https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=gxSY1j2ajT0
Okay. Yeah, I mean, if you think about the, like the gradient, my, and it’s been what, two months, more or less, since the last time we talked. Yeah. You know, my journey was the journey of, I think, maximum distance, pretty significant distance from these kinds of conversations. Right, right. I’ve been like physically repairing, or physically learning how to repair 15 year old systems inside an RV that are broken while I’m in the desert with no support structure. Sounds like PERSIG. Yeah, yeah, yeah, very PERSIG. So, highly embodied, let’s put it that way. Right, right, right. And dealing with very much at the level of the interior. Like something that Vanessa and I noticed was, we were wondering actually, as we were traveling in this journey, which was hard, like it was not at all an easy journey. Just add a two year old to the equation. Right, right. We’re like, huh, I wonder if we’ve built capacity, you know, on this process. It takes about four weeks, I think, before you sort of shift from one mode to a new mode. I noticed in about the fourth week, I didn’t have a, how would you call it, like a vital memory of this home, the Cardiff home. Like I was, my now, my sort of sphere of now was in this RV. It was traveling across the country. Right. And I had a kind of a narrative memory, like, oh yeah, yeah, okay, I have a house in Cardiff, but it wasn’t a lived memory. Right, right. And I’m still kind of in this weird, liminal space right now. And so when we get home, literally the night we park in Yuma, Arizona, because it’s just, we can’t quite make that last stretch. It’s only like two hours, the last leg. And we get up at four in the morning because I got a two year old and she gets up at four in the morning. So we just start driving. Right. I discover as I’m listening to my boxers on the way that the guy who’s been watching our house for the past two months, who had, you know, his plan was to be out of the house and have it all clean and ready to go and get back. Like hours earlier, so late the previous evening, crashed my car into the side of the house, smashing into the house and damaging the car. Why? How? Why? Doesn’t matter. Okay. An innocent accident for which I’ve had, and it was funny because I had like three boxes from him, each one with sort of decreasing levels of like, not urgency, but agitation. At the first, very agitated. Like it clearly just happened, but he called me. And I wrote him, I sent back and I said, well, I noticed that I currently have a lot of information about your current emotional state and your felt sense of chagrin about something happening. But I actually had very little objective information about what actually happened, which you might feel things like, can I see the inside from the outside? Like do I, and by the way, the answer is yes. So we get home and that’s like, like, we’ve been gone for two months, really, really desperately wanted to get home. And then as we get home, we have this, you know, but we noticed is this, it didn’t create like the least bit of ripple in our disposition. In the context of the crazy chaos and the hardness of the journey we were on, having somebody smash my car into my house was almost nothing. Right. And we noticed it because like two or three people came and visited and they were actually more agitated on our behalf about this event than we were like, maybe we did build some capacity to deal with untoward events. It’s like in Tolkien, when the hobbits were turned back to the Shire after being in Mordor and all of the things that are upsetting all the other hobbits, they’re just laughing at all this. That’s right. You’re worried about this? We faced a dark lord and an evil empire and you’re worried about this? Yeah. Yes, that’s very much, very much the sense. And this is a pretty nice simulacrum of the Shire here. Southern California is pretty, they’re living as easy. Okay. So, so I had to kind of that weird arc and I know that you and Greg have had conversations that I’m sure you’ve actually had many, many conversations over the past. I’m very interested to see what comes of our reconnection and there’s so many possible ways to even just begin the conversation. Sure. Well, maybe what’s been happening to me, I mean, some of the bigger, I mean, I’m back, you know, the last two months have been really intense at the university and that’s been going on. You know, the full transition to doing everything virtually, right? Virtually virtually. And there’s been that. And then there’s been some major projects. Chris, Christopher, Master Patch, when I finished editing and contributing to in and out of dialogues, to which Greg also contributed and we submitted that. And then we’ve also recently submitted an article, hopefully getting published, on how dialectic into dialogos can help one do what Nishitani recommended, which was convert nihilistic nothingness into luminous no-thingness and how that works and how that’s a deep existential response available to us within dialogos and why dialogos is especially appropriate for that way of responding deeply to nihilism and then critiquing Nietzsche’s, picking up on Nishitani’s critique that Nietzsche just didn’t take it far enough. He couldn’t take it far enough. He was still, so there’s been that project. And then, as you mentioned, Greg and I have, we just finished, it’ll be released on this week, the last episode of Untangling the World Not, which was a huge project to try and integrate an argument I have about the phenomenology and functionality of consciousness building on relevance realization theory with his more comprehensive theory of knowledge system. And that was really, really powerful, not just for the conceptual integration, but, and we explicitly also want to do this second thing. We wanted to exemplify dialogos in the generation of new ideas at a high theoretical level. And it was at, in fact, this was happening all along, and then in, not the penultimate, but the pen-penultimate episode, we mutually came to this insight about, so we’ve been talking about the adjectival qualia and the adverbial qualia and then even lower our valence qualia. And then we were, so building all of those together was, like, that was been really exciting. Okay, hold on. So valence qualia, I believe I just had a valence qualia in the context of an inquiry in the direction of valence qualia. Yeah, so we started by noting, so the idea is adjectival qualia are like the greenness and the blueness, right, which philosophers are very want to focus on. And then I’ve made an argument that consciousness is actually more primordially the adverbial qualia, the here, now-ness, the togetherness, right, and that you can even, you can lose the adjectival qualia in deep meditative states, but you don’t lose the adverbial qualia. And then Greg was pointing out, but, you know, at a very, at the very basic level where you get operant conditioning and the rudiments of intelligent modification of behavior possible, you have to have something like pain and pleasure. And pain and pleasure, right, are more, they’re valence. They just sort of set you in a direction, right? And then, if you’ll allow me, they sort of are the big bang of the space that is then articulated by, like, that’s filled with adverbial qualia. And then within that filled space, we place the adjectival qualia. That’s the model of consciousness that was emerging from the discussion. And so that was in itself, I think it’s a really important integration with my theory and with his theory in between our theories. But it was also the moment of it happening was this, you know, because it was exemplifying a lot of the stuff that I’d been working on in, you know, the inner and outer dialogues kind of idea, how you can get this co-emergence and you can get to a place where you can access distributed cognition and its collective intelligence and you can restructure that collective intelligence to do something much more reflective in nature, other than just interpersonal intimacy and arrive at, you know, you know, not just an idea. And so this is a way of reorienting and stitching together two huge, you know, theoretical frameworks. And it was just like, ah! Like, it was like, that was proof of concept, right? Here’s an actual instance of it happening. And so that was like, cool moment. And what we both noticed is we were already, you know, friends before that. But it also did something about our relationship as colleagues, right? Right. Yeah. Well, I mean, in some sense, you, what is it? You’re now conjugal. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You’re jointly given birth to something. Yeah, yeah. It’s mutual midwifery. Yeah. And I imagine that’s a pretty potent relationship. So, yeah, so it seems like this, this is the most important thing. So it’s, it’s, it’s definitely the thing that I came back from my journey was the proposition of the sensibility that kind of the basic hypothesis under which I’ve been operating now for quite some time, which is to say that no collusion, no jury rigging, no great reset of the fundamental system dynamics under which we have been operating for some long period of time. And this long period of time, maybe hundreds of years, it may be thousands of years. I don’t necessarily need to name that precisely, is going to do the, do the job. We are requiring something much more fundamental in terms of change, innovation and migration from where we are to some new waterhole. And in the context of that, this, this thing that you were just discussing is the central piece, right? We’ve kind of, almost our first conversation touched on that. Yeah, yeah, very much. So given that, the thing like flying through my, my, how would you call it? Like the, the landscape of the way that my interior makes sense of how propositions are shaping things was one of the first things that came up with something like, aha, in order to do this distributed cognition thing, it’s important to be able to make the move that you were just describing, which is to say to move from the adjectival in your own self to the adverbial in your own self, to the valence in your own self. At the level of the valence you and I can come into, that’s the point at which our capacity to achieve harmony or harmonization of relevance, relevance realization, has its, coordinating, exactly as you just said, right? See, that’s the thing. What happens first when you strip things down all the way to that level is you can all, you’re limited, right, to only being able to go, lean in or lean back like this, more like this. But once you have that, once you have a, then you have the ability to start having a curious inquiry. You can start building it back out. Okay, can I name it? Can I give it a little bit more adverbial characteristic? Okay, now can I give it an adjectival characteristic? And there’s kind of like a flowing movement of this, of this, very much, yeah. What would be like this, this fear of breathing in and out. And, you know, as we begin to, as we stick at that, so that lowest level of the shared relevance realization is intrinsically, that’s not quite right, but if something like that, let’s play with it though, let’s play with it. Yeah, yeah, is, can we say it slightly differently? Can we say it slightly differently? I’ll start, say it from a different direction. My own personal interior, I have a binding of some diversity of heterogeneous elements. Yep, yep. I have my, my smooth muscles in my stomach are perceiving reality in a certain way. And my vasodilation system is perceiving reality in a certain way. I’ve got lots of different heterogeneous elements that are all perceiving reality in very different ways, both in terms of what they can perceive, how they can respond with the current status. And the whole integration of all of that into a sort of a general sense that has a meaningful way of orienting. Even if all I’m doing is binding two heterogeneous elements into a single integrated general sense, but the more heterogeneous elements that are beginning to align and go, yeah, fuck yeah, man, it’s getting hot. We better move, right? It’s a simple thing. As soon as there’s an integration of multiple heterogeneous elements into a single sense of orientation that has a valence, then I have the ability to then begin to make choices or shift behavior, right? This is where behavior begins to emerge. That transition, that notion, that locus of relevance realization is the point at which heterogeneous elements become capable of being integrated into a more shared unity is why and or how our, you and me, as heterogeneous elements, as we get down to that level, we can begin to play in that space, which is the place where heterogeneous elements bind into a more unified wholeness. Okay, that was… No, no, that was great. No, no, no, no. Not bad. No, no, that was really good. I want to riff on that because it just sparked some stuff in me. So what that made me think of is Christopher Moll’s work on attention as cognitive unison. We think of attention under the misguided metaphor like the spotlight metaphor, right? And the problem is there’s two, like there’s different kinds of actions. There’s actions you directly do like walking and there’s actions you do by modifying other things you’re doing. This is why it’s an adverbial theory. So when I say to you walk, you get up and do it. When I say to you practice, you say, practice what? Because you practice by modifying something else. You practice chess or you practice… And he says we treat attention at sort of the everyday level as if it’s like walking, but it’s actually like practicing because how do I pay attention? I turn seeing into looking or I turn hearing into listening. And what’s going on there, he said, is exactly. I have all this heterogeneous stuff and what I do is I unify it together. So he sees attention as an act of unification. Polanyi independently saw attention as doing that. That I like, you know, you’ve seen me do this, but I take all the tapping, the moments of tapping that are heterogeneous events and then I see through them. I integrate through them so I can see through them. And here’s what I think I would, what I’m getting from you. You might not be what you said, but it might be what you said so I want to play with you and see. Because I think of, you have all this stuff that’s not conscious but we can describe it as reliably. Let’s say it’s heterogeneous detection. There’s all this detection going on and then what happens in the original acts, no, the originary acts of pain and pleasure is you get the initial integration so that you’re not detecting, you’re detecting through. You get the emergence of attending as opposed to just detecting. And then what you got is Wall’s notion that the primary function of attention is prioritization and that’s what pain and pleasure are. I get this initial, just prioritize, and it’s just an embodied thing. So what I’m hearing you say is we’re trying to get to the point where you get the emergence of attention and the initial capacity of prioritization and I think that’s where unconscious relevance realization, the relevance realization that has to go on and detect the real thing. The real thing that has to go on in detection is starting to emerge into conscious relevance realization. How does that land with you? How does that land with you? Yeah, it’s nice. There’s a whole bunch of different things there, right? We’re like walking through the grist just to pulling things out of the alchemy basket. So one thing I have in my mind is just to kind of hold as a metaphor is what’s the first person experience of a very early cell that has photoreceptors? Yeah, yeah. It helps for me to hold that as a sense of ready. So more or less, yes, yes, yes, like lots of yeses to what you were just saying. A reminder, almost like I would like to recapitulate that based on the yes, yes, yes, and therefore let’s remember that if we’re endeavoring to now consciously or intentionally begin to explore how to generate a higher level of competence in distributed cognition, we can begin to use this theory to support that work. So that’s the secondary move. Ah, okay. Another thing that came up was something like the loop from perception to expression of which the simplest version of expression is action. So prioritization, and if I use that single cell, it’s light over there. It’s more bright that way. Think