January 2021 Q&A (weX2nbdva1E)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=weX2nbdva1E

So, hello everybody. I hope you are having a wonderful beginning of the year. I shouldn’t laugh. I’m laughing because things are nuts and we all knew that they would be nuts, but it’s unpleasant to go through the nuts stuff anyways, even though we all knew that it was going to be crazy. So it’s good to see some of the people in the chat. It’s good to see Griswold Grimm. I think I recognize you from the, what is it, what’s the name of the channel? Man, my brain is going to be horrible tonight. It’s not going to be good. And so Brad’s there. Neil is there. Jacob. Nice. Sorting yourself out. That channel. My goodness. Sorry about that. All right. And so, all right, so let’s do this. Let’s go. I wanted to make a few announcements. As you see, I’m slowly starting to inhabit this space. I’m still not totally ready yet, but it’s getting there. It’s getting there. I’m starting to have stuff that I’m going to put up. Some stuff that I saw, like my Adam and Eve thing I stole from the flood. I got it out of the water and it still looks okay. There’s a bit of rust on it I might have to take care of, but it looks okay. And I put my brother’s book up there. And so I’m going to have some books in there in the, so I’m just setting up. I’m happy. So this year is going to be the year that I’m going to redo the website. One of the reasons to redo the website is to make it more streamlined, make it more easily accessible, especially the blog posts that are being done. It’s not super streamlined. I want people to be able to get to the content easily and that the content be featured. Another purpose to redoing the website is that I made this big thing on Facebook, on the Facebook group saying that Facebook and Twitter are becoming dangerous spaces to rely on. So I thought, okay, let’s move Jacob, who you’ve seen on my channel before. He’s Jacob the Fool in the chat. He had had a Discord channel that was talking about symbolism, so we thought we’d move there. And so we did, a lot of people did move to Discord, but Discord is different. The way that it works, there isn’t like the post and comment functionality. It’s more like a stream conversation. So it’s not for everybody. So one of the things I’m going to be doing, and I’m kind of announcing this to all the moderators here as well, is I’m going to be having forums on the website. And so that way, and the website is being hosted by someone named Matthew Raymer and a company called Content Safe. And so they’re very deliberate about making sure that the content will at least be protected to some extent if things start to go off the rails, if there starts to be attacks. And so if we have forums on the website, that way we can at least control more and we can decide the functionalities we want. And so I’ll have some discussions with Lisa, and Lisa’s there by the way. It’s like 3 o’clock in the morning there, I think it’s like worse than that. Anyways, so Lisa and Brad and Jacob and all the moderators and decide what kind of functionalities they want for the group. I think it would be better to have that on the website. So that’s like a big change that’s going to be happening soon. I’m working with a marketing company now to kind of set that up and to centralize everything. So in the move, what we want to do to protect ourselves is we want to focus on the website because we have control over the information, over the people. We know, like we can know who’s there and we can contact them if things start to get weird. And so what I want to encourage people to do is to sign up on the website. If you go to the website, at the bottom of the page, there’s like a subscribe to the symbolic world. And the idea is if you’re subscribed, then you’ll be connected through the website. So if YouTube decides to do whatever and we have to go through BitChute or through another video service, then at least you’ll get notifications through email for the video. So I’m encouraging people to do that so that we’re ahead of the curve if things start to go weird on us. And so to encourage that, I’m going to do something. All right. So to encourage people to sign up for the website, I’m being like a real YouTuber now. You’ll notice. Watch this out. All right. Check this out. So I’m going to raffle off two things. I’m going to raffle off a image of everything sweater, this dark sweater, which is… What size is it? So it’s a large medium sweater. And I’m also going to raffle off a tote bag with our patron, St. Michael, so that he can protect your stuff. And so next month at the beginning, at the Q&A, before the Q&A, I will raffle off one thing for everybody who subscribed to the website and one thing for everybody who’s supporting me as a patron on the website or through Patreon or whatever. And so if you’re… So in a way, if you’re already supporting me on Patreon, it’s like two… You get two chances to win this. So this is just to kind of… I know it’s… I know… Because I hate going on websites and signing up. So I want to like really entice you to go and do that so that, you know, in a few months, when things start getting really loopy, we will be able to continue to have discussions on symbolism and to kind of hold the line at least for a while until it gets so bad that then we can’t. But, you know, we want to be ahead of the curve. All right? So that’s… All right. Here we go. So as you know, the way it works is that people that are supporting me at 11 or something for a Bitcoin or $50 orso m e t hin g . A n d n o w i t^{'} s l ik e, I d o n^{'} t e v e nkn o ww h ere i t i s n o w . Wha t i s i t ?$ 50,000 or whatever. So that’s what these type of unanchored systems of value will do. And you can see it’s similar to what’s happening in the stock market. It’s like the stock market has very little to do with the actual value of the company. Look at the whole GameStop thing. But it’s not just GameStop. That’s just one glaring example that happened recently. But you can see that even during COVID and after COVID, people were surprised to see the stock market continue to rise because it has been detached from actual reality, like actual value. And so what it does is it will offer way more possibility, but it can also offer way more risk and then it can also crash. So we all know that. And if you want to know, I myself am not interested in that stuff in terms of personal things. And I like I’m happy for people that are. And I’m excited when people tell me that they just made hundreds of thousands of dollars of Bitcoin or of this shortstop thing that they’re doing. And I’m like, that’s awesome for you. But I really, for me at least, it’s not something that I’m interested in. And if I do invest, it’s going to be in things that are palpable and things that have some connection to who I am and what I do, what I care about. So and I don’t care enough about money to just be in money. It’s like I’d want to create something. Anyway, so that’s me. But all right. So Luca Askovic asks, once we put something into a certain frame that will come true and inform another for good or bad, how do we stop this process, these cycles, or should we even stop them? If I got it right, Hindus call them karmic knots. Here are some examples. Almost anyone that was certain that COVID doesn’t exist got the COVID with really bad symptoms. Whenever I made fun of someone, it always came back to bite me, sometimes seconds, sometimes years later. So in the sense of like the whole idea of karma, I understand what you’re saying. If you attend to something, then you put it on your horizon of possibilities. And so like you said, if you do something bad to someone else, you are putting that as a possibility. You’re opening up that possibility in your world. And so it’s not a one for one thing. I don’t believe that there’s just like a really tight system. But there’s definitely a loose system of opposition and of opposites. And so if you’re not careful and you open up spaces for bad things by doing bad things, then you’re in that world. You’re going to be in that space. And so it’s going to come back to get you. So Nikos says, would it be acceptable as a Christian to assassinate Hitler in World War II? You mean, it depends. I mean, if you were an English soldier and you were acting under orders, it would certainly be acceptable to assassinate Hitler in World War II? Of course. You might have to go to confession afterwards, but it still would happen. That’s a weird thing about Orthodox soldiers is that although they’re allowed to go to war and to kill people, they still need to go to confession and to kind of amend for their sins. So someone says that Bitcoin is $33, 000 U S D . S oyes, w h e n I s ai d$ 50,000, I was living in, I was more in like Canadian money. So that’s probably similar. That’s probably something like that. It’s more like 40 something thousand Canadian. So Timothy Aspaslaw. Sorry, Timothy. I never know how to say your name right. So hey Jonathan, the more I read, I learn about Renaissance art, the weirder it appears to me. Drawing God the Father, painting Saint Peter at the left hand of Christ instead of his right. Cherubs as baby saints are drawn in the nude in a weird muscular body. I’m struggling to understand how the Catholic Church ever commissioned and approved these works of art, what was going on. And so I agree with you. Obviously, if you watch my discussion with Father John Strickland, you’ll see that I obviously, I definitely agree that I think what happened in the Renaissance is a kind of neo-paganism. But it’s interesting because it tapered off afterwards. And so like the great artists, whatever in parenthesis, these like great artists like Michelangelo and Rubens and all these really excessive artists, you know, they were famous and we talked about them in there all these big churches. But that kind of stuff would never have gone into like the normal churches. And so a village church would never have had something that would like that. It would have been way more sober, way more toned down. Even if Baroque, it would have not been, you wouldn’t have like naked women, you know, cavorting around or whatever. It would have been way more sober. And so I think that that’s an important thing to understand in terms of the excesses of the elites that happened during the Renaissance and the post Renaissance period and a village church, which would have been probably way more conservative. But it really is to me a pagan moment in Christianity, the Renaissance. And it’s a decadence. There’s a decadence in the art that I didn’t talk about Father John Strickland, but there’s a decadence in the meaning. And so in the Middle Ages, there had developed this amazing and the powerful relationship kind of cosmic language of symbolism. And so in the Renaissance and after the Renaissance, the symbolism became more and more kind of hermetic and closed off and a little arbitrary rather than, you know, based in scripture and liturgy. And so in an icon, you can understand what’s going on because it’s bathed in the world of scripture and liturgy. But if you look at, you know, it’s like if you look at the image of the creation of Adam, right? It’s a great example. So look at the image of the creation of Adam by Michelangelo and you’re like, what’s going on? I mean, that’s not the way, even if you first of all accept that they drew God the Father, which already is a problem. But let’s say you say, okay, fine, we’ll look over that for now. It’s like, why are they touching fingers? What the heck is that? What does that even mean? Like, what is that? In scripture, it says that he blew air into his nostrils. That’s how he created. And he spoke the world into being and he blew air into Adam. And so what is this? And so if, so that’s one of the problems of Renaissance art is that there’s a decadence in the, not just in the way that it’s represented, but there’s a decadence in the iconography where all of a sudden it’s like these things are become arbitrary and just like the fancy of the artist that is not this deep, deep plunging into the story and kind of engagement into the story. So anyways, so now you got me ranting about the Renaissance again. It’s too easy for me to do that. All right. And so, all right, so, all right, so Benjamin R.V.A. This is your Benjamin. Your question is a little too long, but all right, because it’s important, I will do it. But okay, so I apologize. Okay. I continue to struggle with the nature of metaphysical status of higher level beings. When I hear you describe the angel of London or France, I hear what sounds like an emergent Although I also believe that phenomenon has its own kind of agency and consciousness feeding back to the material world. What I can’t shake is the sense that this angel is contingent on the earthly, that if a nuke were to wipe out that city and all trace