https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=nBl9P2ByMrQ
All right, hello everybody. I am sitting here with Sevilla King. Sevilla is a therapist. She has also a YouTube channel called Equality Existence and she’s really been diving into this whole problem of the meeting crisis. She’s been talking about John Vervecki, about myself. She had a discussion with Paul VanderKlay. So she’s really in the midst of things and she’s also trying to connect a lot of the ideas that that we’re bringing up with Robert Pirsig, who is the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. So a pretty famous book. I have not read it. So I’m kind of discovering that whole area with Sevilla. And so I’m really looking forward to seeing her insight and where we can get to in this whole problem of the meeting crisis. This is Jonathan Peugeot. Welcome to the symbolic world. Well, thank you, Jonathan. I’ve really enjoyed your channel. As many of us did, I came through to this through Jordan Peterson. And I was watching, you know, I was watching his lectures. This was before he became famous because he did a lot of work on the of the And it was helping me understand, you know, certain psychological, big psychological issues, understanding Carl Jung. And there was the meaning aspect of it. And this is sort of when I was I had started to really become interested in spirituality, my own spirituality and the way my clients were using their spirituality, you know, to deal with, let’s just say mental health issues and other issues. So I began in the arts and we may have a similar experience because when I was in art school, some of the things you say about, you know, being in art school and being kind of, you know, kind of bulldozed by postmodern art, that certainly happened to me. I was in I was in art school in New York in the 80s. So that was a big deal then. And so I was in the arts for a long time. I was in the antiques business, art restoration business. And then I found, you know, that I needed I just found myself drawn to psychology and I wanted to be a therapist. So in my 40s, I switched careers. And so what was happening is, as I moved along in my new profession, one major problem I found with my clients was a lack of connection to what, let’s just say, Verbecky calls the real world and what Victor Frankel calls the noetic dimension. And in Eastern philosophy, in Zen, you might call it the observer. And maybe to relate to to your philosophy, I think it might be a lack of a significant center, if that makes sense. And and I guess so that’s how I sort of characterized the meaning crisis is people were sort of looking for meaning in the material world. And so in Jordan, he did this thing where he kind of switched a focus of reality onto meaning rather than things. And this was just such a profound thing for me to hear because it just seemed like he says it just seemed to line up with something I already knew. And so then I just that particular thing at that time, and it’s not long ago that I that I got involved in Robert Pearson. It was about the same time that I read that book. And it was just like, wow, this is it, you know, this is this is someone who is trying to identify as as you are, you know, as you are doing the patterns of the structure of reality or the structure of reality on a metaphysical level. That is that is not materialistic and and so And so I became very drawn to to this. And that’s when you know you had done the metaphysics of pet they both but the but the video that I really loved that you did. Was symbolic versus literal meaning in the Bible and that really kind of made me addicted to your channel. And, and so I noticed, you know, with you and with, you know, under the umbrella, I guess, of Robert Pearson was I was very interested in Jordan at that time. So I was really focused on his work, but I kind of Sort of segue into piercing, which is where I am now. But, but I noticed that with you, you have the symbolic Meaning structure and your brother with his with his book and I know you and him. It’s very related Jordan Peterson has his maps. Rebel will wisdom is reintroducing Ken Wilbur, who has his quadrants. You know, verveky has his has the anagoga and the connection to the real world. So it’s so related and it just seems like everyone is trying to Discover meaning on this new plane on this non materialistic plane and and and like Paul said in the interview. The other day that the material, the way the materialistic way of looking at the view is just about run out. Yeah. And so, and so that’s what I’m really compelled by Yeah, I, I totally. I think that that’s one of the things that really attracted me to Jordan as well. This one lecture he gave early on, I think, was called reality and the sacred or something. Something like that. Yes. Yeah, that that he had sent that to me because I’d heard him on the radio and then he had sent that Lecture to me to say you should watch this one. And so I was really blown away by and I think what’s what’s amazing and what’s really strong about what he’s doing and what’s happening now is It’s not only that it’s not only that the materialistic world is materialistic vision is running out is that it’s it’s flipping on itself. It’s kind of turning back over in order to reveal the inevitability of meaning. It’s like as we Reach the that as we kind of exhaust this idea of of of the flux around us as we kind of notice it as it as it becomes clear that the world is is so full of flux and meaning of detail that at some point the inevitability of the pattern comes back because we realize no we need a framing we need framing we need these frames in order to even perceive reality or to even engage with reality. And like you said this notion that we we perceive meaning first, you know, we perceive purpose first and then we can analyze it and and give it a more kind of materialistic Frame. But the first thing we see is is purpose. And so that to me was really the key to help people You know, it’s like that really because you have to turn the screw this weird screw that has been tight for I don’t know since the 50s or six. I don’t know since when maybe since the 19th century To kind of you have to turn it and then all of a sudden you see once it opens