https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Nb74f0gg1Qs
Or the cloud. Okay, so let me start by reposing my question. That sounds good. So, as I said, you’re the person that sparked this project. Right. The whole project of reinventing the logos and argumentation and You know, some of our core concepts and, you know, the cultivation of virtue and wisdom because you proposed to me that what is needed right now is a meta psycho technology. And so I’m asking you if this project seems to be on track towards addressing that concern. Yeah, so the, so the context. So this was worked back, we had that we had, I think, three things that felt like they were all at the same level. And one one of them was a meta psycho psychology. And it’s interesting right now I actually have to, to redo the entire conversation. I cannot remember what the three were. But the absence, the absence of a meta psychology. In practice, was it was a was a whole right and so there was a need to do that and clearly you were moving in that direction. So, you know, So, so let’s put it maybe in context, what what happens there. Okay, so here’s the deal. Here’s the context, the big picture or the context we’re sitting in. We have a lot we have to do. We have a Enormous amount of work, more or less at the level of culture that needs to be done. And by the way, you can put like scare quotes around that are boldness because I’m speaking it in a way that we don’t really have words to describe the magnitude. And we don’t have much time in which to do it. We’re trying to in fact, invent or design a culture, a whole culture, a whole thing that holds the totality of humanness in relationship with nature. And we’re not doing it over thousands of years or hundreds of years. We’re doing it in a couple of decades, or maybe three generations, but with a lot of the work happening early. And that is definitely not even ever been vaguely done before. So it’s novel. We’re not, we’re not even doing it for the second or third time. We’re doing it for the first time. So one and done one shot. This kind of thing vast in scope short in time in the context, by the way, where the reason why we’re having to do it is that the thing that has been holding us together at a very high level is that we’re not doing it for the first time. And that is definitely not even ever been vaguely done before. So one and done one shot. This kind of thing vast in scope short in time in the context, by the way, where the reason why we’re having to do it is that the thing that has been holding us together at a very high level of entropy. This thing that has moved us up the ladder from subsistence agriculture, 2 billion people that can kind of be held well by if you drop far, you don’t drop that far has taken us really high. We’ve got 8 billion people now with very with vast supply chains that have 15 different levels of technology between the mode of production and the actual mode of resource connection, bandwidth flying everywhere, the complex civilization structure. And that thing is no is breaking. And we can talk about it. Of course, we can talk ad nauseum about why and what that looks like and how that’s happening. But just the point is that thing’s breaking. So we have to invent or design or co create or create the seed crystal allows the autopoetic development of this new thing. Brought rapidly in the context of the thing that we’re currently sitting on top of collapsing rapidly, which creates all kinds of entropy and little earthquakes in the environment they’re operating under. Okay, so that’s what’s that’s what’s working against us. So other things that are working against us. This is not happening all at once, you know, you talked about the meaning crisis, for example, and beautifully so and we are all exponents of having been in the result and the consequence of the meaning crisis for generations. So we are deeply suffering from being having having, you know, centuries of a building meaning crisis. And the and the socio technical and psychological consequences there out. So the individual beings who are trying to do this problem are very broken. And the ideas and concepts and words and operation methodologies that we’re working with are very broken. Okay, that’s all what’s on the scale of against us. What do we have on the scale that’s for us. One of the things we have in the skill is for us is we actually have 8 billion minds. A lot of minds, more minds than we’ve ever had. And all those minds can in fact communicate with each other. In principle, any given conversation, more or less like at least 6 billion could happen instantaneously. Well, that’s super, super new, like the level of possibility space. If I just did a network effect that the Metcalfe law of how much capacity lives inside that possibility space. It’s actually substantially larger than the scope of the problem. Okay, that’s a very simple geometric proof. If I want to solve the problem, I have to have something with a possibility for solution is larger than the size of the problem. That’s straight cybernetic, right? You get some sense of the size of the problem. I can say, well, categorically, nothing that we currently have can solve the problem. Is there anything in principle that could? Well, okay, at least in principle, if I could figure out how to get these minds able to interact in some kind of fashion where the possibility is not fully collapsed. Meaning the coordination structure of, well, I’ll just use the language, collective intelligence is not vastly lossy compared to the possibility of what could happen. So that’s the question that we talk about. What is a meta psycho technology trying to do a meta psycho technology is trying to do that. And it’s trying to do it, recognizing that it’s a bootstrapping problem, meaning