https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=GtYs5Zm0qWM
All right, everybody, we are live. So today was a very strange day for me. Basically my cousin who is also possibly my best friend, I would say, passed away this morning from an aggressive pancreatic cancer and everything happened very fast. You know, he was one of the strongest people that I know. He was training for hours every day. He was doing Ironman competitions. And then during Covid, all of a sudden he started having weird symptoms. And within a few months he was dead. And so I saw him on Saturday and he was really it was nothing much left of him, of his body. I would say he was really just like a skeleton. But he had a kind of very odd and astounding peace to him. And and I really it really helped me understand some aspects of symbolism in a very powerful way, I would say, in a way that it’s not just understanding it, let’s say, in your thoughts. But, you know, my cousin Pascal, he was really an amazing person. He was just an amazing husband, an amazing father. He was just a pillar in everything that he did. He was a straight shooter and just, you know, the kind of person who’s a motor in every group that he is involved in, he ends up being the kind of fulcrum that everything kind of turns around and whatever he did was excellent. And he was really involved in people’s lives in the sense that he cared and he was there for people. He was there for me all my life. And and so what happened as he was kind of passing away is I all of a sudden I saw all the seeds that he had planted in other people, all the effort that he had put in, all the all the help he had given, you know, all the times he had been there for other people. All of a sudden it just started pouring back on him and he was just flooded with love and attention and people, you know, praying for him and crying for him. And it really made him glow, I would say, in a way that I I never seen before. And so when I went, I tried to go visit him about once a week since he got sick, maybe once a week and a half or something. And as I saw him kind of diminish his body, I could see his glory increase. And it’s hard to explain it, but I really it was really an experience of seeing this dying man, but also. Seeing not with my eyes, but seeing this glory kind of coming out of him as all the fruits of his life were coming to maturity. And so it was a it was a good symbolism, symbolism happens moment. Despite the fact that I miss him very much, and so I’m going to try to get through these questions, but I don’t know how far I’m going to go, guys. I’m going to try. And so. All right. So I just want to say I really, I really appreciate everybody. You know, all of this obviously, obviously. Kind of makes you rethink everything and and try to be attentive to the people who are around you. And and I just say, I’m just so grateful for the past few years that all of you guys have given me a chance to be able to to speak and to say. What I think and all your emails and I know guys look, I know so many people have written me all kinds of emails and I don’t answer anymore, but. You know, it’s not a reason to stop. I’m really touched by your emails and touched by your story. I really appreciate, you know, when people reach out to me and and and I and I apologize that I’m not able to answer all the emails. So all right, here we go. OK, so Carlos Ponce Vargas asked, what is the relationship between mythos and ethos? I would like to understand how history is affected by mythos and how mythos are affected by history. So I’m not sure I totally understand. Not sure I totally understand the relationship between those two questions. I guess it just it depends how you what you mean by ethos. You know, if you meet ethos in the sense of morality, the way that we kind of understand it today, then maybe it’s not enough. But if you mean ethos kind of in the ancient manner. In the sense of a manner of being, you would say, you know, of a character, something like that, something like the. A way of being in the world, right? The proper way of being in the world, a good way of being in the world. Then I would say that there’s definitely a relationship between ethos and mythos in the sense that. Ethos would be the the being the way of being and then mythos would be the story would be, you know, the way that. The way that ethos kind of runs through time or runs through different aspects of life would look like mythos. And so I would say I’d like to understand how history is affected by mythos and how mythos affects history. If you mean by mythos, you mean the patterns, if that’s what you mean, I hope that’s what you mean. At least that’s what I mean when I use the word. If that’s what you mean, then I would say that on the one hand, mythos will affect history in the sense that it will be the pattern of historical movements and how history affects history. It affects it in the sense that it manifests the pattern in the particular. And so. And so, for example, different different countries and different peoples will embody different aspects of the great story or the great narrative will embody more certain aspects. And then certain times in history will also embody more fully certain aspects of the story. Right. And so depending on if a civilization is ascending or descending and it’s in its pursuits, then it’ll obviously be embodying different aspects of mythos. And that will affect the stories they tell. They’ll end up telling the aspect of stories which are closer to that, which they’re embodying in history. And so, you know, I keep saying things like, you know, we are the end of the world, the edge of the world, the end of the world, the end of the world, the end of the world. The end of something, you know, the end of a of some cycle of some kind. And so because of that, then the types of mythological representations we’re seeing are those that are related to the fringe that are related to the exception that are related to all the things on the margin, which is why I talk about it so much. Because I figure because it’s what we’re faced with all the time, it’s best we understand it so that we can then understand the bigger pattern, which obviously points us towards the center, hopefully, at some point. OK, so David Flores asks, is submitting embodying a principle similar to hosting angels? Yes, I mean, at least that’s what my brother, Mathieu, talks about in his book, The Language of Creation, that hosting angels is providing food for a spiritual presence. And so providing body, and that’s what embodying a principle is. And so to properly host an angel is to provide the right body for the angel so that there’s a fit. When there is a misfit between the body and the principle, that’s when you get monsters and when you get disorderly things. It’s mostly, you know, when I say it’s like the idea of understanding that there’s nothing that is bad in itself. Things are bad only when they’re not in their proper place. And so, you know, there’s nothing there’s nothing wrong with going to the bathroom. There’s nothing wrong with that. But there’s something wrong with going to the bathroom in the kitchen. Right. That’s that’s where there’s a that’s where monsters appear when there’s a misfit between between the categories. Right. Anyways, OK. So Adam Shillard asked, Paul V brought up the Centurion from Matthew 2754. It seems to me like you may have wanted to say something about it. Paul V. Sorry, Paul V. Paul Vanderclaab, like Paul V. Who’s that? Any interesting any interest in talking about this verse? Matthew 2754. When the Centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified and exclaimed, surely he was the son of God. I mean, I think that that’s an important that’s an important part of the story of Christianity, the way that the story is told in the sense that. You know, when Christ talks about that, when a seed dies, then the fruit seed has to die for the fruit to appear. And so. In this case, as they saw, they saw the effects of the death of Christ, then the foreigner, the Romans, recognized the Messiah. And so that moment is then repeated, let’s say, in the story of the church, when the martyrs of the church are dying constantly. And at some point, the testimony of the martyrs and the testimony of this, this for them foreign religion that is that is kind of this kind of pathetic thing. All of a sudden, it’s that testimony which ends up converting the Romans. And so you can see it play out in the story of Christ and you can see it play out in the story of Christianity. All right. By the way, I just want to say that I was scrolling through fast and there are a lot of questions, like way too many questions. There’s no way I’m going to get through all of these, but I will try. I will try. All right. OK. And so. So Pnumaash asks, what are some comparisons and contrasts between rabbinical Midrash and the theoria allegory of the Church Fathers utilized in interpreting scripture? I would say that there is a difference between Midrash and allegory or the way that the Church Fathers will interpret scripture in the different levels of scripture. I would say that Midrash is closer to extra biblical traditions. And so, for example, I’ll give you an example of Christian Midrash is if you look in the icons of if you look in the feast, if you look at the icons. There are some details which are mentioned that are not in scripture. That means that it’s like filling the holes between in the story. And so that’s what Midrash