve seen you saying you know the relationship between the suchness of the logos, and the moreness of the through line. That’s actually also, that’s the relationship of emergence and emanation. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yep. Okay, that’s powerful. Yeah. And I think it’s one of the things I’m appreciating about this. So far is, I can hear the sense the sense in which accounting for the way that the, like, the one, right. And the particular and the many. Right. Every moment. Right. There’s like not two worlds, right. Oh no no definitely not not doing that I’m not doing that. Yes. And I can kind of feel I can feel the sense of the character of dynasys of this right. That’s one of the things that’s probably makes it so tricky to talk about it so it’s so dynamic. But what I’m hearing is this an echo of this quality of something with drawing, right, something with drawing, and in that with drawing opening, right, creating like an open and an open, an open ground for things to kind of gather together, but that’s, that’s never that is that’s withdrawing I you know, we can say maybe, maybe like the beat. The being, being in its being itself not not the being of beings but being itself kind of in some sense withdrawals withdrawals itself, thereby giving, giving a groundless a groundless open open place for the world to start occurring, I’m just kind of getting the sense of there’s this withdrawal structure. Right. There’s withdrawal but there’s also shaping. Yeah, not just the room is not withdrawal in the sense of removal. It’s result it’s, it’s like, if you can combine withdrawal with affordance or virtual engine. That’s what I was trying to get at the withdrawal is also a virtual engineering, so that the panorama of actuality of how things can act and interact is set out. Like the furniture of the universe is disposed. So withdrawal of one into many, in some sense. Yeah, and that that goes towards the first point you made guy which is the, I think, the two worlds mythology, when it passed from mythology into metaphysical dogma is a misapprehension of what we’re talking about here. It’s a misapprehension. And for me, I would give it as an example of collapsing everything into just a structural functional organization. And leaving out. Right. It’s just the logos of intelligibility, and not enough of the, the, the through line of intelligibility. Because all you’ve got is what we have is reality is organized this way. Here’s its structure, and here how is this other structures organized, and here is how it’s function but it’s like, no, no, no, that is that is losing everything we’re talking about when we’re talking about the through line, and it’s losing the question of how is the through line related to the logos as a verb to the leg I to the gathering together. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the problem, the problem is the melody is not free of logos because the melody is also the melody of the identity deduction also has a logos to it right it gathers to itself. Right. So, so then to what degree. Okay, so in each instance let’s say each instance of participation in the IDOS in the care of a single perspective and a single scenario on a single case. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so in each case of participation there is a relatedness there is a relation of the individual let’s say to. At some point, as if it could be mapped it couldn’t, as if it could be mapped along that through line. Yes, there was a relation of the individual to the IDOS at some point along that through line, but at the same time as there was a relation from the individual to the IDOS, there was a relatedness to himself that is attained in virtue of the relation to the IDOS right so there’s the relation out. And then there’s something recursive about that relation, there would seem to be right because how can you, because every instance of relating. Something else is also an instance of relating to oneself. And this is sort of a contian point given a platonic twist. Yeah, sort of the transcendental. Yeah, yeah, the subject has to be bound, be able to bind to themselves to fall to track the through line of the multi aspectuality, but, but, but the, the thing being perceived also has to have something corresponding to it has to like and I don’t mean corresponding in the representational sense I mean in the conformity sense, there has to be something in the object that is also binding itself together, so that the identity right right so right. Right, right, so then there’s that so then there’s a sameness there’s an identity relation there right that the binding of oneself as the participant, the binding to oneself and the being bound to oneself as the participant is also somehow the is also somehow this the the the the The self binding of that which is the object of participation right right and then what you said before, so fit that what you said before into that those two self bindings are also like the poles of the resonance of the identity deduction. Right, right, as as