and you can see it in people’s eyes. You can see that they’ve changed their perspective. They’ve, they’ve realized, okay. Oh, that’s what it that’s what it’s all about. This is what we’re talking about. You know, this is This notion that the inevitability of experience, the inevitability of the first person all this stuff. It’s coming back. And it’s not a question of subjective versus objective, which is the way it has been framed to us. You know, in, in the past where they’re saying this idea that personal experience is subjective and then there’s this whole objective world like no, no, no, no, no, you there. The objective world needs a Personal frame, but in that that personal frame is not relative to each person. It’s an it’s an objective structure that all the all of humans, you know, have in their, you know, in their psyche or in their being so The structure of consciousness. Yeah, the structure of and then the structure of consciousness becomes actually the pattern by which the world exists. Yes. And that opens up so much in terms of understanding the story in Genesis in terms of why its language, why its consciousness, why it’s It’s a, you know, the, the knowledge of good and evil, why it’s all these words that are related to what we would call today consciousness. Those are the words by which we talk about creation itself. Because it’s, it’s, it’s an app analogous to how we experience and encounter the world. So yeah, to me, it’s like this whole rediscovery is so fascinating. It’s fascinating. And isn’t it fascinating how these maps, you know, like yours and Jordan’s line up and then there’s these other maps that line up with that as well. So what you’re saying about the structure of consciousness. It’s, it’s got to be true because it’s showing up everywhere. Yeah. And so, yeah, so it’s an exciting time. And I think Discussion with john that’s kind of going on and we’re probably going to do some actually do some events with with him. And then Paul and then I’m seeing you pop in and so I’m hoping there’s other people like Benjamin Boyd and all these other people on the that are turning around this whole question. And so it’s exciting because it’s, it’s, it’s like a weird virtual community, I guess. Mm hmm. Something like that. And I guess it has to be because this is where we are. And, and, you know, and this is, I mean, this, this digital internet thing. It’s not going away. We have to, we have to integrate it in the best and the highest quality way as possible. And, and that’s, I mean, I’d like to talk, you know, at one point in this discussion about how what one thing I think is amazing that what you’re doing. Is taking this ancient way of seeing things this eternal way of seeing things and integrating the new into it. And there’s no other way to do it because this is reality. You know that that you that that within your framework, there’s a place for technology and there’s a place for science because they are part of reality. Yeah, the idea is to not just be a reactionary and resist to be a Luddite or all that all that kind of stuff that you see, but rather I, if, if, if this is the pattern of reality, then all we’re going through has to also somehow fit in that pattern, you know, and even even the stuff that that is hostile, let’s say to the more traditional worldview, all of that that’s trying to eat at it. It’s also part of the bigger pattern. And we can see by looking at the stories that it’s we’ve already talked about this. We already discussed the problem of of how a worldview breaks apart what that looks like what happens when it when that and how does it come back? How does it resurrect or how does it come back to life? So, you know, to me, that’s, that’s the best way of doing it. That’s why I always try and remember like the right hand and the left hand and to Yes. understand those two sides that you can’t, if you emphasize one side too much, you’re, you’re, you’re in deep trouble. And that’s one of the things I liked about Jordan Peterson right from the start. Yes. That I felt that his structure encompassed a lot, it encompassed a very large field. And so you, you could, you could look at two sides and be able to explain why those two sides exist. You know, and you can criticize one side and criticize the other and you can also see the positive sides of one side and the other. So you’re not, you’re not becoming polemical in the same way that we’re seeing the politics today. Exactly. So, so I, it’s interesting because I’ve looked at so much of your, of your content, but a lot, ironically, a lot of what you and Paul, you know, there are things that you and Paul discussed the other day that actually rose to the surface as, as points that I could connect with piercing probably as well as anything. And let me, I want to just, you know, I had gone through the meta, like an introduction to metaphysics of quality in that second video I did. So I don’t want to go into it too much because it’s there. But, but the metaphysics of quality is a, is a philosophy that reintroduces value as, as the element, you know, like, like in subject to object and scientific and materialistic. There’s no room for value, you know, in the, in the actual rational framework. What you say is no, there is because it’s ensconced in this greater value. And I think, and that’s very similar to what Pearson would say. He would say that the metaphysics of quality is value creating the universe. And, and I want to just briefly mention one thing about his philosophy that I think that I think makes sense. That I think makes it makes it a little bit more apparent. So, so when When Phaedrus Phaedrus is the character and it’s in the art of motorcycle maintenance and what he is is the he’s the original piercing before piercing had Electroshock therapy for what was diagnosed as schizophrenia and and piercing is really brilliant, you know, so so he’s often this direction, trying to unite trying to Do a lot of what we’re talking about here. He’s he’s identified that there’s classic quality, which is, you know, the, the more rational, the mechanical, the rational and then there’s romantic, which is aesthetics. And so as he’s he’s trying to you. He realizes that if if you just looking at things in these polar