about all the orientations. I’ve got an orientation of heterogeneous perception, but then I’ve got an integration of heterogeneous action. Yes, exactly. I’ve got to get all these metabolic processes. I’ve got to be modeling yourself. Philia. Yep, yep. So you’ve got these two moves. I’ve got one loop of inputs. I’ve got another loop of outputs, and there’s a process by which there’s a transition of heterogeneous inputs that become oriented into a unity, a wholeness of, which is now prioritized or has a characterization to them. This then leads to a conversion, which is really interesting actually, of a wholeness of output that then is disaggregated into a heterogeneity of the distinct micro phenomena that are actually what real action is. Like you said, walk. Right. Look, run, right? First you orient my attention. I make sense of what’s going on. It comes at me, and then all of a sudden I have this singular run and this huge cascade of dispositional shifts, change in every aspect of my beingness, including my pupils dilate, my respiration increases, my attention focuses, and I run. So you’ve got this sort of figure eight maneuver going like that with this movement from the maximally heterogeneous into the fully integrated wholeness and back and forth. Yeah, and the aspiration metaphor I think is excellent for that. Can I pick up on the first thing you said because I wanted to then, right? Well, I do want to respond to the second thing, but the first thing made me think of the point you often make of, like the more differentiated we become at higher levels, the deeper down we have to drop in our own processing to find the common ground so that we can get a source, a deeper source of integration. And you often, and right, you’re talking about the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea. You often spoke in that principle, it reminds me of Nietzsche’s quote that the height of my spirituality reaches into the depths of my sexuality kind of thing. And part of a way of understanding that is, you know, we are much more alike at the sexual level than we might be at the spiritual level, but the connection between them means we have a resource by which we can constantly renew the connections at the higher-level. And so, by analogy, and you’ve often made this point, If we can learn to drop down to the originary, that has a great chance of reconnecting us at a primordial level. I’ve got a metaphor here. If we drop down, we’re on these different mountain peaks, but if we drop down into the valley, we can then recline again in a different way where we might not end up so far apart from each other. That’s kind of the metaphor that’s coming to my mind here. One of the things we seem to be doing is going the opposite way. Not everywhere. People are doing the motion that I’m gesturing towards. In general, what we’re doing is emphasizing the differences up here. Right? Yeah, this can make it real simple. I discovered this when, it’s fun, I actually sent Greg an essay I wrote on a theory of justification, which was literally just like an itch because when I was in law school, I went to Harvard Law School in the late 90s. What I noticed was people are really absurdly terrible at arguing with each other. Yes. Conversation, two people ostensibly well-educated, smart people having a conversation. If I just paid attention to the conversation, it was obvious that effectively if I went two levels down in their language, the semantic models that they were using, the meanings of the words that they were using, and to some sense the values and the grounding of what those words were, the dispute was happening here, but they were fighting up here. There’s 0% chance that this is going to do anything. It’s just shh. Back to the point. Precisely that, a recognition that almost is a simple heuristic practice. If we find ourselves in disagreement, the only valid move actually is to go down a level, go deeper, keep going until you find a point at which you can actually say, oh, got it. Oh, I see. Now, I see what you’re talking about. It didn’t make sense before. Almost all disagreement happens at the level of… Okay, there’s two pieces to it. Yeah. This seems interesting, actually. Okay. One is what Benita Roychuk is called bad mappings, which is just to say a failure to recognize this stack, this hierarchy, that you’re from first person or lived all the way up to propositional. Right, right. Participatory to propositional, right? And recognize that my meaning of a given term is a bespoke connection between a repeatable semantic parsing. I hear the word dog enough times that I begin to think that it’s the same thing every time I hear it. And the actual mapping, the grounding of that in what can only be my personal first person experience. So I have a whole bunch of experiences. Word dog keeps being associated with some subset of those experiences. I keep cleaving away all the stuff that’s not the same until eventually I come to something which seems to be the same each time. So, okay, that’s dog. But you’ve got this very different experience, right? So there’s going to be inevitable mapping distinctions, right? The word dog for you means something different than the word dog for me irrevocably, but there’s also commonality. So that’s one is just straight up mapping errors. And so most arguments, and it’s frustrating for me to experience it because it’s such a silly error, but it’s difficult for people in the contemporary environment to grasp. Just require you to stop and say, oh, wait a minute, we probably have a mapping error. Let’s slow down and go down. Yeah, exactly. The levels until we find it. Yep. And the other, of course, is this thing that I got a gentleman, Joe Adelman, first name for me quite well, which is we humans, and maybe modern humans, but certainly modern humans have a very bad time. How does this work? So you’ve got what you think you want or the way you name what you want, what you want, and what you need or what you care about, right? And we conflate them all over the place. And we get like, so even like the simplest example is quite often. I remember when I was fasting at a certain point, I actually because of the decision extreme experience, I noticed like, my mind would pop some notion of what would satisfy me like a piece of chocolate, or like a drink of orange juice into my head. But since neither of those is going to happen, when I was fasting, I would go well, not that. And then I would realize, oh, actually, I’m tired. The actual underlying need is tired. I don’t know, maybe chocolate will work. I don’t know. What about orange juice? I don’t fucking know how to do this. It’s really tough, man. We really do actually have a really hard time connecting. And if you shift it from like that simple first person experience, way of describing it, say at the bottom are something like our, well, let’s go back to our previous language, which is like our heterogenous felt sense of where we are, what our current state is, and all the distinct aspects of self kind of sending in a, basically a status report. Status report, things aren’t going well, like that level of valence, right? And then the translation from valence into adverb and from adverb into adjective is fraught with error. Sometimes suck at it, most of the time is not particularly good at it. Transposition errors. Yeah, yeah, transposition errors. So if I’ve got a semantic mapping error here, where I think I’m saying one thing and you think you’re hearing one thing, but we’re actually just not even communicating. Once we get to the point where we’re actually establishing a communications protocol that has mapping errors accounted for, so we’re like, oh, okay, that’s a mapping error, let’s figure that out. Then I’ve got the transposition error, which is say, okay, am I myself actually perceiving my own personal reality well, so that I’m actually expressing what’s going on cleanly and clearly. And by the way, probably not. So let’s be mindful of that and go slowly enough that we can actually notice where it’s not happening. It is happening. Anyway, sorry. No, no, no, you didn’t. That was good. That was good. That was good. The idea that dropping down the stack in order to overcome transposition