does. It’s like it fills in the holes that are there. And obviously, a story doesn’t encompass everything. There are places where the attention is in turn. And so Midrash tends to turn your attention to a missing link in a story in order to help you see more clearly. What the original story is about. And so there are versions of that in Christianity. A good example that I mentioned is that in scripture, it doesn’t say that Christ was born in a cave. It just says that he was laid down in a manger. Now, to say that Christ was born in a cave is something like Midrash in the sense that it’s an extra biblical tradition, which helps you understand the meaning of what is in scripture, which is. What is the meaning of being born in a manger is to be there in the lowest part and the deepest part. And so the fact that he was born in a cave in a manger reemphasizes that symbolism. And there are many examples of that as well. And so that is mostly where you will see something akin to Midrash in Christianity. All right. And so and I would say, like, I know a lot of people won’t be happy with what I’m saying, but I think it’s useful to look at Midrash. If you do so in a proper hierarchy, that is, if you understand that this is not, let’s say, your text, but you look at Midrash, sometimes Midrash can surprise you because they will connect certain aspects of the story through some extra biblical tradition, extra biblical extrapolation. And it will help you understand the story as well. So it can be interesting. It just has to be in the just has to be in the right place. Just don’t don’t don’t put it in the hands of the church, for example, that would not work. But you can see, like, if you read, if you read a center from the Syrian, there is a lot of stuff in his hands on paradise, which could be considered something like Midrash in the sense that it is. In the sense that, you know, in scripture, there are certain things that aren’t said about the garden. But when it’s an effort, says them, says those things, then all of a sudden you can understand the story of the garden better. You know, the idea that, for example, that there were no animals in the paradise, for example, since Efrem says that it’s like, OK, so it doesn’t say that in scripture doesn’t say the opposite, just doesn’t say that. So what it what could it mean that there that Adam had to come down the hill of the mountain of paradise to name the animals? You know, what could that mean? You can see that there’s a hierarchy established and it’s related and you can see that then it’s connected to the animals that weren’t allowed to touch the holy mountain of that Moses went up to get the law. And then all of a sudden you see connections with other texts in scripture, which actually do say that the animals can’t go on the mountain. But the fact that St. Efrem will then say that in the story of Genesis, that animals didn’t touch the mountain, right, didn’t go into the garden, then you can understand what that means. All right. Hope I’m not going too much on these questions. All right. OK. All right. So a gallus ask, how can I best raise my children with a symbolic worldview? I was raised with a very literal view of scripture and everything else. And while I hope to avoid that for them, I feel like I’m fumbling and just confusing things. I would say the worst thing to do for your kids is to explain the symbolism like I do. That would be the that would be the very worst thing. The way that I explain symbolism is for all of us who are lost. It’s for all of us who have lost symbolic thinking. And so we have to explain it. Normal societies don’t have to explain their symbolism. They just live them. And so the best way to help people have children have a symbolic worldview is to just point out analogies, is to just say, let’s say you’re reading a story in scripture and then you can say, oh, doesn’t that remind you of another story? And ask them what it reminds them of, what other story it reminds them of. Then they might remember another story in scripture or they might remember a story from a fairy tale or another story. And so the idea is to have a lot of stories and to help your children see the the the analogies between the stories. Then when they get older, they can they’ll just start to intuit the patterns. Like I’m at that point, for example, with my oldest son, who’s 15, who really has a good intuition and is able to see the pattern. Sometimes he surprises me and he says he watches a movie and he says, Dad, did you notice that? And I’m like, oh, I didn’t. Nice, nice, nice perception there. All right. So Cooper Hayes asks, seeing as it has become particularly political, what is the symbolic worldview of firearms? Certainly something to do with the technological extension of man. Yes, perhaps a step away from our experience of death. Yes, I mean, firearms are no different than other weapons in the sense of their basic symbolism. They’re related to weapons, they’re related to swords, they’re related to lances, arrows, all of those. They’re of course, they’re more related to something like an arrow in the sense that it’s not just about hitting, but it’s about also hitting a point. Right. So it’s about aiming and and hitting a being true in your aim. Right. And so it has a very particular it has a very particular aspect of symbolism, which has more to do with the way that you see it. With, let’s say, shooting an arrow from afar and hitting something. And so it does have to do with technology and the extension and this notion in Genesis about the the garments of skin, which are then extended into the cities and into metallurgy, et cetera, et cetera. All right. All right. So Cooper Hayes asks, no, sorry, he already asked that I already answered. So Josh the mover asks, many hygiography describe miracles, the likes of which we seem to see very little of today. Has the scourge of modernity and many living outside of Christian story caused God to distance himself from us, such as these miracles no longer occur with the same frequency or has the complexity of the modern world simply caused these stories to be fewer and farther in between? I think that there’s. For sure, there, I would say that we are in dark times, that is probably part of it, but there’s also there’s also a question of attention. There are a lot of miracles that still happen today. Oh, and then you say that later, is that upon doing my some research, you said, I’m finding that miracles happen far more often than I was previously aware. Yes, I mean, there are miracles that still happen today and there are crazy things that still happen today. And so. I think that it’s very difficult for us to read those stories because it doesn’t see they don’t seem we don’t seem to live in that world. And I think one of the reasons why we don’t see miracles is also part of our own, like you said, it’s part of our own blandness and our own incapacity to see and to participate in the magic of the world. And so that is also one of the reasons why I think that there are that we see less miracles, but there are still miracles. So Luca Assovic asks, he says, oh my goodness, what does he say here? He says, I know that this is a semi death sentence to ask a modern Orthodox Christian. All right, so let’s see if I dare answer this. But since you opened the Pandora’s box, my questions are about magic. Do you recommend any literature to better understanding symbolic there otherwise? Which should I be careful of if I ever come across someone who dabbles in it? What’s the distinction between magic and magic? What’s the distinction between white and black magic? My goodness, I primarily ask these questions because I spent a good part of my life trying to be as objective as possible. And it is really difficult for me to see through the symbolic lens and understand the old way of seeing this phenomena as opposed to the modern one. This modern worldview is I I also include the video game notion of magic. Our displays at some sort of batteries that went full expel. Yes, exactly. Forget about the forget about the kind of video game version of magic. The notion of magic is the idea that you can use meaning to. Create phenomena, and that’s why you’ll see a lot of people who will say, and I think it’s true that there’s very little difference between magic and technology in the sense that it’s a manner in which you you. Are able to take an idea, an image, and you’re able to make it appear in the world. And so. One of the problems. With magic or the way that we understand magic is we always understand it as. Let’s say some kind of some kind. We always want to understand mechanically, you know, and we don’t really understand what magic can be. If we try to understand the meaning of it or let’s say powers or magic or something like that, you know, and so. Let’s say, OK, so I like to give a very silly example, a very simple one, which kind of help you understand why magic is is not. The notion behind magic isn’t such a such a big deal. Is that like you believe in action at a distance, right? You believe that you can say something and it’ll happen. And the answer is obviously everybody believes in that it is silly. You’d have to be a total moron not to believe in in action at a distance. You know, if I have power and I have authority, then I can speak something into being and it’ll happen. Even me as a father, I can tell my son, hey, could you get a cup for me? And he’ll go get the cup and he’ll bring it to me. Well, action at a distance. Magic. It’s magic. That’s