and memory of it, the angel would cease to exist and is therefore dependent on the earth for its being. And if this were true, I don’t know how the same contingency would apply to the logos and God. If earth and human consciousness got linked out of physical existence somehow, that is really not, this is not helpful. Like that’s not helpful. There’s nothing in the Christianity I’ve come to know through you and people like Father Andrew and Stephen on the Lord of Spirits that I’m not all in on. I’m viewed from the emergent side of the coin, but I sense that to be a real Christian, I have to believe the eminent perspective of Andrew’s primacy. Is this where the logoi and logos transcend manifestation? Please help. So a way to understand, for example, like a way to understand the idea that the, a way to understand the idea that the angel of London, the angel of London doesn’t exist in time the way that we exist in time. And so it’s not, you can’t really understand the relation. And I think even Father Stephen talks about this in his podcast. So you have to understand things almost in a nonlinear manner to understand the ontological hierarchy of beings. And so the, the, the city, the angel of a city, you know, it exists in eternity in the mind of God. It’s not just something, you know, in the fullness of everything it exists and that city exists and the angel of that city exists as well. And so it’s, it’s the problem is, is that we’re obviously we can’t, it’s difficult, but it’s difficult to move from this kind of linear time in which we see things come up and then go away. And then we see things are being born and dying. And the totality of everything in which all things exist in the kind of simultaneity of the resurrection, let’s say, and in the simultaneity of this kind of this, this moment, eschatological moment where all things are revealed together. And this is a reflection of something like the existence of all things in the mind of God from all eternity. And so I’m not helpful when I use those, when I use more technical terms like this. So I feel like I’m answering your question, but I’m not helping you because I’m using, I’m using techno like a philosophical speech. But the most important thing to understand is that. For the angel, OK, think about it this way, for the angel of New York to for the city of New York to exist. It has to be moving towards something. The identity of something has to proceed to a certain extent, the manifestation for you to be able to recognize it. Right. That’s why that’s the whole idea in Plato that that. That cognizant cognizing or that’s not a word that to cognate something, to think something or to recognize something is to remember something like you. That’s that’s the thing that Plato had the intuition about. That’s one of the things that leads to the notion that of reincarnation even is this idea that things have to somehow. There’s a certain type of pre-existence that has to be there for something to be recognized. And so it’s that’s what’s calling you towards the logos. It’s like. It has for you to recognize something, it has to pre-exist. I don’t know how else to say it. Man, this is tough. This is not helpful. I feel like I’m not being helpful. So sorry, Benjamin. OK. So Alex asks any thoughts on the symbolism of the GameStop situation? All these ready to redditors more or less spontaneously organized to take revenge on hedge funds by weaponizing the stock of a few dying companies. GameStop, AMC, Nokia. This stuff is tough because it’s kind of like. There’s something anarchy. There’s an anarchist tendency about it. There’s a I I kind of sympathize obviously with this because the elites don’t care about us. And so I sympathize with it. But I also think that it’s a very destructive move. It’s quite it’s going to increase the breakdown. But maybe at this point, it’s inevitable because because the elites are only financial elites and because the elites don’t know in a normal world, the elites of a country or a people had responsibility. And so, you know, that’s why if you look at even even in Roman times, the senators or the elites that made a lot of money from the conquest, they felt responsibility to then build buildings like to make public buildings and to do to have all these gestures towards the citizens of the city. But in our world, the elites don’t care about anything like they don’t care about you. They they just want to make more money. And so because of that, it’s inevitable that things like GameStop will happen. But it’s definitely it’s definitely breaking things down faster and, you know, whatever. Maybe that’s what we need. Who knows? I’m not an accelerationist, but I also at some point, this whole crazy system is going to break down. It can’t it can’t last forever. All right. So Bogdan asked, what is what’s the symbolism of the Israelites entering Egypt as high status honored guests, but over time becoming class, second class citizens and slaves? I’ve been reading Genesis and Exodus in this contrast struck me, but I’m not sure what to make of it. So the solution to that question is Joseph. That’s the solution to the question to that question. That’s the solution to the question to that question. The idea is that the reason why the reason why Egypt saves. The Jews is because of Joseph. And so this is a lesson for today, by the way. When the Pharaoh forgot Joseph. And then it says something exact, I think it says exactly like that, like the Pharaoh no longer remembered Joseph. And then when the Pharaoh no longer remembered Joseph, then the Israelites became slaves in Egypt. So there’s the image of the of the just image of this holy person who is like the anchor of the Israelites. And he he is able to go out into Egypt. He’s an image of Christ, really. He’s able to go out into Egypt. Now, think of it for us, go out into Rome and save Egypt, save Rome. And as long as the Pharaoh remembers Joseph, then the place where he came from is safe. But then when that doesn’t happen anymore, then then they become slaves. So. So that’s what it has to do. And in terms of your in terms of a practical application, you can understand it as, you know, if you understand. If you if you have the reason. Why you why you act like you have the thing towards which it comes together, then you can move out into the world and the world is not dangerous to you. Right. So if you if you remember your purpose, then you won’t fall into all these temptations. Right. If you know, if you act with with with purpose and focus and memory of God, then you won’t fall into temptation. But if you forget like in this story, it’s like the Pharaoh forgets Joseph. But that in that in this situation, you can see there’s a lot of stories where it’s either way. If you if you describe it either way, it’s the same. So it’s like if you if you forget there’s forgetting between those, then you’re going to stray and you’re going to become a slave to Egypt. So if you forget your purpose, forget your focus, your attention, then you’re going to get tempted by the second piece of cake that I always talk about or whatever it is that is your passion is going to take over. And yeah. All right. So where are we here? So television Smith, television Smith asked, were you ever inclined to experiment with animation? Can an icon move? I have experimented with animation. In fact, long ago, I have many lives that you guys don’t know about. Long ago, before I went to Africa, I worked in the United States. Long ago, before I went to Africa, I worked for a project management company and I was developing pedagogical material for them. And it was a lot of graphic design, but it also was the time during flash animations. Probably you’re probably too young for that. So I was doing I was illustrating course concepts using flash animations. So like all these little animations of little stories to kind of to add to the thing. So, yes, I am interested in animation. I find it very fascinating. And I would love to see some animations that would not be icons. It’s I would be careful with that. But I would say to take some of the iconography, for example, and create visual moving visual representations of. The iconographic programs, and so I think that that could be awesome. And and there are some interesting people that are thinking about this. And and hopefully and some of them are in the chat right now, actually, or at least one of them. Right. Hopefully one day, you know, you’ll see that maybe not an animation or something that will kind of take take really iconographic thinking and bring it into a more movement or visual medium. So hopefully that works. That’d be fun. There’s a lot of stuff on that. There’s a lot of plans, a lot of plans. We just hope that we can get to them, you know, because the last two years have been have been really slowed me down. But I feel like this this year in a covid, though, but, you know, this year, I feel like things are going to things are going to move. It’s going to be fun. So 10 Moose man asks, the youth congress said a prayer to a number of deities four days before storming of the capital, including Brahma and then included with a man and a woman. Yes, we all heard that very embarrassing, very embarrassing thing. The only associations I have with Brahma are the Hindu deity and the Brahma bull is the fact that a guy with a bullhorn’s looking like some pagan shaman tattooed with a hammer Thor correlated to the prayer to Brahma. Seems to me like Brahma might have answered their prayer through a sort of demonic manifestation. What do you think? Is this the case of symbolism happens? What’s definitely a case of symbolism happens? You know, it’s just another it’s just all of it is just the breakdown, guys. I mean, it’s all breaking down. It’s all falling apart. And so the fact that someone who has a theology degree could say something as hilarious as a man and a woman. That’s a that’s a scene from a movie. I mean, that is hilarious. There’s nothing as funny as that. And then the capital is I’m sorry, I shouldn’t laugh. What they call an insurgency. But my goodness, if you watch the video of those guys in the in the Senate room, man, it was funny, like it was frightening. But it was like a frightening and funny because these guys were idiots. Like they were just these morons. And the Q shaman is obviously. He’s not whatever, like he’s obviously confused. He’s a confused, weird, psychedelic, you know, multi-dimensional guy. I mean, the things he says are just completely nuts. It was still fascinating to watch how they acted. And so I shared it on social media. Rachel Fulton Brown wrote an article on that moment where here are these guys that come in and they’re telling us they’re insurrectionists. But they come into the Senate room and they’re all like, hush, like they they’re overwhelmed by this place. And they’re dressed like the guys just like an idiot shaman with like bullhorns, like this made up whatever shaman Nordic half weird Christian mixture. And and then in the Senate room, there’s a guy who shot in the face with like a bullet and a plastic bullet. And he says to the cop, he says, I’m here to make sure nobody damages anything. And I’m like, what’s going on? And then and then they like go up and they’re like hesitating. Like, oh, man, you can’t go like you can’t go in that chair, right? Then they end up doing it like so the shaman goes up to the to the to the vice president’s chair. And it’s like totally overwhelmed. So he’s kind of being cocky at the same time, but he’s overwhelmed. And then they end up saying a prayer. So he says this like prayer and he ends the prayer, which surprised me completely with in the name of Jesus, right? He I forget exactly how he phrased, but he ended the prayer in the name of Jesus. I didn’t see that coming at all. And everybody is all excited. So it was but it’s all a sign of of this breakdown, all of it, you know. And it’s also a sign of the breakdown that you don’t know what’s real. We don’t know in the chaos, like you don’t know who’s who. So that’s something like, for example, even during the BLM riots and the antifa riots, you know, the idea that they are are whatever back block, an aspect of back block, which is actually police or military that are dressed as as protesters in order to provoke reaction, like to to to bring the the protests far enough so that the police will react. That’s something that happens like that’s something that really happens. I’ve seen in Montreal, there were police who were breaking windows and they got filmed. They’re breaking windows during student protests in order to blame it on the protesters. And so. Same thing with this, this this capital thing, like, did the police let them in? How did they get in? None of them were armed. So why did they let them in? Who knows? Who knows? Like, that’s one of the aspects of the breakdown. And so everybody says, sigh of this, sigh