above so below as it were. Yes, yes. Right. So, when, when, like, you know, when, when, when the artist is unpacking the the multi aspectuality of the tree and showing you how all these appearances disclose something that could be numinous to you, and you’re getting Oh my gosh the through line to inexhaustible connectivity, you are also being connected in a, this is the anagogic Oxford, you are being connected and then in that connection. You also sense the, the for itself, this of the right right right you’re being connected to yourself through the tree and the tree is being connected to itself through you in some right right but but but there’s also a you connected to yourself and a tree connected to right right right so it’s if it’s like these two spinning wheels. And then they’re spinning the the cycle of anagogy between them, and that is actually also tracing out the multi aspectuality of the thing, and also of you. Right. Right into into a kind of multivalent reciprocal opening or something. Yes, yes. Yeah, yes. But what I would go ahead reciprocal spins fast enough where it just, you, the, all the movement just becomes one. Like this is where I think this is where it goes from from dialectic into into dia logos is that when, when all of that’s happening this reciprocal opening that’s going on at some point, then it happens between us around us, right, like, and at some point, all that movement just becomes one shape. Right. That’s that. Yeah, that’s that thing where it’s it becomes you become kind of like there’s an identification with logos. Or, or I dose, and and then it becomes into the verbal mode. Yes, right. Yes. Yes, the verbal then the adverbial. Yeah, yes. And so I think that’s right, what you just said guy, and I, and so that that that that that goes to the point, the point of all of this, what sounds like abstract stuff actually is a way of trying to articulate what is a very, very powerful transformative experience in which people discover kinds of ways of connecting to themselves to each other, and to sense making itself. That then somehow makes them discover possibilities of being that are now actualizable to them, instead of just being conceptual labels, like, so you know people that I’m discovered a kind of intimacy with myself and with other people, and then with with the world and that’s how people talk right. So that’s exactly right that, you know, everything we’re talking about sort of metaphysically or whatever we’re doing. Right. It’s not abstract that’s exactly the point. It’s not it sounds theoretical but it’s actually trying to. It’s we’re trying to point to what must being be like such that it can support dialectic into the logos, so powerfully. I mean that’s another way of putting the question that I’m asking. Can you say that again and what might what what might be like such that it could support this right what I’m experiencing. So, in the in the logos. So the logos is to discover the dynamic through line, but also to feel right the polarity of the selfness of me and of the other right. It’s just it’s everything it’s it’s it’s the dynamic discovery and disclosure of everything we’ve been talking about. Yes. Right. Yes. Yes. Right. But what I want to try and do is say, okay. So we talked about theory to theory. We’ve got the theory where we’re engaged in the dialectic into the logos and we’re getting all of this. And then I want to go back and say, well, is there theory within the platonic corpus and by theory I don’t just mean proposition I mean all this non propositional stuff we’re trying to point out right all this perspective and participatory, but is there theory that can properly articulate this. And many people will say but I don’t need the theory, but the problem is if you don’t have a theory in the talking about here you don’t you can’t situate this practice within an encompassing worldview, and then we’re doomed, then we’re doomed. It just becomes another self enclosed thing that people do that doesn’t really connect to the needed transformation of the worldview in order to address the meeting crisis that’s that’s my concern. Yeah. Yeah. Your first instinct when you started to talk about Plato right at the beginning you were talking about third wave, Platonism plate this down a scholarship, that is, and people like Gonzalez etc and so how, so the question of where can we find the theory to support a way of being And the way of realizing being that can sustain such transformation and the care of the logos. Right, right. Go ahead. And, and so, one of the first things you started on was about Plato’s role not only as a purveyor of propositions but as a dramatist. Yes, and, and, and that I, that’s so key, it’s so key in ways that are so mysterious because it has to me that that it’s very very deep because of the complexity of those dialogues, it’s difficult to cut to And the other thing about the relationship the tension, the relationship with and sometimes it’s a it’s a it’s a very juxtaposing relationship between the propositions that are being traded between