what magic is. And so obviously, I’m trying to I’m trying to I don’t want to to to make it. But now I’m not saying that there are more aren’t more subtle manners in which meaning can create effects. But that’s the power that you have to say something. And it happens is that’s the power behind magic. And so the problem with, let’s say, dark magic or evil magic or that kind of stuff is there are there are two things. One is the desire to use your power, your authority as a spiritual being to affect the world in a way that makes you more powerful. And so in that sense, the sorcerer who is trying to acquire power to himself is very similar to someone who would do that in the world through political scheming and and and through lying and convincing and doing all that kind of stuff. And so that obviously is bad. The other problem is. Invoking, let’s say, invoking demons or making yourself, aligning yourself with. Let’s say, principalities that aren’t in the hierarchy or that aren’t properly aligned in order to gain in order to gain power for yourself. And so that and that is very dangerous. It’s dangerous for you and it’s dangerous from for all. For all the people around. And so, I mean. Yeah, that’s as much as I’m going to say now, I would say that as a Christian, if you’re a Christian, I would say it’s better to just avoid that stuff, because that’s not what we’re called to do. We’re not called to use our meaning, use our words, use our spiritual capacities to gain power and to accumulate phenomena for our own sake. That’s not what we’re called to do. And so in that sense, it is not something that we should be. But but I’m also being very trying to keep it at the very rational. But there are more subtle ways in which this stuff works. I use the very simple example, which is to say, you know, I asked someone to do something and they do it. But there are more subtle ways. And yes, there are uses of different patterns and different rituals which can which can manifest patterns in the world. Of course, there are. But it’s probably best to stay away from that stuff, because that’s not that’s not our point. That’s not a purpose in the world. All right. OK. Hopefully, I haven’t confused everybody with that answer. So Kenan Kronin asked, I really struggle to control my passions. You talked about this before. But what advice would you give when it comes to learning to control your passions? Is prayer enough? It’s simply about discipline. What can I do to become a better mediator between heaven and earth? I mean. I mean, prayer, for sure, prayer, for sure, knowing yourself and knowing where your weaknesses are and seeing them from afar. I think I’ve talked about this before, knowing not the step where you give in, but the steps before the steps you give in. I mean, I think that that’s helpful in in in kind of helping you control your passions. It’s probably good to have someone to talk to, to have, of course, I would say a confessor is the best, but to have someone that you can talk to about what you’re struggling and that person can give you advice and also, you know, in a way, the best would be to have someone who can actually get an authority over you so that so that you kind of give up your will to to someone else. And that’s helpful, too, because that’s the gift that you can give to someone else. And that’s helpful, too, because that’s the giving up your your will to someone else or to something above you is the very mechanism by which you you are healed from your passions because your passions are giving in to your particular wills in a disorderly manner. All right, so Alex Riddle asks, how does the symbolism of the mass compare contrast to the veil? One obvious parallel, particularly resonant with the mass that we’re currently wearing is that they’re both meant to protect what is behind the veil mass from the outside, but at the same time, protecting the outside from what is veiled mass. However, as you recently noted on Twitter, a key piece of mass symbolism is the breakdown of identity in order to make a new one. Clearly, that runs counter to the ostensible purpose of protection. So is the mass merely an inversion of the veil or just as negative aspects or something like that? Like the veil, the simulates in order to protect the outside from what is veiled mass. In which case, the kind of mass we’re wearing right now might be said might said to serve both as mass and as veiled. I don’t know. What do you think? It’s a complicated question. A lot of people have asked me to do a video on masks. I was thinking about doing one, but it’s difficult because it’s so touchy for people to do. Because it’s so right now, it’s very difficult to talk about that without emotions kind of flaring up. But I would say in terms of the pattern, the reason why we’re asked to wear masks right now is extremely similar analogically to the veil. I would say that the reason why we’re asked to wear masks right now is because we’re asked to wear masks right now. I would say in terms of the pattern, the reason why we’re asked to wear masks right now is extremely similar analogically to the veils. To the veils in the temple, to the veil that Moses wore. But like all symbolism, it doesn’t necessarily, it’s not necessarily positive and it’s not necessarily negative. It can be both. The purpose of wearing a mask is, especially a mask that doesn’t have features, is to separate you. It’s to separate you from others. And so you can want to separate people from others for good reasons, and you can want to separate people from others with bad reasons. You can separate people from others in order to dissolve their bonds of communion. Especially if you’re doing it like everybody’s where everybody’s separated from each other. Now, it can also be a way to create a new form of communion. Because as you dissolve the bonds that we normally have, then the mask can become like a blank slate on which to write a new identity that we’ll all share. So that’s also part of it. But I’m hoping I can make a video on this. But I would say that ultimately it’s the same reason in terms of pattern. But like I said, it’s not always good. So Gary Nui-Lau says, What’s the significance of the fact that God is the one who introduces the first supplement and technology in the garments of skin, while the other supplements and technologies are introduced by the descendants of Cain? So what you have to understand in the fact that God introduces the garments of skin is you have to understand it as a kind of condescension. You have to understand it as a giving in to the situation where as man falls, God puts on the protection. And so it’s. It’s not it’s a it’s a good thing. God gives the garments of skin to Adam and Eve out of compassion. And I would say that to a certain extent, each layer of the garments of the supplement are both a positive and a negative all the time. They’re both negative in the sense that they are a mark of moving away from the center, but they are both positive in the sense that they are a protection so that you don’t fall further. And so it’s a double bind all the time. That’s the that’s the duality of the supplement that I always talk about. Right. It’s a poison. It’s a cure. You know, it’s a it’s an extent. It’s an extension of yourself. It’s not more death, but it’s death protecting you from death. And so but it’s already there in what God did. It’s just that it’s a process which will as it follows its own course will lead to death. Right. You know, the wages of sin are death. But God gives us the garments of skin to halt or to slow down the process of death to give us a chance while we’re in this body of death. All right. So bleeding mermaid asks, what is the proper Christian we are thinking of what happens to us when we die? I had a disturbing dream recently of losing a loved one. The only thing that could console me was the thought that by memory, unity through long distance, I was brought back in unity with them. And of course, Christ conquered death by being in the body of Christ, we’re not destroyed by death. But I would like more detail on this by observing how some Protestants talk about how somebody dies is in a better place. It sounds like the dead are detached from this world. But I believe we still have a body or some sort of extension in the world even after we die. Is that correct? So in the Orthodox Church, we say we say that we ask for memory eternal for eternal memory. And that is really you hit the nail in the right place that memory is the manner in which we exist after death. It is God remembers us. And we also remember each other in prayer, and the saints remember us. And so it is through communion. It’s through the communion of all of us that we have God that we exist, you know, in a different manner. After our bodies are are are broken. And so. So the idea that the dead are totally detached from the world, I think is is just not possible. And I and I understand why people say that. But and it’s kind of like an arbitrary thing that people say. But they are still connected to us because we remember them. And in a mysterious way, they remember us. And so they’re still, you know, they are still in a very mysterious way. We are still connected to them. And yes, they still have in a certain manner a body. You could say, but it’s a body in the eschaton. It’s a body that which will be revealed when all is revealed. Right. The body of all things will come to fruition when everything is revealed. So it’s difficult to understand this stuff. So