of that. This is fake. This is real. Who knows? You don’t know. And people who think they know, they they don’t know. Like when someone tells you it’s definitely a sigh of like, you don’t know that. Or if someone says it’s definitely real, you don’t know that either, because we’re in a situation where it’s like a hall of mirrors in a carnival. And it’s all insane. And we don’t know who’s behind things. And we don’t know. We don’t know what’s real anymore. And that’s it. Like, that’s the breakdown, guys. It’s it’s going to take a while to know what’s real. And it’s going to it’s going to it’s going to be so strange that we are going to forget what it means to just know what’s real. And that’s the situation we’re in. And it’s going to be like this for a while. And yeah, so sorry, guys. All right. OK, so all right. Finish with the symbolic world. I’m going to go to subscribe. But I think that there aren’t any questions on subscribe start today. For some reason. I know questions on subscribe star. I think it’s also because I posted this Q&A very late in the month and that we are still and we’re actually not in January, but we’re in the first of February, so sorry about that. It’s been wild. This past month has been crazy for everybody, I imagine. But. All right, so here we go. So now I’m going to Patreon. So hello, Nick Scott, are we truly in the age of Aquarius? Thanks, all the best. I never knew what that meant. I don’t know what that means. And I don’t know. I don’t I don’t know what that means. Like, I don’t know what what it would mean to be in the age of Aquarius. And, you know, ever since was it that that that musical hair where they talk about the age of Aquarius? I don’t know. I don’t know what that would mean, really. Sorry, I don’t know enough about astrology either. I’ve always wanted to know more about astrology, but it’s just it’s kind of I just feel like every time I read this is the thing about astrology. Is that I think that ancient astrology probably had very deep insight into patterns of reality, but I think that most people today that talk about astrology, they don’t know what they’re talking about. And they’re just making it up. And so that’s the problem with astrology is that when you read things, people talk about astrology today, you just get a bad smell from it. It just feels like they’re making it up. But nonetheless, I think that it probably at some point, you know, had a lot of pattern and story in it that was probably useful in helping to see how the world kind of functions. And obviously, ancient astrology was nothing like this kind of stupid prediction type astrology. It was more this this this this, you know, this canopy of possibility of like principalities that are up there. And there’s an infinite amount of them. And so the question is, like, what patterns will manifest themselves to you? Right. So it’s like, why did they so people say it’s arbitrary, but it’s not arbitrary. If you make a pattern with like stars, it’s going to end up end up being something which is part of your consciousness. So there’s definitely going to be a connection between the patterns which reveal themselves to you from heaven and your structures, like the structures of what of meaning. So anyway, so I can perceive that it’s probably something that had some power before. But today, it’s just all it’s just all nonsense, in my opinion. All right. So Charles Haro asks, I’ve been reading your brother’s book, I’ve been trying to analyze the world symbolically, and was hoping to get your comment on my thinking. If it’s correct in regards to inflation. So inflation would be symbolically linked to time and the circle because it erases people’s savings, which represents their saves hard work. Thus, it acts as a force of disintegration because it threatens to make space of work productivity pointless. And when inflation grows out of control, it will devour itself and lead to a new monetary system as people abandon the old one that is no longer functional, which is akin to the snake that eats itself. Chris, to hear your thoughts on my phrasing and any commentary that would have had on the inflation, given the period of loose financial policy. Yes, I agree with you. I think that it’s not inflation, like just normal inflation, like normal inflation in the terms of like, does it a normal, not a general inflate, but like the normal inflation of things like the change of the price of things would just be related to to offer and demand and just that kind of basic idea. But the way that inflation works today, it has to do with credit and has to do with interest. And so there’s definitely something about interest, which is part of the cyclical thing, because you I’ve talked about I have a few videos about interest, by the way, if you’re interested. But it’s hard to think about it. But the thing about interest is that. You’re borrowing from the future, right? And so that’s what part of the acceleration. So it’s it’s like it’s like you’re going into the future. You’re grabbing possibility and you’re pulling it into now. And so you keep accelerating the wheel because you have to keep taking more from the future in order for the system to work. So you’re constantly going into the future and pulling it towards you so that then you have to do that, do that again. And so that is what brings about the the the inevitable inflation. And so. So I think that your analysis is correct, but it has to do the way to understand it, I think, at least is through credit and interest. So glory to so my my come, you’ll ask, Lord, to God, what is the symbolism of a star hatchery or nebula? I have no idea. I don’t know. Because I’ve never seen one like I don’t see those things. They’re not part of experience. They’re very far away. And so I don’t I I don’t I had never thought about it, to be honest. Maybe I should. I mean, obviously, it’s now part of reality. So there’s there’s something about it which that should reveal some pattern. But at least until now, it’s it’s just always seem like it was very far. So. So G Garcia says I had I had a question about Derrida’s thoughts on virology. Is there a way to flip its virus approach where Christianity would infect or lack of a better word for lack of a better word, the world like a double subversion again, for lack of a better word? I think there’s something like that which is going to happen. I wouldn’t use I wouldn’t use it that way. I think that what we’re seeing. Is. What we’re seeing is that in the postmodern gesture of this undermining. So Derrida always used to say that you need to you can’t just destroy. You have to rebuild. Right. He would say we deconstruct so that we can add value again back into the system. But that obviously didn’t happen. And because that’s not how things work. But I think that what we’re noticing is that. It’s more it’s maybe the way to understand it is that as the as the virus kind of takes over. It’s it’s weird because it’s not exactly that, but it’s something like the virus has to make sure that the host stays alive or else the virus is going to die. So that’s probably the best way to understand it is that. There’s a there’s a there’s like a weird thing where it’s like. For the virus to remain active, it has to because it doesn’t have anything to there’s nothing to replace Christianity with. And so for the virus to continue to act, it has to keep its host alive. And that’s what’s happening is that in the reenactment of this deconstruction, they constantly have to restate. The first position, so they constantly have to create a world. And then deconstruct it. And so that’s why, like I mentioned that in my video on parasitic storytelling, I think it has more to do with that. I don’t think that. I don’t think that Christianity is going to infect the world. And you can see, and that’s just not and it’s funny because that’s not how actually. At least maybe some people have done it that way, but at least traditional Christianity, the way that it converts people is a really different way. It’s like you you the way that Christianity converts people, converted converted ancient empires is that. There would be some Christians there, let’s say in Rome or in another country. And those Christians would actually be like model citizens. There’d be model citizens which obey all the rules, all the way. They were the they were model Romans. They were model citizens. The only thing they did obey was this prescription to not worship, you know, to let’s say to sacrifice to the idols. So that’s the first thing. Then the second thing is they continue to submit to the authority, the pagan authority until that authority converts. And so the transformation ends up happening through the conversion of the king that’s Constantine, which is in Clovis and then Vladimir of Kiev. None. There’s nonstop like the king of Armenia. Forget his name. Sorry. You know, the, the same thing with the king of Ethiopia. So all of these, these transformations happen through a. So it’s not at all an infection. It’s like, it’s, it’s actually, it’s, it’s, it’s the Christians reinforce the good aspects of the culture without trying to, to, to politically destroy the culture itself. And then the king converts. So it’s, so I think that that’s Christianity does. Anyways. All right. So I need to speed up a little bit or else I’ll never finish this. So, so Anders Vralstad asks, you’ve previously talked about flips that occur between layers of manifestation and also about the flip, which occurred politically between the conservative and liberal in regards to the protection of from the virus. First, the conservative wanted to isolate set borders. The liberals keep society open. Then after the flip conservative wanted to reopen the due to economy and liberals closed down due to the potential of hurting those at high risk. I’ve heard you say flips occur between different layers of reality. Was this a flip from attacking the virus to defending ourselves? Where’s Christ in this flip? I, yeah, I don’t necessarily think Christ is in this flip. It’s just the way reality works. It’s just a strange thing that happens. Uh, and sometimes it’s not completely, it’s not completely clear. Like one of the things that, that Paul VanderKlay talked about was it had to do with strength and compassion. And so it’s like the way to show strength and compassion at some point flipped. And, and so the main value ended up going to the opposite in terms of effect. Um, and so that’s something that, that happens, you know, in terms of the left and the right influence, which I’ve talked about this before, where it’s like. That’s it. The tendency to move away from the center, depending on the, the context, it can have opposite appearances. So if you push someone away from the center, that is appears as harshness, right? And so it’s like harshness is moving away from, from the center. So it’s like a rigor, right? And that, and so it’s like the left hand in the sense of the goats move away from, from Christ. But from the point of view of the goats or from the point of view of you, when you’re moving away, that it’s actually a form of breakdown, a form of like giving into all the outer things. So it’s a form of fragmentation when it’s seen from the point of view of the other side. And so that’s one of those, that’s the kind of flip that happens. Um, so I’d have to analyze this one flip more because it was obviously, it was so obvious when it happened, it was insane. It was like from one day to the next, you know, it just, just turn. Um, so it’d be interesting to understand if it has something to do with that, with this idea of, with the way to view oneself and to view the others and how it can turn in there. All right. So Anjo Terpstra asks, is Christ the symbol of all symbols, a hermeneutic key which connects everything together? Yes. Beginning at the end, above and below. And it is therefore possible to read Christ back into the prototypes of the Old Testament. Or would this be a superficial vision of Christ? It’s no, I think that that’s it. That’s the key. The story of Christ is, is the, you know, the, the keystone, right? If you think of it in terms of an arc, when he says the stone that was rejected by the builders became the top of the arch. So it’s like the, you know, this whole edifice and then you don’t see Christ, you know, the image of Christ is, is, looks odd. It’s not, it’s not, doesn’t look like it’s part of the system. Then when it’s revealed, then it becomes the thing that holds the whole edifice together. And so in his life, Christ was not, they didn’t see what he was doing, the patterns. But now as when it was finished, we look at it and we say, wow, this is the story of everything. Like this, this story contains it all. And so I think so. I think it is definitely, I think not only you don’t read Christ just back into the prototypes of the Old Testament, but back into the myth, in the myth, different myths and different fairy tales. And, you know, and then also you back in the sense of out into all the stories, all the, all the even modern, even modern storytelling. So. All right. All right. So, all right. So Mirko quotes Hannah Arendt. And so it’s a long quote, but man, you guys, you have to write shorter questions, but I will read the quote from Hannah Arendt and we’ll see. So he quotes her from the origins of totalitarianism, just as terror, even in its pre-total nearly tyrannical form ruins all relationships between men. So the self-compulsion of ideological thinking ruins all relationships with reality. The preparation has succeeded when people have lost contact with their fellow men, as well as the reality around them. But together with these context men lose the capacity of both experience and thought. The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, i.e. the reality of experience and the distinction between true and false, i.e. the standards of thought no longer exist. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, uh, you know, and one of the ways to do that, and we saw this in 1989, 84, you know, uh, Orwell describes it very well is, is to change the, the, the facts on a dime, right? So get people to believe two opposite things, you know, from one moment to the next and, and change the way they think. And so, and so an example that’s been happening obviously is the masks. It’s like, don’t wear a mask. They’re stupid. They’re silly. They’re useless. You know, all these studies say masks are useless. And then from one day to the next, everybody has to wear masks, follow the science, you know, from one day to the next. It was nuts. Uh, but then not just that, like, like, uh, you know, there’s going to be interference in the election. Yeah. The Russians are going to hack the, the, the, the voting machines. You got to watch out. Election happens. The other person wins. It’s impossible that there’s any corruption in the election. Like she can get people to believe things completely opposite from each other. Within days. Like that’s, that’s like, you’ve got people then, like it means that all they do is, is they don’t think anymore. They just base, they just listen to what you tell them and then they do it. Um, and so, yeah. So I says, do you think this is what’s happening in the world right now? Yes. Conspiratural, cons, cons, conspiratorial, the conspiratorial paranoia is on the rise in the world and most visibly in the U S seems to me that mostly comes from the right, probably as a natural response to it. So it doesn’t, it doesn’t just come from the right. It’s just that the conspiratorial thinking on the left is completely in the, in the mainstream media. Like, do you think being told that your president is a Manchurian candidate for. Two years, like three years or something, being told that, that your actual president is a spy from another country. Like if you don’t think that that’s conspiratorial insanity and that they’re like these massive networks of like white supremacists in the U S that are all organizing and that are all ready to like take over that’s conspiratorial thinking. And so it’s like, yeah, the right has their insane conspiracy theories. Like Q is just completely insane, but it’s not just on one side. So, um, I think that it’s the, it has to do with this breakdown. Like it has to do with the breakdown in meaning. And so, yeah, people are looking for authorities to tell them what’s real and they’ll just believe it. And so, you know, trust the plan is no different than, you know, follow the science. It’s like, okay, dude, you know, who are these people that are, I mean, I believe we need to, to, to, of course we, you know, as a Christian, I believe we need to, to, to obey our authorities, but we have to keep thinking. We can’t stop thinking. Yeah. How did this veer into politics? I don’t like that. At least not too much. All right. So Christopher Mihaly says with the rising divisions in culture and politics in the U S and abroad, what do you believe will finally be our giant one-eyed psychic squid monster to bring us together? Well, we have to wait for eschaton or any semblance of unity. I hope we have to wait for the S I mean, not, I can’t say that, but for sure, the giant when it, for those who don’t know what that’s referring to, it’s, it’s in the story of the watchman at the end of the story of watchman, uh, you discover spoiler alert, you discover that one of the main characters created a fake alien invasion and that alien invasion is what united the world together and stopped the division. And so, you know, there’s been an attempt to create this giant one. This, I mean, COVID is that it was the people thought it was going to do that or they hoped it was going to do that. They tried the environment for a while, hoping that they was going to do that. The world is in danger, environment, global warming, everybody needs to unite. And then now COVID, COVID, COVID, we need to unite. It’s not working. Um, and so, you know, Hey, an alien would do it right. Like the story in watchman is, is, uh, is fine. You know, like it worked. Why wouldn’t it work again? You know, it’s like, it really feels like we’re being prepared for them to announce to us that they’re aliens. Like they keep hinting at it these weird ways, you know, like they’re going to tell us all the UFOs that they’re going to reveal it. So it’s like, man. Yeah. And then we can, you know, we can give, uh, Alan Moore a Nobel, a Nobel prize or something for his watchman story. All right. So Jason Lindsay asks, Hey, Jonathan, I hope all is well for you this year so far. If it’s not too much asking you maybe give a short summary of what the first 10 numbers represent in symbolism, man. All the first 10, I don’t think I can get to 10. So, or point to place to find this information. I’ve looked into numerology and gmatria, but I fear they have only found the new age and fragmented information on the subject that might lead to distracting rabbit holes or Egyptology level necromancy. Yeah, that’s not going to help you. That for sure is not going to help you. Um, so I don’t know. I maybe I should, I should probably make a video about this. Like the one is one is simple. It’s one it’s unity. It’s the, it’s the oneness, you know, it’s the place where everything comes together. It’s the origin and the, the, the place where things come together. So imagine if it was a pyramid, you’d have the one at the top and, you know, and it’s, it’s, it’s the, so depending on how you count it, you can see one as the unifying principle, but you can also see one as the first. Those two are different in terms of their use in mathematics, but nonetheless, they, they have a similar function in terms of what they’re doing in terms of origin and in terms of, of the absence of multiplicity, right? Okay. Um, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, two is duality, right? That’s not that hard to understand. So you have one, then two is, is a duality and then three is unity and duality at the same time. So it’s, you can understand three as a triangle. And so it’s like duality held by unity, right? So that’s probably the best way to understand three. And so it’s, it’s like, it’s a triangle. Well, you and I, like I said, so it’s, it’s the duality, but with unity, okay. And then four is this, it’s usually an image of stability. So it’s a square. Think of it, maybe if you think of it in terms of geometry, it’s probably the easiest way for some of these done to, to understand. So, so it’s, it, it has to do with, uh, has to do with stability, but it also has to do with the limit of conceptualization of quantity. It’s like, it represents quantity in itself because you really can’t hold more than four in your mind. You know, usually you have to separate it. When you get to five, you kind of have to separate it between three and two. It’s hard to hold more than four in your mind. Um, and so maybe stop there for the numbers, but we could go, we could go into more. Like we could go, probably go up to 10, um, at some point. So hopefully that’s at least enough to give you a hint. So, Ari Fisher says, hi, Jonathan, what is your interpretation of Christ’s warning not to be lukewarm? Most people seem to see it as an admonition against being a fence sitter and the assertion that it’s better to do something fully rather than worry about its morality too much. I’m wondering about a more ontological meaning, but also what do you think it means for action? Does it have to do with manifesting one of the opposites, cold or hot, so that you can productively unite with the other? What is the difference between being cold or being hot? So I think, I think you’re right. No, I think you’re right in the sense that the idea of being neither cold nor hot has to do with not the middle in the sense of the unity of, of the two, but the middle in the sense of like the blah, like the, the, the, the non-union, like the mixture or the, the lack of, of solidity. And so you’re right that it can have to do with a fence sitter in the sense that if action is required and you’re, you’re unable to act because you’re, you don’t want to take a position, then that, that is probably what it’s talking about. So. And so another thing too, is that there is, there is an aspect of transcending opposites, which has to do with going into the opposite. So it’s, so the idea, for example, that this is actually, it’s interesting because it’s a difference between the kind of modern, the, the, the recent or the more modern, the, the more modern, the more modern, the more modern, the recent or the more contemporary, can I say this, gender theory about how lack of clear division between gender is, is equivalent to the transcendence or the kind of, or the kind of union of the two into just something higher. And, and it’s the opposite, right? And so the confusion of gender doesn’t, doesn’t help you transcend gender. What helps you transcend gender is to embody the, the, the aspect that you are. So it’s like to be a man and to do it in a way that is holy and full and, and is, is, uh, let’s say fulfilling the nature of what that is, will make it possible for you to also integrate your opposite. And that will happen in a way that, so it’s like. And so, so the idea of, for example, in orthodoxy, you have the sense that yes, in, for example, in Christ, we transcend the differences, like you’re not a Greek nor a Jew nor a man or a woman, all of this happens as you enter into Christ. But at the lower levels, you do that by virtuously embodying the identity that has been given to you. So it’s like, yes, you are Greek, you know, in, at a lower level and you’d live that in a way that is, that is virtuous and true. And that through that, then you will be able to then transcend that, you know, and see the, the, the other as also being an image of God, you know, rather than just being in this kind of universalist vagueness that, that doesn’t, you know, that doesn’t, that leads to just a kind of weird agnostic non identity, you know. Um, all right. So Eman asks, what happens to one that chases sexual adventure? How does the meaning of a possible relationship between him and a woman get twisted by his chase of many women? Oh, so someone who, who wants to have a lot of relationships. Well, I mean, it’s very simple. Like the more relationships you have, the harder it’ll be to join with one person just because you, you, you leave something with that person and you, you connect with someone. I mean, sexuality is a form of union. And so if you join yourself with someone, then you, you will be joined with that person and that it will create in you a part of you that is given to that person. And that part, you won’t be able to give it to, uh, to your spouse because you can’t it’s already been given to someone else. And so that will fragment you. And it’s a fragmentation that is very, very difficult to heal because it’s there. Right. You can forgive, you can go beyond it, but it’s still there. Right. And so it has its fruits and it has its effects. So be careful with that. So Dorothee says, why are there no real romantic loves in the Bible? What are you talking about? I don’t think that’s true. Many of my friends are trying to really hard to find something in the Bible to guide them in finding the right one and so on. Um, but they seem to always end up in the book of Tobit, the book of Ruth. And that’s it. Uh, I guess the song of songs could also be kind of fit in, but I don’t think there’s anything like Romeo and Juliet. Well, I hope there’s nothing like Romeo and Juliet because Romeo and Juliet killed themselves. Like you don’t, that’s not, that’s a, that’s a. It’s not a, that’s not a normal relationship. Like there’s something extremely, uh, twisted about Romeo and Juliet and they following their passions into, into death. You know, it’s, it