June 2022 Q&A (Y028naYrJ0g)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Y028naYrJ0g

All right, here we go. Hello everybody. Hope everybody is doing well. And so before we start the Q&A, a few announcements. There will be a conference, by the way, with myself, John Rovecki, Paul VanderKlay, and I forget the name of the other person, Dr. Richard Mondrill, which will be from September 15th to September 18th. And it actually starts a few days earlier for those who want to arrive early. It’s going to be called Consciousness and Conscience, and it’s in Thunder Bay, Ontario. You can look that up on Eventzilla.net, and you’ll find the details for that. It’s going to be a lot of fun. There’s even going to be an airsoft game with barbecue, and a lot of it is going to be about spending time together and seeing each other in the flesh and discussing ideas and getting to know each other. So I’m definitely looking forward to that. I haven’t met Paul VanderKlay in person yet, and so that’ll be really wonderful. Looking forward to that. So check that out for those who could come. It’ll be great to meet you there. And so here we go with the questions. For those who know these questions, people who support me on Patreon or on my website for $10 or more get to ask questions in advance, and then I will answer. They get sorted and sifted down, especially if the questions that I’ve already asked or people I’ve already asked are unclear are removed, and then those and then about around 50 questions remain. I answer those, and then people who, anybody who supports me in any way or is on the Facebook group is it will get the link so they are in the chat if they want to. And so I’ll also interact with the chat. And so that’s how this works. And then we publish them publicly. So if you want to want to show up, there are ways to access it to the Facebook group. And so, yeah. All right. So here we go. So I’m going to start with the website. All right. And so Walshy asks, you previously spoke about the symbolism of naming after something and gave the examples of cities and children. How does naming something like an album or a comic, God’s Dog, for example, different from naming a child or city, particularly when aspects of humor come into play? And so, I mean, there isn’t a difference. It’s just a difference of level. You know, you name a book or you name something in relationship to something. It’s just referring to that to that saint or to the person you are naming it after. And so in a way, it refers to them and uses them as an anchor. And so I don’t think there’s necessarily a difference when humor comes into play. You know, of course, if you’re going to use humor, you have to be careful the way that because you don’t want to. You don’t you don’t you don’t want to make humorous. You don’t want to be humorous about something that’s not funny. I mean, that’s the only thing I can say about that. So, yeah. And so Eric asks, Hi, Jonathan, in Act 16, 1630, we see Paul after losing his patients invoke the name of Christ to drive his spirit out of a slave girl. This actually leads to him and Silas being stripped and beaten with rods and put into the deepest part of the prison. At night, they pray and sing him to the Lord. An earthquake shakes the prison. The doors open, the chains loosen. It seems this might to me, this is a mirroring of Christ going down into Hades. Also, Paul, also that Paul gets punished for losing his patience. Thoughts on this crisis. And so I mean, it’s it it is, I think I think it’s definitely supposed to manifest to some kind of small version of the resurrection in general. You know, when they when someone goes down to prison and then comes out of prison, it’s usually an image of resurrection. You see that in the story of of Joseph. And so, yeah, that’s definitely what it is. And it is a really interesting story, like it’s a super interesting story, the way that it’s presented, you know, the idea that that Paul, that St. Paul loses is annoyed with this with this lady. And so because of that, he chases out the demon. It’s just kind of funny. It is a kind of a funny story. We think about it, you know, because why didn’t he? It’s like it feels in the story that he’s not doing it for her. He’s doing it because it’s a nuisance. So but I haven’t really thought about it so much. So interesting. I think there is a deeper there is definitely in terms of he does free her because she’s also used kind of like as a slave by the people that are that are using her to finance this operation, like that using her to get money from this operation that they that they have using her as a soothsayer. And so I think that they are definitely freeing her from from slavery. So. All right. So in the chat, Ivan Engel asks, is paradise meant to be built on Earth or is it an ever distant ideal? How could it manifest if not through power used by authority and humility and subjected to Christ? And so I don’t think that paradise is meant to be built on Earth. I think that there can be glimmers of it, there can be reflections of it, but you always always have to be careful that the way you act isn’t trying to create another tower of Babel. And so I think there have been. So if you think of the man in which Constantinople would be, what it became, I think that there was a cent in which they wanted to create a holy city to the extent that that’s possible. But that city would also have a kind of hierarchy in it and would also leave room for some chaos. You know, they had. So, for example, in the Constantinople, they they banned the gladiator fighting, but they they still had chariot racing. So they still had sports and stuff like that in the form of chariot racing. So it was kind of like a. A less extreme version of some of the negative aspects, like I’m sure there was gambling and there was all that stuff based on the sporting events and and there are moments like the Nikar revolt when that space, like that space of sport and of entertainment became, let’s say, the bubbling of a social revolution. But in a certain manner, it’s hard to you don’t want to just create a another tower babble. So. So I think you have to be careful with the building of heaven on earth. So the way you would build, you could say something like the way you built heaven on earth really is becoming a saint and and then around you, there’ll be a. You know, there is a chance in which around you, some type of heaven will some type of, you know, paradise will manifest itself around you, you know, something like that. All right. And so David Flores asks, with all the current discussion on higher level beings, egregores, angels and principalities, I was wondering if the parable of the solar connects to these ideas. The bird eats the seeds on the wayside. Seeds are stolen by birds, assuming birds are analogous to higher level beings. How does this play out in reality? Or is this connection misunderstanding? Thanks for the help. Definitely. Like for sure, we’re having a lot of discussions on that. Like there’s still I had another discussion with John Vervecky and Jordan Hall, which is going to be coming out pretty soon, maybe tomorrow. I think I’m not sure. And then there’s also another discussion that I had with the two guys who wrote the article on symbolic world. So there’s a lot of discussion on that. And I think your insight is quite right. I think your insight is right that it’s related to the manner in which like the manner in which, let’s say, intelligent pattern from heaven, how they can be embodied in the world. And so I think you’re probably right that the birds that take the seed, take the seed is something like these parasitic patterns of heaven, you could say. You know, these lower patterns, but that are still and they don’t they prevent the world from. I also talked about it, like in terms of ideas that don’t fit with the world, like ideas that can’t be, they can’t land. And so there’s something about that as well. But your intuition is right. It’s not exactly the same, but it’s definitely related because it’s talking about the manner in which higher principles exist in the world. So. All right, Alejandro Gerardo says, hey, Jonathan, if you state that higher level beings have an influence over people and affect their will, how does this permit destroy the vision of freedom to choose? So. You always have to think about it fractally. It’s not it’s not complicated, you know, because let me ask you that question now at a level that is not as the problem is that when we think about these higher beings, I’m really starting to worry that people. Are thinking about it too much in like a woo, like a magical way, you know, it really just is the manner in which things exist. So let me ask you this. So the fact that. Your family or your father or your boss or your mayor or your or the police or any type of higher level being and higher level authority, the fact that is that that it has influence over you and affects your will, does it permit and destroy the vision of freedom to choose? Like, and the answer is no, it doesn’t. Like we have freedom to choose within higher systems. And so we are bound by our existence in higher systems and in like bigger beings, but it doesn’t at all destroy your your freedom to choose. Right. You you you exist within that and you choose within that. And if you transgress, especially to transgress the the body of your family, then there will be consequences of that. If you transgress the the city you live in, then there’ll be consequences to that. But that’s just how the world exists. So, yeah. And so that’s the same. Like when I talk about higher level beings, it’s just it’s just the same. So let’s say if you think that there are intelligent patterns, intelligent watchers that are watching over natural, let’s say patterns in the world, in the movement of the the movement of the sun and the stars in the sky. It’s like, does that destroy your your your freedom to choose or permit the freedom to choose? It’s like there’s it what it