opposites, like you were saying polarization. You’re not going to get the full picture you can you can explain most of the world with the subject object way of looking at things, but you’re not going to explain these ephemeral qualities that you have in romantic quality. So he makes a really big breakthrough when he discovers the mathematician Poincare. And Poincare is is where you know looking like we said now there’s all these facts and now even we have even more because the internet introduces just, you know, an explosion of facts. And they and these facts will present themselves and you don’t know which ones are right to say you’re working on something and you care about this project, but you don’t know. What the next step is and you can’t just observe everything objectively and figure it out. You have to care. You have to have this essential state of wanting it to be better. And so Poincare found that when he’s working on a mathematical problem. The right there’s a there’s what you would say a quality detector in this is his theory in pre intellectual awareness, you know, before conscious like like consciousness, but unconscious. And in that pre intellectual awareness. That’s where that’s where quality makes itself known to you. You don’t actually have a will you can’t sit. I mean, Well, let me go into it in a second, but in there. The next quality step kind of kind of presents itself and then that comes into awareness. So it’s a form of intuition. I mean, it’s, it’s this it’s just this group is like it’s the click right the aha, you know, it’s that click. It’s like it’s the click the aha, you know, it’s that Click is the aha. Yes. But, but, but even more than that, it’s like an essential quality is an eternal thing that comes up to you, you know, it’s it’s Always present and it comes up to you in that subliminal state and then you’ll detect the right facts there. If you are caring about it. If that’s what you want, you know, you can’t just like sit back and wait for it. And so, so There’s a quote here. The difference between a good mechanic and a bad one like the difference between a good mathematician and a bad one is precisely the ability to just select the good facts from the bad ones. On the basis of quality, he has to care. This is an ability about which formal traditional scientific method has nothing to say it has, you know, it has no no room for value. So, so the last part I and that’s, I think, is the most important is there’s a metaphor in Zen in the art of motorcycle maintenance of the train. So there’s a train that that is known as knowledge and that and and the train is classical knowledge. It’s its rational knowledge that’s represented by the engine and the box cars. And everything that’s in the box cars. That’s everything the sum total of human experience, plus your own Understanding of that everything you’ve learned so far your innate biological traits, you’re not going to see romantic knowledge. So If you look at the train, you’re not going to see see the romantic part. So this is materialism, but romantic knowledge is the leading edge of the train. And that’s what’s going to keep the train going and it’s going to keep the train going on the track of quality. And without this ephemeral thing that can’t be measured by science, you know, nothing’s going to work. So this is the stimulus quality is the stimulus and what is valuable propels the train forward. So the romantic quality is the leading edge of experience that keeps the train on track box cars of collective memory of where the train has been and the leading edge tells us where to go. So And that leading edge is right in the moment. So, so the structure of the Is selected pre intellectually. And you could say that pre intellectual selection is kind of like what you were saying about God’s will because value is the predecessor of structure, not the other way around. And the manner and this is what you said the manner in which the infinite account encounters the particular so that’s that pre intellectual awareness encountering The next thing and that thing will will specify into what’s needed. And like you said, it’s going to look like it’s our will, but it’s really this quality showing us what it is. What’s interesting is that I’m, I guess I’m, I’m interested in the are curious about the fact that he uses the word romantic Just in terms of pre intellectual in the sense of of a trance. It’s over the it’s actually the word in Greek is news, which actually is intellect, but it’s intellectual. In the sense of direct intuition of what is, you know, and that’s different from the kind of The kind of wispy Feeling that you get in the in the what I noticed to be kind of the romantic sense of this, this kind of sentimental ebb and flow all of that is that that would I would put that in the context of the Thought rational. So you have, I mean, this is like, this is like traditional Christian, you know, ontology. So you have the news, which is which is above, then you have the thoughts, the will all of this kind of the thing that we consider consciousness would be Below that and then below that you would have the desiring quality and the irascible quality so that all the emotions all the all the pulls all of that would be kind of this bubbling this bubbling thing underneath, you know, so, so in a way, there’s the unconscious In normal psychology, it was almost like the unconscious would be this below thing, but then you have supra kind of supra consciousness, which is not, I don’t fear framed a lot in modern modern way of thinking it’s not it’s not the same as the unconscious in the sense of these, these secret desires and all these secret pulls that you have, but it’s actually something above that. Which is not, I don’t fear framed a lot in modern modern way of thinking it’s not it’s not the same as the unconscious in the sense of these, these secret desires and all these secret pulls that you have, but it’s actually something above which is this kind of intuitive grasp you can have. Yeah. I don’t know if Persig talks about this, this difference or for him it’s the same like let’s say the the romantic part of the wispy kind of connection to to that aspect to the belly to all that stuff is different from the the top