looks all good and nice in the, in the play, but that’s not, that’s definitely not the true union of masculine and feminine the way it’s supposed to happen. So for sure, the song of songs is definitely a song about desire and about, um, about, you know, this kind of call back and forth call between the masculine and feminine, you know, in the book of Ruth, you do get a, very much a kind of romantic story, um, where of a unexpected union, let’s say, you know. And, um, you also see that with, um, in the story of Isaac and he is his spouse. There is, you can feel like there’s, there’s a, there’s some connection there where he sees her at the well. Uh, I forget, I forget if it’s Isaac or Jacob. Oh man, that’s horrible. This is unforgivable. Uh, one of them is the servant that goes to get, I think it’s Isaac. Um, and then he sees her and he cries, you know, and he kind of dinked her in his arms. So there’s some, there’s some images in scripture. But they’re very, they’re very, um, obviously just like all, everything in scripture is always written in a very short way. So the wakeful asked, what do you think of Rastafarianism? Um, I don’t know enough about Rastafarianism. I, it, it, it doesn’t seem to be very building. Like it doesn’t seem to have, at least I don’t know, but at least what my perception of it is that it doesn’t seem to have much in terms of how, something that can create a communion of saints, let’s say a communion between people. I mean, I know the weird, the interesting story that Bob Marley, uh, converted to Orthodoxy or to Ethiopian Orthodoxy at the end of his life. And so I think that maybe the best version of Rastafarianism is something which would lead you back to, uh, to, uh, Ethiopian Orthodoxy, if that’s possible. Um, so Constanza Trujillo asks, or Trujillo, do you see the inevitability of God’s will in Tom Holland’s book? I know it might not mean much for many, but that book was what changed me from an atheism, from atheism literally at the end of 2020. Um, I mean, I really think that what I enjoy about Tom Holland’s book is, this is Dominion, is that you feel in his writing that he’s, that he is kind of surprised at what he himself is discovering. And so there’s as if like he’s seeing how Christianity is so inevitable and how it just permeates everything, that you can almost feel this like weird, giddy excitement of like telling people about it and being like, no, you know, this thing you hate about the world, well, this is how, you know, without, you know, the, the ethics behind it, even if you think you’re being against Christianity, you’re actually reaffirming Christianity. Um, and, and also like his, his really, really wise perception about how, uh, Marky the sad is the, the, the piercing, the illusion of the enlightenment, right? And how, you know, hidden in all the, the, the, the pomp of the enlightenment and, and it’s pretension at having a kind of secular morality that hidden underneath there was, you know, was the really dark stuff, right? And so it’s like the, the, the finality of humanism is 50 shades of gray. Like that’s the finality of humanism. And it’s like, it was there right there at the beginning. It’s like, it led to the marquee. Like it led to, to a weird wheel to power and fetishization and, uh, and, uh, kind of breakdown, you know, um, and you see that happen in, in, in a lot of things. It’s like, even in Renaissance art, I talked about this with John, father John Strickland again, where you see in the early Renaissance, this desire to represent form and balance and proportion. And then right away, very quickly, there’s a fall into idiosyncrasy and a desire to show weird stuff and kind of disturbing stuff and, uh, to elongate the figures, to, to, to show people in very weird positions. See that in El Greco, for example, there’s like a very kind of disturbing sexuality about his supposedly Christian images in El Greco, especially. Um, but you see in our, our Chimbordo, like you see in, um, you know, in, in, uh, anyway, so there, there are several, several places where you can see how quickly the humanism degenerates into a kind of, uh, fetishism, right? And so it’s like, people say, Oh, the Renaissance humanism, but, but, you know, the Renaissance also gave us, uh, the Machiavelli’s prints, you know? And so it’s like, these are the undersides of the, of humanism that people don’t like to see, but that Tom Holland really saw, kind of perceived. And, uh, and so, so I do think that he is kind of, he is right now, Tom Holland is kind of manifesting this, like you said, this will of God, and he’s probably making Christians despite, despite himself without even totally being involved, like are marginally being involved in a church and, and, and, uh, so yeah, I really, really enjoyed it. There are some things I disagree with obviously, and I mentioned them before, but yeah. Um, so Jezebel goes up against Elijah and Jehu, both powerful archetypal men in different ways. Why is it the eunuchs who kill her? Um, I mean, it probably mostly has to do with this idea that the, the symbolism of the eunuch, sorry to tell you, the symbolism of a eunuch is like, uh, it’s something like, uh, let’s just say that eunuch is a marginal figure, right? The eunuch is a, that’s why the Ethiopian eunuch is like a double whammy, right? It’s like, here’s this person from the edge of the world who is also a eunuch. And so it’s like neither male nor female, kind of like, uh, you know, indefinite. And so that’s what eunuchs were and that’s what they were seen as. But that’s also why they could act as guards because they were indefinite and they were not, they had no stake in identity because they couldn’t reproduce and they couldn’t, they couldn’t continue. They’re, they’re, they were sterile. Right. And so the sterile, uh, ambiguous figure who act as guards, you know, and so that’s the nature of the margin folks. It’s like that it turns, right? So she, she’s, she’s, she’s also eaten by the dogs, right? So it’s like the dogs, this outer beast, these marginal guard figures, you know, And so it’s like, it turns against you. And that’s, that’s why she’s killed by the eunuchs. All right. So Christian Sacra says, love seeing you and Matt Fratt talk. I spent my government check to be both your patrons. Well, thank you, Christian. Uh, that’s kind of you in your discussion about nakedness. I got the sense that if one got past the nakedness of the opposite sex and art, they would become blind to the virtues, the virtuous experience of nakedness and marital unity. Yes. Maybe it’s similar to how priest hides the host at the moment of consecration. Yes. The hiddenness preserves the experience for the thing itself. Indeed. The Old Testament, seeing God would kill you. Some individuals did see him in a mysterious way. Seeing was nakedness like exposing the image of God and thus leading to a kind of soul meaning death. Yes. There is a relationship, like I said, between the, the nakedness or nudity and sacredness. Uh, if it’s proper and if it’s improper, then it becomes a kind of desacralization or a kind of, uh, or like the nakedness of shame, like I said. And so the idea of hiding something precious is to preserve its value. Like you said, and so then the value of the unit of the union of male and female takes up all its power because it’s kept and it’s protected and it’s, and it’s not thrown out into the street and just made accessible for anybody to look at and to, to, to think about. So, right. So Ricardo Rojas asks, how should I approach my conversion to orthodoxy? I’ve been going to church a couple of times now, and my spiritual father is teaching me foundation of the faith. Should I focus more on the theoretics reading more or in the practical aspect, praying, going to liturgy to begin with? Thank you so much. And I would say, listen to your spiritual father. That’s what you should do. You should follow his lead and you should, you should ask him what he thinks you need because he knows you, I don’t know you, so I don’t know what you need. Um, but I would say the best is to ask him. So Dom Palermo says, I am wrestling with identifying my given unique inclinations and talents apart from sinful tendencies of pride and fragmentation. Man, sorry. Can you please shed some light on the commonality and difference at the confluence of idiosyncrasy and multiplicity with unity under Christ wherein distinction is preserved. Sorry, I don’t totally. Yes, there is definitely a relationship between multiplicity and idiosyncrasy. Not necessarily, but it’s definitely something which is connected together, you know, because as you move towards multiplicity, especially if you forget the unity, then that’s when you encounter idiosyncrasy. It’s that’s where idiosyncrasy starts to take up room and starts to manifest itself very strongly. And so, you know, that’s why the demons that they represented, like medieval paintings of hell are very idiosyncratic. They, they’re, they, they’ve lost, they don’t, you don’t have ways to connect them with higher identities, right? They’re just these monsters really. So the monster is the ultimate idiosyncrasy. And as you move towards multiplicity, if you forget unity, that’s what you get. But you, if you can move towards multiplicity and remember unity, then you should be fine because that’s what Pentecost is. Pentecost is a movement to total multiplicity without forgetting the unity. All right. So how many of these are left? There’s quite a few here. So Amy asks, in Corinthians, it says the kingdom is not in word, but in power. In the same regard, I’ve been thinking a lot about how the question, the quest to become like Christ is never ending. Both tell of a kind of living as or embodiment of God rather than a philosophical ideal of God. This kind of structure, is it correct to say that the Bible acts as a kind of mediator between fugitive human and internal plight towards Jesus, like an anchor or baseline, or is it more fitting and symbolic structure to God as the baseline and the Bible as fugitive with the human? So I’m not totally sure I understand what you mean, but maybe a way to explain it is we need to understand the scripture as a, as a solid banister, right? Or a solid, solid wall or a solid foundation on which you can stand. So it’s actually not above you. It’s something to hold you in. It’s something to help you not go astray and not lose yourself. Right? So it’s, it’s, it kind of binds your attention. Um, and so, and then the authority is God is your, is the authority of your spiritual father, your priest, your Bishop, you know, your father or mother as a child, the, the authorities in government, all of these things above you, they’re the ways in which you will then embody your actual life in, in God. Whereas scripture is more like a, like the proper frame to, to help you, to help you not lose, wander in terms of your attention, you know? Um, so that’s probably the best way to understand it. Um, so Jacobus Rodinus asks, how do you interpret Matthew 10, 34, 39? Not peace, but sword. Guys, you can’t, you can’t give me just, you guys can’t give me just, um, one of the reasons, one of the, one of the things that happened when I became Orthodox is that I somehow became very alienated to the, to like the verse, chapter and verse thing. It’s like, I know scripture, but I really don’t, I almost don’t want to remember the chapter and verse. I want a basic idea where it is, but I don’t, I don’t want to like say anyways. Um, so Christ said, do not think that I’ve come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set man against his father and a daughter against her father. I have come to set man against his father and a daughter against her mother and a daughter in law against and a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father, mother more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. So this has to do with one aspect of Christ. Cause so Christ, I mean, this is probably something that I don’t emphasize as much as I should, but the logos. Both unifies and divides, you know, the logos is a sword, the logos cuts, you know, and it, it, uh, it can also, yeah, you know, cut asunder things. And so, especially if you are too attentive to the things which are not the logos. And so if you don’t attend to the logos more than you attend to the things of the world, then, then the very logos will fragment things, will start cutting them because you won’t be able to see and to experience how all of these things are joined together in one in the logos. If you’re not attending to the logos. And so, you know, if you just attend to, so think of it like. So think of it like, if you, if you’re doing something, like if you, if you, if you’re doing, if you’re doing something like a task, I don’t know what, like you’re doing a task and you’re not attending to the purpose of the task, well, then what’s going to happen is that