does. It just like any type of freedom, it it gives the bounds to that freedom. And so, you know, it’s like. You’re you know, you within that system, if you act certain ways, it will be damaging to you. And if you act in other ways, then it’ll be good to you. You know, if you walk outside in the darkness and you try to do the same activities that you’re doing during the day, then you’re going to pay the price for that, you know, and if you if you try to go outside, you know, in the middle of July and try to sleep in the sun, then you’ll you’ll have a nice surprise when you wake up with a nice sunburn. So it’s like all these things are are just like they’re just the way we exist, that we exist in the world. We just have to understand that there are intelligent. Patterns that manage our our existence, and those are intelligible, they’re intelligent and they and they have causal effect, they cause you to exist in certain ways, but it’s all fractal. So your capacity to choose is bound in that, but it’s not it’s it’s neither fully it’s like it’s it makes it possible for you to choose within those systems. That makes sense. But give me let me give an example, an example that Jordan Peterson used once, which is that it’s like. Systems of control or systems of authority, they give you the possibility to choose, they don’t remove it. The idea that higher beings manage your the way in which you live is is actually gives you the possibility of choosing like the example to give you the counter example would be like if I drop you in the middle of the ocean and I say, all right, you’re totally free, right in the ocean, you are totally free. Now you can do whatever you want, but there’s nothing in which to bound to bind your freedom. There’s no order in which to bind your freedom. Then like who cares? It’s just being in the middle or dropping you in the middle of the desert. And it’s like, OK, you’re free to choose. Like that doesn’t mean anything anymore. So the idea is that this is actually what makes freedom real and possible. So, yeah. OK. All right. So Cormac Jones asked a question. So, by the way, I want to mention like Cormac and a bunch of other people, I wrote a version of Snow White, which I’m hoping to publish in the next year or so. I’m getting an illustrator to do it. And this is something that I want to do, which is to create to create some some fairy tales and kind of retail fairy tales, emphasizing the symbolism, but in a way that’s not like that’s not tedious and explicit, but rather kind of brings out or teases out certain symbolic strains and that are totally fine to tell that for kids, but think that adults would like as well. And so so Cormac is one of the people that read it and has given some interesting critiques about it. So I’m happy about that. All right. So good evening, Jonathan. I sometimes really like something that I’ve made. That’s why I made it right. I created and saw that it was good. Those two actions, the creation and the perception have been together and can be hard to distinguish. If I were to write something, say that to me functions as the name of Christ, well, I would love that piece of writing because I love Christ and I love his image. At the same time, I sinfully love myself. This image is something that I’ve made. It occurs to me that this is the predicament of the iconographer that I should ask one how this works. How does one make an image of Christ while worshiping Christ and his image and not worshiping the works of one’s hands, as would an idolater or someone captive to self-love? And so I think. I think it’s definitely a balancing act, you know. I think that you can you you can notice. You could if you’re attentive to the way that other people react to what you’ve you’ve made, you can probably. You could probably know whether or not you’re captive by self-love. So, for example, if you feel like you’re not getting enough credit for what you’ve done, if you get angry, if someone. If you automatically get angry, if someone criticizes what you’ve done, you know, like, I think it’s fine to defend what you’ve done and to explain it. And if people are misunderstanding it. But like if you if you have a reactive attitude to someone just because they are giving you criticism. And then also, like, can you part from what you’ve done? Like, are you attached to it? Like, for example, like if you if you were making some art, you know, would it hurt you to get rid of it? Like, would it would you suffer from that? I think those are all little ways to look at that and figure out whether or not you’re kind of captive. But it’s definitely. It’s definitely a temptation. You know, I know, because like I have to deal with that myself. Like you said, it’s like I make icons, I make these videos, I make a bunch of stuff and I get excited about it. I’m happy about it. And then it’s like, you’re right. When when is it when is it a little too much? Like when am I just just in a mode of like self promotion and looking for attention? It’s like I’m sure I fall into that all the time. And so God forgive me when I do. I hope you guys forgive me as well. All right. So a popper says. All right. So in the season of Pride, I have a question about the meaning of LGBTQ plus. This symbol represents the union of people from sexual margin. The plus sign at the end represents all other sexual identities known or unknown. What is the meaning of the cross that represents the margin and the margin being found at the end of this group of identities? Is there a hint of a possible act? Sixteen, seventeen moments, hallmaking explicitly unknown God in Athens or the unknown cross will be made explicit at the end of the carnival of pride. I don’t know. I’ve never thought about it that way. I mean, for sure, the way that that it’s used in the LGBTQ plus. Has to do. I mean, the funny thing about it, like it is kind of funny because right in. In in Hebrew, I don’t want to make sure I want to make I think I’m right in Hebrew. The tab tab is the last letter, isn’t it? And so it’s just interesting because the tab is a cross. I was right, yes. So so in Hebrew, the last letter is a tab. And so it’s actually it’s like a cross. So it’s interesting that it’s like the end. It really is the end in this in this sense that it’s related to the end. And so that’s kind of fascinating. But I think in their case, what they want is to say it’s it’s like it’s actually just it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s like it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s an image of indefinite variability. It’s it’s like a plus. It’s like there are many others, but we haven’t we’re not going to make them explicit. You know, so that’s my kind of understanding of it. So I see it more like that than the idea of the unknown God. It’s more like the end and also the idea of the end as maybe a dissolving into so many variables that you can’t name them. It’s just like chaos, basically. And that has to do with death as well, like just a cross has to do with death as well. So maybe interesting to think about that. I’m sure the tab thing people I’ve sure the tab things on people have have have been keen on that someone which would check it up and see if if people have come up with that before. So Ramal asks, Hi, Jonathan, what is the symbolism of surviving fire being fireproof? I notice the pattern in Christian stories such as the fiery furnace and the martyrs of Sanctus, but also in Indian stories of testing someone’s purity by passing through fire, Sita and Prahlada. Also, does that have some relation to Joshua and Caleb passing through the desert and the idea of fire in the Last Judgment? And so. Well, for sure, the idea in I think that the idea of being fireproof, I mean, fire is a kind of death. It’s a kind of death by multiplication or death by being consumed. And so I think that there are many more than one symbolism of that. It could have to do with the fact that there are many more than one symbolism of that. It could have to do with the idea that this person’s integrity is beyond the capacity to destroy, right? Something like that could mean something that you try to destroy this person’s integrity and you won’t be able to like you just won’t be able to do it. There’s also there’s also the image of burning with fire without being consumed, which you see when in the of course in the burning bush. And that seems to have something to do with the theosis. And I think that that’s something which has been represented in the idea of the three men and Daniel, too, that there’s a notion of resurrection in the sense that there’s a sense of the process of resurrection. And I think that’s something which has been represented in the idea of the three men and Daniel, too, that there’s a notion of resurrection, of theosis, of transformation, all of that. So but I’ve never thought about it explicitly in that in those terms. So you’re definitely onto something. Yes. Yeah, I think that’s what it is. I think you’ve got it. It’s definitely it’s definitely has to do with like spit coming like with the water that comes down and then mixing minute meeting the earth. And then it becomes like this unit of heaven and earth that is healing the man. I’m pretty sure that’s what it is. So I think you’ve got it exactly. All right. So still kind of around the man asks, is paradise supposed to have no chaos? And so that’s an interesting question. Yeah. I think it has glory. So it’s hard to think it’s hard to totally to think like, does the do the lower waters? I kind of continue to exist. I think so. So it’s not in paradise, but it’s like paradise. Paradise is the hierarchy and on the edge of that hierarchy is is still potentiality, you know. And so you can imagine. So the idea would be that the work of creation has to continue. You see that the idea of naming the animals and so saying that from the Syrian, for example, says that there are no animals in paradise. Like the animals are outside of paradise. And so Adam would like come down the