part, let’s say. I don’t know if that makes sense. No, it does make sense. But what he does is he changes the terminology in the second book. Okay. So he changes it from romantic quality to dynamic quality and he changes classical quality to static patterns. Okay. So it’s this dynamic quality which is in the pre-intellectual and that like the train metaphor he uses classical romantic so I used it there but in Lila he changes it to you know the second book where he really you know codifies the theory. He changes it to this dynamic quality and that’s what was going to be detected in the pre-intellectual net dynamic quality. You’re in the static patterns, you know, and the static patterns in the metaphysics of quality very much are like in your brother’s book this here, you know, this with the inorganic on the bottom and then it’s biological, then it’s social and then it’s intellectual. So it’s similar to that. I mean not exactly the same but it’s a very similar hierarchical structure. And so these patterns and they can be of any of the four the dynamic quality acts on these to transform them. And so it’s not romantic in that sense. It’s dynamic in the sense that you have things that are stable. And this is the transformative agent let’s just say. Interesting. Yeah, I mean it’s interesting. I guess I should probably at some point actually just read the book. I have a secret thing which is my it’s not a secret. I guess people probably have figured it out by now which is a certain a certain aversion to this kind of California Buddhism I call it. And I share your version. Because the name of the book was called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mania. It just turned me off right away because I was like oh just just one more book on that. And so I feel bad because it’s not it’s obviously not an acceptable way to judge a book and to judge a philosophy just by its title. And because I have this this weird thing about about people using Buddhism to as a deconstructive agent actually you know like they’re using the foreign something outside of their own tradition and culture to wreck their own thing. You know it’s a it’s a it’s a normal move. You know it was there. The Romans did the same. You know the young people would dress as barbarians as the barbarians were at the gate you know coming in. So it’s like you use something outside to kind of to demolish your thing. So so hopefully so hopefully I can get over that little thing. I think I think actually a lot of people didn’t read it for that reason. Oh really. And and and as you know in the 70s as people read it they realized wow this isn’t about Zen at all. It’s it’s I mean it is you know but it’s not it’s not what they thought it would be. It’s really going back into Western philosophy and figuring out where the problem was and kind of revivifying. Taking that and using that to revivify our our a new philosophy for the new age which I think is is is similar to you know John Verbeck is going back and to the ancient Greeks and looking for and and other philosophers and looking for a direction there and and if and it seems to me that that Eastern orthodoxy is is bringing back an old practice into the modern age. So so there’s a similarity there I think. Yeah well for sure there’s I mean I it it’s funny because what I’m saying has absolutely nothing to do with actual Buddhism. Like if I read Zen texts I get a lot from them and I you know I’ve read some some some really you know if I read a series of Coens for example like I find them extremely powerful and so and and and I think it’s obvious that it’s inevitable to notice the resemblance between mindfulness and remembrance of God or you know remembrance of sin in that you find in in the the hesychastic practice. It’s it’s it’s very similar so obviously there is there are it’s inevitable to see the resemblances so yeah so like I said a lot of it a lot of my a lot of my reaction might not be as profound as I know it’s more just a it’s almost like a spiritual thing. It’s more of a social problem that I see rather than an actual philosophical problem and so I’m sorry go ahead. No no no I was going to say so so how do you see let’s say so so in terms of because I’ve seen you’re doing a lot of stuff on Persig and then you’re you’re kind of looking watching John’s lectures following Paul and myself and so what’s your how do you see these things kind of coming together. How do you see them connecting in in in the different way because you you have your own very particular perception about John’s work and my work and and all that so so maybe you can talk a little bit about that for people who also even people haven’t watched the video that you put out. By the way there are two videos that you did trying to connect some of these ideas together I’ll probably put them in the description for those who want to get a little bit more of that. Well I think that my goal in all of this is to actually be able to practice it in the world. You know not not just as a therapist but my own personal personal journey because I think we really. As you’re saying as we come to the end of the cycle as everything’s kind of falling apart as everything is so superficial. Fragmented what are we going to do to to read here that and I think that that all of us you know you all of us here in this corner. Are trying to do that are trying to figure out a way a philosophical way of being in the world that can manage what’s going on that can manage all this fragmentation and I think fragmentation is a beautiful way of putting it. And so. You so so john is looking at a variety of practices and you and Paul already have established Christian practices which you know work work beautifully and I think that. For me it’s sort of to follow to follow you and to understand what you’re doing. Sort of gives me ideas of what is the next direction and is the next direction going to be something secular or is it going to be something where I do in fact turn around and start believing in God and I know I don’t mean to put that as superficially as it sounds. Because the problem with this. Around is the right word. It’s turning around because the the problem with this is. I don’t know and I don’t know. How you feel about this I don’t know