errors is a particular kind of self-knowledge. It’s right. I tend to call this socratic self-knowledge, because it’s more like the operating system and the owner’s manual of you rather than your autobiography or all the, right, that’s going on up here. Yes. You’re trying to prop down and make sure is everything, it’s the kind, and I want to use this metaphor, but it sounds too simplistic and reductive, but you’re trying to, it’s the kind of knowledge, well, Plato made it very specific. Am I running smoothly? Right? Radically, right? And Plato, of course, argued what Socrates had pointed us to is that we don’t really know ourselves if, which is not a matter of theory, is if it’s more a matter of virtue, if we are not actually running smoothly. If all of these things, if what Plato called inner justice, the inner justice of the psyche. If everything isn’t doing what it’s supposed to be doing with an eye to not interfering with what everything else is supposed to be doing, but they’re also cooperating and with, like, it’s, he uses an inner justice model, right? And he says we’re not, and the basic argument is we’re not capable of outer justice if we haven’t realized inner justice, right? But what you’ve added is you’ve taken Socrates and you’ve sort of superimposed in Montanica, and the idea is this, right, this takes this really interesting, you know, all the terms we have for this are so negative. It’s like, you know, I don’t know, I don’t want to say regression because that’s the wrong term from Freud, but this dropping down, this returning to the source kind of thing, which I think is a very, very powerful idea. I like the way you put those two together. I thought that was really, really insightful that there’s a sense in which there’s a kind of non-biographical, non-propositional knowing of yourself that is essential to your ability to connect to other people in a sense of having the resiliency and resources to drop down levels so that you can reconstruct common ground and then recover the upper levels from that drop down. I think you’re nodding, so I think I got you what you were saying. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. And so to sort of to put it in a different language, it’s a little bit like, well, we can put over here the notion of just music. Music is simple, right? It’s a nice basic case, right? So if I’m like, you’re playing a rhythm and I’m just listening to it, I don’t have an argument with the rhythm, it’s just I listen to it, right? And then what happens is I try to orient myself towards something that seems to be able to jive with that rhythm. It’s just that word, which of course is I’m going kind of down into that lowest level. It’s definitely prepropositional, right? It’s just feeling something. I’m feeling the rhythm. I’m feeling into something that connects with that in a way that suddenly lands in more of a yes-ness, right? That’s right. That valence, I feel that. That’s not right. That ain’t it. Oh, wait. OK, there we are. Click. The notion of practice, right? I’m modifying something. It’s shifting. Who knows what? I don’t even care what it is what I’m shifting because I’m not paying attention to that. I know that something is shifting and there’s an orientation towards more yes-ness, more yes-ness, more yes-ness. Click. OK, cool. Now we’re vibing together. Now there’s something going on which has a felt sense of wholeness to it, right? Now we’re actually in the groove in the same groove. Now that we’re in the same groove, we can use that rhythm of the same groove. We can start doing more stuff. But as long as you can hold the groove, now you can start layering things on top of it. Right. Right. That’s what I had there. No, that’s good. I like that. I mean, that’s a very Taoist metaphor, which I really resonate with, which is another metaphor. Yeah. So I was wondering if then, right, because I remember reading this in a cybernetic theory of mind where they were trying to propose that pleasure was something like this running smoothly, right? And so that all the heterogeneity can get oriented. Like you said, like you kept saying the whole of me comes together to say yes. And to say yes again. And that’s sort of the primary of the valence, of the valence quality. Right. And then you start to layer on. And that sounds to me like the adverbial quality. I start this year, this year, now, this year, now, this year. And I start to pick out. Right. And so the rhythm starts to get articulated in terms of salience. And then I could start to lay on to it. Right. So good, good. You’re nodding. So we’re resonating. So I was reminded of when you invoked, when you invoked music and we’re talking about this, I was reminded of Winkleman’s work on shamanism. And he talks about we talk a lot because we’re post-upper Paleolithic transition. We talk a lot about cross modular integration, you know, how I can map this concept from this domain onto this domain. And I can do and that’s wonderful and amazing. And we celebrate it. But he said that was but that depends on what he calls neuro axial integration, which is the integration this way. And what he says is what you see shamans doing is they first really empower this so that then they have novel abilities to connect between the modules. But they connect them in a way that because they’re doing this, they can transfer to other people. So they don’t just out some mapping and people go, what the hell is that? They do the new mapping, the new metaphor, but they do it within. Right. Right. You see? Yeah. Right. And this is this goes back to the notion of the valley. Like the face is. Oh, OK. So you said something earlier that I love because it’s one of the things that I’ve. It’s like come to me over and over again. And I’ve always felt an orientation towards wanting to actually do it, which was in my famous called The User’s Guide to Your Vehicle, like a little, you know, being a human for dummies. The first chapter is like, you know, you know, welcome to being a person. You, like all of the persons have been issued a standard order humanness. This will walk you through the user’s guide to your vehicle. There are many like it, but this one is yours. And the point being that that’s the point. We have that in common. We are we are we are all persons. We are all persons and persons have this really interesting characteristic. I’m using Greg’s term here. Yeah. Yeah. We are. Well, maybe not all of us, but many of us are persons. Those who I’m interested in communicating with are persons. Right. Right. And to be a person means that you’re sitting on top of being a being a human primate is great. I mean, yes, a primate. And by the way, being a primate means you’re on top of your male. We can do all kinds of all the way down. It was all the way down. Right. And so and this tiny person is actually a relatively small piece on top. And on top of that personing piece, you’ve got a particular bespoke language, you know, propositional fabric that you’ve fabricated over the past whatever 55 years of your life. And that, yes, very different, very much differs from the one I fabricated over the 50 years of my life. But, you know, that’s a tiny bit we can we can we can get those things to work as long as we can kind of go down. And OK, so that’s that. That’s that piece. The other piece that I thought was really interesting is that as I was listening to you. Hmm. Should I say it this way? You see, how does this work? Right. OK. So, you know, like when you’re doing tree pose, you know, go standing on one foot for those who don’t do tree pose. We also stand on one foot when you’re doing kicks and tights each one. Right. But I have done I have done that. Or when you’re hopping on one foot as a kid in a playground and you have a feeling. That feeling of the heterogeneous becoming the unitary is what I’m trying to say. Like, there’s a there’s a unifying feeling that I’m going to call it being called in balance. I can. There’s all kinds of shit going on. Right. I don’t know. My hips are a little bit misplaced. My arms aren’t right. My head’s in the wrong place. The wind’s blowing. Whatever happens to me. Many, many distinct things that are actually going on. But there’s a unifying sense of everything