mountain to the border of paradise. Basically, the animals would come up to him from outside, from the chaos. So it’d be like these waters kind of coming out of the sea. You could it’s not exactly that. But you can imagine coming down from below and then Adam naming them. And so there’s already there’s always potential, more potentiality and more chaos that can kind of be brought into to to order. And so I think that that’s what I understand paradise. But for sure, at the end of time, like when you look at the image of the image of the heavenly Jerusalem, right, it says. It says that there will be no more ocean. That is a crazy statement like that statement. I remember it’s like a year or two ago. I was rereading Revelation and I sent that to my brother, Mathieu, and he hadn’t read it in a while, too. And so he’s like, what he really says to be no ocean at the end of time. And so we’re like going into the text and like looking and it’s pretty astounding. So. Yeah, I don’t even know what that means. Like, I don’t even know. I guess it means that the fullness, this total fullness of God, maybe. But it’s scary to think the idea of like no chaos, like no potential. Wow. Like the fullness of actuality, I guess that’s what it is. So. But there’s also an image in Revelation of the sea becoming a glass, which isn’t at the it’s not at the at the moment of the heavenly Jerusalem, but it’s like maybe that’s something like that where it’s not chaos. It’s just like still potentiality that completely reflects the image from above, something like that. Yeah. So choose a gap. As when the woman is caught in adultery, just writes with his finger on the ground. The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of the Lord with the significance of the finger. Thanks. So a finger fingers have to do with pointing like that’s the great genius of the finger. Finger points, if finger is related to concentrating meaning that pointing is like you could imagine like the the most primordial form of language that you can imagine is something like pointing. Right. So it’s like there’s all this stuff and you say that this this thing that thing that is the like the essence of of language, you could say the essence of. Of naming is something like that. Right. And so I think that that’s why the finger that’s the significance of the finger and that’s why it’s written by the finger of the Lord. Yeah, that’s what it is. It’s like a concentration into a point that if you read Matthew’s book, you’ll you’ll get what that what that signifies like that’s the point you know that place where things come together. So Mary asked, Could you please comment on the symbolism of the number 40 more Moses days on Mount Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights. Christ in the desert is this somehow related to the human gestation time of 40 weeks in the womb and does it have anything to do with birth or rebirth. Thank you and God bless. And so yeah, there’s also the 40 days of rain. The 40 years in the desert that the Hebrews the 40 days of rain for the flood. So I mean, it has to do with a cycle for sure. And the idea of 40 weeks in the womb. Definitely. It has to do with a full cycle. And so there are different there are different like ways of representing the full cycle in scripture. Sometimes just seven. Right. Seven days. But then sometimes it’s 40. I don’t totally know whether 40 comes from. I struggle sometimes with like, I can see the numerical patterns, but I’m not the best at mathematical symbolism. So sometimes I see it like it’s there. But someone asked me like, Why is it 40 rather than 30? It’s like, I don’t know. I don’t know. Seven is easier. You know, the first 10 digits are easier, but then it becomes 12, maybe up to 12 is possible. But after that, it gets hard to really understand like, why 40? So sorry if I’m disappointing you there. All right. So C. St. Soil says, Does the story of the Apostle Peter give us any symbolic insight into the Roman Catholic Church and the role it plays in broader Christianity, particularly St. Paul correcting said Peter and Andy Ock when juxtaposed to papal infallibility or the Apostle Peter cutting the ear off a man coming to rest Jesus when juxtaposed to papal infallibility. And so my answer to that is I believe so. I really believe that that the way that the story of Christ played out, let’s say in scripture, that it is also to a certain extent playing out in the bigger as a cosmic version in the cosmic version of Christianity. And so I think that all the qualities of the Apostle Peter are there and all the negative aspects of the Apostle Peter are there. It’s like the Apostle Peter was the first of the Apostles. He was the one who Christ said on this rock, I will build my church. And then turn and then write the next verse says, Get behind me, Satan. So the Apostle Peter is the one that walks out on the water. And then he’s the one that sinks. The Apostle Peter, right, is the one that says, I’ll follow you until I die. Then he denies Christ at the cross. And so I think that I think that that is a very important part of the story of the story of the Apostle Peter. And I think that it’s going to play out in the cosmic sphere. Now, I want to be careful because I want you to understand that I think that the Apostle Peter is still the Apostle Peter. That even when the Apostle Peter is sinking and even when the Apostle Peter is denying Christ, he’s still the Apostle Peter. And so I don’t and so although I am Orthodox, I am very careful. I don’t I don’t want to I think that in the big story, it’s all going to play out. And it’s all going to play out in a way that, you know, that ends with with Christ saying to the Apostle Peter, you know, love my life. And I think that that’s the way that the Apostle Peter is going to play out. And I think that it’s going to play out in a way that, you know, that ends with with Christ saying to the Apostle Peter, you know, love my sheep. You know, if you do, you love me. And if you do, then care for my sheep. You know, so so I want to be I want to be careful that I do believe that it’s playing out in a in a bigger sphere. But I don’t it doesn’t I don’t think it gives us permission to make simplistic interpretations about that. It’s a it’s a it’s a large and complex story that is playing out. So so, yeah, and I think the same with St. Paul. I think that there are there are churches that revere St. Paul particularly. And those churches, they have the qualities of St. Paul, you know, especially in the West. The idea of St. Peter and St. Paul together was really, really important in terms of a pattern. And so I often feel like the Reformation is something like the separation of St. Peter and St. Paul and that the Reformation took on St. Paul as and all his qualities, but also all his faults. And so, yeah, so it’s definitely things to think about if you want to think about something. It’s an interesting it’s an interesting idea. All right. All right. So Lisa says, can you comment on the carnivore diet? People go on it seem to to become almost superhuman health wise, curing chronic issues, losing weight and not being a slave to craving anymore. But it comes at a great cost like a dietary resilience and social exclusion. Technically, they can’t even have the Eucharist, which is the ultimate symbol of communion. Does this has something to do with Cain? And is there also a kind of inversion of play? Eating meat comes from the fall and Cain founded cities. But our current culture, the end result of that is very anti meat and is the reason people are having these chronic health issues in the first place. So I haven’t figured it out, man. Like Lisa, I haven’t figured out this carnivore thing. It is so mysterious that it’s happening. That it’s all it’s happening now, you know, and you’re right. It’s like I, you know, I’m you know, I’m looking at watching Jordan Peterson and kind of waiting. I’m like, it’s been five years, really five years. You only eat meat, salt and drink water. And, you know, he’s definitely in a better shape than I am. He’s definitely like I’m kind of nice and soft, like getting nice and soft around the edges. You know, I don’t have I get tired in the afternoon. I don’t have that much energy. And it’s like. So I don’t know, man. I’ve been wanting to I’ve been wanting to I mean, tell myself I’m going to try it at some point, you know, just for a few weeks and see what it does. Because I now I have so I have the people some guy in my parish, a guy, a catechumen at our parish. You know, I met him six months ago and maybe a little more. He was walking with the cane chronic, constant illness. He would go up the stairs of his apartment and he would have to lay down on the floor for 20 minutes because he could barely like function. And he went on the carnivore diet. And like, what is it? A few weeks later, he a few months, like a month later, not very long afterwards. No more cane, no more constant pain. Like, I couldn’t believe it. He said, like, this is something he’s been dealing with his whole life. And so it’s pretty impressive. I don’t know. Like, I don’t even know. I don’t know. Like, I don’t know what to think. I don’t know. It has something to do with like the place we are in the world. Like, I mean, does it? How could it have something to do with cane? Like, canes got an agriculturalist like. I don’t know. I don’t know what it is. It’s it’s interesting. Yeah, I’m still thinking about it. So let you know if I come to conclusions. So Tony Rosa says in the recent Rebel Wisdom conversation with John Reveckian in the context of the hermeneutics of beauty versus suspicion discussion, John described beauty as a disclosure of reality. It’s such a beauty and overlapping category to symbol. And if so, what are the distinctions or is it in fact equal to the idea of symbol? As I understand a symbol, a disclosure, revelation of reality, a ring together of epiphany of what is in a sign. Yes, I told you. Yes, that’s exactly what it is. That’s exactly at