computationally, we bootload a little bit, but that bootloader creates an upgrade in our capacity for the next iteration to load more, which upgrades our capacity for the next iteration to load more. And there’s hopefully a high enough positive exponent in that expanding sphere that the capacity to the actualized capacity reaches the point of being able to respond to the problem domain in the time that we have. So some of the some of the design constraints. We can’t have, we can’t require too much change in the psycho spiritual cognitive capacity of humans. We can, we can, can expect and should require some degree of skin in the game. I will commit to being transformed. I will commit to being transformed by this. And by way that transformation will be a transformation for the better for myself. I will feel in myself and upgrade it and my own personal well being. And also synergistically, my capacity to participate in this larger story. And so I am with a local and a global increase by participation. But we will not have expectations. We cannot have expectations that human capacity at the individual level will go from call it two to nine, right, maybe from two to three or two to four, maybe two to 2.5 right something in that zone. Meaning that this meta psycho technology needs to be the kind of thing that people can do. People as they are can begin to engage in it and and as they engage in it, they should become more capacity as individuals. And by the way, then as groups. Check, check, check. I see a lot of that. I mean, I certainly see that the things that you and Chris and the conversations that you’re having and to the degree which I’m participating in are happening. There’s a large chunk of the population can perceive it and can begin to be transformed by it. And then begin to participate in it. At least. Go ahead. No, no, that was. First of all, your your framing of the problem as always was elegant. I, I, I, I enjoy partaking in the aesthetics of the unfolding of your thoughts, because they have this almost like cathedral structure to them. Like the way I can like you almost mapping them out in space. You know what I mean? And I really appreciate that. So thank you for that. It’s often very helpful to talk to you for precisely that reason. Yes. I wanted to say that I appreciate observation and I’m getting. I mean, it’s not scientific evidence. It’s anecdotal evidence, but that’s all that we can get right now that because what I’m doing is I’m teaching online the meditation class, the contemplation cast. So what I’m doing is I’m giving people, you know, some basic mindfulness instruction and these principles about building an ecology of practices. Right. How do you get various practices to complement each other for strengths and weaknesses? How can you layer practices? One practice on top of another. So how can I go? Prajna out of meditation and contemplation and then linking practices? How can I take a silent meditative practice and then link it to this person practice? Well, there’s a linking practice called Alexia Divina. It moves people from it to what’s I’m doing that and people are taking it up. So they’re they’re they’re doing the the the Michael’s practices entering into Alexia Divina and then fall feeling it on my mind. Entering intellectual divina and then fall feeling it almost called naturally into the logos as a process. So I’m starting to I’m starting to get some of the architectonic of it like these kinds of connections, like I say, the sort of the looping connections where you find you. Things are put together in relationships of complementarity mutual constraint of mutual comfort affords because they have, you know, they have trade off strengths and weaknesses. And then you have layering how you can, you know, you build this practice and that this this practice can be layered on it and exact it. And then you have linking practices. How can I link between practices that are giving emphasis? This is giving emphasis to perspectival knowing this is giving emphasis. And how do I how do I do the linking? And so and then and then if you notice what it does is it’s a progression that’s designed. I hope to be as efficient as possible in the in the sense that people are building an ecology of practice, but it’s building into the meta cycle technology, which then could feed back on the entire ecology. So that those are some of the design ideas that are emerging in the past and trying to actually put this together. Oh, man. Yeah, like I can say to that is that feels it feels really good. Like it’s the feeling of. Hmm. So I’ll just I can kind of narrative my internal experience, my internal experience was as you’re speaking going, yep, yeah, that’s definitely the way it ought to be. And also, as my mind tries to reach up and kind of get ahead of it, my mind is noticing that I couldn’t do that. Like that is way beyond above my pay grade. So I can actually look at it and acknowledge. Okay. Yes. Good. Those are the old rightness. Right, right, right, right, right. And fucking hallelujah. There’s somebody who understands how to do that is in the process of doing it. Yeah, there’s really like, I haven’t got a good metaphor for it because I guess this kind of thing doesn’t happen very often, but it feels like a collaboration. And my feeling in the context of collaboration is a lot of feels very good, like good things are happening. So I think there’s you and Guy and Peter and Chris, right? And you know, and also Doc, and Laman Pascal. So there’s a lot of people that are like, there’s a network, right? And then that network is networked with a growing community, right? There’s a there’s a saying that that’s forming around the course, but there’s a discord server community that’s also forming around all of like, and so and it’s very much. I’ve been