if you can sort of fake it till you make it I don’t know what happens in those terms, because. It seems to me that I have this innate sense that unless I truly feel it with the entirety of my being and most a person feels it with the entirety of their being it’s it’s somehow counterfeit. Well I I understand what you’re saying I think that if you one of the this is I guess one of the problems with Christianity in general is that you also don’t want to confuse the beginning of the road and the end of the road right it’s. If you could if you could completely inhabit it with your entire being, then you would already be a saint and so then then you know you’d be fine, so I think that we have to be careful not to look to be to to find illumination before we just actually walk enter onto the path of you know up at the bottom of the mountain. Also, but at the same time you don’t also want to to pretend in the sense you don’t want to to to lie to yourself, which would not be not be appropriate. But there you know I think that you might not need as much as you think to kind of start the journey. And so, what is your in terms of the notion of maybe what is your a little bit of a. And so, what is your in terms of the notion of maybe what is your a little tell me a little bit of your story do you did you have a religious upbringing or you did you grow up in a secular like do you grow up secular or did you kind of move away from a religious upbringing at some point. Well, my parents were Episcopalian and and we had lived we had lived overseas during you know there’s a lot of transition in the late 60s early 70s and that’s when we had gone on a long tour and and my parents were rather. To they like the traditional aspects of being Episcopal Episcopal Church when we came back. They said that they were really kind of jarred by how liberal it had become you know the macro may and and. And so, I think that they kind of they kind of pulled back from that. And so, I I’ve I’ve started going back to the Episcopal Church. And. And it’s interesting the last so so I sort of became interested about maybe 10 years ago, I started saying you know there’s something in this for me. Maybe a little longer than that and so i’ve recently i’ve been going back on and off and i’ve gone to the Catholic Church a little bit but but but it’s interesting the last time I went I had I was so full of your content in my head, because I was preparing for this interview that it took on a different dimension. To see it symbolically. You know, to see. You know, to see. To see that these that this was these are rep these the words were the way things were phrased from these eternal representations and then I talked to a friend of mine who said, well, you know it’s just the same thing every week, and I said yes, exactly. And so, so then what how I mean what is your in terms of God, what is your where are you because like what what is your what is holding you back or what is pushing forward what is. What is the issue, let’s say. Well, and i’m very compelled obviously by pier six work and I guess I should talk for a second about this this project. And where he finds the problem is is back in Plato where where Plato separates reason from emotion and before that you know the pre socratic the highest value was was the good was our day was excellence was quality. And this is such a high thing and and this is such a high thing that I think is so important to me is that. And so, Peter says, this is what we have to go back to we’ve had you know 2400 years of rationality which we needed because because we had to figure out how to manage nature, so we don’t die, you know, basically, and now we’ve exhausted. The utility that we know how to do all this stuff and now we’re kind of empty, you know the meaning crisis and and so. So that are a day that excellence that quality is is. You could say that that’s the bottom in itself and that’s the bottom of it. And so, you know, you could say underneath that on another level is God who who gives us this quality who who gives us the stimulus towards the better who. Who is is allowing us to embody on earth his his will to be able to do what he wants to do. And his will is toward the good it’s toward the better it’s always it’s always improving it’s always progressing. Ultimately, in the sum total of things, of course, there ends of the cycle of the good and the bad. And so, you know, that’s the bottom of it. And so, you know, that’s the bottom of it. And so, you know, that’s the bottom of it. And so, you know, that’s the bottom of it. In the center, the center of what I’m looking at. Is it this our day is that this quality is that enough. Or do I believe that this quality is informed by God. So it sounds simple to say, but when I’m actually struggling with it, it’s really hard. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I can, I can, I guess I can understand that. I think that the idea of the importance of God is also to bring, let’s say you have something like quality and quantity, for example, like we can use your your terminology. You know, you have the essences and then you have potentiality, you can say it that way, you can have quality and quantity. But you need, you need a way for those two things to kind of. I mean, I could say you could say it like that God is the manner in which you understand that those two resolve into one that that that they don’t that there is no one. You know, and that’s that’s one of the problems that Christianity is trying to always deal with problem of the eternal opposite, you know, that you see in narcissism or you see in a lot of the ancient religions that in fact reality. Is reality actually has a common. Oneness out of which the quality and quantity. Come together and that’s why that’s also why there’s this resurrection because without without without the non duality you don’t have it, you can’t how can you understand resurrection because you have the quality and quantity that start to pull together. And then they that you know it’s things start to fragment and the ideas go up into heaven or whatever you know they they they they disincarnate you could say and then things start to break apart and. But then how does it what’s that what’s the what’s the thing that