we talk about it and we talk about it very much in signs and symbols and signs. And here it really is that, you know, a kind of language that we talk about sometimes is that we are in a state of mind. And we’re in a state of mind that we talk about something beyond our immediate understanding. We use words to talk about them. So, yeah. All right. All right. So let’s continue. I think I have all the I think I have all the comments from the website. So let’s go on to Patreon. All right. Everybody in the chat is doing OK. As I said, there are so many questions. It’s very difficult. And I don’t know how people do it. I don’t know how people are able to follow the chat at the same time as they’re doing the Q&A. I just can’t. So I apologize for that, guys. But it’s very difficult for me to follow the chats. Especially if I don’t want I don’t want this to be like three hours long. I don’t know how people do that. All right. So similar question here. Nicola asks, what would be the most succinct way of talking about life after the last judgment to someone who is not religious or maybe even for the religious types as well? So a good way to understand. It’s very difficult to understand the idea of eschaton, but it’s not that difficult in the sense that obviously people are not. Obviously, people if someone hasn’t broken their kind of materialist side, you know, kind of bad science, scientific thinking, then they won’t be able to understand. So a good way to understand is that. Okay. Okay. So the logos, the logos, the reason, right, the principle, the the. Let’s say the reason for something, right, the origin and the reason for something. As the thing is going. So imagine I make I make. I’m making a spoon, right? And I’m working on it and I’m working on it. And so while I’m working on the spoon, OK, the logos of the spoon is is it’s it’s telos. It’s that which I’m working towards. And it’s it’s drawing it to it. Right. The logos of the spoon is drawing the spoon to itself. So I’m making the spoon to make it resemble the spoon, this of the spoon so that it can function as a spoon. And so as as I am working on it, the logos is let’s say it’s merciful. The logos is merciful because. It’s kind of it’s calling upon me to continue and make the spoon and I have still room to make the spoon more like a spoon as I’m working on it. But once I’m finished, once the spoon is finished, then the logos of the spoon becomes its judge. It judges the spoon. Because it’s done and now the the. The logos of the spoon will judge whether or not it was a good spoon and where it where it is in the hierarchy of of spoons. OK, I didn’t use cup this time. And so now take that notion right. And so the idea is that some of the spoons are going to be like recognized as being proper spoons, good and faithful servants. And some of the spoons are not good spoons and they don’t work as spoons. And so then those get tossed into the fire as Christ talks about when he talked about this stuff. And so the logos who is calling all these spoons to himself when they’re finished, then they then they’re judged and some are cast aside and some are kept. And so that is so it take that process. Now imagine it for all of everything. Imagine spread that knowledge, like take that notion and like pull it all the way out. And then that that’s when you can understand what it means for what the last judgment means and what it means that some things will not have reached their proper purposes and then will fall away. And some things even like within yourself. And we always want to see it as people getting cast into hell or people getting cast into heaven. But you can also understand it as the aspects of you, which will also be cast away. And that of you, which is closer to Christ, will be brought into Christ like you can see it that way as well. And but that’s also a form of judgment where it’s happening at every level of reality at the same time. And so that’s what the last judgment is. And the last judgment is not an event in history. I’m sorry to say it is the end. It is that which happened with all has happened. That would have that which happened with all has been revealed. And so it’s not it’s not a it’s not a normal event. Right. All right. That’s as good as I’m going to get guys. You got me on a bad date and you always you’re all about talking about death. What’s up with that? It’s not a good day to talk about death. OK, here’s a better one. All right. Dorothy KK says, Hi, Jonathan, can you comment on the symbolism of shoes like in losing your shoes, unfitting or wrong shoes, glass shoes like in the cylinder, the story, et cetera? So so shoes are really coverings. They’re they’re they’re a great example of coverings. They’re garments of skin in the sense that they are that which protect your feet from the outside world. But there are also can also be a type of glory. And you can see that because you know, some people who have a lot of shoes and and definitely see shoes as their glory. And so you and so understanding the notion of losing your shoes means losing your covering, like losing the means you have to engage with the world. So you lose. So the shoe that doesn’t fit, you know, means that it’s this lack of fitting between the manifestation of something and. It’s like the the miss the wrong hosting of angels. You could say that hosting angels is also putting on the proper shoes for the angels feet to touch the ground. Right. You could see it that way. That could be a good way to understand the symbolism of shoes like providing the proper shoes so that the angel can touch the ground. The angel needs shoes or else his bare feet cannot touch. So that’s a good way to understand it. And so in the glass shoe in Cinderella, it’s interesting because I talk about this in one of my videos. It might be a patron only video. I’m not sure. Is it? I don’t remember. Anyways, I talk about Cinderella and the glass shoe and I talk about how the in French there’s this confusion because the shoe is made of via and there’s this. There’s a legend that the word Vi actually refers to type of fur. And then some people say, no, it doesn’t. It’s wrong. But it doesn’t matter. There’s a story which says that there’s a mistake that it’s not glass slipper slippers, but it’s first slippers. And that’s really this this relationship between death and glory that I talk about at the time, the relationship between the crown and the horns of the animal, all of that type of symbolism that I talk about. All right. And so we’re done with the website and we’re going on to Patreon and on Patreon. There’s like 25 questions. All right. We can do this. So I wish I could hear you guys. Maybe not all at the same time. Maybe not all at the same time. Like, if I could hear a few people kind of encourage me to keep going. All right. I think I’ve got them all out here. All right. Okay. Here we go. All right. So Blake Payne asks. I’ve been reading a lot of Mircea Eliade and just finished the myth of eternal return. He seems to take issue with the concept of history that the Judeo-Christian world introduces as its opposition to a more cyclical view. The idea that God acts in time and then marks that time and creates a linear view of reality where there is a beginning and an end. What are your thoughts on this and how do we look at it symbolically? Well, Blake, the way we look at it symbolically is that it’s just all hogwash. It is absolute hogwash that Christianity present a linear view of history. You know, there’s so many scholars say that and you just want to slap them around because what are you talking about? Seriously, what are you talking about? My goodness. It is clear when you read and it’s so clear in scripture that when you read in scripture, all that Christ is doing is a kind of recap and return and transformation of the story in Genesis. When you look at how the story ends in Revelation, that it’s a return into the garden and an adding of the crown of the city around the garden. And so it’s not a linear view of history. By no means. It is a it is a kind of giant, giant cycle where the end of the cycle comes into the beginning, but transforms the beginning by giving it an end. And so it’s actually shows us the fullness of the cycle. So it’s not that it’s just one story with the beginning and an end. It’s that it’s what the Christian story is showing is the the giant, giant, giant cycle, the ultimate eternal ultimate cycle, you know, the pattern of which all the small cycles are are patterned on. And so and so it’s just not just not linear. I don’t know what to say. And I really, really am annoyed because I don’t see I just don’t see. Read read like when it’s when the Church Fathers or when when Christ says to the the to the good thief, he says tomorrow you will be with me in paradise. He’s saying you will be with me in the garden. How can that be linear? He’s bringing them back. He’s bringing them back. He’s bringing the the the thief back into the garden. He’s bringing the end into the beginning. And so I don’t know. I just I like Mircea Eliade and and but I mean, I think he just gets it wrong. I’m just there’s just so many people who get it wrong. So many people. And it really is a weird. I think it’s like an enlightenment view of of of Christianity, which wants to see Christianity and its own idea of progress and all this kind of nonsense. All right. Sorry, I’m going to start to rant now. It’s not good. It’s not good. Okay. All right. And the Milligan. Another question, if I may. I started to another