I’ve been encouraged on how. How it’s almost auto poetic, it’s self generating in the way it seems to be not just not just the traditional permeation of ideas, but it’s almost like the way crystals are forming. It’s a precipitation, right of networks that that’s occurring. So you get sort of this interesting dynamic between a precipitation of a network and that people participating. So the person is like this precipitation participation cycle that’s actually spinning to which I thought that was something I hadn’t really put any thought into, but I’m observing it happening. And I go, wow, that’s really, really interesting. How that happens. Yeah. Well, it’s interesting that you use that particular metaphor because that’s the metaphor that I’ve used often myself. That’s what it should look like. It should look like, particularly the the formation of the way that I’ve used the metaphor is the formation of ice on the surface of a pond. Where there are in fact almost certainly some N of of crystal matrices that are in fact forming that we don’t know about. And and each each crystal seed crystal is generating a zone around it, which increases the possibility of water spontaneously passing through the phase transition into ice, which increases the surface area of that the volume, but really the surface area of that zone. But what happens if it becomes extremely powerful is when one of those crystal matrices comes close to the zone of possibility of another crystal matrix. And then in fact you get this big chunk, like a big up level and sometimes you may say that’s actually what’s really happening between us. Like up until what a year ago, I didn’t I had no no additional even existed in the world. And I presume vice versa. And so something happened where you were doing your thing. I was doing my thing. Our things are clearly participating in the same fundamental thing in very different ways. And there was a way for us to rapidly be aware of that fact leap rapidly into collaboration with a high degree of vulnerability and transparency. And then and then something much bigger happened like a significant increase in possibility and capacity opened up. And that’s where I think the biggest hope happens is that that set of basic characteristics of being able to discern when somebody is how do I call this I call this the the invisible conspiracy. Meaning if we’re both working for the same if we’re both working on trying to make bring the same thing into the world. The fact that we don’t know each other makes it even more powerful conspiracy. I don’t know. I didn’t know that my whole life I was secretly collaborating with you. But it doesn’t matter. Right. I am. And you have been as well as far as I can tell. We were clearly oriented towards a fully aligned sensibility of the kinds of things of what rightness looks and feels like. And therefore, the possibility that it bring those pieces together is very high. So let me drop it another piece. So the short answer is yes, it feels good. Yes, it feels good. One of the things that I noticed as you were talking is to say, OK, it is really the case that only a certain subset of the human population right now is going to be able to participate in the in the psycho technologies and particularly to collaborate in the meta psycho technology space that’s being developed. And how do I say this? The right way to respond to that reality is to take a look at it as a problem to be solved. Right. Not the kind of thing to be it to be it should grinned about. OK, great. There’s some people who can participate in this. They should. And we need to find a way to empower them to do so. Those who are not yet able to we need to look at the zone of adjacent possibility, which say who could be brought into that? And ideally the most easily you don’t want. We don’t want to. We can’t lift a heavy load like we have to every step needs to be the most elegant step that we can take. And there’s sort of three basic constraints. One constraint is the constraint of the individual. So does the individual have a cognitive bias? Do they have a trauma? Do they have bad habits? And what is our zone of what is just called healing or wholeness? So there may be certain individuals who are proximal to being able to really get involved in this, but there’s something in their developmental art. And that might be able to be solved. There may be a way of producing a resolution to that. And many of the practices that you’ve talked about are practices that are healing practices in some fundamental sense. Right. So that creates a great on ramp for people of that sort. And if the magnitude is larger than we can deal with, that just means that they’re further away in time. As the zone of capacity increases, more and more people will be able to be brought into a capacity to participate. Then you’ve got something in the context of what in context, like what’s their actual context. So you may have people who are plausibly able to participate, but you’ve got to work real hard to be able to make things meet. Or their social context has a lot of energy, like challenge chatter to it. So they’re being pulled back by the context that they’re in. So this is one of the things that is part of this thing that I just announced yesterday, which is the Sydium project. And I watched the video, by the way. Excellent. Yeah, yeah, I was glad I was finally able to shoot that darn thing. And the intent there is to say, look, one of the things we’ve got to do is we’ve got to create physical spaces of livingness where we can have the possibility to basically control the context. And we can move people from context that make it impossible for them to really participate into context where they can. Subject, of course, to the fact that when they’re in that new context, they can. And