that’s going on. There’s a unifying sense of am I balanced or not? Yeah. And the thing that I wanted to express was something like. The feeling. That feeling of a unified sense, that feeling of wholeness, that feeling of a presence of wholeness. Yeah. Yeah. OK, I’ll say it this way. This is going to be I’m throwing a I’m now consciously. So not necessarily deliberately. Throwing a right hand turn into our conversation. OK, so this may be a big fork. OK, but I’m interested in the possibility of this big fork. OK, so I think I’ve mentioned before my uncle. Who passed away two years ago. Yes, you have. Yeah. Yeah. OK. So in the last year of his life, he and I had a number of conversations. He was a very profoundly religious man, a deacon in the Catholic Church. And so with his tutelage, I read the Bible. I would read the Bible and then we’d have conversations about it. And there was a particular point, actually, the Book of Acts, where we were discussing the notion of the Holy Spirit. Right. And he was describing his experience of what that was. Yes. And as he was describing it, I said, oh, oh, I think I know what you’re talking about. I think that I know this feeling, this felt sense of there being a presence, a presence of wholeness in the context of being with other people. Yes, very much. And so I described it to him. And what are you going to do with something like that? But the basic sense was, yeah, maybe so. So the right hand turn here is something like a demystification, I think is a huge move of something that we can do. I think it’s general. I remember actually with Benita Roy, she demystified a couple of terms from the Buddhist lineage. I was like, oh, that OK, that’s actually real simple. She’s like, yes, generally real simple. We get twisted around by layers and layers of mystification, particularly because we live in a lot of in a post fantasy world. But the reality is, it’s you’ve probably had these experiences first person. You probably actually have had them a lot of times, but you haven’t been able to grasp them with clarity. And the names that have been given them, frankly, get in the way quite often. So slow it down and see if you can actually feel the felt sense of what it feels like to be in that notion of that same notion of being in balance when you’re standing on one leg. Yeah, the sense of, yeah, this thing is working. These heterogeneous elements of me are coming together into a unity that is able to achieve this wholeness of orientation, this wholeness of disposition and choice. Yeah. OK. Can you have that same felt sense in relationship with another person, two or more people? Yeah. If so, for the moment, at least provisionally, let’s allow that to be the thing that has been pointed to with the name Holy Spirit. Just, you know, I don’t want to be burnt to the stake, but let’s just hold that for a moment. Because I suspect that it actually is. And I don’t mean that to be sacrilegious, exactly the opposite. What I want to do is I actually want to go the opposite direction and say, hey, everybody, guess what? This thing that has been talked about as being the thing that we’ve kind of needed forever for 2000 years, a bunch of folks been saying, go here and do this thing. I am not telling you, go here and do this thing. I’ve been calling it by a different name and I’m grounding it in a different place. But what I’d like to do is I’d like to propose a a yoking that it is the same or at the very least, the thing that I’m talking about can get you to this other place in a way that is meaningful. And after that, I wave my hands and say, OK, now I’m, you know, I’m simply in this place and we’ll see what happens. I don’t think this is the right turn at all. Oh, OK. Because this this doing that, the horizontal, the horizontal between us and the vertical between us. You know, I’ve been arguing for a while getting getting this click and getting this click and getting the two clicks to click together. That’s the essence, I think, of dialectic. And the thing that Chris and I have been talking about, because you’re right, is we try to we use the German word to try and say a bunch without we use the word Geist as opposed to spirit. Or because the word Geist hangs between spirit, presence and mind in this really way that is really helpful here. Normally we want to cleanly distinguish and pull these apart. But what you’re saying, what religions often want to do is say, yes, I understand why the analytic mind wants to pull them apart, but there’s times when we have to remember that they need to click back together again. And I yeah, what I saw you doing there is saying, well, you know, what people were talking with the Holy Spirit and they have there’s all this Christian doctrine attached to it, etc, etc. But, you know, can we get to a place where I can enact what you mean rather than just looking at propositions that you’ve given me? Right. That’s it. That’s exactly it. Right. Right. So and it’s no coincidence that you found this in the Book of Acts, of course. And then why I’m smiling is that idea of right. I call what you call demystification naturalization, naturalization. But I’m trying to explain it in terms right that are acceptable, would ultimately be acceptable to people coming from a secular scientific perspective. They don’t have to commit to this religion or that religion. Right. That might not be exactly what you mean by demystification, but it’s close to close enough so that I can see a similarity between what you were doing with your uncle and a really powerful conversation I recently had with Paul Banderclay and JP Marceau about C.S. Lewis and miracles, because I was trying to do that with miracles. And there was one point in the conversation where I happened to have done something sort of very Socratic because it had a really powerful effect on Paul. And I said to him, well, is the placebo effect a miracle? Because we because what you’re talking about here is you’re talking about right. How the upper level can write, write, write. Yeah. Yeah. And then, of course, that overlaps with shamanism because shamanism is a very, you know, this sounds dismissive and it’s exactly not dismissive. Shamanism is this comprehensive psychotechnology for individually and collectively bootstrapping and enhancing the placebo effect and taking it as far as it possibly can be taken. Yeah. And when you remember that 80 percent of our medications and our techniques, our placebo effect, that’s a pretty good health care system. Right. That’s a pretty good health care system if you can do that reliably. So, I mean, what was interesting is how close we could get. And if what happened was the Christians, Paul and JP, who I both have very good faith relationships with, they differed in their answers. Ah, JP said no. And right. It can’t be right because he saw it as I did as within the naturalistic world order. Right. But Paul said, yes, it is. And he’s actually released a video on it. Right. Now, I’m not trying to pit them against each other. Then things simplistic. What I mean is what I’m trying to point to is that this even what’s supposed to be a prototypical religious phenomena like a miracle actually is like this thing that’s really multifaceted and kind of amorphous. And people are trying to what it’s grounded in something. But do you see what I’m trying to do with my hands? I’m trying to. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, so it’s almost like if we sort of. Hmm. All right. I’ll do my hands. If we move things into the right order, which seems to be a lot of what you and I have been spending time on. Yeah, which I love a lot. There is a there’s a proper place for the ineffable. Yes, yes, yes, yes. This is a really good way of being in relationship with the ineffable. Yeah, yeah. And OK, so when I when I when I say demystify, I think what I actually mean is is actually very specific. And I think it’s important to make this distinction. I don’t mean to endeavor to eliminate mystery or the mystery capital T capital. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s quite the opposite. Yeah, yeah, yeah. My experience and my sense is that the the and it’s very much like the Francis Bacon, the pinning of terms, propositions to the mystery is is profane. It is the most profane thing. Right, right, right. When I say demystify, I’m actually making a move where I’m pulling the pin out of the mystery, which takes the move, removes the power of the mystery from the pin, which in this term would be the term or the word evaporating it now because it now becomes it comes back, goes back to its reality, which is not a whole lot. It’s a bunch of sounds. And then allowing the mystery to return back to its ineffability, which is its proper place. Yeah. So when I say demystify, that’s both moves, right? I’m actually totally, totally. And that’s humiliating the term. And what would be the right term glorifying the mystery? I that’s exactly it, because what happened out in the conversation was that we were both talking so that that point about the ineffable, the ineffable. Like there’s a veil. There’s the valence that we express as all towards the ineffable. Right. And it came out. And what was really cleat, what was really interesting was what both JP and Paul were saying. I was really learning something about what what what was the inactive piece they wanted after all this doctrine. What was the inactive piece that I could clicked with? And then what they said was, well, what it is, is there’s it’s to remember that there’s lots of really strange things, lots of really strange stuff happening and strange. And what what a miracle does is almost like the opposite of your pen. It gives you something that suddenly gathers all the strange together for you and sort of brings it together, makes all the strange click together. And so that what was strange and dark is now still strange, but light. And so I said, well, does that make what Einstein does a miracle because he takes all these anomalous phenomena, Brownian motion and the stuff happening with Mercury, all the anomalies hanging around the edges of Newton. And he goes, oh, if you do this, this really weird idea, relativity, all this weirdness, suddenly you can grasp it all together. And that’s where the conversation hit, this sort of like law. It was like it was like because I got what they meant, but then I did it in a context that isn’t traditionally described as religious. And as you as we both know, Einstein has a profound reverence for the mysterious. It’s at the core of his scientific practice. Right. And if anybody was a naturalist, it’s also Einstein. God doesn’t play dice. Right. So what what what what I want to get at? I’m using that as I’m invoking Einstein because this is something I’ve been really thinking about, in fact, right on the cutting edge of my thinking. Is there a rationality? Give me time on this. Is there a rationality? Is there an ineffable rationality? Let me give you a metaphor of what I mean. And it’s based on Gallagher’s work. OK, we think we have one way of thinking of rationality. That’s let’s use Greg’s idea. It’s at the level of just what it is to be rational is to be able to justify my actions. It’s justification. But what about the kind of rationality when someone is skiing? Right. And they are right there. They’re reflecting. They’re not stepping out of the prospectival, but they are nevertheless reflecting on what they’re doing. And they’re right there. They’re learning and teaching. And so I call this the rationality of articulation, trying to like you breaking it into parts and making yourself aware of it. And it’s almost like speech. But you’re not you’re not talking to yourself. Ryle gives the example you were just in an RV, right? You’re driving and you notice that you’re out of gas and you pull over. You don’t say to yourself, hey, I’m out of gas. You write there’s a rationality. It’s ineffable. You don’t even know what you do. You just write. You can after the fact say it was if I was talking to myself and said, oh, I’m out of gas, I should pull over. But you just you reflectively notice what you stay in the prospectival and the procedural and the participatory. But you nevertheless recalibrate and restructure your behavior so that they’re more appropriate to achieving your goal. There is a rationality within the ability. Right. Oh, yeah, absolutely. So this is the this is an example. Well, sorry. What’s coming up for me right now is an example of something that you and I have noticed several times, which is the the inversion. And I actually was noticing I just put it out there that this the tension between the natural and the supernatural feels like it’s of the same kind. Yes. The supernatural, the error of the supernatural is the treating of the ineffable as if it is simultaneously effable and of the same kind as the natural. Yes, yes, yes. Or whatever. Like it’s it’s it’s it’s wrong. It’s an inversion. OK, so the inversion here is something like where was it? OK, I’m driving. Oh, the whole point is grounding up. Yeah, that’s that’s the whole point. I if when I when I’m skiing, I’m skiing actually better. There’s a hyper complex phenomenology. All kinds of crazy stuff going on faster than I’m normally able to process. If I stay grounded in relevance realization, to use the language, right, if they grounded in 13 billion years of of of an adaptive, evolved being in relationship with reality, then I can continue to move forward in congruence. I can have my my fittedness to what is real. Say there’s an integrity, like you said, would you call it because we’re justice that you use there. Plato used as an inner justice. Is that what you said? Yeah. So I was like, this is this is relational justice. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Me and world are in relational justice, such that my continuity of experience and it is staying in conformity with the complex changing circumstances that I find myself in. Then you got this kind of a number of shit at the top, which is like, you know, like reality is flying by at light speed. And then there’s this little like elocution engine at the very top giving names to it. You can imagine a little scribe like writing shit down and then turn left and then I turn right and then my tree. Oh shit. Right. You can imagine that’s what’s going on. And like, oh, if you want it, if you want to kind of ascribe that whole gigantic thing of which the part that’s the most important is the conformity to what is real in relational justice. If you want to describe this little kind of ongoing inner the dialogue to the degree which would exist at all as rationality. OK, but I’m going to have to have come with another word for the part that’s actually for the, you know, 99.999% that’s underneath it that gives me to the first part. Now that said, this is I guess is where the inversion comes. This is I think we were kind of getting to some pretty nice, you know, rhythm here, which is we invented language. It’s neat. We can say stuff to each other. I can actually write something down in a thousand years from now. In principle, somebody else might read that. That’s pretty cool. So we kind of got we kind of got geeked out by my language. And, you know, the elocution engine described who is the one that does that. It’s like, dude, I’m awesome. I’m fucking cool. And by the way, I’m going to be doing all this stuff. So now when John and I are talking, it’s all actually happening at the elocution level. Like, it’s not really actually 99.999% of it’s still happening below that surface. Now, what’s the proper role of the elocution? What’s the proper role of the proposition? Right. And broadly speaking, the proper role of the propositional is this orientation down into valence space. Yeah. Coming back up. Right. It’s just it’s a harmonizing protocol that orients our mutual embodiment. Right. My wholeness of being in world and all of its various distinct heterogeneous elements and yours. And the words just serve as a way of kind of orienting attention. Right. It’s an orientation process. That’s what they’re for. That’s all they’re for. No more. They cannot possibly carry any more than that, but they can do that. OK. And it’s like a it’s funny, as a kid who grew up with the early, early, early, earliest Internet, I have a really great metaphor for this, which is sorry. And as a to a greater or lesser extent autistic kid, the sound of an early modem. Remember those things? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Banging on that. And every time that darn thing would play, I would I would start emulating that sound because that’s kind of how weird I am. But that’s as far as I’m concerned, that’s all that’s happening between us. Right, right, right. The word is establishing a protocol for communication. The communication is not happening in the words. The words just form the possibility of a harmonization between the much larger aspects of wholeness of self that are grounded in this notion of valence and then adverbs and then adjectives. And we have like a loop back. So I say stuff, you hear stuff, but that’s happening like at the outer edge of our two sort of figure eights. Then the two figure eights come into harmony. And then there’s actually something really cool that happens, which is they somehow click into something which has a once the harmony begins to reach a certain level of consistency and fluidity and consistency, consistency like I can bump it and it stays, it holds, it has a integrity of itself, a relational justice. It can hold, it can hold water, it can hold something. Then that actually has an interior of itself and it can begin to do something that has an inner loop and an outer loop. Yes, yes. A bunch of stuff, man, just sparks. The first is, you know, Iris Murdoch in The Sovereignty of the Good, where she talks about the primary moral act is the justice of attention, attending to things as they deserve to be attended to. She argues is actually the core of our moral abilities. So that’s the core of virtue. That’s the core of virtue. That is a good set of words like that. This actually had the feeling of like, mmm, yum. And then I was thinking about what you about the pin, taking the pin out. And I was thinking, when we take the pin out, so we stop fixating on it and I’m picking up on the fixation of the pin metaphor, we’re turning the idol back into an icon, right? And we can only do that, right? We can only see through it justly. Again, the Socratic thing, if we have the inner justice. And then what those two things led to this thought, you know, Morton’s idea of hyper objects and the idea a hyper object is something that, well, you know what a hyper object is, you know, Morton’s idea like the East India Trading Company or England or evolution. It’s not located in a specific time or place or even reducible to a specific set of organisms or people. It’s this thing, right, this huge dynamical system through which things flow. And the idea is, following your your Auroro’s work that, you know, the best way to track a dynamical system is to become a dynamical system. I’ve been working with the idea of that with Daniel Chappie, that what we do in group and distributed cognition is that we can get we try to create dynamical systems that can grasp hyper objects. Right. And that was one of the primary functions of religion. We write. But I was also now thinking, ah, but what what Jordan is saying is not only between people do we create these more comprehensive dynamical systems that allow us to grow hyper objects. We also interest psychically, we’re trying to get these more comprehensive dynamical systems that allow us to grok hyper objects. And then the two have to be resonant together in a powerful way. Is that is that landing for you? Yeah, that’s really nice. And then the implication there, which is really interesting. Oh, right on. OK, so let’s see. Kind of rewinding. Remember, I mentioned my my primary hypothesis. Right. So one of the ways that I’ve language, this is at the level of kind of information theory or computational. Yeah. The complexity of the environment in which we’re operating is strictly vastly larger than the computational capacity that we’re capable of as a distributed cognition under the architecture that we currently use. Yeah. Yeah. So the question is something like, well, how to put it in a very odd way, how do we generate a computer? How do we generate a computational capacity, a distributed cognition that has an information processing capacity which is equal to the task of the actual complexity of this complex system with which we are in relationship? Yep. Yep. We might call now the whole world, right? Because this is one of the challenges. The whole world, the whole world, including the whole of humanity, the whole world, including the whole of humanity and the technological change that humanity outputs. So that’s that’s like a that’s a big problem. And what I was feeling was funny, I was feeling like the situation of like I have a almost like a globule and I felt like almost like one of those little things floating inside of those things called the hippies used to light up a little globule and that globule has like a quantum or a quantity of computational complexity of which it is capable. Right. Right. And a part of what I do, and I think part of what everybody does, particularly if you’re really orienting in this direction of verticality, is you change the shape of your globule to try to conform to the complex system that you’re interacting with. Totally. Totally. Trying to grasp the problem of riding a bike, you sort of shape your complexity to that. And you’re using your, you know, your sphincters and you’re using your whatever elements, right, to fit. And you can you’re up to a certain level of task, right, to the degree to which you’ve become skillful in orienting your shape to conform to the environments the complex environments you’re operating with and the degree to which the sort of total volume of your globule is adequate to the complexity of the environment you’re operating with. You now have what I would actually call sovereignty. You have the capacity to be in enduring right relationship with that reality. Right. Right. Now, what we were just discussing is a way in which my globule and your globule can come together to form a larger globule, right, which now has, in this case, twice or a J plus J volume, but has the new problem of actually now having to build a skillfulness of shifting our globules into conformity with the complex problem that we’re dealing with. Right. Now, what we’ve just identified is that the if we’re if the end state of what we’re trying to get to is a globule, in this case, the unity of humans, enough humans coming into relationship in this way, such that our individual globules, individual complex capacity comes becomes coherent or orients with each other so as to form a larger whole. We have three tasks. One task is a raw capacity, which is commensurate or symmetric to the size of the problem that we’re dealing with, which is, again, Earth, humans, technology. There’s something about and I don’t know how big it is, how many humans have to come into an effective distributed cognition to have enough potential capacity to be able to accomplish that. The second is what I’ve been calling coherence or the thing that enables us to actually have my globule in place. What enables us to actually have my globule and your globule become a single globule, which now has a larger whole, not just, you know, one plus one, but something which is more like two nests. That’s helpful. And then the third, which is maybe the most challenging part, is then the orchestration of the skillfulness in the individuals such that the capacity of that wholeness is actually being able to be come into conformity with the complexity with which it’s coming into relationship. It’d be like the old three-legged race. It’s now the three-legged skiing down the hill. Yeah. And I was thinking of that. That final point was the one that was becoming most prominent in my mind because you have the problem, right? You see this in complex system theories. You see this in the expansion of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is this complexifying thing that is complexifying in order to conquer and control more and more of the world. But it gets to this point where it’s in the complexity that it’s creating to solve its external problems becomes the problem, right? And so it can’t complexify to deal with the problem because its problem is its own internal complexity. So that’s why it’s become more and more like, that’s why the Socratic self-knowledge and the platonic