https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=k0VHl8Rh9uY
But the big thing that was present in our essays, which maybe might be even missing from the account of these three entities, which does make a huge amount of sense, is the concept of the structure. And I’m not sure what you think about that. So me and Ken, we tended to maybe assume or think that the kind of crystallized structures of, say, social media networks, corporations, the New York Stock Exchange, that these had kind of a part to play in how we should think about these things. So we agree that the New York Stock Exchange, social media networks have maybe a confusion of divine principles, demonic influences going on, but they’re also these kind of earthly crystallized structures, which maybe have this kind of, we equated them to the Tower of Babel, that maybe have this, yeah, they’re kind of crystallized entities that, and so do you think that that’s significant? The reason why you see the crystallized entity is because of the parasitic, is the parasitic nature of the being. That is, so let’s say Facebook, Facebook doesn’t serve a higher good. And the funny thing is that we can talk about how it’s trying to, but let’s say at the outset, Facebook doesn’t serve a higher good. Facebook serves mammon, serves, I mean, what does it serve? And so because of that, that’s when you see these extremely tyrannical systems. That’s why the Tower of Babel is a good example that you use, because the Tower of Babel was trying to basically contain all being within their structure. And so that’s when you get these hyperrigid type system. A traditional world has structure, has system, but it has a kind of organic exchange between the levels of the structure. So people sometimes think that, they sometimes equate something like the law or something like ritual as just this top-down, completely hermetic system, but that’s not true. Although when you read the, let’s say you, even a liturgy, like if you go to a liturgy, if you read the book, it’s clear what should happen. But if you go to any liturgy, you’ll see that it’s messy. There’s a messiness about it, especially orthodox liturgy, for some reason, and there’s kids running up and there’s people coming up. And so there’s this kind of, there’s an exchange between the different levels of being. And so I think that that’s what happens with these, you know, when we’re, what you’re bringing into the conversation about Facebook and about the stock exchange and about this is really what we’re trying to talk about in terms of beast symbolism, let’s say, or the idea of 666 and the problem of perfect systems, the problem of like wanting to name something and completely contain it, is that, and you can see it, like Facebook is a really good example, the social media networks are a good example, which is that because you’re not anchoring your being in a higher good, you think that the good you’re aiming at, this lower good, is self-sufficient and is good enough, then what happens is that at first it looks like it’s going well, and then later all the side effects of your purpose start to appear. It really is, it is like the genie story, because like you, this is what you wanted, you get it, but you didn’t realize what it implied because you’re not anchored in the right level of good. And so Facebook at first was like, hey, it’s all family members and it’s all, you know, people, you know, contacting all my friends from high school, this is great, this is wonderful, you know, and then 20 years later, not 20 years, I guess, what is it, like 15 years later or whatever, 15 years later, it’s like, yeah, great. Now it’s all like these weird parasitic processes and it’s all these, you know, and just like these weird communities that end up, you know, let’s say, narrowing into their own little weird idea. And so, you know, it’s not great. And Twitter, I mean, Twitter is worse for different reasons, but I think that that’s when you can see how the way that the modern world understands bureaucracy and these kind of these technical systems that they do, they quickly show their dark side. And social media is a great example of it. It’s basically, you know, it’s basically every, like every science fiction story about the Golem or some utopia gone wrong. But now we just saw it happen before our very eyes. Yeah. Do you think we’ve got… Sorry, go ahead, Daniel. Do you think that the word Golem is a useful word to talk about these entities then? I think, no, you’re right. I think the word Golem is a great, it’s probably better than Egregor, because in the story of the Golem, the Golem is made by a human and is made by a human using practical magic. And so I think that that’s describing Facebook and Twitter as Golem is probably better than Egregor’s. And there’s no Golem in the, in kind of Christian mythology or in the Bible, right? Like this is quite an obscure myth. It’s a recent, yeah, it’s a Kabbalistic myth. It’s the rabbi of Prague who supposedly used practical Kabbalah to create a protector, you know, for the city of Prague. But often in the different legends, the rabbi has to finally remove the divine name or remove, you know, the spark, because the Golem is kind of out of control and is doing things that it shouldn’t. And so I think that that’s, I think that it’s, I mean, you’re right, it doesn’t exist in the Christian vision, but it is definitely useful to understand the modern world, that is for sure. And I think it’s not accidental that it happened, that that story came about at the time that it came about, which really was at the burgeoning of the modern age. Yeah. Yeah. But it’s a great idea, like using that word, I think Jordan even used it in the discussion we had to use, but we didn’t kind of pick up on that, but it is definitely, especially for the man-made ones. It’s not as clear when it’s like emergent, because Facebook is not emergent. Like Facebook is weaponized. Like it is, like someone, you know, a group of people sat down, programmed it, made it. And so maybe AI, the image of a Golem is a better image for AI than Egregore.