the elements of the task are going to start to fight amongst each other. And they’re going to start to fight against you because you don’t even know what, what’s bringing you together anymore. Right? Imagine if you, if you had a team and you’re, you forget what the team is there for and you don’t have a proper hierarchy of leadership and of, of attending to what it is you’re trying to accomplish, then everybody’s going to start to argue about what to do and how to do it. And, and, and all of this is going to be to get to, to increase if you don’t keep your eye on the goal. And so it’s something like that that Christ is talking about. You know, he’s saying you need to, in, in, in, if you’re, if anything below you is pulling you away from the, from, from God, if anything below you is pulling you away from the logos, then you need to, to not attend to it. You need to hate it, you know, but if you attend to God and if you attend then, and if your family attends to God, especially if you all come together and then it, it’ll be the binding agent of your, of your society. But, you know, I mean, a good way to understand it, it’s harder to understand if you think of your family, but if you understand it, I don’t know, like you, you used to be a druggie and you used to hang out with, with, with, with a bunch of potheads and then you’re like, okay, so now I want to follow Jesus and I want to stop taking drugs. Well, doing that is going to create division in your friendships. It’s going to break your friendships. It’s going to destroy your relationships. And you might think, well, that’s horrible. But then that’s because if you, that those relationships were not properly ordered and were not ordered for the right reasons. So if you, if you don’t have the proper relationship, even to your own family, then if you try to attend to something higher, it’s going to destroy your relationship. And that’s, that’s just how it is. And I think most people have actually experienced that somehow in, at some level of reality, so it’s not that mysterious. So Jesse Blaney, fun question. What has been the most significant lesson from all your years of marriage? Um, that I’m selfish bastard. Like that’s, you just being married and being like deliberate about it makes you realize just how selfish you are and just how, you know, it’s so difficult to, to, to kind of, to give up your protections, your, your idiosyncrasies, you know, your little desires in order to be in communion with someone. And I think that that’s what it’s shown me. Hopefully, hopefully it’s not been, it’s not been a complete obstacle to my relationship, I don’t think so because we’ve been together for, you know, 20 plus years. So, so, um, yeah. So Dan of the Marco, can you ask, can you please explain the meaning of the symbols of the four evangelists? How are they related to the angels and Ezekiel and the beasts and revelations? Well, they are. I talked about this a few times before, Daniel. So, um, I can’t, obviously I can’t expect you to watch all my Q and A’s. That’s, that’s not the right way to do this, but, um, they are related in the sense that because you can understand the four beasts and Ezekiel as kind of four corners. And so you can imagine there are different ways to think about it, but there’s a, there’s in that story, there’s like a four, right? So there’s, there’s like four wheels of the chariot. So there’s this divine chariot, which kind of manifests itself. And this divine chariot is the support for the, the, the support for the presence of God. So you can understand it as the four corners of the, the four corners of the, uh, the arc of the covenant, this idea of the square, which is the container of this divine revelation. And so that’s the idea of the four beasts. And so obviously the each beast has a certain meaning. I won’t go into that too much, but you can understand that this four, you can understand it in space in terms of the temple, in terms of the arc of the covenant, you know, in terms of the throne with the four feet, in terms of the chariot with four wheels, the stability of manifestation. And then you can understand that the four gospels do the same for Christ. So it creates a stability in diversity, right? So each corner is different. Each gospel is different. Uh, and by being different, it actually points to the mystery of Christ, which is above and which unites all of these stories together, even despite their idiosyncrasies. And so it’s a way, it’s a way to, to not have this linear. So Christianity is always this union and this balance between unity and multiplicity. And so it’s very different than the idea of, let’s say the Quran, which is comes down like straight down from heaven and then through Muhammad straight down. And then it’s like, this is it. And so, and, and here’s this point. Whereas in Christianity, there’s this idea that there’s, let’s say the one divides into four and then creates a stable place for the one to remain above and mysterious and we can commune together in that unity. It’s the best way to understand it. Um, so Charlie Longoria says, what does it mean to sin against the Holy Spirit? It means that you don’t accept the spirit of God in, in, you don’t accept the transformation of your life through the Holy Spirit. That’s what it means. And so it’s, it is actually a direct causality between not being saved and not, and sinning against the Holy Spirit because you’re, you’re not being transformed. If you’re not, if you don’t let the spirit of God make you into an image, into a resembling image of God, then that’s it. And that’s as good as, so our generation is dumb. Says, hello, good sir. I hope you’re doing well. I’m wondering how we can be praying for you. That’s very kind of you. Our generation is dumb. I wish I had an actual name that I could say, but that’s okay. I understand. Uh, how can you pray for me? I mean, I think, I think that like, there are several things. One of the things if you want to pray for me is, is, is to help me not become a prideful because that’s the difficult, like here I am. I’m like talking to you guys and you’re listening to me. That’s a very dangerous place to be in terms of my soul. And so if you want to, if you want to, don’t pray that God humiliates me, at least don’t pray that, but maybe at least pray that God prevents me from becoming prideful. It’s much better. Um, but I think that that’s, that’s something that I think about and I worry about and that’s so, so I think it’s, it’s, it’s good. I think that I need to have discernment. One of the things that really makes me suffer and that I don’t know how to deal with is I, is I, is I don’t know. So like even now, like this thing, like this Q and a it’s like, okay, so people send me money and I answer these questions, the people who send me money. And it’s, and it’s like, you know, I get emails every day and I get these beautiful long descriptions of people’s stories and they’re asking me to interact with them and I, and I don’t know how to do it. And so I don’t, and without it totally swapping me and, and submerging me. And so I’ve decided to not answer emails anymore, but I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s so there’s something about discernment that I need to, to, to, um, to figure out and to know, you know, how to discern where to put my attention, that’s definitely something. So thank you. Um, all right. And so, so the blaze asks, Hey Jonathan, I’ve been having a conversation with someone about the nature of what is wrong with our culture, i.e. a lot, um, he is of the belief that what is needed most is a return to reason with the capital R. Yeah. Everything is seen instrumentally discussing Christianity only on the grounds of its utility. I very much understand your comments regarding how hard it is to discuss the meaning of crisis with someone who has not had the intuition or had the veil pulled back for them regarding the questions of consciousness. While I understand that pure reason is not sufficient, I have been having difficulty articulating why, why is reason not enough and where did the goddess of reason in France go wrong? Any tips for helping me put someone’s finger on the conceptual gap left in such a worldview? So it has to do with the problem of, one of them has to do with the problem of infinite. With, which is that the world is bigger than what you can gather into reason. Um, and ultimately God is infinitely bigger than what you can reason or what you can grasp. And so reason only becomes very prideful, right? It builds towers of Babel because it, because it thinks that it contains everything, um, but it doesn’t. And the remainder comes back to bite it. Right. And so that’s one of the problems with reason is that it doesn’t look out for the remainder, doesn’t rest on the Sabbath. You know, it doesn’t, a lot of ways to, to, um, to phrase it. Right. And so because of that, the Sabbath, the remainder, the leftover, the thing that doesn’t fit builds up. And, uh, and it collapses the system and it’s just, and it’s just, that’s just how it works, you know? And so you can’t just have two reasons. You need to leave space for mystery above and strangeness on the side. Like you need both of those without that. Then, then you create, uh, systems which become fragile and, um, and they break apart. So Paul Jumat asks, hi Jonathan, in the range of quantity and the signs of the times and symbols of sacred science, Rene Guenot lays out some harsh criticism towards psychology and more specifically towards psychoanalysis. As a psychology student, I recently started an internship in retirement home. And I feel like most of the people there need a priest more than a psychologist. In your view, what is the right place for psychology as a science and as a clinical practice? I think it, I don’t think that it’s complete. I think that there’s room for it. I don’t think it’s completely wrong. I think that it has limits and it’s important to understand those limits. I think that understanding the structure of the psyche is helpful. Um, but I think that one of the problems with psychology and the reality of psychology is that there’s, it doesn’t take love into account. And so a psychologist, because a psychologist cannot love their client the way that a father loves their son or the way that a priest loves his flock, then they’ve set out their own limit. Like they just set out their own limit. So that’s what I think. And so, but I think that someone who is more like a father or a priest or, you know, someone, a pillar in a community who understands the mechanisms of the psyche, um, it can be a tool. It can be a tool to help you to not be stupid and then to not act in ways that will be counterproductive to you. But psychology has its limits because it’s, it’s the psyche looking at itself. And because the psychologists and the psychiatrists are, have a pretension of science and of standing outside of their own consciousness or their own system of consciousness, then they, they have the same problem that all these people have that Brett Weinstein has it all. I’m reading right now, uh, Master and His Emissary by Ian McGilchrist. And it is unbearable to be honest. I find it unbearable to read that book. I’m getting very frustrated reading it. And so I don’t know if I’m going to finish. Like I’m, I’m in his second part where he, he basically thinks that he can, he can explain the whole history of the West based on right brain, left brain, separation, and it’s like, dude, seriously, like, it’s just very frustrating because he, he basically wrote a 600 page elegy of intuition and right brain dominance. He wrote this 600 page analysis with footnotes and scholarly book about the supremacy of, of, of intuition and of, of the brain. And of, of flux, right? How the world is actually in, uh, Heraclitus, Heraclitus was right. And Heraclitus was right in terms of, of flux and of like context and, and this kind of, you know, and then like, dude, like, can you say performative contradiction any louder, just very, I don’t know, I’m just, I just find that stuff very frustrating. Uh, and I think I see that in psychologists and, and, uh, and, uh, yeah, find that tough anyways, so sorry to ruin that book for you guys. If I know some people probably liked it, but I’m really struggling to read it and to get something out of it because I see that blindness, uh, like, like a blind spot and just glaring at me. All right. So Kenan Wang says, what’s the significance of Christ first miracle being the turning of water into wine? It is the recreation of the world. It’s, it’s, it’s the beginning. It’s changing the world into, and not just, and it’s more than that. It’s actually more because he could have turning water into something like bread would have been like creating the world, but turning water into wine is like not just that it’s like turning the turning the water into creation. Then