interpersonal connection have to always, they have to be super synced together, right? Right? We have to be the, and I don’t mean just our individual self-knowledge. The coherent distributed system has to have self-knowledge machinery, right? We have to have recursive Socratic knowing if we’re going to afford this platonic expansion of our conformity to reality. And that’s the point that for me is the one that I think is, well, I don’t want to make a metaphysical, I concentrate my efforts there because that’s where my talents, I think are, but also because I see that that is the requirement that is most being polluted right now by idolatry, right? By various forms of idolatry. And I include a lot of ideological thinking as idolatry, right? By narcissism, by an individualism that misunderstands Socratic knowledge as self-possession, as having an identity, as opposed to aspiring to an increasing conformity, right? To oneself, to others and to the world. Like this, for me, this is where the problem that you have articulated, and it’s had a huge influence on me, as you know, right? That’s where the problem bites me. It’s like that’s where I see a huge obstacle to realizing the vision you’re articulating and where I also feel it’s an affordance for me, where my talents are most able to grasp that particular obstacle and interact with it and try to ameliorate it in some fashion. Would you mind naming that obstacle again? The obstacle is, right, the obstacle that is preventing us from both the intrapersonal and the interpersonal Socratic self-knowledge that is needed to prevent the internal complexity from becoming like the Roman Empire when it had expanded to its limits, right? We can’t be like, we can’t be that the internal environment has become, is complexifying as, is becoming as problematic to us. The complexification has to be, right? It has to be, well, that’s why I was trying to get the rationality. It has to be a rational complexification that doesn’t make itself as problematic as the reality complexity that we’re complexifying for, right? That’s the point I’m trying to, and for me that we have all these forces, cultural, cognitive, political forces that are driving us against the kind of Socratic self-knowledge that we need. And for me, that’s where I’m trying to, like I say, for me, that’s an affordance. That’s a problem that I think my particular training and talent, you know, prepares me for. I see it as an affordance. That’s where I’m trying most to intervene. I don’t know why I felt compelled to say that. I just, I guess I wanted to say, I wanted to, what was being called out for me is how this, I wanted to express how this, what you’re articulating is calling me. What’s, what is calling out for me. Yes. Well, what came to me just a moment ago, as you were saying that, and this may not be precisely relevant, but there’s something here that I think is important to say. And since we spend so much time revalorizing terms, I’ll revalorize that concept, the term of vocation. Right, right. Voco, right? And one way of saying it, and I, I encountered this a lot and I sure you encountered it as well, is quite often people, and by people I mean kind of like, look you lose on the internet, would complain that I’m not doing the thing they want me to do. Yes. And this is not exactly what you’re saying, but it’s related. It is related. I get it. And, you know, what I would say is that I am quite confident about this. I thought about this quite a bit, that the, the answer to the question of what is it that I should be doing, and I mean this in terms of me, Jordan, but also John and anyone else to whom the word I is appropriate, is the question of vocation. Yes. And so there’s a, a skillfulness part, part of the process of being able to participate in distributed cognition is the skillfulness of being able to rightly orient yourself to that, to which you are called, right? Right. To hear the calling well, to listen well to what is being called. Yes. And then to bring your, your aspect, your globule, you know, it has a shape and the larger shapiness, right? Um, and, um, quite often to be perfectly frank, the rejoinder that I would send to these lookie-loos is, well, maybe that’s yours. I guess that’s the thing that you’re supposed to be doing. And I get it. It probably is really hard and it feels really important to you. Um, and it probably is really important because there’s a lot of important things. Um, and the right thing to do right now is to figure out how do you actually simultaneously remember this demystification, how do you sort of unpin yourself so that you’re no longer like held captive or, or pinion in the sense of the bird. By a whole bunch of constraints. And by the way, many bad habits and mechanisms of, of, of action and behavior and thinking terms that are confusing, all kinds of shit, how do you liberate yourself to be able to then listen to your vocation and then to express your vocation to the world with, uh, clarity and elegance? That is so Socratic though, right? Because you know, Socrates had his divine sign and he had a sense of mission, right? That, that, that he had a vocation. And what that, I think you put your finger on a dimension. We, we keep circling back around to the sacred, right? But this is a dimension that we haven’t talked about very much about the sacred. And you, you, you, you, you even put in a, in a virtuous framing. The sacred also is vocational. Yeaden has a book called the sense of being called. It calls us, right? But it, right. There’s a normativity, but, but it, but it’s a, it’s, it’s a normativity that is tailored to me, right? Right. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, or tailored to us because vocational calls are at multiple levels. Yeah. And we’re also called to coordinate our individual and our collective callings. But, but what I mean, Jordan is I think, I mean, we should probably wrap it up for today, but we, what I proposed to you that one of the things we might want to, what I want to explore together is this vocational aspect, right? Because the vocational brings the Socratic self-knowledge into dialogue with the ineffable because when you’re called, you don’t know what you’d be like. It’s prop, you’re only called if it’s properly ineffable to you. Right. Right. Well, can I take just like, excuse me, a few more minutes out of this? I’ve been gone a long time, so I have some juice. There’s, there’s like a bunch of simplifications, like I keep wanting to simplify it, keep it away from that mysterious heaviness that makes it confusing and in fact impossible. The point of that is that the supernatural move to which I don’t want to ascribe too much aspersion, but the supernatural move makes it impossible. That’s what it does. Exiting it from the real, it makes it impossible when in fact it’s not impossible, it’s just ineffable. Those aren’t the same thing. Yeah. So a simple version of this is that movement back from valence to adverbial, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes. And the sense of calling, when it resonates between the levels, so they resonate with each other, that’s a sense of vocation. Yes. Yes. Yes. That’s beautiful. Yeah, that’s beautiful. Ravel. Well, your expectation that we would really spark after the lacuna was very prescient. This was very powerful for me. I think there was a lot of stuff in that it’s opening up the possibility of future discussion. So I mean this in friendship, welcome back. It’s great to be a dialogue with you again. Thanks. Yeah. It’s fun. I look forward to an appropriately amazing level of conversation with you and some of our other friends over the next several weeks. Yeah. Well, we’re going to try and get the band together at some point, right. And, and do the four way deal logos again. So I’m really looking forward to that. I think that’ll be, because everybody, like everybody’s done these arcs that are like are differentiated, but have so much potential for consonants. It’s just going to be really amazing. Uh, when, when, uh, we, we, we, we jam together, jam together again. So I’m really, I’m really, as you can tell, I’m really excited about that. Right on. I’m in. Yeah. Bye my friend. Take good care. Bye. You too.