least the way that I see symbol. That is, it’s the gathering of the elements together and to manifest its identity. And so and so when you can see the symbol, you can kind of see you can see reality like you’re it’s not hiding. It’s not masking reality. And so I totally agree. And it’s interesting because it’s interesting because you can see how people who engage in only this type of hermeneutics of suspicion, how they can sometimes engage in very deep conspiracism because they have a sense that symbols are always there because symbols can’t hide things. It’s possible. Symbols can be like secret languages that exist in the world where only an in-group knows what the symbol refers to. And then the out-group doesn’t. And so I’m not saying that that’s not possible, that that can exist. But there’s a way in which for people who really get into a kind of conspiracism, like at a really deep, deep, deep level, they they start to think that all symbolism is like that, that all symbolism is actually hiding some nefarious thing behind it. And so you can see how it’s it’s kind of brought. It’s it’s filled up every it filled up different types of people’s minds so much. All right. So all right. So now we’re moving on to Patreon. So Christian. So Brandon Burns, sorry, in the chat says, could you convince Matthew to write a Bible companion? I don’t think so. I think I think that’s your. That’s your like he has his will. Like he definitely is a he definitely kind of knows what he what he what he wants to do. So I don’t think so. I successfully convinced him to to help me write the next book of of the next series for God’s Dog, because we’re working on like another another series, which would be which will be related to like legends of God’s dog. And so he’s agreed to do that. But I don’t know how it’s going to play out because he’s got it. He’s got a lot of stuff to deal with. So all right. So Christian Clyde says, Hello, Jonathan, I will try to reword my question from last month. OK, all of the disciples follow Christ to the cross. St. John was the only disciple that wasn’t martyred in doing so. Not all of them were crucified, but martyrdom is its own cross and icons of the crucifixion. We see St. John and the theotokos on both sides from tradition. We are told that they both died naturally before being bodily assumed into heaven. I’m wondering if you have any insight there. I think you’re right. I think there definitely is an insight to have there. There definitely is something related to that. But I’m not sure what it is. Like, I’m not totally sure what it means. Yeah, I’d have to think about it because I like to think about it. I like why is it that the that St. John, who was the closest to Christ, right? The one that laid on his on his heart would be the only one that wasn’t martyred when Christ himself was martyred. I don’t know. So think about that. There’s definitely something there. All right. So Hugh Rose asked, Why does Pinocchio’s nose grow when he lies? How does this relate to what you said about saints being depicted with long noses? And the idea that noses are associated with finding truth, nosing around, sniffing out. Yeah, there’s the idea like the idea that God has a long nose. It has to do with something with like patience and long suffering. But I’ve never thought about why Pinocchio’s nose grows like when he lies. Like, because the nose is the top of the of the face, right? If you think of the face like that, then it’s the highest point of the face. And so why would it grow when you lie? I don’t know. I don’t know. I’m sure the guy who opened Pinocchio had something in mind like what he had something in mind with that. But I have never thought about that. So I have no idea. I mean, it definitely has something to do with. I mean, obviously, that’s something to do with like his incapacity to hide that he’s lying. Like, that’s what it is. It’s like, so he lies and then he shows. It’s like you lie and then the signs appear of your lying. So for sure, that’s to do with that. But why the nose rather than something else? Like, why? Why? And it also has to do with the fact that he’s made of wood. You know, although that doesn’t tell you the meaning, but it’s clearly like structurally. That’s what it’s this is what seems like he was trying to go for. All right. So Nick Egensperger asks, Hi, Jonathan. Hi, Jonathan. In rural Germany, we have this folktale of the Wiederganger. Sorry if I don’t pronounce that right. Wiederganger is essentially the spirit of a deceased person, which haunts people close to them, often their relatives. Now, one of the ways a Wiederganger can attach itself to a person is through them looking in the corpse’s eyes. I believe that this is definitely related to the evil eye and vampires. I would like to hear your interpretation and perspective on this. So, oh, Ivan Engel says Pinocchio’s nose is a sign of pride. Yeah, that’s a great that’s probably right. You’re probably right that that’s what it is, because the nose is the highest point on the face. And so it has to do with with with pride. So. Probably right. I’m not it’s like I’m not 100 percent, but I think that that’s definitely a good a good a good possibility, Ivan. So thanks. All right. So Wiederganger. So the superstition is that if you look in a person’s a dead person’s eyes and you can be haunted, you know, by their ghost, let’s say. And so, I mean, it’s not surprising as a pattern. It’s like the idea. The idea would be to like to be cautious with a with a dead person that you don’t. How can I say this? It’s like you don’t want to try to. See consciousness in a dead person. So that seems to be what’s going on here. It’s like saying. I mean, you could you could totally explain this in a totally materialist way. Like this is you wouldn’t have to, you know, a complete materialist could probably understand this pretty simply. It’s like, why are you looking in the dead person’s eyes? The person is dead. So if you look into their eyes, into a dead person’s eyes, it means you’re trying to see soul. Like you’re trying to see life, trying to see meaning in their eyes. And so like, surprise, surprise, you might find some like you might. But it’ll be a twisted like virgin that is going to wake you up at night. You know, it’s going to be something which is going to haunt you because because death has certain characteristics that, you know, it has a certain eeriness. It has a certain it has a certain uncanniness about it to look at a person’s dead face and to try to find meaning that. It’s like that’s probably what a ghost is. You know, ghost is probably something like that. It’s like the remainder of meaning that a person leaves. And if you try to look for it, like if you’re trying to even like trying to engage with it, trying to find it, then it’ll find you. You know, and then you might. Yeah, you might have nightmares after that. So that’s the best way I understand that. So Charles Haro says, what is the symbolic significance of wedding rings going on the left hand instead of the right? They’re different traditions, by the way, like there’s some traditions that have that have them on the right hand. So, but I think that I think that in the that in the this tradition has mostly to do with like the the left hand as being something like the hand of protection or the hand of out. Right. And so you like if you hold if you held a shield, you hold it with your left hand. It’s also not the hand you do things with. And so there’s less chance that it’ll get caught in things. But that has to do with that as well. Right. It has to do with the fact that your left hand would be used for a shield and your right hand would be used to fight. So it’s like a hand that is that is more clumsier, but could be used for defense. And I think that probably there’s a practical reason, which is has to do with the fact that the left hand is not something used for work. But there’s also like that brings about a symbolic reason, which is this idea of the hand of defense or the hand of of pushing away, you know, that which is unwanted. And so it’s like, hey, I’m married. Stay away. Like you’re married. Your husband knows you’re married. The wedding ring in a way is there to kind of remind you, but it’s also to make other let other people know that that that person is married. So it’s like it’s kind of like the hand that pushes away the left hand that pushes away. That’s that’s the best I can do. But I know there’s some there’s some cultures where it’s actually on the right hand. So maybe there could be variations on that in terms of what it means. All right. So Gogo says in the Eastern Yogic concept of the Kundalini energy rising in the body. The same as the Holy Spirit is the Eastern Yogic conception of the Kundalini energy rising in the body, the same as the Holy Spirit. Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the one forgivable sin? So that’s two questions. And I’m going to answer quick. I don’t think so for the first one, but I’m also not an expert on Kundalini yoga. Like, I don’t really know much about it. It’s not a there’s something about it which which kind of. There’s something about it or something about the obsession with it or there’s something about the type of people that I’ve known that have talked to me about it so much that makes me suspicious of it. But, you know, I don’t know. I don’t know much about it. But I can answer the second one more easily. I mean, why is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the one unforgivable sin? I mean, it has to do with the fact that you’re you’re basically blaspheming against the thing that’s making you live like the thing that makes you exist. And so. That’s what it is. But, you know, I don’t think. You know, it’s it’s if you treat. The the the very spirit of God, which let’s say makes you exist, then. The spirit that was floating above the water is like if you if you misuse that, then. Yeah, but I don’t know. I don’t even know. Like, I don’t totally understand what that would be in your life. Like, what would it mean to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit in a way that is unforgivable? A lot of people debate about that, and a lot of people get caught up by that and become nervous about it. But. Yeah. So Sean Desmond says symbolism of tornadoes and tornadoes feel like such a uniquely American phenomena, even though they have it everywhere. It’s probably because you live in America. That’s probably why you feel like they are uniquely American phenomena. I mean, they’re the symbolism of the whirlwind, like they’re the symbolism of of. You know, an invisible force that is just turning on itself and therefore is destructive. That’s the best I could do with that. You know, it’s not it’s it’s unfruitful wind. So. Yeah. Yeah. Brad says, where’s your ring, Johnny? It’s a good question. It’s actually it’s actually a funny question. It’s funny in the sense that. One day, once my my wife lost her ring and then she lost her ring in a way that. She she let my child play with it, and then because of that, she lost the ring. And so I. Let her use my ring. And so she was using my ring and then. And then I think I think something happened to that as well. Like, I think it was lost in some some moment, and so we just lost the rings and we keep telling ourselves, like my wife and I keep telling ourselves, we’re going to make new wedding rings. We’re going to design them like they’ll be really nice and make an image of our relationship. And then life goes on and things continue. We just don’t do it. And so but don’t worry, I am very much married. I’ve been married for a very long time. So all right. So Jaffa asks, why are mostly male animals sacrificed to God in the Old Testament? Yeah, that’s weird. I never thought about that. It probably has to do with. Probably has something to do with with the idea of seed or the idea of. Of the identity, let’s say the idea that the man is the seed, let’s say probably has something to do with that. But. I haven’t thought about it. So Matthew Moldenbrand says the lost ring hobbits to the rescue. That’s hilarious. So I’d be asked, Hello, I was wondering if the proper hierarchy pattern that you have described connected to the rich having an obligation to let their blessings flow down through them to the poor is connected to the story of Cain and Abel in some way. Rich Abel seemingly is not paying enough any attention to Cain who was poor despite all of his efforts. They’re not in proper communion. Am I confused regarding this is the wrong way of reading the story? Yeah, I would say I would say it’s probably it’s the wrong way to read the story. I don’t see where you get that in the story. Like, why does it why does it seem like Abel is rich? And not paying attention to Cain who’s poor. So I don’t see that in the story. It doesn’t say that. It just says that Abel sacrifices to God and his sacrifice is accepted. And Cain’s sacrifice to God. It’s not accepted, but he’s bitter and he’s angry. And so that’s all it says in the story. So, I mean, I understand why, for example, Jordan Peterson sometimes extrapolates on it and then creates this story about the idea that everything’s going well for Abel. Like, he’s good looking that it’s not there in the story. I think that’s just a way to help you understand the idea that that we have to understand that that that sometimes when we sacrifice our sacrifices aren’t accepted and we just have to accept that. But it doesn’t I don’t think it implies what you’re suggesting. So. All right. So Manuel Montiel says, Hi, Jonathan, I can’t help but feel like the rainbow as a symbol of pride is a sort of inversion of what the sign really stood for, especially when considering how Babel’s a story that immediately follows the flood. Is the pride month symbol of this rainbow a sort of symbolism happens moment? And are there and the constant additions to the flags are sort of Tower Babel in the making. So, no, it’s not a Tower Babel. You have to understand the difference. The Tower Babel is about unity. The Tower Babel is about one language. The Tower Babel is like one thing. It’s about gathering everybody into one thing. Whereas the rainbow symbolism is about fluidity and multiplicity and about, you know, indefinite identity. And so it’s a bridge. Like there’s a positive aspect to the rainbow symbolism. That’s why God uses it as a sign of a bridge between heaven and earth in in the at the end of the flood. But it’s in the way that it’s used now is it’s definitely a symbolism happens moment because it is just this this as an image of the lack of of of transparent light, like the lack of of pure light and it’s only refracted light without the pure light. And so and then you just keep adding them because because because the rainbow is is fluid. It’s an indefinite amount of things. And so there’s no limit to how many things can be added at some point. Like, yeah. Yeah. All right. Gold it. So maybe there’s a funny guy has to say it. So maybe at some point, they’ll add so many like gradations into the the the flag and then they’ll spin it and then it’ll just become white. Like it’ll just turn white like you do when you spin like a rainbow. So I don’t know. Anyways. All right. So Golden, maybe that’ll be like the final flip or something like that. So Golden Pidget of Valor says, once you said that the symbolism in the Narnia series doesn’t work, why do you think so? I didn’t I’m not saying the symbolism in the Narnia books doesn’t work. I’m saying that it’s that I think that I think that it is not as powerful as it could be because I think that there are a few things. One is I think I think that CS Lewis, unlike Tokin, for example, doesn’t take into account the quality of the beings that he places in his Narnia. And so, for example, like a satyr, a fawn, you know, has a certain characteristic. You know, it’s a it’s a human with animal legs and that usually those are related to to sexual desire. They’re related to centaurs are usually related to aggressive, you know, out of control sexual desire. And so to have them just be like characters in the book, like, OK, here’s the centaur. Here’s the fawn. Here’s all these creatures. And they don’t have the qualities of their they don’t have the qualities of what they are. I think that’s the problem. One of the problems with the Narnia book. And so I so there are wonderful things in the Narnia book. They’re really wonderful things. But I think that he kind of missed that. Whereas in Lord of the Rings, you have like the orcs look like what they are and the you know, and the dwarves look and manifest certain characteristics. And so all the different groups have like characteristics about what they’re manifesting exteriorly. And I think that that’s closer to what you find in mythology, you know. And so and so, yeah, so so I think that that’s the issue. One of the issues, let’s say. All right. So Ken Lowry Lowry asks, I recently had a conversation with John Reveke working through aspects of bridging Christianity to his work and formulating thoughts on the primary question he asked me. And we love to hear you address it as well. His question relates to the deity of Christ and so far as Christ’s final words, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? I’m not interested in parroting your thoughts, rather, I’m interested in how you would frame this and pitfalls you might avoid. And so I think that the best way to understand that is to understand Father John, Father John, Father Stephen Young. He talked about it in one of the podcasts. I forget where it was, but it has to do with something like a lot of the other stuff that’s going on with Christ. Right. And so a lot of the other stuff that is going on with Christ is that on the surface it looks like something, but it’s hiding a deep, deep irony, which is which is hidden underneath. And so when Christ is being beaten and, and, you know, him being mocked for being a king, it’s actually revealing his kingship. So as he is, as he’s emptying himself, you know, he is also becoming full at the same time. And so this is what Christ is doing on the cross. So it’s like as he is dying on the cross and everybody is mocked as a criminal and as the worst type of person above his head is an ironic statement about him being the king, which is actually true. And so he’s actually filling up that role while he is emptying at the same time. It’s a deeply mystical image. And this is what happens to Christ all through the crucifixion story. So when Christ says, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? You have to understand what that refers to. That’s a song. And it’s a song that talks about that uses an image of resurrection at the end of that song. And so this is King David’s call to God. God, oh God, why have you forsaken me? And there’s this sense of being abandoned and emptying and an emptying of yourself. And then when the song ends, there’s a fullness and a resurrection. And so this is what Christ is. So I don’t want to diminish the deep mystery of Christ saying that on the cross. There’s a very, very deep mystery. But it doesn’t it does not at all. It does not at all deny his divinity. It is rather the deep, the deep kind of Cohen, a porium moment where in emptying himself, he is also revealing the fullness. And in saying that, he is also and because it is a quote from a song, read the song, you’ll see where the psalm takes you. And it’s like it’s like hiding. It’s hidden in what he’s saying that what he’s moving towards the final glorification and the final restoration is coming. And so that’s what I think. What is happening, you know, so I hope that answers that. It’s as good as I can do. But I want like I want to say one last thing. I want to be careful that we don’t think that this is just a game, right? That this is just a play. It’s not like there’s a reality to what’s happening when Christ is being tortured. He’s not like on the inside going, haha, I got that. My master is the king. And, you know, you know, like