quick. Now, just answer one question. Sorry, Andy. I just I just can answer one question each because it’s just too much. Okay. So Andy Milligan asked, I watched a video of your talk and Q&A from St. John Kansas Church. Talked about hierarchy in state flag, the church, the market, et cetera. The model of this brought to mind was of a chess board. So what is the symbolism of chess? What can we learn as society starts to chip away at the levels? Monarchy, revolution, the church, et cetera. Well, there are a lot of questions in your in your question, my friend. Okay. So what’s the maybe I could just answer your question. What’s the symbolism of chess? The symbolism of chess is very powerful. It’s a very, very powerful symbolism because it really does have to do with the interaction of two opposites. It really is a war. And it can make you understand the relationship between opposites, even on the board, because it has black and white. And you’re not allowed to to to you have to follow a certain rules of movement on the board. And so it really is a it also chess really is powerful because it forces you. It really is pattern thinking is it forces you to think of straight, let’s say straight movement, diagonal movement and crooked movement and a kind of crook movement. OK. And so you have certain figures that move in in an S shape and then you have you have the certain figures that move straight and then you have those that move diagonal. Then you also have, of course, one that moves in every single way. And so it’s like that is really very powerful in terms of understanding possibility within the world, like how to deal with how to how do you actually understand the world? How do you answer someone who’s moving crooked? How do you answer? How do you deal with someone who’s moving straight? How do you deal with someone who’s coming at an angle for you? So it’s a very, very powerful microcosm. We probably take like a full video to talk about the symbols of chess. Maybe another video. If I counted the number of times that I said I should make a video about that, it’s probably would be very embarrassing. All right. OK, so Ronnell Canada. Is that that can’t be your real name, Ronnell. All right. So hey, Jonathan, I just finished reading The Life of Moses by St. Gregory. And as I find myself progressing from the standpoint of constantly looking to Christ in order to avoid the pull away from the passions, I find it harder to experience, rely on the solidific passion that St. Gregory references in his book. I think my confusion is I don’t really know the qualities associated with this new way of being. Could you describe the qualities of this new passion and how we might cultivate it today? Thanks so much. And so, I mean, the idea is that our passions are made are not bad. Our passions are fine. Our passions are actually the way in which we are deified, right? We’re deified. Passion just means the capacity to move towards something else. That’s what passion is. Passion is the capacity to move, the capacity to move towards an object that that attracts you. And so that’s also what God does. And so the idea is that each passing each passion has its opposite in a virtue and that those virtues are there. You could say they’re dispassionate in a way, but they’re also you could say in terms of God, they’re also passionate in the sense that God is holding us towards him. But it’s true. The idea is that that’s the paradox about Christianity is that is that as you tame your passions, like the passions that are have power over you, then it opens up the possibility for those passions to kind of push you up or to pull you up into into into love. But, you know, I’m not a saint. So it’s very it’s very theoretical. I mean, it’s not theoretical completely, but it is theoretical to a certain extent, because if I it wasn’t, I would I would be a holy person and probably wouldn’t be on YouTube. All right. OK. So Joshua Martin says, Hi, Jonathan, some of the folks on the Discord server have a wager going on an art question for you. What do you think of William Blake? All right. So what do I think of William Blake? Well, OK, so I think that this is the thing this this question is it refers can refer to all the kind of it’s a. Romantic artists or artists who are flirting with occult ideas in in the Enlightenment and in the post Enlightenment. And so and I think William Blake is one of those. And I think that Blake and I’ve said this before, I think that Blake’s. And other people of that time, I think that their disillusion with the humdrum Christianity that they were facing was what was kind of pushing them to search for more mystical answers. And so in that search, I think sometimes they get it right. And I think a lot of times they also get it wrong. And so sometimes I’ll look at an image, a drawing by Blake, for example, and I’ll find it very inspiring. And even in the way that he uses a kind of iconic visual language and there’s very powerful imagery. And then other times I look at us at an image from William Blake and I’m like, sorry, dude, you just you just fell off right there. You just you’re missing something like you don’t get it. And so I think I think that’s the same for a lot of a lot of the thinkers of that period. All right. So Charlie Longoria says, Hello, Jonathan. I had a question about Jordan Peterson’s interpretation of the word meek, which is something like those who have swords and know how to use them, but keep them sheathed. Is this right? I’m not sure where he’s getting his translation. Yeah, I don’t know where he’s getting his translation either. I can kind of understand the thrust of his answer, which is that there’s nowhere in in Christianity that it is suggested that weakness, you know, is. There’s only one place and it’s in St. Paul where he talks about boasting of his weaknesses. But I would say that. The idea is to be one of the aspects of the being meek is the idea of being dispassionate in the way that we talked about is the idea of not letting other things rule you and rule you by provoking you to action. Right. And so when someone someone insults you and you retort, which I’ve done a number of times, I’m not free from that sin. Then you are actually making yourself a slave to them. Right. You are actually. And so meekness is the capacity to not be taken by passion. But it doesn’t mean that you that you so in the sense that. It’s a form of strength. It’s not a form of weakness. It’s the capacity to not be affected and to not be kind of. That’s the way I see it. I might be wrong. Today is a bad, bad day for. All right. OK, I’m losing control here. Let’s let’s keep it together. OK. So hi, Jonathan. Could you tell us what you think of the mindfulness revolution? This is a question that I’ve been asked a lot. So hi, Jonathan. Could you tell us what you think of the mindfulness revolution? This is Paul, Jim, Jim, the of the mindfulness revolution and the current trend from psychologists like John Breguet, Breguet to use to use oriental spirituality as psychology students. I see a lot of it and it makes me somewhat uneasy. I cannot put my finger on what bothers me about it exactly. Yes, I agree. I totally agree. I think that. I think that there’s something about the mindfulness revolution, which is extremely individualistic and continues in the kind of individualism of the modern world. And which is why it wants to create techniques that are not necessarily the same as the ones that are in the modern world. And I think that’s a good point. Which is extremely individualistic and continues in the kind of individualism of the modern world. And which is why it wants to create technique without story, technique without cohesion, techniques without love, that kind of thing. And so now so it doesn’t mean that mindfulness is. Mindfulness is. Is bad. There’s of course mindfulness is is fine in the church. We are said to always remember, remember death. That’s the way Christians talk about mindfulness is to remember your death and that. So it is to be attentive to your sins, to be attentive to the places where you misstep, to the places where to see yourself in your in your. In your crookedness, you could say, and so to be mindful of your sins and to be mindful of God, to remember God, to remember your sins, those two things at the same time. To always remember that there is something above you and to always be aware of the places where you are stepping aside. And so that is the way that mindfulness is a form of mindfulness is has always been part of Christianity. And so a way, a good way to understand that you want to connect it to something like the mindfulness revolution. It’s there is something about that. So, for example, like if you were to be mindful of your death while you pray, what you would be doing is as you’re praying, let’s say you’re praying to Jesus prayer. You’re repeating the Jesus prayer and all of a sudden you notice that you’re saying Jesus prayer. But then you’re also thinking about something else. Right. So that’s that’s a form of remembering death, like noticing the places where you die, noticing the places where you break apart, where you’re being in the place where you’re going to die. Where you’re being is broken and fragments. And so when you notice that often it can be enough to snap things back together, to snap the fragments back into the whole. And so that’s a good way to use it as a Christian. So AJ Dal Torio asked, Hey, Jonathan, hope you’ve been swell. The other day, my friend asked me why there