that the mystery that brings things back, you know, and that’s the mystery of the. So Christian people don’t realize that Christian that Christianity is a non dual religion, it is a non dual religion, God is non dual it’s not there is no duality between God and the and the world. God informs all of all of all of the world that God is hidden in manifestation. We don’t you know we don’t confuse God and and manifestation we don’t say we’re not pantheist you know we don’t we don’t say everything is God, but but we do believe that. That ultimately everything is in God is in the world and that’s why we don’t believe that. And so that to me that’s the that’s why. And and and and I guess you know there are non dual religions that don’t. That won’t tend to personify or to to see the person or to see the infinite in personal ways, you could say something something like that. Or you know that will sit there when you talk people talk about impersonal the idea that that that the absolute is impersonal you see I mean you see that in some in Buddhism as well. But, but I, I think that that’s problematic in the sense that we talked about that you mentioned before that I talked about with Paul, which is that. There is a way in which God is impersonal, you know, and that’s the way that we see that. There is a way in which God is impersonal and super personal or something like that, but God will always encounter us personally that that the the place where the infinite and the particular meet the place within. Is going to be is going to be an analogous to what we understand as as personal and so that’s why. That’s why we also encounter God. As God is personal also like the because we are personal and we are the we are the meaning makers we are you know we are the meaning and those who encounter meaning we are persons and so there’s that. You know all of that has to be part of the of the infinite somehow and so that’s the image, you know you can’t use another image of God besides that. Always understanding that God is beyond all those images you you always have to. When we talk about God, we say father when we talk about God, we say son you know when we talk you know there’s no other way to talk about these these these realities, which are ultimately. beyond all name and all word I don’t know if that I don’t that makes sense in the term in the sense that if you if you want to go to this if you want to stop at quality you’re going to have that problem, which is how then how do you deal with the opposition that you’ve set up. um. I don’t know how does he deal with it. He deals with it it’s it’s it’s again this dynamic quality which unites the two opposites because. Because let me give an analogy of how it actually plays out in the book, so so you have a problem, so you have a problem let’s say it’s something with the motorcycle. And so you see the problem, but but it’s not it’s not the the non dual you know it’s the quality and the item. And and your relationship with the item has to change has to update constantly so you’re so quality is helping you do that, so you can actually fix the thing. And that means that it’s not just an objective piece of metal becomes you become involved with it there’s a communion between you and the motorcycle and I guess for breaking might call this the flow state. It is where you are in communion with the physical world and you’re improving it and you’re informed by this this desire let’s say God’s will for the for the good, I do think that there’s something maybe maybe the dynamic quality is is. Is a rep is a symbolic representation of God or or or Christ, I have, I have also. What exactly is the difference between sound so silly and i’m sorry to ask this question, but what is the difference in your philosophy between God and Christ. Well, God yeah that yeah obviously the idea is that. This is the crew, this is really the Christian way of understanding, so there is. Something which is there is the uncreated, you could say the the that which is without origin that which is before all and beyond all right and so that’s God and we say father right because father is the that that origin now. Christ or the logos. The thing that that makes Christianity so specific is that what would we say is that. There so this this thing that it’s not a thing, obviously, these are all words that that which transcends all which is the absolute or the infinite. It it manifests itself, it has a an expression. That expression is the origin of the word father. It has a an expression. That expression is is the the the names of the is that which is creates the world, and so the difference between Christianity and a lot of other. kind of new platonic religions that came about in the around that the same time as Christianity is that the expression of the infinite is is one with the infinite. That is, the logos is fully divine there it’s there is not a lower state of being not a lower it’s not lower in the in the in the hierarchy, and so what that does is it is it does it is it eliminates the problem of. The notion that as that the hierarchy of being is is necessarily it’s a moral hierarchy. Because you see that in a lot of narcissism and a lot of the ideas it’s you know or or or in a social hierarchy, which is that the idea that the King is somehow good and the peasant is bad. Because he’s lower on the on that hierarchy, whereas what Christianity does is that it because the divine logos is. Fully God isn’t like one step lower, that means that the expression, the expression of the infinite fills the whole of everything and is and so everything. Everything, ultimately, can participate in the life of God, because there isn’t that moral hierarchy of being, although there is a there is a there are hierarchies of being, but but God fills all of them. And so that’s the idea, so there is no difference between. The logos and the father there’s a difference in the sense that they’re two that one is the absolute infant one of the expression of the infinite. And and they’re different in the sense that they’re not but they’re also of the same nature that’s how we were they use their their fully uncreated they’re both are uncreated. So that’s the way that’s kind of the way to understand it, then, when you understand