unfortunately, there is a strong correlation between individual trauma and hard context. And there’s only so much we can actually help. And so there’s only so much that can be held. But nonetheless, there are, and I personally experienced, quite a large number of people who, if given the space to be able to participate, would make the commitment to do so. And then we would be able to go through the meta-psycho technology. So it’s like the socio technology, the meta-socio technology is one of these other nodes. And Sydium is this meta-socio technology, which can begin to operate in lockstep. Right? Remember, these things are going to proceed by integrated holes expanding. We can do a lot of work in partial, like laying scaffolding. We can put scaffolding out there. But then what has to happen, there needs to be an embodiment of a whole triadic wholeness. And then that creates real expansion of capacity. So what was the third one, I wonder? So, I mean, I think you addressed it well. So I want to pick up on that, Therian. The connection between sort of the ecology of practices, the meta-psycho, the meta-psycho technology, and then the way in which that needs to be grounded in the Sydium. I think it might be good at some point, you know, just to give a quick, you know, the basic argument of the Sydium right here, I think would be a good thing to do. But another thing is, because we had a third thing that we were talking about, about how to try and bring about, you know, comprehensive, multi-scaled transformation that reaches into the kind of transformation of education that Zach is talking about. And, you know, something that’s what we are also on this other project of the religion that’s not a religion. Right. And so I don’t know if that’s your third, but that’s my third. I think as you said, I was like, okay, maybe that’s what drops in. And that’s the livingness, right? That’s the livingness of the meta-psycho technology. It’s the whole set of what they call prosthetics, really. Well, that came up when I was talking about this last time. We didn’t record that conversation, but when I sort of went through the mechanics of how to do dialectic and try and engender and cultivate dialogos, your response, which was very spontaneous, and I’ll mention in a minute why it had sort of this weird effect on me. But you said, you said that’s what church should be like, what good church should be like. And I thought, ah, so yeah, there’s a connection here to the religion that’s not a religion. And the reason why that had a personal thing for me is my own relationship to church is a deeply ambivalent one, because I was brought up in a form of Christianity that was quite traumatizing. But I understood the intent of what you were trying to get at. And so that’s why to my mind the piece here is, okay, how do we get something that can transform the way we think of education and the way we think of enculturation? Because we’ve talked about needing to really sew those back together again. And Zach Stein is making excellent arguments and doing excellent work on that project. And we’ve talked about how we need the comprehensiveness of what religion can do, but we need to break out of the cultural cognitive grammar that the axial revolution gave us, because that’s no longer appropriate for this new revolution. I’ve been sort of doing this as a slogan to people because I’ve been saying we need something much more deep. We need something deeper. I don’t want the French Revolution. I want something like the axial revolution. That’s what we need now. And so that’s a way of all trying to draw it together and say, so I’m seeing these three things talking to each other or needing to talk to each other more. The civium, which perhaps you could, like I say, just give a brief synopsis, this whole idea of the ecology of practices and the meta-psychotechnology and then the religion that’s not a religion, because they feel like they’re trying to draw into each other and mutually afford each other. Yeah, yeah, I think that’s right. And I don’t know, I mean, the way my brain works is kind of odd, but I was just seeing like a nine dimensional hyper object. Which needed the three points in the way they relate to each other as having the stability that we’re looking for. So let me just do a quickie on the notion of civium because the context you provided makes it relatively simple. So human beings have a whole set of needs. It’s kind of as simple as that. And we need to figure out a way to meet those needs and we need to meet those needs in a way that is sustainable in the context of nature. We can’t eat all the food and then have no food. We have to have a way of regenerative production of satisfying our needs. And we have to have a way of meeting those needs that is sustainable in the context of human relationships. And so massive wealth in instability, well, asymmetry is unstable. So the set of the ways we go about satisfying our needs as humans is the subject of civium. And to put it more practically, the subject of civium is things like how do we just live our embodied daily lives? How do we get food? How do we put a roof over our heads? How do we have our vocation of working and giving our gifts back into the world? How do we raise our kids? How do we have friends? Like all the stuff of humaning and this thing that happens from the moment you’re born to the moment you die that you’d like to have to be as meaningful and rich as possible in physical bodies. And it starts at a very theoretic level, which I can just reference to the 18 or 19 minute video as a sort of one of the theoretical pieces behind it to say, okay, we need to be thoughtful about this. This is a turns out a core problem. The underlying design with the domain is called ontological design. The underlying ontological design