are so many terrible Christian movies and books. I remember you mentioning how modern stuff doesn’t even compare to writers like Dostoevsky. So I was wondering if you had any thoughts on what went wrong? Thanks. Yes, I can. I can. I think I’ve said it before. It’s that Christians don’t understand the Christian story. The most of the bad Christian movies and books come from a world where they have this idea that the Bible and Christianity is about being saved. And the purpose of our existence in the world is to be a testimony to others so they can also be saved and that they can go to heaven. And so if you live in a world like that, I mean, what exactly how can you make anything besides propaganda? Like, how could you? Because that’s what you think your entire existence is about. You think that you’re here in the world to evangelize. And so what is that going to be? So I don’t know. And so I think that if Christians understood the power and the amazing narrative that is in scripture, if they could embody it, if they could be inside it, then all of a sudden the stories they would tell would be better because they would be telling stories that have analogies to the stories in scripture. They would be they would be embodying the pattern instead of instead of a weird kind of propagandistic move to hide your message enough to either have the message out there so that people get converted or because you feel bad about that. You try to hide the message secretly. You’d really like people to understand the message so that they can also be saved. Yeah, all that. It’s just all it’s really not not useful at all. All right. All right, so Mark Kalashnikov. I was hoping you could explain the transfiguration in 30 seconds. Just kidding. Hoping for a few thoughts. If it’s not too much to ask maybe in reference to the sleep of the disciples. Peter not knowing. Comment in a cloud that overshadowed them in which they fearfully entered. Thank you for your work. So I would say if you want to hear about the transfiguration. Do I talk about that? Probably not. 30 seconds. I mean, the transfiguration is basically just an image of the whole story. It’s always the same story going up the mountain, going to the top of the mountain. And then in that top of the mountain, there’s a joining of light and darkness, glory of Christ, but also an overshadowing presence. And so it’s shadow and light at the same time. And those that are below the mountain can’t look at it because they have to cover themselves just like Adam and Eve had to cover themselves in order to not to be there. And then St. Peter says we will build tents. And so we will host these spiritual presence. We will host these spiritual appearance in the world. And that’s it. That’s Christianity. Is building a tent or being a tent for Christ. All right. Nick Scott says, Hello, Mr. Pedro, can you talk about the symbolism of wings? Are they related to spirit breath since they are always ways to move air? I’m thinking in particular of beasts from Revelation whose wings made a terrifying sound. If I’m on track, that would be the symbolism of wings covered with eyes. This is a topic already covered. So, yeah, the idea of wings is definitely related to spirit. It’s that related to that which is above that which flies above. And if wings have eyes, then it’s also connecting it to meaning, directly connecting it to meaning. So you have this notion of a spirit that has wings and that can see through its wings. And therefore that which is keeping it above you is also that which can see the world and which can identify the world. I like the word identify because it’s a word that talks about seeing but also giving meaning to. So, yeah, usually in general, if you find a story where something has a lot of eyes, it’s usually has to do with that, has to do with a kind of hyper consciousness or hyper awareness. So Don Palermo asks, Jonathan from Timothy, 1 Timothy 619. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good work, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasures of a good foundation for the future so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed. So what do you think of the meaning of working for future heavenly treasure? I mean, what do you mean? What do I mean? What does it mean to work for future heavenly treasure? I mean, it means the same thing as the future. I mean, what does it mean to work for future heavenly treasure? I mean, it means the same thing as any form of planting that you do in order to get fruit in the future. Okay, so let’s say you have a plant and then you let’s use a good example. Let’s use a simple example, which is that you have wheat. So you grow wheat and you get the wheat. Now that wheat, you eat that wheat, right? You make bread out of it. But then you take a part of it and you you sacrifice it. You don’t eat it. You put it in the ground and you do that because you are storing up treasure for the future. Right. And so that’s the thing with good works is that some people are going to be annoyed with me because I’m really going to I’m going to bring this down to you guys in a very practical way, which is that if you’re nice to people, you are putting seeds in them so that later on there’s a better chance they’ll be nice to you. It doesn’t necessarily work that way. There is a way in which you can there is a kind of a an even higher manner in which the saint will plant seeds and others and he will not bear fruit in this life. And therefore this idea that the fruit that you don’t get in this life are accumulated for you. Right. But you understand the process because that’s what we do all the time. Right. You you you if you don’t love your kids, good luck when you get old. Right. If you love your kids and you care for them, then they then you will be planting seeds for for fruit in the future. And so it’s the same pattern, but take it to take it to its extreme. There’s a matter in which, like I said, if you do good and you do not get the reward, it’s as if you’re storing up in the world bigger and bigger treasure. Yeah. Hi, Jonathan throughout Roman Catholic tradition, there have been instances of Eucharistic miracles where the host bleeds. Have there been any in and in the Eastern Church? I don’t know if there are any of those miracles at the top of my head. I do not remember any. Wow, we got a lot of questions that guys are really running out of steam here. All right. All right. Okay, so Aerie Fisher asked, Hi, Jonathan, I was wondering if you would be willing to talk about the significance of the paraphrase passage from Jacob and Esau’s reunion that your brother opens his book with. I tried to puzzle puzzle over it myself, but I’ve only come up with some vague intuitions and nothing super satisfying as of yet. Perhaps Jacob’s story fits the pattern of how materialism’s throw the birth out of religion. All right, I will type the past. Let me I’ll give you guys a hint. I won’t tell you what it’s fully about. Some of you probably already know. I will type the passage out below in case you don’t remember. Here we go. He said Esau, quote, I have enough, brother, let that which is yours be yours. Jacob, please take my gift because God has shown me grace and I also have enough. Esau, let us take our journey together then and I will go before you. Jacob, I will journey according to the place of the flock and children until I come unto you, my brother, unto seer. So if you want to understand that question, that that passage, you have to understand that Jacob and Esau never met. That is, Jacob told Esau, he says. Esau says, let us take our journey together and I will go before you. And then Jacob says, basically, I will come and meet you. But he never does. And so. Max here is calling for that to happen. He’s calling for Jacob to meet and join with Esau. Now you have to know who Jacob is. It’s a little harder to understand who Esau is. If you understand who Jacob is, at least that will be that will help you understand the rest. All right. So Daniel DiMarco says, Hi, Jonathan, can the wheel of revolution ever be turned backwards or once it is past a certain point, must it bring an end to the old world and usher in a new one? Can a new world ever come about peacefully or must it always be preceded by pain and violence? Dude, I’m afraid I know the answer, but maybe there are instructive counter examples. Well, if there are instructive counter, if there are counter examples, I don’t know any. Death comes before life, you know, and that seems to happen all the time. All right. So Leo asks, Hi, Jonathan, Christians generally define Far Eastern religion as Gnostic anti-matter, even anti the body. And yet yoga, martial arts, etc. are some of its fruits compared to Christianity. Then emphasizes fasting and martyrdom. Does this seem like a contradiction to you? I mean, I don’t think that Far Eastern religion are necessarily Gnostic anti-matter. So it’s like, I don’t know. I think that people say that. I mean, there’s a hierarchy for sure, like in Hinduism, there’s definitely a hierarchy between that, say, that which is spiritual and that which is material. There’s a there’s a hierarchy. But they also especially something like Hinduism, they also believe that the spiritual world has to find body in the world. Right. That’s why they have these different practices and they have rituals and have all this stuff. So so so I don’t know. So I don’t I’ve never thought that I’ve never thought that that they’re necessarily Gnostic or anti-matter. If they are, then then