bringing it into the edge, like the edge in the sense of, of this ecstatic moment and the, and also this idea of death turned against death. That’s what wine is. Wine is fermentation turned against itself. And so he’s bringing it not only into, into the world, into being, but bringing it to the end of his own story, which will be this resurrection in the end. And so it’s a, it’s a, yeah. And he does it at a wedding and it’s like, it’s all there in terms of this. Yeah. It’s a, it’s a, it’s amazing. All right. So Ronald Canada asks, Hey, Jonathan, I’ve heard some of the recent videos you put out or others that put out in conversation with you and in one, you spoke of how we are called to die on purpose, just as Christ did. I know you discussed this concept, some in the video, but I found it so fascinating that I was hoping you could explain it a bit more here. And so, I mean, it’s not me. It really is. You find that in the church fathers and in the aesthetic fathers, especially. Um, I mean, and it’s the idea that Christ, it is one of the mysteries of Christ, which is Christ basically changed the nature of death or showed us what death is truly for and, and what it can do. And so this is of course, in the actual death of that, he, that he went into, but it’s also in terms of little moments and this little moment of, of will being willing to self, to sacrifice your immediate, uh, kind of desire or your immediate pole is means that you won’t be a slave to it, you know, and so you, you sacrifice, you sack. So the idea is that, and it’s also this idea that like, instead of sacrificing other things, cause that’s how sacrifice used to work. So it’s like, you take something and then you sacrifice it. And, and then that becomes like a foundation for, for a world. But the mystery that Christ showed us is that you sacrifice yourself, then it becomes like a seed that bears fruit into eternity, that bears fruit into, into way more fruit, like just way more than, than the idea of sacrificing, you know, the scapegoat or, or sacrificing some animal. And so, and so you can kind of see it in your life. I hope that you can see that when you, if you sacrifice yourself for your children, then they will become like they will grow and they will become more than what you were and they’ll become more in terms of multiple quantity and then they’ll grow your fruits into the world. And so, and it’s the same if you sacrifice yourself for, for others, uh, then it will act as a kind of seed that will. And so that’s the idea is that if you, if you don’t, if you don’t sacrifice yourself, then you, then you will be a slave to the things that kill you because you, it’ll happen to you instead of, it’ll be a passion. That’s what passion means. Passion means something which is done to you, right? Something that you incur. And so you could say that Christ willfully went into his passion. He, he, he, he was, he willfully accepted that others act upon him. And then that transformed reality. So, yeah. Well, I’m done with the questions there. So let’s go see in the super chats, if there are super chats. So here we go. All right. And so we go. So Sal door for $5 s a ys, t hank yo u f oryo u r w or k, b ro t h er . I^{'} m e nj oy in g t h es hi r t an d p r in t s . W e ll, I d o n^{'} t kn o ww h oyo u a re, S a l d oor, c a u seyo u ha v e a, l ik e ananim e t hin g, b u t I^{'} mha pp y t ha t yo u, t ha t yo u a ree nj oy in g t h e, t h e t hin g s t ha t yo u, t ha tt h e p r in t s f or, I d o n^{'} t kn o w i f yo u, i f yo u m e an yo ug o tt h e m t h ro ug h P a t reo n, b u t I p ro bab l y ha v e t h es hi r t f oryo u, b u t I^{'} mha pp y t ha t yo u, t ha t yo u a ree nj oy in g t h e, t h e t hin g s t ha t yo u, t ha tt h e p r in t s f or, I d o n^{'} t kn o w i f yo u, g o tt h e m t h ro ug h P a t reo n, b u t I p ro bab l y ha v e t h es hi r t s, p ro bab l y g o tt h e m o n, o n T ees p r in g . A n d so t hank yo u f ors u pp or t in g w ha t I^{'} m d o in g . I, I^{'} m re a ll ye nj oy in g t h e T - s hi r t s t hin g . I d i d n^{'} tt hink I w o u l d e nj oy i t so m u c h . I kin d o f l ik e t h e i d e a, c a u seso m e p eo pl e a re g i v in g m e p u s hba c k o ni t . A n d I u n d ers t an d, b u t I kin d o f l ik e t h e i d e a t ha t I^{'} mmakin g t hin g s t ha t s p an f ro m t h e a lt a r t o t h es t ree t . L ik e I l ik e t ha t i d e a, yo u kn o w, t h e w h o l e i d e a o f hi er a rc h y w h ere I c anmak e ab oo k co v eror a c ha l i ceor, or, yo u kn o w, a p rocess i o na l cross, b u tt h e n I^{'} ll a l so mak eso m e t hin g t ha t, yo u kn o w, l ik e a, a 20 ye a ro l d gu y in co ll e g e, yo u kn o w, w i llw an tt o w e a r . S o I l ik e t ha t . A ll r i g h t . S oD i r t f or R o bbin s, N e i l, t hank yo u f or$ 10. That’s very kind of you. So Martha Immer says, can you comment on the Theotokos as both virgin and mother in this she seems to inhabit the same space as the bush that burns and is not consumed. Yes. And the God who dies, but then lives. Um, but I can’t work out the meaning here. So I don’t know if it has to do with the God that dies and then lives, but it definitely has to do with the bush that burns and is not consumed. And so you can understand that the, the ideas that the, the extreme of reality or like extreme potentiality in order to house everything has to be non perturbed. Right. I think of it almost like, think of it, something like for the ocean to reflect the sun, it needs to not have waves on it. And so when it has waves on it, it can reflect the sun in a, like a frac, in a in fragmented way. And so the light will sparkle, but then if you want to reflect the sun directly, then you have to, you have to be still. There has to be this stillness. And so that’s what the idea that through her virginity, the Mary becomes the mother of the very principle of reality, the very, the very thing that organizes reality. Um, and so, and you have to understand her virginity, obviously not just in physical terms, although that’s part of it, but you also have to understand her virginity in the yes, like in this giving up her will for the, for the will of God. It’s a, when the archangel comes to present to her that she will be the one who will receive the Christ, then this yes that she answers. And then this, this like worship, you know, um, it’s kind of making herself low, saying yes, and then opening herself up in this, like, in this worship. And so that is how being the relationship between being a virgin and mother. And so the normal mother is a, is mitigated along that line, right? And so it’s not the, it’s not the, the, so there, but there’s also an aspect of that, which is there even in like the Christian family, for example. And so, so the idea that, so it’s not, it’s not virginity, total virginity, because that’s for the totality, but in terms of properly hosting the seed of her husband, let’s say that a woman must be chased to, you know, must be dedicated to her husband. And so she’s not a complete virgin for everything, but she has to be virginal in relation to all the other men and chased towards her husband, because if she’s not, then that will sow confusion, obviously, because you won’t, you might not even know who the father is. Like this dedication and this, this capacity to be a virgin to everything else is also what gives the possibility of properly hosting the, the, the masculine towards which it is, it is, uh, towards which she’s dedicated. And so there’s, it’s like a fractal, it’s actually a mini version of this story of the virgin mother, but it, on a smaller scale, right. Uh, but it can help you understand how that’s actually how, like I said, it’s actually how reality, how reality works. You know, you can’t have something be many things at the same time. It has to, it has to have a form of dedication, which appears as virginal to everything else. Right. Like it, it’s not, it’s not mixed. It’s not confused with other things. It’s this space, which is open only to one, to one manifestation. And that’s how you have something which can exist in the world without it being confused. Um, anyways, I always feel like when I go too far in these, these descriptions, then I, then I’m losing everybody. And then like, then they think I’m just spouting gibberish. Um, all right. So Michael Vitalis for, uh, for us $20. T hank yo u, M i c ha e l . S os hak eyo u rr ain d ro p s f or$ 10. How can I introduce a symbolic worldview to my Protestant biblical, literalist family? They reject extra biblical texts and regard the church fathers as a cult. Whoa. Cult as in voodoo magic type of cult, dude, a cult, the church fathers. Um, and you could be cheeky about it, but you know, you wouldn’t want to do that. You know, obviously the word Trinity is not in the Bible. Someone came up with that at some point and that person would be called the church father, you know, um, but you know, that maybe that’d be a, that’s a more cheeky way that like the best way to help people see the symbolic worldview is through typology for people who love scripture, the best way to, to help them have a symbolic worldview is to show them how the story of when Christ says. You, you, you look through the scripture, but you don’t see that they talk about me. It’s like, he’s telling the Pharisees that, but so many people are like that. And so it’s like, if you can get them to understand that all the scripture is talking about Christ and then, but not enough, not in a vague way, not in like a kind of vague, yes, you know, the Bible talks about Christ way, but rather that no, everything in scripture is referring to Christ, like every, every, every verse, every sentence in scripture is pointing to the manifestation of the divine logos in the world, which culminates into the incarnation of the Christ of the God man. And so, and that can be seen in the typology between the story of Christ and Genesis, like you can find, you know, help them see how, for example, like Christ does certain things, which don’t make sense unless you see them as referring back and answering the things that are happening in the old Testament. You can start by the things that Christ says. So Christ says, you know, as the serpent was raised by Moses, so too the son of man was be, was be lifted up. And so it’s like, why is he saying that? It’s not arbitrary, right? He’s, he, he, he’s, he’s making a connection. Now, can we expand that connection? We talk about it. Like, why is that connection made? And so working on those types of moments where Christ himself seems to, seems to make connections and St. Paul, for example, makes connections. Like, example, the book of Hebrews is an amazing book in terms to help people see symbolism because the author is basically telling you that everything about the Old Testament culminates into Christ. And so like, what does that mean? What is that about? Where are the images? So I think that that’s probably the best way to go about that. And, and then hopefully kind of build on that and help them see that. Even help them see too, that the reason, the reason why you say, for example, that something like the Genesis story is a, is the pattern of reality or that Genesis story is showing you how the world works is because you love scripture. It’s not, it’s not because you want to debunk it because one of the problems is that a lot of Protestants, and I understand this, I sympathize with this, the type of person they’ve met in the past that have tried to talk to them about symbolism have been people who have wanted to do that in order to discredit scripture. So they’ll say things like, right, they’ll say things like, well, the story of Jesus, you know, is just one other version of Mithra or one other version of this other, this other mythological figure. And so they see the analogy and so they try to point to it in order to discredit, but it’s like, we’re going at it from the other way. We’re saying, no, it’s like, this is, you know, the, the symbolism actually gives power to scripture. It makes it a map of reality and makes it something by which you can live every breath of your life through. Right. So it, so it’s, it’s, it’s actually more than the kind of moralizing and technical type of, of a, of description, you know, that, that you’ll find it in certain branches of Protestantism. So that’s what I would suggest, but it’s hard because it’s also emotional and you can’t get through emotional, emotions with arguments. Then it’s, and then, then you, then you just have to become a saint. You can’t get around it. You become a saint, then, then it’ll be fine. So breadpilled says, what is your opinion on natural magic and Christianity? A lot of Marcila Ficino Pico de la Mirandola. Is it something you could do a video on? Um, sure. Maybe sometime. I don’t like talking about that stuff too much, but. You know, I’m not, I don’t, I don’t like people who, who