Christ as the person Jesus Christ in history. Obviously there’s a there’s a there’s a there’s a specification, but the notion is that. that’s part of the process of the filling and so you could say something like that Jesus Christ is the fullest. Of that filling and so so so Jesus Christ gives us the full image of the the the way that the world is in God and and the full reality of how the world is in God. And so that’s that’s kind of how we see that’s that’s how Christians would kind of would kind of presented, and so, when you look at the story of Christ. You see in his story, and it has to be a story because it’s so weird it’s so it’s the non duality part is so difficult to express in terms of categories that you have to see it in the story of a person. This incarnate person, so that you can see the the the the strangeness of something like the crucifixion. To that mystery is extremely difficult because it it’s I keep saying it because it fills the whole world it’s both the highest and the lowest at the same time yeah on the cross Christ is the King and the and the the the the the. scapegoat at the same time yeah filling that whole thing so that’s that’s the way that Christians would would present I don’t know if that makes sense to you a little. No, it does make sense in it, and I think what i’m thinking at this moment is that I think piercings you know the metaphysics of quality kind of it’s parallel to this because it describes the process. This process of incarnation let’s say because. Because dynamic quality creates the universe and it’s within everything. So so quality is is and it’s not just people with a pre intellectual awareness this creation this create creative processes, all the way down to the you know the smallest Clark, you could say. That everything is directed towards the good and one way to characterize the good in the metaphysics of quality is towards freedom towards more agency towards more freedom. So as you go up the hierarchy to the intellectual you are closer to the good, which is which is similar to God in the sense that it’s it’s more limitless. So as so there is a moral element in the metaphysics of quality in in the sense that that intellectual is the is higher than the. So there is a moral element in the metaphysics of quality in in the sense that that intellectual is the is higher than organic in the sense that. If there comes a time where you have to sacrifice one for the other, you would sacrifice the lower because in the higher is where the progress is is where the direction towards towards God is the intellect. Let’s say in this, but at the same time, everything works together. So in another way, one isn’t better than the other. They all need each other, you know, the inorganic supports the biological which supports and and the and the intellect comes down and informs. How we see these things. So, so there’s a dynamic going on in that regard to so so there’s some similarity there, except for the fact that Except for this moral progression which intellect is at the top. So, so, but I think the process itself to me sounds very similar. And when piercing discovered this, he felt like it was a Trinity. He felt like this this dynamic quality is what united the The static and which united the static and I mean the classic and the romantic which which put together subjects and objects. Which made subjects and objects able to be in communion with each other, rather than separate Right, right. Hmm. Interesting. And so did he ever like did piercing ever talk about because I imagine he’s a Westerner. So he probably had some contact with Christianity. Did he try to formulate his ideas in relation to Christianity or was he always kind of in the, I guess he was in it was in the 60s and 70s. So that might have not been the best thing to do for him. Well, I don’t, he wasn’t. I don’t think it was a Christian per se. I think he was more his, his love with Western philosophy. So he was very much, you know, for a long time, he thought that rationality and reason was all there was. In fact, the last chapter I just did in the reading of the book is where he he is so married to the idea of reason and truth being the ultimate that he’s defending it fanatically and in the wings is something telling him. No, this isn’t the ultimate And what he does at one point he does where he falls apart at A couple of times he falls apart one very much so when he discovers that the the split in in Greek philosophy that that they they valued truth over over over quality that really that is where he his madness begins, but But during before that he goes to India studies for a couple of years and tries to integrate Eastern philosophy and has a really hard time doing it because he can’t get out of the Western rational mind. So, so a lot of what he was trying to do is have a totality that can, you know, metaphysics that can That can be used in a lot of ways. And then that’s that’s it’s more profound than that, but I don’t know how to describe it differently. It that was the key, you know, the the infusion of the Eastern philosophy was key to overcoming the non duality, but but it’s not one or the other. It’s a unification of both. And and I don’t have the. Oh, here it is. He discovered this very difficult book. By FSC Northrop called the meeting of the East and the West, where this guy was trying to do the same thing. And this guy said, Everything in the universe is on a continuum. Like we begin, you know, with a big bang and it goes all the way to where we are now and and so piercing use that continuum. Like we begin, you know, with a big bang and it goes all the way to where we are now and and so piercing use that continuum and with quality. He said, Again, everything is everything quality is and everything and quality creates everything. If that makes sense. I mean, it makes sense. If that makes sense. I mean, it makes sense. I mean, it makes sense to me that I do think that, I do believe that. The word quality doesn’t bother me so much either because it has something similar to what the, because it implies the, in a certain way it implies the essence of something, but it also implies the goodness of it. Essence in the sense of a concept. Sometimes you might think that essence is just the