secretly knowing what is going on. There’s a reality to what is happening. And that reality is truly Christ is truly crying, you know, on the and on the Mount of Olives. He’s truly sweating, sweating blood, you know, whatever that means. It’s like he’s truly in a moment of deep, of deep. But we the way the whole story is told, he’s showing how in that in that emptying, he is also reaching totality and fullness. And that quote is is is just part another one of those versions. And so I think that if someone questions that, I think that showing them that this is happening all through the story, it’s not like one thing. I’m not just trying to avoid the problem. It’s like this is what’s happening all through the story of the crucifixion. And so this is this is. Is it’s not an it’s not a it’s not an exception. It’s actually following the pattern. So. So Brandon Byrd says, Is the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost the rectification of the confusion of tongues during the construction of the Tower of Babel? And the answer is yes, it’s actually sometimes called the anti babel. And so it is it is in a way a rectification of the confusion of tongues. Like it’s not a return to Babel. It’s not it’s not a return to like of complete like uniformity, but it is rather a transformation of the splitting of the tongues that happen at Babel into something something glorious that can participate in the glory of God. And so that’s what’s interesting about about the the the Pentecost. So you could almost see it like in a way Pentecost is continuing what happened at Babel, but in a way that transforms it into a kind of glory. So it’s a it is a rectification. That’s probably the best. It is the best term to use. So. All right. So Alexander says, Hi, Jonathan. I hope you’re doing well. I’ve been praying for you. Thank you, Alexander. My question is regards to history and great men. What is the symbolic tendency of revolution in civil wars to culminate into a single figure wielding absolute power? Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon, Stalin. Yeah. And why and in what way does Christ point towards how to break out of this pattern? Thank you. I mean, you’re totally right. That’s what it is. Like revolution leads to tyranny. There’s no doubt about that. There’s no doubt about that. And it’s a it’s something about a there’s something in the mechanism of revolution which makes tyranny almost necessary. You know, because as you break down, as you assault the order, you know, then you fall into like all these chaotic competing principalities. And then there’ll be a competition or there’ll be a with someone who will seize that chaos. Right. We’re able to to turn it back towards another purpose. And that will usually happen in the tyrannical way. And so how does Christ point towards the breakout of this pattern is that Christ rules his kingdom through self-sacrifice. So Christ doesn’t. So I’ve said this before. It’s like Christ doesn’t cause a social revolution against the Roman Empire. Right. So some people at the time, the zealots, they expected the Messiah to come like a king that would free them from the Romans, that would fight off the Romans and would free Israel, Judah, from the Romans. And then Christ doesn’t do that. And so a lot of people say, well, he’s not the Messiah. Right. And so that’s the thing. That’s the secret is that Christ, the pattern that Christ manifests is the notion of planting the seed and of self-sacrifice. And it’s a way to transform the world without falling into just dialectic. And so what happens is that Christ does take over Rome. It just takes longer. But it’s also more permanent in the sense that Christ takes over Rome a few centuries later and it lasts for what, 1500 years maybe, or a thousand years, at least a thousand years it lasts. So that’s not bad. And so it’s like, and then it leads to something like Antichrist, which is still part of the pattern somehow. So that’s the difference. That’s the difference. All right. And so Dorothee says, Hi, Jonathan, I watch your video on the symbolism of the Far East and I guess I’m spiritually Asian or something because I recognize myself as a small version of that pattern. I even literally dreamt that God is building a house for me. So my question is, if you have some advice how to put all of that in service of God, you mentioned the three Magi giving their gifts to the child Jesus. Is it connected to that? I’m not sure I understand your question. Why are you saying that you dreamt that God is building a house for you? Is that something we talked about in the symbolism of the Far East? Did I miss something? I’m not sure. I totally understand your question Dorothee. I’m sorry. That you’re spiritually Asian because you recognize yourself as a small version of that pattern. Oh, you mean the pattern of, let’s say, sending someone from the West to build a house for the East. And so the East appears as like the seed, let’s say, and then the West appears as the home or the house. So you write. So it’s like an image of the temple or the tabernacle itself. So you write the tabernacle has the Ark of the Covenant in the West and then the glory of God comes down from the East and then lands in the West. So you could also imagine like you send builders to the East to build a house. And so I understand. So you mentioned the three Magi giving their gifts to the child Jesus. Is it connected to that? And so in a way it is. It is in the sense that the gifts that the Magi give Christ is something like gifts that recognize his divinity. And so they’re sending their authority like or their their dues are pointing to Christ. They’re coming from the East with like with insight. And they’re saying that’s the Messiah right there. And their gifts are there to tell to like point to the Messiah. And so they are acting like light. They’re acting like rays of light coming from the East that are pointing to the mysterious like this mysterious hidden thing that is in the cave, you know, in the in more in the West. So yes, definitely. It’s related to that. But I don’t know. I don’t know what you mean by putting that in the service of God. All right. So Kulai says, what is the symbolism of the Morning Star as in spiked mace called Morning Star spiked mace? I don’t know what that is. The meaning of its form and the relation to the Aspergillum. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t know what spiked mace is. And I don’t know what Aspergillum is. It’s like, oh, it’s a sprinkle holy water. See, I didn’t know that had a name. Aspergillum. It’s a good name to remember that. It’s related to the Aspergillum. The meaning of its form and the relation to the Aspergillum. So I’ve never thought about any of that. I have never heard this relationship that you’re talking about. So sorry. As for the idea of the meaning of the Morning Star, I mean, it has to do with Lucifer, right? That’s the idea of the Morning Star. And so you can understand Lucifer in several ways. And I think it’s probably good. Maybe I mentioned this before in a Q&A. People have to stop freaking out about the term Lucifer. I understand that in some circles and in some ways it’s interpreted as being Satan. But Christ is called Lucifer in scripture. Christ is called the Morning Star in scripture. And it means the light bearer, right? The one that bears the light. And so the reason why the devil or the evil one has come to take the name Lucifer is that it’s the idea that the Morning Star appears in the sky. And what it does is it’s basically calling to the sun. It’s basically preceding the sun. And so you can understand that. So St. John the Baptist, for example, in liturgical texts is called also the Morning Star. And there are many other people that are called the Morning Star because they’re the forerunner. So St. John the Baptist is Lucifer because he’s the forerunner to Christ. He is the Morning Star that comes up and then the sun follows. And so the reason why Christ is called that is because you could say that he is the image bearer of the Father. And so it’s just a structural relationship of the Morning Star that comes up and then you know that the sun is coming later. So it’s like it comes out before the sun. And so the reason why the evil one is called Lucifer is that you can imagine that the Morning Star thinks that it’s got it. Like the Morning Star thinks that it’s the one. It’s like I am the light, right? Look at me. I’m so bright and I’m the light. And so it fills itself up with pride. So because of that, it falls because it gets completely flooded out by the light of the sun. It just vanishes when the sun comes out. And so that’s why that term or the idea of the Morning Star is used in different guises in terms of symbolic thinking. So you have to be cautious because I’ve seen people, let’s say, play masses, for example, where in the mass it’s actually seeing the verse where Christ is called Lucifer. And then people think it’s like some secret thing that the Catholic Church is worshipping the devil. And so people just get nuts. They just don’t understand this stuff. So yeah. Yeah, all right. So there you go. That’s as much as I can say about that. But the Aspergillum, someone says the Aspergillum is a weapon. So the Morning Star is a bludgeon. What it kind of looks like when I’m seeing it, I’m looking at it here and I can see that it does actually kind of look like a bludgeon. So maybe maybe in some cases it is. All right. All right. Enough on the Aspergillum. All right. So Norm Gondet says, What is symbolic significance of the fruit that Adam and Eve eat being an apple? Scripture never identified the fruit as such, but it seems universally understood to be an apple. I don’t think so. I think it really depends on the culture. There really are really many fruit that have been that have been had the have been called the fruit. But I think more recently or like in the last few hundred years, the apple, for some reason, has become an image of the of the fruit. But