toolkit that we’ve been using is as much a part of the problem as other deep toolkits. So we need to redo that at the bottom level. That work has now been thought through to some level and now the process is okay, how do we begin to instantiate that? But when you instantiate it, when you look at a given civium, you’ll be looking at the ordinary stuff like, okay, how do we produce and distribute food? How do we make sure everybody has forks and toilet paper and all that economy? All that cool stuff again, just lives in the notion of what I would just call socio-technical. And by the way, in a way that is able to be very, very, very human at human scale, like maximum peg nurturing at the human scale, yet also simultaneously global. So you can actually have a global coherence. So individuals in a given location in the civium mesh have a capacity to be in relationship with individuals in any other given relationship, called right relationship, with any other point in the mesh. And also, of course, the entire system is constructed so as to be in a regenerative relationship with nature. So not only reducing or reduce the extractive dynamic that we’ve been dealing with, but actually the opposite. Human being playing the role of partner and steward with our lived environment. So as to, of course, create a human world co-creative dynamic that is in principle enduring, like in principle could endure for the long term. Is that a decent summary or are there pieces of it that you think that are still usefully obscured? I think one of the things you’re doing that gets back to sort of the deep reinvential we’re talking about here is just like I thought about the actual revolution is creating a cultural cognitive grammar. You’ve thought of the city as basically a Neolithic invention that we’re still using. And it’s part of the core, the kernel grammar of civilization. Exactly. Right. And so the thing about the city is, is until very recently, this is, if I get this wrong, interject, please. But the thing about the city is, right, when you bring people together, you get this sort of nonlinear increase in creativity, innovation, you know, right, which is why we like civilization. The price we pay for that is because we’re embodied. You get a lot of people together and a lot of people together is mental ill health disease, right, pollution problems, you know, a degradation of the environment because you’re concentrating people into a small area, etc. So right, we’re caught right in that way. And then what you’re saying is, we can actually we don’t have to have the city as the kernel of civilization anymore. We can pull those apart. Because we, we, if we can get this technology and the corresponding cognitive psychotechnologies coordinated, we could ramp up the meeting of minds. So we get all of the creativity and meaning in life that civilization, right, in its complexity gives us. But on the ground, if you’ll allow me that metaphor, people are living in Dunbar, you know, environments that are very close to the environments in which we evolved. And we as a species spent 99.9% of our existence and therefore are deeply conducive to our biological, psychological and social health. And so people could be living really well, reaching back to the primordial place like the primordial kind of environment we’re supposed to be living in, but still have access to everything that civilization has provided for us. I think that is that is that is that fair? Yeah, that’s fair. Well, I would say access to everything civilization has provided for us in space, right, because the hypothesis is that once you make this move, we really we really pop this the thing pops out to a big, a big pop. Is it to reinforce each other? Because if we have people living as they’ve evolved to live, and I would say if they have something like the religion that’s not a religion and all that stuff there, that gives them the capacity, the cognitive flexibility, the biological, you know, resilience to enter and spend more time in hyperspace without being right without being and then of course in that creativity, right, they get the capacity to be able to do that. Yeah, yeah, and is that is that close to part of the feedback between the two? Yeah, absolutely. That’s all of it. And so what was I think is is what I want to do is I want to I want to kind of put a second hand on this. I was thinking over the past couple of years, maybe five years now gosh, I’ve had an opportunity to interact with a much larger group of people in the context of ideas like this. And so I think that’s the way I think about it. And I think that’s the way I think about it. I think that’s the way I think about it. I’ll write something down and people respond. I have to admit, most of that has been highly demoralizing. The lack of discipline, intellectual and emotional discipline that most people seem to apply and the way that they interact with things is sad. But other parts have been empowering and saying okay, well let’s let’s identify what are the types of things that end up being blockers. So I’ll give an example. If one endeavors to put their own mind to solving the problem that you just laid out, the problematic that you’ve just identified as being the design constraints of what this thing needs to look like and what’s possible if you get there, you will likely run into the reality that you don’t know how to do it. And that might feel bad. I’d be like, oh, I don’t know how to do this. I feel overwhelmed in the physiological response of the task that is vastly larger than not just your capacity, but even anything that you could vaguely imagine being in your capacity at all. But then one of the defense mechanisms that is typical in that environment is to then shut down. It’s to say, oh, oh, project the impossibility of it and