have this strange, on the one hand, you know, are traditional and like liturgy and like ritual and like all that. And then when they see any form of ritual action in, in the world, then they’re suspicious of it. It’s like, why are you suspicious of the fact that certain gestures would, could create certain results? And so I think in that sense, I’m not completely opposed to some of the, I, some of the, some of the notions that you would find in something like natural magic. Of course, the problem is mostly related to, to invocation. Like people who, who, who do demonology, for example, like that stuff is extremely dangerous, like invoking wild principalities, you know, in order to gain power from them is definitely something that will cause problems. So, I mean, I would have to think about it, but maybe at some point I can make videos about that. So Louis Durand asked, how should I approach interpreting the book of Revelation? That is not a question you are allowed to ask, Louis. You’re not allowed to ask that question because it’s the toughest thing to interpret in the world. And so it’s like, uh, you probably shouldn’t and, uh, you know, it’s just so difficult. So, sorry, sorry about that, Louis. So Griswold Grim, our friend Griswold says, what’s your view on Hindu deities and rituals to them at CERN? Yeah, I don’t know about that. People are talking about that weird, I don’t know, like people can, are you talking about like the weird tunnel thing which got conflated with CERN, which is actually not related to CERN, like the weird tunnel or, or I know that in, in, uh, at CERN, there’s a statue of a Hindu deity. I know that, but I didn’t know that they actually had rituals. I know that some quantum physicists and some like high physicists have been influenced by, uh, by Vedanta in terms of these, this, you know, the, the description of like principles of manifestation. Some people, some of the physicists have been influenced by Buddhism and also Vedanta and just Eastern thought in general. And so I don’t think that’s the case. And so I don’t think much of it. Like I, I think, I think people can’t see Christianity. A lot of people, for some reason, they can’t see it properly maybe because it’s their own thing. So they feel like they have to kind of look outside in order to see something, but it’s a, it’s a, it’s a dangerous game because it, um, it undermines the world. So Michael Vitalis for 999 says, can you, could you explain the symbolic meaning of modern Christian praise and worship? Is the concert setting stage electric guitar drums more shallow than the liturgy, what makes a good worship song? Yes, it is more shallow. It’s more shallow. First of all, because of even the spectacle aspect of it makes it more shallow. The fact that it’s set up like a show, the fact that that worship bands are trying to imitate, uh, concerts. All of that is a problem. It’s a serious problem. It’s, it’s, it’s a lack of understanding of what we’re doing. It’s a lack of proper vision of what, what’s, what it means to worship, what it means to be in communion, what it means to act in a direction together. All of these things are, are just completely ignored or, and it has to do with, it mostly has to do with the problem of this, this kind of. Anti-symbolic vision. Anti-symbolic vision where people don’t think that the, for example, the way that you do something is related to the meaning, you can’t separate the meaning with the way you do something, the body and the soul and the spirit of something are connected, they’re not disconnected. So, so, so if you, you know, it’s like you. Worship has a content and it also has a form which reflects its content. And so if you have a show and you have people that are dressed in ripped jeans with ripped clothing and, and have funky haircuts with dye in their hair. And, and then they’re, they’re singing songs, which we’re used to hearing at concerts, at rock concerts, then. Yeah. I mean, it just doesn’t, it just doesn’t, doesn’t work. Um, and so I think it is more shallow. I have nothing against music and I even have nothing against concerts and there’s room for dancing. I believe all these things. Like, I just don’t, I just think that it’s a hierarchy and so you can’t have, you can’t have something which is meant for the tavern in the church because you’re just not understanding the proper relationship of things. So, so I think that a lot, but in the same, at the same time, like let’s be honest, I prefer this, like I’d rather someone go to church on a Sunday at a, at a like, charismatic church with a really good band and a light show. Like I prefer you go there, then go see, I don’t know, some death metal band or go see some really horrendous rap artists that is disgusting about his, in his lyrics. So it’s like, I would, it’s still better. So, you know, hooray for praise songs. I’m totally fine with praise songs. Um, all right. So Valensky for 10. Thank you, David. Jacques Christophe for $5. A reyo u f ami l ia r w i t h t h es h o w n eo n G e n es i s, E v an g e l i o n ? Y es, i t^{'} s I kn o w ab o u t i t . E v ery b o d y^{'} s t e ll in g m e t ore a d i t, t o w a t c hi t, b u t I ha v e n^{'} tw a t c h e d i t . B ec a u se I d o n^{'} tw a t c ha l o t o f m o v i es t o b e h o n es t . U m, u h, b u t I, I^{'} ma c t u a ll y t ry in g t oco n v in ce l ik e m y d a ug h t er, w h o^{'} sre a ll y in t o anim e, s h e^{'} s 13 an d s h e^{'} s l ik ere a ll y in t o anim e a l m os tt oo m u c h, b u tt ha t^{'} so ka y . I^{'} m t ry in g t oco n v in ce h er t o w a t c hi tw i t hm e, b u t, u m, I ha v e n^{'} t s u ccee d e d ye t in co n v in c in g h er . S o T r a v i s J or d an, u h, U S$ 42. Thank you, Travis. Wow. That’s amazing. That’s a, uh, with no question. So Asna for 10, uh, written British pounds. Do you think that the way the world sees design today is how people saw art in ancient times? Um, I would say, uh, similar. Yes, I would say similar, but not exactly the same in the sense that. Design today has, has a lot to do with effect, like in terms of there’s still a kind of weird, not always, but there’s, there’s, there’s often an alienation between there’s a type of design, which is there to just make the thing as functional as possible, and then there’s a type of design, which is there to just make things pretty, let’s say. Um, but I think that the best type of design would be something which tries to make the thing it’s making as functional as possible in beauty at the same time, because the beauty ends up actually being part of the function. Ultimately. Um, that’s something that’s hard for us to understand, but when you look at an ancient sword, you know, or you look at an ancient, anything like these ancient objects that were made, there’s a, there’s a, an functionality, but there’s also a power of balance and beauty and ornament even so, so shaky raindrops, that ask thoughts on technology, especially in relation to technique and poesis, how can we rejoin art and utility? Thank you. Um, so yeah, similar to the other question, you know, uh, I think that that’s the problem. Like one of the big problems of our world has been the complete tearing asunder between, uh, beauty and then technique and poesis or, or, or, uh, music, musicality or pattern making that, that you would find in the ancient world. And so, you know, I mean, that’s obviously one of the reasons why I make liturgical art is that I see in liturgical art. A, a place where it’s still possible to join all of those together and to make objects, which are both technically proficient are embodied principles and are also, you know, uh, reaching out in terms of iconography and in terms of the, the possibility of creating patterns of meaning at the same time. So, yeah. So Tao for five euros. Thank you. Love you, man. Thank you for everything you do. God bless you. Thank you, Tao. That’s very kind. Uh, Euro Divi for 10 ask, what is the most righteous way to celebrate God if we, if I were to peruse art? I’ve been interested in creating video games since I was young. I’ve been interested in creating video games since I was young. Can this be holy art without being tacky? Uh, I would say probably no. Um, I would say be careful. Don’t try to make holy video games. I would say try to make good video games that are, that have, that are something like, uh, you know, art, secular art that is kind of pointing in the right direction, you know, because not all art is sacred in the, in the strict sense. Not all art is made to, to be part of a church, but, but it’s possible to have a, uh, a painting in the King’s, in the King’s dining hall that isn’t a saints or that isn’t, uh, that it’s a historical, beautiful historical painting, which, which emphasizes virtue and courage and, and, and those types of things. So I think that it’s possible, uh, to make. Video games like that. Um, so I would say that’s probably the best thing to do. I don’t know how you’re going to do it, but it’s possible. So Ron Wood for 5. That’s what do you think about the lesser keys of Solomon and 72 sigils, Unicode emojis? I never thought I didn’t, I don’t know anything about this 72, 72 sigils, Unicode emojis, so I wouldn’t know how to answer the relationship between those two. So Brandon Samuel Fardal has asked thoughts on Oswald Spengler’s view of history, Rome, Babylon, Egypt being typologically similar, decadent atheism. I mean, I think that that’s, I haven’t read Spengler directly. I’ve read him through other sources, but I think that he has a, I think that he, he has a good insight in what brings about the end of civilization. And I think that his insight about how this is something which seems to be happening now is particularly good. So, you know, um, so stuff, Surfer Brains for $25. Wow. Surfer Brains. Nassim is very gracious to people who act through experience. Shows great grace to those who take risks for what they believe. God bless. He felt me back into the path of Christ. Also Bishop Baron, when? Um, so thanks to, yeah, maybe I could reach out to, to Tel Aviv. He probably won’t answer because it’s like, he’s a pretty big fish. Um, but maybe I could try. That’d be interesting. Um, and Bishop Baron, I don’t know, man, you know, you guys, if you want me to be on Bishop Baron, you guys need to make the pressure. Cause I’ve pretty much done everything I can to, to get Bishop Baron to talk to me. I’ve talked to the right people. I’ve been able to email, it seems the right people, but, um, no movement on that. So if you want, if you want Bishop Baron, you guys, you have to start other people that have to make noise. So, uh, so yeah, so that’s it. All right. So I think we’re done. I’m out of voice. Look at you guys. You guys are able to make me go like a lot longer. Look, it’s 1130. I went from nine o’clock to 1130. So I have to say that I’m out of, out of voice. So, so anyways, guys, thank you for, for, uh, for attended, for attending. Thank you for, for being there. I really appreciate it. And, uh, there are some good stuff down the line, you know, and, uh, crazy stuff. Everybody knows there’s crazy stuff coming. Cause I keep repeating it at nonstop, but oh yeah, just to tell you that, um, I need to, I guess I need to mention this, that, uh, this month, the January patron video I put out on, didn’t put it out on YouTube, I put it out on bit shoot because I’m talking about vaccines explicitly and the symbolism of vaccines, and so I did not put it out here because, because it was maybe too much for the algorithm wouldn’t like it. Uh, so just, just make sure you know that. And, uh, and I’m probably, we’ll be making a video on the sidelines of that. I might do a video on the mark of the beast and talk about that symbolism and how it relates to the mark of Kane and then all the, you know, what a mark is and all that stuff. So that might be interesting for people to think about some of the craziness that’s going on right now. So everybody, thank you. Uh, so Nathan Kurtz last, last one last, uh, says your Twitter exchange with JF Martel, uh, got me to check out his podcast. I’m very excited about the prospect of YouTube talking. We have talked. The, the video is actually up on YouTube and I will make it public tomorrow. So you will enjoy that. It was an interesting conversation because he, he’s like my weird doppelganger and, and he, he comes to very different conclusions than I do. Um, so, so I think you’ll enjoy that discussion. All right. Guys, it was good to see everybody. Thanks. Thanks for your time. Thanks to the moderators for those that, that are still there. And I, and I, yeah, I really appreciate it. So I’ll see you next month, guys. Bye bye. Don’t forget, sign up on the website. Give me, I’m like, I’m like a, like an advertisement guy. All right. Bye bye.

Petersonsphere Navigator

Explorer

January 2021 Q&A (weX2nbdva1E)

20 Most Similar

Backlinks

Graph View