it’s not that it’s not that old of of an interpretation. And so I mean, I think that like there’s like there’s like the simple version, like the kind of superstitious version, which is interesting, which is that an apple kind of looks like two halves. Like you kind of see the two halves in the apple, right? It’s like a heart kind of. And then, you know, if you. I think that there’s probably something to do with that, something to do with the fact that it’s common to it’s a common fruit in Europe and the West, something that everybody knows what it is. So it might be that as well. Yeah. That’s sure. So, Erie Fisher says, Hi, Jonathan, I’ve been learning a bit more about the Logoi recently and how they are in Maximus’s theology actually uncreated. Yeah. And basically, divine energies of God, Timothy Patitza, describe them as the way in which Christ empties himself for the life of the world. I’m wondering, though, what is the distinction between the Logi or the Logai and angels as you describe them? I’m wondering if the two don’t get conflated in the way you describe angels. I was thinking that the angels were the points of unity above the multiplicity of phenomena, but the angels are created and are not the Logoi. Are they like the next thing down from the Logoi? Forgive me for dragging you into technical metaphysics. It’s not all clear in my mind. Yeah. I mean, I think that’s probably the way to understand that, you know, in the sense that the angels are there. They’re invisible patterns that can be grasped or seen that can have influence, you know, but they also definitely have a Logoi. And you could probably understand the Logi, switching the way I say it, but you could probably understand the Logi as they’re akin to that because the Logi also seems to kind of exist in this hierarchies of purposes, of hidden purposes that are joined into God. But they’re definitely, you know, when we talk about theosis, like we’re serious about theosis, you know, the idea that your origin, you know, that the highest part of you is God. It’s actually a divine energy. Like that’s the highest part of you. And so, yeah. Lisa Parrott says, maybe the apple, you know, the apple because of apple, like Apple computers. Well, for sure, Apple computers is definitely playing on that. Like they’re definitely saying that they are eating the apple of the garden. That is for sure. But I think the apple came before Apple computers. So Greg Garcia says, Hi Jonathan, how did the ancients approach history? That is in contrast to our modern historical critical method, Polish statistics, motives, whether political, economic or social, everyone is fighting over the narrative of history, where people have done this in antiquity. If they had the technology, the hyper focus on ironically, on it ironically seems to be breaking down trust. So I think that ancients approach history the way that we talk about universal history in our universal history series. So if you’re interested in that, you can watch those videos. You can get a sense of the more mythical origin of historical action and the idea of finding common story. Like that is actually what makes history. And so the fact that right now everybody’s arguing about common story, whether it be, you know, the kind of multiplication of historical narratives of the past, you know, whether it be these these different like reinterpretations of American history or Canadian history. And is how it has to do with reaching the end, you know, because you can understand it like in a positive or negative way. Give me a second. I just need to open my door. Sorry, I run sometimes I run out of air in my in my little office. So I made it soundproof but it turns out I also made it air proof because I made it soundproof. And so so think about it like think about it in two ways. So think about it in the negative sense. So in the sense that so you have a common identity and a common history and a common core that binds you together. And so now there are now when you reach the end of that, when it’s running out of steam, what happens that all these elements, they want to rev they want to capture the story. And so one aspect of the history is like wants to capture it. So what it does is it fragments because you have a start to have fighting. Everybody’s fighting over the story. Like what’s the story and that is what it shows is that the story is breaking down. And so now there is this infighting about who’s going to control identity and story. So you can see it that way, but you can also see it in a sympathetic way towards these stories, these these multiple stories, which is that in order to create a myth or a story, you have to order things in a certain way. And to do that, you also have to you have to exclude and marginalize certain aspects of society because we’re not God. We don’t encompass all things. And so in doing that, you are it’s like you’re casting out or you’re casting down certain elements of interaction. You are casting roles on certain elements of the of the of the story. And some of those are not great. Like some of those are not are not particularly pleasant. Or some people are in a way do become like the victim of that story because they end up in a marginal spot. And so when you reach the end, it’s like so when this story now starts to run out of steam, you can also have sympathy for the all these competing stories now that want to free themselves from the negative aspect of the of the story. Right. So, um. Right. So think about so think about it like imagine trying to find some some some version. It’s like imagine a society where in that society there is a lower caste in that society and that lower caste is blamed for everything that lower caste is blamed for all the problems, all the stupidity. And so they they’re constantly the butt of the jokes are constantly the ones that are are, you know, become the scapegoat for all the behavior. And so that works like it holds the world together. You have a coherent story. You have a scapegoat. You just put all your bad stuff in there and then it like functions. But then when you reach the end of that story, it’s like that scapegoat is still there and it’s going to come back. Why wouldn’t it come back? You know, it’s going to return and it’s going to return with a side like it’s going to return with vengeance. So it’s like that’s also one of the things that’s going on in in the story right now. And it’s like I’m not even saying one is good or the other is bad or like I’m not trying to I’m not trying to say that. That this should happen. I’m just saying it is happening and I and we have to be able to understand it and be able to see it from all sides because I don’t particularly like watching the narrative get completely corrupted and that there’s these parasitic narratives that try to take over the story. But I also kind of I understand why it’s happening. You know, I get it. So, yeah, so. Yeah, that’s it. All right, so. And so, yeah, and so but I mean, I think that there are excesses and so it’ll become the revenge of the scapegoat is not necessarily it’s not good, right? It’s excessive and it’ll it’ll it’ll create its own scapegoats and it’ll create its own kind of weird narrative. So I’m not saying that I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m just trying to help you hopefully understand what is going on and what is happening right now. All right, so Russ fro asked, could you comment on the depictions of snails often found in the marginality of medieval manuscripts? Yeah, I mean, I don’t know what would you want to understand it’s like it’s a snail is a is a clear like inversion of of a view, you know, because you have hard stuff on the inside and soft stuff on the outside. And so a snail has soft stuff on the inside and hard stuff on the outside. So that’s it. I don’t know. It’s a it’s an upside down. It’s an upside the bug. First of all, it’s also a bug and it’s also you know it’s a it’s funny looking. But I think that it has to do with that as well like slugs and snails, especially a snail because it has a it has a shell so. All right, so William Lawrence, what is the symbolism of coffee, especially in a church setting? Almost every church I’ve been to offers coffee, whether it’s a mini cafe in a mega church or it’s coffee hour after Divine Liturgy. Is this just a convenience for modern adults or is there more going on here? I mean, it’s medicine, right? Coffee is medicine. Coffee is a is a stimulant. So it’s like it’s like a jolt. It’s like it’s like a supplement. That’s what coffee is. So, you know, that’s probably why coffee is going to take it over. I drink coffee at least one a day. So it’s like it is definitely like a stem. And there’s something rich. There’s a ritual about coffee, too. Like you kind of have to make it. It’s not it doesn’t just come like you can’t just like buy a bottle like you buy a bottle of water, a bottle of Coke or whatever you have to have. It has to be made. So there’s something about that I think which is also attractive to people without maybe unconsciously. Like there’s a sense in which this there’s still like I have to prepare it right a little bit. And so there’s a little ritual that goes with coffee. You can see how people become weirdly ritualized about their coffee. You know, so. So Abe says, I don’t think you speak about the symbolism of owls on the one hand, the Bible seems to portray them as unclean birds and harbingers of ruin. And they’ve been so they’ve been a favorite of secret societies. But on the other hand, they have a powerful associated with knowledge and wisdom from ancient Greece, even to modern area. Do you see a way to reconcile their symbolism with Christianity? I mean, sure. You know, animals, especially animals, like they definitely have multiple symbolism. And so the way that the symbolism will be represented will be contextual to the other elements. And so I think the idea of the wise old owl is totally fine as a story trope. But, you know, I think also the idea