then actually just live with the dopamine myth. You have a cortisol response. And kind of put your head down and move on. But what I would suggest is to say more like a literally just a relationship to you and I had just had a moment ago. Like if I if I listen to you talk about the thing that you’re about and I try to like own it, I try to take responsibility for it myself, I’m going to get overwhelmed real quick because you’re really good at what you do and you’ve been doing it your whole life. And I’m nowhere near as good at that. And I’ve been doing it nowhere near as long. So therefore it’s a lot bigger. And if I want to try to own it, master it, I’m going to fail and I’m going to feel really bad about it. But there is a way for me to be able to listen to it and notice in myself something like a yep, there’s something about like that’s being done well, like just that. Like you can tell the difference between somebody who’s doing something well and somebody who’s not doing something well. And you can feel in yourself like it’s hard to explain, but the deeper sensibilities that you use to guide your best work. If you tune into those and you perceive somebody else who’s doing work, you can notice whether or not they’re doing something with elegance and artistry. And if they are, you can have a thank God somebody else is carrying this piece. And we can all look at this and say the problem is vast well beyond anything that we know how to do. And that’s okay. And we’re not trying to solve it all at once. We’re trying to figure out how to kind of get some sense of the shape of the problem and what what right direction looks like and feels like and then be able to make enough steps in the immediate term that the steps that we’re making are guided by that directionality. But it’s going to be a long time. It’s going to be generations before we get this thing fully dialed in. We’re all everybody who’s currently perceiving this in 2020. Most of you will be dead before this thing actually is rendered fruition. And that’s a good way of holding it like our job is not to build the cathedral. Our job is to put a couple of bricks on each other and imagine what a cathedral might look like. Yeah, that’s beautifully said that goes towards the that the Socratic faith that you and I have also been talking about. Can I can I do one more thing because I just landed. And it also goes to this this problematic that I identify with you, which is the meaning crisis, which is that thing that ability to live deeply in the practice of I’m putting one brick on top of another and imagine what the cathedral will look like that I will never see is the most meaningful thing. That is the solution to meaninglessness is the ability to be in that context to know that you’re part of a project vastly larger than yourself in both scale and time that it is a project that is worth doing. And that is a project that you are contributing to in a fashion that is deeply aligned with your highest capacity and purpose. I think mattering mattering to something that has a value independent of your ego centric concerns is most the thing that is most predictive of enhanced meaning. Yes, I see that. So. I’m not going to do something and it’s meant to increase what’s happening between us. It’s not meant to be detrimental. So I was talking with Chris and I was trying to think of okay. What are particular issues we might confront? We talked with you and I talked about the problem of sort of the that the you know, the charismatic leader or that sort of misappropriate this. And then another one that came up with discussion with Chris is, you know, one of the things that seems to require at least for most of us, it does for me physical proximity is sexuality. And so one of the things that the city gives me is this is not intended to sound predatory, but it gives me access to right. I would not have met somebody as wonderful as the woman I’m with if I did not have such a large population that is so diversified, so stratified division of labor. I would not have met her right now. If I meet somebody like that because of my access to the you know, the internet, the hypersphere, the problem is I’m going to fall in love with somebody who might be living in China. And that’s going to be that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to cause frustration. Oh, man. Let’s do this. Let’s do this. This is great. And this is perfect. Like when I said living this great mate selection is pretty close to the whole point, right? That’s the very bottom. All right, but this is contextualized because here we sit at the unfortunate discovery that the sexual revolution was not all free love and happiness in the context of online dating is not necessarily awesome. Swiping left. I don’t have to use Tinder, so I don’t know exactly what that means. The swiping left on Tinder does not lead to unending joy. Okay, so design constraint membership in civium must lead to a felt up gradient in the quality of your how would I call this not sexual but mating or pair bonding that’s better your pair bonding relationality and must have a pair bonding relationality and must provide an ongoing upgrading in that particular domain that is stronger than any other possible choice. Yes. Okay, so that’s, by the way, this is this is sort of how I do this thing I think about can I design the kind of design the thing at an abstraction level that is actually necessary and sufficient and then can we begin to work backwards and say okay well how do we accomplish that and and if we can’t accomplish it perfectly we know what the mountain looks like at the end and we can start thinking about how we actually start taking steps towards it. So one of the things that I noticed in the contemporary context, and it’s funny, I’m 50. So I, and I, and I’ve