Socrates and his interlocutors, and the dramatic context in which the dialogue is seated. And how changes in the dramatic context also change the valence of the propositions by changing the implicature. Right, the pragmatics of those propositions, where they’re directed where they’re oriented and all of that. And, and we know from experience of doing the logos that the relationality the intimate context has everything to do with establishing the pragmatics into which the propositions will be entered. Beautiful, beautiful. And so there’s something let’s go back to that if we can because there’s something that you started on that at the very beginning and there was something very right about that. So, the place to look, or to begin looking with for that theory for the theory would seem to be the relationship between the propositions, the, and the pragmatics determined by the dramatic context, and the symbolic mapping of the arena, right, And you mentioned that at the very beginning right that Socrates goes down into the. Is it into the, is it into the forum where was it. No, no, he’s going down to the name of that fortified port that was connected to Athens. It’s called the go ahead. In any case, but the way that the dialogue is spatialized, the way that the literally the way that the bodies move within the space the way that the arena is delimited, and the way that the propositions take place within that right there’s There’s a, there’s a, there are dimensions there are axes there are there’s a deep nested pattern going on in these dialogues, whether consciously rendered or not it really doesn’t matter as far as I’m concerned it could well have been rendered unconsciously it’s genius is no less for it. Right. And, but there’s something about the patterns that are traced out by the dialogue by the drama turgy, in addition to the spoken dialogue that creates the tension that somehow maps on to the tensions between the such and the more that we’re trying to describe. Right. That’s excellent. And so let’s do the pragmatics. Right. One of the things I’m trying to articulate, and I’m actually trying to get a relationship between theory and theory. Right. An optimal grip perhaps. So it’s not itself a theory it’s an optimal grip between them that what it can point to, but think about how pragmatics hangs between to non propositional. Right. And so it’s it we’ve, it we’ve so the conveyance weaves us into the context and into the multi aspect reality. And we play with that we play with implicatures although jokes are all about that. Oh, you were focused on this aspect and that’s the aspect I was talking about. Right. Don’t leave alphabet soup on the stove because it could spell disaster. Right stuff like that where we play with it we play. We trade between aspects. Right. But there’s also another part of pragmatics was it which is indexicality, which is the direct demonstrative reference this this. Right. So I’m not using a term like cat or dog. I’m doing salience tagging, and I’m doing something that makes you gather them together before any categorization can take place. So pragmatics properly hangs between conveyance and indexicality is that okay. And that’s good. That’s and that’s one of person’s types of signs in this typology of science is that the indexicality. There’s a primordiality to the indexicality, but there’s also a primordiality to conveyance, because the, the, the existence of the other requires conveyance. Okay, so now I see the propositional as in between those. Right. And so the propositional is held in the tension between the suchness of indexicality, thisness suchness here now this right and right the, and the moreness of all of the things I, I would convey beyond what I could possibly say. So, the proposition is actually inherently metaxic, it’s inherently bound and held between those, and it only gets its stability, we think of the stability as its relationship to other propositions, but its stability is properly between the indexicality and the conveyance. In other words, by analogy, the single proposition in this context is like the single shaft of light that cordons and arena of dark, right we’ve talked when we talk about the logos we talked about the effect of light. Yes, on the dark that it’s revelatory for the dark. And so the proposition and in this case serves something similar in its function which is that it creates. It creates a provisional boundary in which the moreness is suddenly imminent enough to be experienced, because it has somehow delimited its territory, something like that. Yes, it’s like the proposition is located in the space of the question we’re asking, although the proposition cannot offer the answer. The proposition is held in the space between the logos of suchness, and the through line of moreness. And yet, proposition can’t, the proposition depends on this, but it can’t disclose it there’s an absolute asymmetrical dependence of the proposition on that place, but it can’t actually disclose the place. Right, so the problem and so if you if you, sorry guy