then they’re off. All right. Chasen Lindsay asks, Hey, Jonathan, an image that seems to be appearing more and more in modern stories, is it being in particular a higher being from the heavens that has no mouth but can still clearly communicate with others? They’re anything like this from scripture, myths or history, or is it a modern phenomena? Seems to have its origin in the sci fi genre and has spread elsewhere from fantasy to horror to even religious works. I’ve had no luck finding medieval or ancient versions of these images. What would be the symbolic meaning of a being that has no mouth but can communicate with others with other clearly as if it were speaking? Yeah, I don’t think I’ve ever seen versions. I’ve never seen stories that where that happens. I think it’s pretty simple what it means. It’s a this the symbolism of telepathy or the symbolism of communicating through thought is the idea of is the possibility of community of clear communication, right of communicating without the accidents of language. And so that’s why you said it’s a higher being that will be that will do that because it’s it’s as if something from above is infusing meaning directly into you. Right. And so I think that that would be the reason why they would use that kind of symbolism. You know, it makes sense. Is helping your needy neighbor an instance of not accounting for everything like how the Good Samaritan lets himself get interrupted? Yeah, I think that’s a good that’s a good that’s a very good way of understanding because. Because. You know, it’s interesting. It’s like in the story of the Good Samaritan, there’s so much in that story. Just like everything Christ says, there’s so much in everything he says. But in that story, there’s so much because you have this sense that there’s someone on a path. It’s kind of that has a purpose. And then he is distracted by death. He’s distracted by. Not he’s not completely dead, but he’s he’s mostly dead, let’s say. He gets distracted by death. And then you can see what the difference. So it’s like that’s the story of Genesis. That’s what happens. It’s like we’re supposed to go up and then and then Adam and Eve get distracted by death and they end up going down. And then they get they end up being falling into that distraction. But in the story of the Good Samaritan, it’s like the answer to the problem. It’s saying. Christians answer. The problem of death. By caring for those who are falling for those who are down on the ground, for those who have lived until it’s like that’s the answer. That’s the Christian answer. The Christian answer to suffering is to help those that suffer. The Christian answer to it to to death is to bring the light of God into the dark places. And so it really is the same story as that, which we see in Genesis. It’s just showing you what the Christian answer is to that. All right. So E.D. asked, where’s a good place to start in exploring a deeper spiritual life for Christians who have. So far, stayed more at the surface level. I mean, it depends. It depends how far you’re you’re you’re you want to go. I mean, I would say read the Church Fathers, you know, read especially certain Church Fathers. I know I mentioned St. Gregory of Mesa, a senator from the Syrian. But there’s also church itself. You know, I would say it’s hard now because of covid and everything’s crazy and everything’s so insane. But, you know, the idea would be to look to to attend a traditional church service and see how it fits together in terms of actual practice. And, yeah, look at old things, try to understand them. All right. So Kenan Wang asks, I was wondering if you could talk about the idea of obedience as it relates to the tree of knowing good and evil. In particular, I noticed that passion seems to be desire to know things that are chaotic or strange. I’ve also frequently felt that innocence lost and regained or faith lost and regained. So I guess maybe my question is, what is the place for rebellion? How does the story of the fall or of Christ inform obedience or rebellion when we are faced with passions? So I mean, you could kind of understand like the best way to understand rebellion in the sense there isn’t an absolute rebellion. You’re always rebelling to one thing in order to submit to another. Like, that’s very important to understand. You know, the idea of rebelling towards absolute freedom is just just it’s just it’s just a delusional impression of reality. And so a way to use the trope of rebellion is the notion of rebelling against the world of death, rebelling against the passions, rebelling against. So there is a possibility to use that type of imagery. But you always have to understand that it’s happening in a manner which is that you are making yourself servant, a slave to God. And to and to the actual ruler of things. So if you want to look at some people who are doing that, you can see, you know, there’s a company called Death to the World. They write some some they also have some magazines that they put out and supposed to write an article for them. But it just seems to not be happening for some reason. But you can look up deaths of the world and you’re kind of using the trope of rebellion to describe the world. What did they say? The last true rebellion is the rebellion against this world and then a submission to God. All right, so I’m going to read this one. So, you know, the last true rebellion is the rebellion against this world. And then you have the rebellion against this world. All right, so Herman Smith asks, My question is about your comments in recent videos that science is running up against the problem of consciousness. I feel woefully out of the loop about that. Are there any particular videos you would suggest to shed some light on this? Man, which videos? I think I talk about that all the time. OK, so the problem of consciousness is the problem of attention. It’s the problem of the too much of the world. The world is too much. It has too many things. It’s it’s indefinite in number. All things explode into millions of detail. So the problem is, why do we attend to certain things? Because we have to. We can’t account for all the facts. We can’t account for the facts. We can’t account for the facts. And so that is when we understand that attention and consciousness and this experience we have of the world is central for the world to cohere and for us to be able to make sense of it and ultimately for it to exist in the matter in which we experience it. And so that’s what I mean by hitting against consciousness. As for videos, I don’t remember at the top of my head, but I do remember that I have a video that I made about the world. And I think that’s the problem. Talk about that specifically. Jose, in the language of creation, your brother writes the realization. Quoted above Genesis a 23 in John by Tracy Puth relationship to music created by Zion. What are G weighed by? I’m uh boosted. I’m so relaxed. That is noticeably the subject of today. That’s not the ta mack of thee la Mary. your brother writes, the realization quoted above Genesis 821 implies that evil is inherently part of humanity which means a certain degree of wrong must be acknowledged for its perfection. More precisely there exists a higher reality a meta space in which a certain degree of lower evil can be transmuted into a higher good for the knowledge of God. This is the spiritual truth that Ammoni were not equipped to handle in the Garden of Eden which led to their death. Is this another way of putting the idea of transforming death into glory? Or about the inability on the part of humanity to adequately acknowledge or integrate the fringe or time adequately into space? I think so. I would say the way that Mathieu phrases it is difficult in terms of Christian theology but I think that and so I probably wouldn’t phrase it that way and I think someone asked in a question that I didn’t read because I answered it before like what’s what are the differences between Mathieu and I and I’ve noted mentioned this before in a Q&A this would be the thing where I the way that he phrases that particular text is one which is difficult for Christians but I think that if we understand it as the notion that there’s a way there’s a relationship between death and glory and that it’s that there’s something about their incapacity to fully see that that because they were unable they weren’t ready to see the glory of God that glory fragmented for them and fragmented them and broke them brought them to see the or to embody the multiplicity of glory like the shining but it’s there’s also this notion that it’s a can also be a kind of fragmenting that’s what happened that’s that that’s the problem is that is that the the multiplicity became a fragmenting rather than being a kind of shining kind of overflowing of being you could say so but it is it is difficult to say that it’s inherently part of humanity but right it’s complicated because in the text it says the knowledge of good and bad so it means that you could say something like the possibility of of absence or something I don’t quite know how to phrase it properly I’m probably getting into deep water just by talking about this stuff anyways all right all right guys I’m gonna do a few more and then I think I’m done because I’m just running out of voice even all right so Dionysus asked hello Jonathan I would like to ask a question on the pattern of covering the nakedness of our father I sometimes observe specific issues in Christian culture especially in its more