had like two real significant pair bonding relationships that have lasted long periods of time so I don’t have any real connection with the millennial or certainly the Gen Z experience of dating, but like this entire thing called like it’s the pickup artist, like the invention of that and the fact that invented it developed it became a whole thing and then it’s already in a different stage of development. I think it’s quite telling, which is to say that an aspect of the meaning crisis is that we suck at pair bonding. And we’ve kind of optimized for hookups like I guess called even called hookup culture. So, in a large urban area, you have a very high target rich environment for hookups. But it seems that we do a very poor job of having meaningful relationships. And we seem to be doing a particularly poor job in having the kind of meaningful relationships that can actually lead to pair bonding like parenting families, and let’s be very clear. While it is, it’s perfectly good and valid for people to have pair bonding relationships that don’t lead to children, a sizable fraction must otherwise the culture terminates. And by the way, we could just you know, there’s pair bonding over here and there’s also family and child rearing over here, and everything that I just said about pair bonding is also true of child rearing even more so, right, this must be city and must be a context that is so much better than anything else that’s out there in terms of raising children, both from the point of view of parenting and from the point of view of being the actual child. Like that’s like the center of everything that’s that’s like the ground zero is that. Okay, so what does that sort of thing look like so as we’ve discovered we have on the one hand in the virtual environment, I will be in a possibility of being in relationship with everybody on the planet. And so, you know, this has advantages that my target rich environment for interactions and relationality has gone way up. It has a disadvantage that I may fall in love with somebody who’s on the opposite side of the world. That’s going to make for a lot of poetry. That’s going to make for a lot of avalard and Eloise style romantic stuff and it’ll be powerful rich and heartrending for sure. And I would say, by the way, it seems quite likely that frequent transnational travel will actually go down. That’s my guess. Especially if that the something that I think you agree with as a probability that this is not the pandemic is not a singular event. Most of human history has had cycles of pandemics. We have been brought up in an aberrant point of history that is probably coming to an end. And one of the advantages of civium is to provide sort of a natural structural design defense against pandemic. But because of that, because of the always background threat of pandemic, yeah transnational travel is going to go probably going to go down. Yeah, so there’s going to be something like a gosh, it’s such an interesting thing. If you look at the literature on pair bonding, the reality is, is that long term successful relationships tend to be within a very specific zone of cultural lineage heterogeneity. Not too close and not too far. And that makes sense, right, because you and I both been through relationships that have failed and relationships that have been built on a basis of trying not to fail. And it’s hard right this whole thing of being in relationship with another human being and all of their reality and their, their, their singularity. You know, every individual human being is infinitely different. And all, you know, particularly in the kind of gosh I’m the whole of the complexity of this is loading rapidly. You know, in the past, up until the middle of the 20th century. For the most part we had the advantage and the disadvantage of running traditional cultural code. So for example, my wife is Croatian, and I have had in the Croatian culture, even like the expat creation culture is still running traditional cultural code. For the most part, it’s beginning to break apart as it always will and it moves into a cosmopolitan space like the United States. But you can you can receive it you can see how there was like a religion that had a whole bunch of like it. You went through all the Catholic moments. And if you sort of took the sum total of the community, you took all the Catholic moments, and that was more or less your whole social time. So, if you weren’t going to a wedding, you’re going to a confirmation so I don’t know my Catholic sacrament, pardon. Catechism. Right. And that combined with a couple of sort of more secular events like a big pig roast or a soccer game like that was the social life and that was a fabric and a framework that did things like introduce you to all possible other mating partners and make it very simple to know a how to go from possible mating partners into being married, then actually held you in a context that made it, you know, adequate context to keep the marriage together long enough and stable enough to produce children so the culture could reproduce. So, every traditional culture is that I’d say, minimum viable boundary condition to satisfy that set of characteristics. So we’re in an interesting situation where on the one hand, the explosion of post war. Neoliberalism and postmodernism and capitalism has has has this critique is correct has shattered many of those around the world. And a big piece of the meaning crisis is precisely that people thrown into out of a cultural context that made their life held into having to figure it out for themselves which we can’t do human beings are no ways capable of figuring out for ourselves. And so we do an increasingly shitty job of it. We have the advantage that we’re no longer constrained by the traditional culture that we used to be in