go ahead, go ahead I’ve talked enough. Well, I’m just going to say that and I get the sense that they can’t disclose it is actually a drawing in towards it. Right. Yes, right so it’s like it can’t disclose it, but, but it’s it’s it’s like, but it’s in not disclosing it it discloses it. I want to invent a term here in the not disclosing it, it nevertheless sort of undiscloses or uncovers its place within the tension. Yes, yes, yes. Right. So, that’s why it’s not the content of the language, but the fact that negative. Yeah, yes, it’s the negative space negative. Yeah, yes, yes, it has no positive content. It’s, it’s function in the dialogical process is not to introduce any positive content to create the negative space. Yes. I think that is right, which makes perfect sense. Right, and that’s, and the moment of a poria is when you shift off of right off of the content of the proposition to the placement of it within that tension between indexicality and conveyance, or between suchness and moreness. In other words, you, it’s the transparency opacity shift that you begin to know through the proposition. Yes, but not the not the typical representational transparency. It’s not the reference of the proposition. It’s the existence, it’s the, it’s the dynamic instantiation of the proposition as a proposition that right affords the possibility of recognizing its place between the indexicality and the And then Wittgenstein was, I think this is where Wittgenstein and Heidegger come together. Wittgenstein was constantly trying to get people to look, stop, right, and people think, oh, without which I cannot speak I must remain silent. He doesn’t mean passivity. He means a deep, deep looking, a deep seeing that can’t be captured by the speaking. Right, because you, we get locked into the picture of the proposition, and we forget the forms of life and language game that it’s situated within. Right. Right. Right. So, even if a lion could talk, we would not understand him. Totally in the, in the, he, so this non apparent harmony that is disclosed through this. Yes. It’s it, I guess the question, the question is there for me is what, something about the development of character, and the way that this shapes one’s face, how you can look at somebody’s face, and they can have a wise face, right. There’s this, there’s, there’s, I’m wondering if one of the ways that the non appearing harmony appears is actually in the inner locked, in inner locked, the face, the, the, one of the ways distributes itself and, and, and shows itself is in these. That’s just that sense of like, no, I think there’s something there, I think there’s something there. And it’s, it’s the, it’s the Stegmeier stuff. Right face is orientation. And what we’re talking about is the, what we are orienting that happens around language, such that the proposition can speak to us. And, and that would show up in someone’s face, because a face is where we look to try and get clues on to how someone is orienting physically, but of course, they’re also orienting metaphysically. Yeah, it’s the where from guy, it’s the where from we were talking about the other day. And this is like, this is also, this is where the drama comes in, like the, the, the, that, that in some sense that as the, like, in music, the, you know, you get these musical motifs, right, that, that get established, and you know they’re established because they repeat the repetitive. And then like a sonnet is something like the song is the, is the, is the development of, of, of those motifs, but that’s analogous to character. Right. That there’s a, there’s a, there’s a drama going on that we’re under, that we’re undertaking, right, that’s, that’s, that’s happening through this as well right, one of the ways that it all comes in and configures itself right. Because I’ve been noticing that too that you know the way that Schindler continually like shows, one of the places meeting happens in the, in the dialogue that I wouldn’t, I wasn’t even see right and making all of all of these connections and the dramas and the tensions convey as much of the meaning, right. As the actual explicit accounts of things right. And so there’s something about, there’s something about care, something about character, and the development of how, how the, how these kinds of dramas develop character, right, in some sense. Well, the drama is there as the perpetual anamnesis of conveyance, right, the point of drama is to remind us that there’s always a conveyance beyond what is being said. Right. And so, but, the character to my mind goes back to what, what Chris and I were talking about when we’re talking about. Right. There’s a through line of the self that is somehow bound up with the self-reliance. And the correlation of the self. So, right. The, the, the for itself ness, and the for the other, if I can put it that way, are interwoven, we talked about that earlier. And so, I think that, and in that way you can even talk about the character of a thing, its characterization, where you’re trying to get in drama and discourse, you’re