dogmatic levels as things seem to me much clearer and coherent in the mystical level I find myself designed to criticize and expose these issues as hiding them seems insincere and also detrimental in the long run covering seems to suggest a respectful adding of a layer instead of a shaming criticizing but is nevertheless does not signify ignoring or denying could you elaborate on the manner of this covering is there a story where it is presented in more detail thanks I mean I think the story of Noah is really the best story to understand this covering I’d have to think about it to see if there are other stories which are which are similar but I’m not saying there isn’t a way to do that like let me give you an example of someone who doesn’t do that there there’s st. John the Baptist doesn’t do that st. John the Baptist calls out the king right says he is scandalous and calls out the authorities says that they’re scandalous so and Christ does it as well Christ uncovers the Pharisees he says that they are leaf sepulchers he says that they are hypocrites says that they’re inside and they’re outside doesn’t match so there is a there is a time to do that but I’d live by the sword die by the sword you know Christ said that and that’s what happened so there’s that as well so I don’t know I don’t know it’s like the there’s also the notion that you know the the measure by which you judge that is the measure by which you will be judged and so you have to be careful when you uncover the scandals of others because everybody has scandals everybody has something they would want the world to see so so yeah but I don’t know where the line is I look I all I know is the ones that I see in my own reality in my own and it’s not my responsibility to call out you know it’s not those those that are not my father is not my responsibility to call out the nakedness anyways and so I have to I have to be attentive to what’s happening around me and if I see that there are some things which are bubbling over and are too scandalous then we have to see how to do it in a way that is proper this is good is gonna get so Sean Carnoan asked it seems like most people on the right have half of the political spectrum have correctly identified woke speech and identity policing as a serious threat to the existing liberal order however I am of the opinion that most on the right are pretty blind to the ongoing material physical experience of police brutality and corruption that sparked the current fire in the same mode police people on the left are blind to the injustice of the woke social policing which is brutal in its own way it’s as though each polarity has a piece torn out of their ability to empathize and any attempts to talk about that lack of empathy are met with expressions of extreme self-righteousness is there a story we can tell or a method we can apply to heal that or are we just destined for increasing violence and combat man to be honest I don’t see I right now especially as a social situation I really don’t see things getting any better but um I think in your own life the way to do this is to remember your sins remember to death like I said is to always try to find fault in yourself it’s hard to do but that’s what you’re supposed to do because it’s easy to find fault in the other because we see the outward signs of people like you know we encounter their outward signs as though we can see those things so it’s better to it’s better to to punch inside you know mostly all right all right father Matthew Marinelli father you’re asking you about the situation with spoons in the group in the Greek Church in the Orthodox Church and communion and seriously I’m sorry but I’m not gonna I’m not gonna get into church politics it’s just it’s just too right now it’s just too painful because there’s this there is a controversy right now about communion and whether or not you should adapt communion to COVID and and it’s just it’s it’s all very painful and I will let my I would leave it up to my authority to decide that all right so James Cortez asked I heard you mention two options with the guard to a path forward out of our current social predicament I gave a solution I’m pretty negative these days all right okay so he says first with the continued resurgence and potential resurrection of Christianity and you Eden and second was build an ark what is the symbolic significance of the ark and how can we conceptualize this idea for today what would a modern art possibly potentially look like all right I’ll give you an example of an I can’t tell you what a modern ark would look like I’ll give you an example of an ark which was built an ark that was built is is Dante’s comedy Dante’s Divine Comedy that’s an ark it’s an ark because it is a a bundling up together of all the levels of a reality within a narrative that people could actually inhabit people people treat Dante’s comedy as if it’s describing a spiritual reality that they can live and so Dante did a great job so right so who’s gonna build an ark today I don’t know hey Jonathan is there a symbolic reason why the horizontal line in the crucifix is placed a little higher than the middle hmm I think about that in general you have to understand that that there are three horizontal lines in the cross that there’s not just one there’s there’s a there’s a headboard or a sign and there’s a footboard where the feet and then there’s a transversal which is the arms and so those are more important to understand in terms of understanding like three levels or you know the name the identity you know Jesus Christ King of the Jews then the the the body or the hands which are spread out the left and the right hand and then the feet you know the final connection with the the ground that’s more important to understand but I’ll think about it in terms of why why it’s higher besides the fact that you know the practical aspect of why would be higher but let’s say in terms of symbolism I mean a simple way of understanding could be like a kind of lifting up of the world that could be a simple way of understanding it but I might be stretching it I don’t like when I’m stretching it alright guys I think I think I’m I think I’m done let me just see let me just check that let me just check the super chats and see I’m running out of steam though sorry a little off here really happy the internet was going wild today I wish I was afraid that he was gonna snap off all right all right so there aren’t too many super chat so I will I’ll answer them all right so CD Haroon for five dollars ask can the search for the Holy Grail in Christian sense be compared to the Buddhist awakening the jewel in Lotus or the Islamic story of Majnun and Laila I’m afraid that I’m not aware I don’t know what those stories are I don’t know what the story of majnun and Laila is maybe if I knew if I heard the story I’d recognize it but I don’t know what it is and awakening the jewel in the Lotus maybe I mean there is there seems the notion of finding a jewel in a lotus is definitely something which would be related to the symbolism of grail or in general the symbolism of the pearl finding the pearl in the in the field you know mostly that seems to be related to something like the the jewel in the Lotus all right and so Paul L for $25 no question thanks Paul and in the visual says a good starter to the problem of science addressing consciousness is found in the first verveky interview and more so thank you in the visual thanks for pointing that out and so you can check out my first interview with Paul Vanderkley I’m gonna be on Paul Vanderkley’s I’m gonna be on Paul Vanderkley’s podcast I think next week or something so I’m looking forward to that I haven’t talked to him in a while there is it some talk that I might I don’t know if I’ll be able to make it though on Sunday I I put a word out and I might be participating in a discussion slash debate with with Adam friended and Paul Vanderkley and Sargon of Akkad I think and was it PSA stitch all these kind of it’s kind of atheist on the borderline you know so anyway if I can make it I think that would be an interesting conversation I guess it would be interesting to talk to Sargon because he’s smart but sometimes you know the religious it’s so funny to see it’s funny because you see him getting closer to understanding what religion is about but he’s still like I still think it’s silly but I see that without it we’re basically falling apart but it’s silly it’s silly it’s silly so it’s not for me but for them you know all the plebs anyway so it’d be my good thing to talk to him and so also those who haven’t seen you know I I’ve been working for like I’ve been working for like months on and working for months on the idea of this image which would encapsulate all of the symbolic world into one image and so I kind of finally finished it I have it right here I’ll show it to you it’s right to you it’s last tape on it because because I was tracing from my pencil drawing and so anyways I’m pretty happy that happened because I’ve been kind of thinking about this for like years I guess and so anyway so you can check that out I I put it out on different different formats people are interested in that image and and so yeah so guys thanks for thanks for your attention and I’m sorry if I was a little if I was a little convoluted and and not super clear and some of my answers but you know so I appreciate everybody’s support thank for your attention everybody I wish you the best and I will talk to you next month alright bye everybody