which has all kinds of salience in particular, like I can definitely have a lot of salience landscaping and get get laid and take drugs and all kinds of cool and art and the Bohemian lifestyle is very attractive and lots of positive ways. But so I’m liberated from the constraints, but I’m also liberated from the constraints, which means I now have to take responsibility something I can’t take responsibility for us and become increasingly sad. And, you know, I grew up in just far enough down the immigrant cycle that I was had almost no traditional construct. So I grew up in the suburbs, and I then raised kids in the suburbs, and I noticed like the, the palsity of our traditions like Halloween. Like how did you do Halloween, and the notion of like in California in particular where most of the people were immigrants to California didn’t even grew up in California, I talked to Leslie, and most were actually second or third generation server suburbanites, so this very, very thing rule of culture. And it’s like a coughing sputtering engine that’s right kind of reach the end of its capacity to hold things together. Okay, so sorry that’s that’s like kind of context of where we are. So the challenge is to say okay, traditionally if you had on the order of like 15 to 150,000 potential mates or potential people not mates but potential people. In reality, how do I say this is like think about just the sheer math. There’s a boundary condition of the number of people who are, you know, even theoretically potential mates, you could interact with full stop. And there’s an even narrower boundary of those you could explore the possibility of courtship. And of course a much, much smaller number that you could actually really meaningfully experiment with it. So, if you get outside of that boundary condition of the first order, anything larger than that is waste. It’s not useful. Now what we’d like to do is we’d like to actually have the interior of that boundaries, let’s say by hypothesis, an average human could kind of meaningfully explore the possibility of courtship with say 10,000 people. And just like literally just in interactions in social environments encountering people like no, no, yes, possibly no. Oh, wow. Amazing. Right. And then okay. We’d like to just like to have that 10,000 be really, really high quality. That’s what you want. You want to have the number the people you’re interacting with are are healthy. They’re psychologically mature. They are engaged in in joyous activities. They’re good, wholesome people. You want wholesomeness to be the context of the possibility of relationality. Then you want the end to be high enough that you’re sort of super saturated with possibility. And then frankly inside that zone, the likelihood that you’re going to have a vastly better than right now mate selection, both in terms of good fit and in terms of the larger context of the whole arc of being in relationship of actually becoming meaningful partners supporting each other in your own personal development in the context of friends who are all supporting each other in the context of a larger community that’s all supporting each other then eventually potentially coming to actually choose to become parents. Once you’ve kind of solved for that, that that minimum viable and then you focus all the energy on the wholesomeness of the context. And of course, you have to have some meaningful amount of heterogeneity. Right. So imagine what happens is that when you’re like in the Middle Ages, when you’re like 14 or 15, you must leave your city in context, like it is a obligation. And you go to some place which is in distance. So not your neighbor, but you in fact go to China or you go to Germany as a teenager. As an early teenager when the whole this is the thing you’re from. This is the mission of teenagers is to figure this thing out. That’s why adolescents is really about. You should definitely not be learning trigonometry when you’re an adolescent. You should be learning who you are and how you may become an effective relationships with other people. Okay. And that’s kind of the work. And maybe the work is actually even more profound. What happens is you actually create heterogenous nomadic groups that go deep into things like nature and try to like build things together. And you’re really focusing that period of time on the on the optimal arc of development. And then you have a choice. Then then what happens is those particular nobodies must then choose which civium to bring their young adulthood into, which they may choose to be with people they are interacting with in that in that hodge. Or they may of course be bringing a more mature personality into this new context where there’s going to be a high enough and that the possibility of finding made as reasonably is good. Like it’s a very solid context. So see what I did there is I actually had to I had to bring in a couple different elements. I did an element of like education development in general. Oh man, I think I just shoot. I got three minutes. Sorry. I’m glad I didn’t roll over. We know it. This is that’s like you raise those are good questions like the charismatic leader as an air, you know, sex and love and relationship and mating and parenting is even more fundamental. You get that part right. The charismatic leader actually becomes vastly less important. People are too busy living healthy lives to worry about somebody who’s trying to charm them into nonsense. But we could we could maybe that’s another conversation. Let’s pick that up. Yeah, I don’t want to keep you over because I know you have another meeting us because I could tell you’re building momentum and you’re sort of building towards something. So let’s pick that up next time we talk. Right on. Beautiful man. See you. Okay. Take care, my friend.