trying to get how the things for itself ness, and how it’s through line are wedded together somehow. Because a good characterization, even of an inanimate thing in literature, right, tries to, well, it tries to situate the words between the indexicality and the conveyance. And it’s, and what you’re trying to find. There’s some non-logical, even non-phenomenal, it’s not non-phological, not non-phenomenological, but there’s, it’s non-logical identity between the logos and the through line. Yes. And how they keep are like this. And it’s like, and the indexicality and the conveyance are bound together. That’s how they can, right, they can create the field that I’m almost thinking of, but like a magnetic field that holds the proposition in place, orients the proposition so it can be properly processed. And so the entire world around it can be bound into coherence. Yes. Right. Co extensively with it, because that’s the thing about character too, is that character, there is no, like, it’s interesting, right, when we think about character in sort of a literary way or theatrical way, character, we think of character as a form of an individual, but character really is the entire kind of orchestral backdrop that corresponds to the individual, right. The individual comes ready made with an entire cosmos and the individual is at the center of that cosmos. And the kind of, the kind of cosmic geography that situates around that individual is co-extensive with the character. It’s, it’s, it’s what we mean by right, you can’t think of Oedipus without think of the entire without thinking of the entire, without thinking of the entire narrative apparatus that surrounds him and binds him unto himself. Right. He relates to himself by means of the cosmos that comes with his character and they’re inseparable from one another right any great famous character, the same could be true it’s Faust it’s it’s Macbeth what whatnot. They come with an entire cosmos in care of which they are bound to themselves, and which is bound to them. And so in some sense it’s like the, the character is like the for itself, the logos, the for itself, that’s embedded in the pragmatic context of one aspect of participation, in some sense. That’s good. I was thinking when you invoked Oedipus of the character chorus connection. The character and the chorus, right. And the chorus is always supposed to moreness. Yeah, the moreness and moreness beyond what is actually being said, right, the chorus often points to I bet you didn’t realize that this is right. Nietzsche makes that point right yeah yeah the Dionysian and the Apollonian right in the spirit of tragedy exactly. And this is right. And I, I, I, and that idea of, like, the emer the emergence up from the indexicality and the emanation down from the conveyance and the proposition is somehow mediating that. That’s all, that’s all, that’s all good, and I think it’s important and like we’re getting orientation we’re right. Yeah. Yeah, but I still, maybe, maybe there isn’t a concept for this. I mean, I try to get at how right. How they are one. How what how what are one. Well the logos of suchness, and the melody, the through line of moreness are one, we were stipulating that they are somehow wanting. They are bound they interpenetrate with emergence and emanation, they create a field with polarity that oriats the propositions, so that they are oriented this way or place this way, rather than place this way or this way I’m using spatial metaphors here. Right. And this is, you know, the forms of life and all that all that the language game that isn’t itself a language, right, all that stuff, but Plato seems to think, is it just that he didn’t think enough, I don’t know, Plato seems to talk easily and readily, as if these aspects are the same, like they’re there they’re somehow. There’s one form. Right, you know what I’m trying to get at the right. It’s in the good like like it’s the good. The one. No, not even that I mean that’s that’s that’s that’s for me that’s about how all of this intelligibility is always the promise that it will always disclose reality keeps being kept. That’s what I think of as the good. But, yeah. I’m trying to get at, like, you know, the form of justice is somehow mediating between the indexicality of this right here now. And the moreness of all of the different aspects of justice is it fairness. Is it appropriate distribution. Is it a way of connecting to the good life does it mean like, right, so you’ve got all of that. And then you’ve also got Yeah, but what is it to be just right here right now, the form is somehow mediating between, but it’s not. Right. It’s a play to it’s, it’s doing that. Right. Yeah, yeah, mediating between appearances. It’s mediating between all the appearances. There’s one way of putting it, that’s the multi aspect reality. But it’s also, and I’m playing on the word appearance here but it’s also mediating between all the instances. Plato was clear about that as well. Yeah, yeah. It’s frustrating. I mean we’re we’re right at the. We’re right at the