of the of the owl as like like a portent of something of something dark is also totally possible. You could use both. And so so I think that you can there’s no there’s no absolutely nothing. There’s nothing you don’t have to reconcile the symbolism with Christianity. They’re they’re animals that exist in the world. And so I think they have depending on their context, they can they can they can manifest different aspects of what they are. So Chandler said, Jonathan, I must admit I was embarrassed and excited to see you in conversation with Bernardo Castro. Reading his books and following his work for a while now, and I got to see a different side of him in your video. Bernardo’s work is often based around metaphysical idealism, which you didn’t discuss in too much detail during your talk. So I was wondering what your thoughts on the subject are and if you had any broader reflection on the conversations you had with him. Thanks. So I really avoided the idea, the question of idealism, because I think in a certain manner. I think it’s like it’s like a false hearing. It’s like it’s like it’s like it’s there’s something about it that doesn’t matter. And so like when you read when you notice like Bernardo’s categories. And so he wants so he says like he denies matter. So he sees everything as as mind, let’s say. But he doesn’t deny the like the objective existence of the things you find out there. He doesn’t mean that everything is is is is is idiosyncratic. Everything functions with a pattern. And and it’s like what we recognize as matter or objects. They are they are let’s say they are mentations, you know, but they all have a structure and they have a certain way of existing. And so in a way it was kind of like. I think that in a way I was like, I don’t think that that matters, because if you could say, like if you said something. If you said something, something like all things exist in the mind of God constantly, all things are constantly existing in the mind of God. That’s a completely Christian thing to say. Like there’s absolutely nothing weird about that. And that the idea that matter exists on its own and has a completely independent existence is something that Christians don’t believe either. Like, I hope none of you believe that. It’s like matter doesn’t just exist. Right. It is sustained by God and in God and it and it and it doesn’t have stability at the bottom. Right. It’s held by Logie. And that’s how it finds its stability. So its stability is held in their purposes and in their higher things. And so the fact that we have. So I think that like whether you use the word mind or. It’s like I don’t think that that’s where the real debate is. I think I think it’s more about understanding the manner in which his system works and how how to account for the fractality and the way that things fit into each other. You know, into into the mind of God. And so I think that ultimately we probably disagree. We didn’t get to all the points of it, but I hope that we’re going to have another discussion at some point. So I hope that in our next discussion we can address some of those issues. So that’s why. So I think that the question of. So. So I think that the question of idealism and. Let’s say at least in his case, it doesn’t. You really have to just look at the system itself and stop worrying about about about what it would it. How can I say this? Of thinking that it. Because the category he has all the categories, even though he thinks that they’re bound, that they’re held in mind, let’s say. So he does have something like wood or table or or but they are held by by mentations, by mental processes. That’s how they kind of are held together in our perception and in the world. And so so when he says something like matter doesn’t exist, I think I think it’s it’s this. How can I say it? It’s like it’s kind of a scandalous statement. And I understand why people react to it. But if you actually look at his system, he doesn’t just mean that nothing exists. That’s not what he means. And so so that’s why I didn’t want to go into that with him. I just I wanted to go into the nitty gritty of the actual way in which all these things fit together. And I was really surprised. I was happy surprised to see that there was that if I did it that way, that there was a lot more points of that where we touched our ideas touch and where you could find some kind of some connection than if I had started to to argue about idealism itself. So hopefully that makes sense. So Daniel asked, I spent some time with an atheist friend this week who I had not seen since becoming orthodox. He was curious about my conversion, but I feel as though we were talking past each other. He kept speaking to me as if I was a fundamentalist. Yeah, that’s going to happen. I feel as though I didn’t do a good job explaining the orthodox understanding of God. My friend even went as far as to say that thoughts aren’t real. Whatever. How do you explain this sort of stuff to materialists and people who are so invested in science and empiricism? Yeah, I mean, you’ve got a long road ahead of you. I don’t know what to tell you. I mean, I think there are tools right now. And so I think I mean, actually, that’s what I’m trying to do. So I’m sure you might be able to find toolkits in the things that I talk about, which is right. And so the idea of science and empiricism, when we talk with when John Dravacki and I talk about something like a combinatorial explosion, the problem of multiplicity in unity. And so it’s like if you can bring someone into that space where they’re thinking about that, like the fact that things exist both as all things exist both in the same space, that they seem to have parts and have unity together, that I think I think that if you can start to get them into that space, then at some point they’ll start to to understand that they’re like the saying that thoughts aren’t real is just the dumbest. I mean, it’s such a dumb statement. It’s like, but sorry, I don’t want to insult your friend or anything. I mean, I think that’s the dumbest thing to say. I think bringing them into that space, like of understanding the necessity of consciousness and all that, it may be a way to kind of approach it. But I know the feeling, man. I know the feeling. And I also know like the kind of contempt or that look in the eye of your atheist friend that thinks you’re some kind of an idiot. And then them not knowing that understanding what you’re talking about at the same time. I know that feeling. You really you really got it. You got it. You got to hold on to that. Right. You got to grab on to that and take it as like joy. You really have to every time some like materialist atheist looks at you and looks at you like you’re a terrorist, you know, you’re a terrorist. You know, you’re a you just got to smile and you just got it. You got to really take it as joy because that’s really the best way to do it or else or else it’s unbearable. You know, you OK, so explaining it, what do I mean? You have to take it as really as something that you can’t take it as joy. You have to take it as something that you can’t take it as joy. You have to take it as something that you can’t take it as joy. What do I mean? You have to take it as really as something like in this case, like with with this with the person like that, you have to take it like I have a secret understanding. Like I have a secret understanding that this person standing in front of me, I have like it’s like I have this giant treasure, the secret treasure. This person can’t see it. They can’t see it. And so it’s like that’s what I mean by you have to find joy in it because especially if you worked it out, especially if you know that these things are like a lot of these questions and and and discussions are bring about the inevitability of of invisible patterns. Right. It’s like, you know, so you just so you just got to you just got to take that as joy. Like, yeah, I’ve got this beautiful treasure and you can’t see it. I’m sorry, man. Sorry for you, bro. That’s all you could do. All right. All right. So Jason Schweitzer asks, when a word is continually used, it seems to lose its elasticity and poetic nature and resolve into a type of prose. What does does this happen with icons throughout the process of time and and overuse of the icon? Does it settle into an idol? And then history needs to needs the iconoclasm. The crushing to the idol that the original thought once found in the icon may again be set free to find a new yet similar similar form. You mean like icons in the church? Is that what you mean? Or you just mean images? If you mean icons in the church, I mean, I guess I could ask you the same. Like, does the Bible become an idol? The icons of the church, you know, the the types of the icons of the church have been really worked out theologically very profoundly. And so so I can imagine that, like, let’s say you can imagine that, for example, like a physical version of the Bible, you know, like an actual physical version of the Bible, like someone could come to treat it like an idol. Like that could be possible. And so you could maybe imagine like an actual physical icon that people excessively treat as if it’s God itself or something like that. Like, I mean, I think that may be possible, but but not the not not the Bible and not the icons. That is not the type, not the pattern that that that makes the particular ones exist. I don’t think that that can become. Yeah, I don’t think that can become an idol. Maybe. I don’t know. Like if people get too caught up with like thinking that the Bible is God itself, which I see maybe it’s possible. Yeah, maybe. All right. All right, guys. So. We’re done. Look at that. Nine thirty. We didn’t get to ten. So that’s probably good. You know, we always go, go sometimes too long with these. And so so, yeah, so thanks, everybody for showing up. Thanks. Thanks for. Thanks for coming along and and we’ll see you. We’ll see you next month. And thanks, everybody. Bye bye.