right. Yeah. Yeah. Right at the edge. This is great. We’re right at the edge of for that, that, that the name of that concept that that isn’t yet. Yeah. Right. It’s going to be weird it’s going to hang between a concept a state of mind. It’s, it’s a concept but also optimal gripping and also perspective shaping and also action. Organizing like it’s. It’s so it’s so it’s so arresting because it’s that it’s that in virtue of which the instance is real and felt as real. Right. Otherwise we become we otherwise we just fall back into a form of nominalism right like if the judge if the instance of justice is not being mediated with its corresponding form, then it is not felt as just just not felt as real. Right. And, and that intuition is so that intuition is so is so powerfully arresting that it’s, it’s impossible to ignore. And yet, yeah, accounting for it, accounting for it is so bloody difficult. And I think this is isolated to just philosophical talks. If you think about it, if you think about it, relativity is emphasizing the inherent relatedness and how everything aspectualizes everything else. The problem is, no, no, here’s the absolute indexicality of reality, and then and then the what it is like, but how do they go together, which is, yes, that’s just another instance within physics of the same thing, but it’s just that problem in physics is not fundamentally different from every other thing within our phenomenal logical experience. And then there’s this mental tension within intelligibility, and the, and how it discloses being that we’re bumping up against here. Yeah. And what and wonder if we’re trying to look at the sun. We are like, remember like, yeah, because it remember there’s that thing, the one of the dialogues right where the republic, you can’t look at this. And then there’s like a retrospective where he’s like, I remember when I first started to, like, look for knowledge of natural causes of natural of natural things and he realized that it’s some ceiling. But he knew that if he, if he looked for the cause, the cause of all causes that he’d burn, he’d go blind. So, it’s a, like this is his retrospective. I think, I think he’s saying this in context in terms of context of giving what why are we talking about things like an account. The, the logos of something this, the, and not just. Yeah, yes, yes. Wondering. I’m wondering if this is what we’re kind of. It is I think I think it’s exactly that I think it’s the pragmatics, the pragmatics of the musicality of intelligibility that we’re wrestling with here. And then, right, and, and, and what, what, what is it, I think you’re right, we might be trying to look at the sun. I wonder if, right, I mean, the interesting thing about mystical experiences is those, those polls are some, I mean I’m thinking of Cusa and the coincidence of opposites. Right, and that somehow there’s an experience in which the polarity actually becomes a stereoscopic through which right but there’s no way of articulating it. There’s no way of articulating. Yeah, doesn’t doesn’t doesn’t doesn’t doesn’t Ponte. Mr. Ponte talk about this, this thing about, I think you, you put it. Maybe you restated it. We can have a, what does he say we can have. What was it, we can have. We can abstantiate an appearance of ultimate reality, right. A real. There is something about, there’s something about the way that you were talking about Mr. Ponte that accounted for this. This, this. And I have a feeling we’re gonna be doing a lot of that in this. This. Right. This way. Well in some, in some sense it’s the, it’s kind of the, the, the frame problem, right, in some way, right. There was, there was a John there was there, and I think it was, I think it was in the context of you talking about the hermeneutics of beauty in the hermeneutics of right. Yeah, and you’re talking about any, I think you had to reread the book that Ponte didn’t finish. What is that called the visible and the invisible. No, Dan and I are about to read that but we’re reading Lowe’s book on his attempt to finish the argument that Marla Ponte didn’t finish in the invisible and the visible or is it the visible and the invisible I can never remember the order, because he died and Lowe’s book what yeah and I was trying to connect. Right, what happened when you try to think this thought. He died. Yeah, you stare too long into the abyss. Yeah. There, yeah there there, I think there’s something right about that, and scary talks about that about how beauty does that weird thing. She discloses the panorama, like, she says you see the beautiful training, you said, I couldn’t, I didn’t, I never realized that trees could be like this. And so the identity conduction opens up the identity conduction and edification opens up. But then it’s also this particular tree, the particularity and the uniqueness also shine forth because how is it that this is embodying all of that. Right. And she says beauty is the experience of that kind of polarity. It’s, it’s the. I’m absolutely I’m bound to this here now, because I’m bound to it suchness because that suchness is the locus through which I’m suddenly realizing. Right. It’s like, all the trees are in the tree but that that doesn’t just make this tree, another member, it makes it a And that’s the way in which we, we can discern the orientation, the orientation of appearance to reality in the hermeneutics of beauty as as distinct from the hermeneutics of suspicion, where what appearances do is they, they reorient us and Right. Rather than leading us into the depths of something. So it allow for that kind of that perspectival stereoscopy right that two points, two points along that kind of uncharitable through line. Right. So it allow for that kind of that perspectival stereoscopy right that two points, two points along that kind of uncharitable through line can be used to triangulate the third that third to which they both belong, but they both belong numerously right that third being something unaccountable, but that the minute the minute one becomes to they both become three. Yes. Right, because suddenly they’re in relation to one another and they’re in relation to a third right the minute you add one person to two, there is immediately, a third Yes. Yeah. And in the same way, two instances to encounters to aspects. Immediately create between them, what one one impregnates the other in some sense right if that if that makes any sense. They call to each other, but this is what we discover in dialectic and the deal logos to people call to each other from the depths, and then they are called together to the depths. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, Chris, do you see how this is the the depths of the leap of reason and how it’s sounding very similar to Kierkegaard’s leap of faith. Oh, yeah, yeah. Very, very much. The Socratic leap. Right, the Socratic Neoplatonic leap and the leap of faith in Kierkegaard really really are. Absolutely, absolutely. And it happens, it happens in the assumption of the paradox right the assumption of the paradox of two dialectically sharing their identity and producing between them that that extended reference, whose pragmatic arena exceeds the bounds of those two. Yes, yes, that’s well said. That’s very well said. I propose that maybe we bring it to a close for. Yeah, I’m going to listen to this a number of times. But this has been this this has been very helpful. A lot of things got clarified. And there was a lot of good articulation and stabilization, because I was feeling like I was feeling almost distraught because I was being, I’m trying to, like, I understand I won’t be able to bring them into one sense of resolution and completeness, but I want to at least bring them into the other sense of resolution with it, which is acuity, right that I could write, it’s not all just this blur. And again, what I like is how this, this often abstract thing kept feeding back into but that’s what’s happening in dialectic to the logos. That’s what people are experiencing. They’re experiencing all of this not as abstract metaphysics, they’re experiencing this as existential and personal transformation. Yeah, in fact, in fact, the proposition ends up being a becomes a kind of a dwelling site of the ride that they just went on. So they come back to the proposition they say it again, we started having a score the third person is a scribe, because we have somebody just inducing right and then the other person who’s, who’s actually listening and tracking the proposition. So every time they come back to the proposition they realize that there’s been a change. Right, because it’s like, That’s good. That’s a good point back and forth. Has it sense of like where that proposition has this quality of dwelling, you, you’re well in it and well by it right it’s it’s got this quality home. That’s good because I’ve been trying to think of a way in which the other two people in, in the foursome can act as a chorus for the interlocutor drama. And that’s a good way of doing that’s excellent that’s really good that’s really good. And it emerged out of the practice which is really good, really good. Yeah, beautiful. Yeah, and then when that happens incidentally, you might say that both because of the way that it both of the way in which it brings both the suchness and moreness into more direct court direct and lucid correspondence, but also the way it becomes the kind of vehicle for the overall practice, it becomes properly symbolic right so in some sense, when the electric turns into deal logos, what happens, I think phenomenologically symbolizes the propositions. Yes, propositions, the propositions become symbolic vehicles and that’s why when we return to the proposition, we don’t interact with them anymore as propositions we act we interact with them as symbolic affordances that pry open the space in which the practice takes place in the first place. Right, as long as we understand symbol symbol as symbol on the other of the two right and quality, and the conveyance the logos and the melody of the through line etc, etc. Thank you gentlemen. So good. Thank you so much.