concept of something or the name, you know, just the name in a neutral way, but rather that quality also includes the idea of a kind of ultimate purpose or a, you know, a, yeah, something which is more related to the good, not just in a moral sense, but in a kind of a bigger sense. Yeah. Even in a pragmatic sense. Yeah, exactly. No, you’re right. In the sense that that’s what you, like you said, like fixing a motorcycle is not a moral question. Yeah. But there is a, there is a goodness, there is something which makes it better than, than, you know, better than what it was before. Exactly. And so everything in the universe is, you know, is being informed by this, this notion of the better. And there’s interesting, if we’re, if, you know, Jordan Peterson used this neuroscientist to explain this, you know, his map of the going towards the better, Jak Panksepp, who has the seeking system that every, that every, that you certainly see in anything biological and certainly in human beings, that you’re always looking for what is going to solve the problem, looking for the better. So even in that, you see the same, the same pattern of directedness towards, towards the good. Yeah. But there’s something for sure in the modern world, let’s say that has, I don’t know if he deals with this at all, because it’s funny that he would choose something like motorcycle repair. And because there is something which has diverted it in my perception, this notion of the good into the material world. Like we have, we have turned it completely towards the material world, which means that we understand the better and the good only in terms of technical innovation, in terms of making our life easier, you know, with technical supplements, where in a platonic sense, the good would not, would not be understood exactly in that way, but rather in an existential way. I think John Ravechia is a good way to talk about these different modalities of being, you know, the modality, we talk about the modality of having and versus the modality of being. And those two, we’ve actually confused them today where we think that, you know, the good is only in making things better. And you hear people talk about it so inevitably, as if it’s so inevitable, you know, how great our world is because we have nice, we have greater things, greater technology, you know, forgetting this whole other aspect of, of the good, which is this transformation of the person. And which is why we have the meeting crisis. Exactly. Yeah. And I think, I think John frames that very, very well, you know, in a way that is, is it’s understandable to most people because everybody feels it today. We feel that pull because on the one hand, we do want more stuff. And on the other hand, we also know that that stuff is not going to, it’s just not going to do what we, it’s weird because we’re deluding ourselves. Some people are completely deluding themselves. I think so. Completely unaware. But I think most of us are somewhat aware that, that although I am, let’s say, I am still, I am going to buy this new gadget. I also know that it’s not going to, it’s not going to give me what I, it’s not going to solve my problem. It’s probably the moment you buy it and then that’s it. That’s it. And it’s probably going to make my problem worse, especially the whole cell phone. You know, I’ve avoided having a cell phone for 10 years now. Oh, good for you. But now I got a cell phone. I know, like, it’s just too complicated. You know, people can’t reach me and I’m traveling and so I finally got a cell phone and I’m like, this is this thing. It’s going to kill me. I know it’s going to kill me. And like Jonathan for Vicky says, you know, it’s so salient. It takes those things that we, it takes the same mechanism that we actually use for, you know, meaning and puts it there. Oh, yeah. And not just that, but the actual symbolism is so powerful because, you know, people don’t realize, because I was for a while wondering why is it when they see people on television that they, that they all of a sudden those people become special, you know? And I realize it’s not just this, but one very simple aspect is the very fact that screens actually emit light, that you’re looking at a person that is emitting light to you, that is glowing. It’s glowing. That person is glowing. It’s not at all the same as looking at a person in the world where they’re reflecting light. Now, if you look at a screen on your telephone, it’s actually emitting light to you. I mean, can you imagine just, it’s like, can you imagine just how strong, just very deep, deep, your deep, deep sense, how strong it is that you could, that you could be looking at these machines that are emitting your meaning to you in light? Yes, which is meaning to us. You can’t beat that. It’s like it’s going to suck. You can’t beat that. That is so, that’s amazing. That’s brilliant. That’s brilliant. Yeah, exactly. It’s brilliant. So it’s funny because, you know, and the YouTube thing has done this strange thing where everybody now can do that. And even on YouTube where there’s no mechanism of legitimacy, you know, there’s no clear method of legitimacy. People can still go on YouTube, make videos, and then people see you as a celebrity. You know, I mean, people, and they’re like, oh, I feel like I’m meeting a celebrity. I’m like, well, just because, and I know that’s what it is. People at the fact that you’re looking at me on my face on a screen and my face is emitting light to you. And so it’s like it makes you feel like this strange, this strange encounter, you know. That is so true. It’s very subversive, that’s for sure. Subversive, yes. I don’t know, just the insight that I’ve had. And I mean, I’ve had that. Brilliant insight. But I’ve had that strange experience where, you know, even someone that, let’s say you, we’re talking like this on the screen. Then one day I’ll meet you or maybe I’ll meet you and it’ll be a strange moment. It’ll be a strange moment when I meet you. Or if I when I remember meeting like Benjamin Boyce or people like that, when I meet them in the world, it’s like this weird moment where all of a sudden this person is different. It’s kind of embodied. You know, and I realize just how how strong the screen is, just how powerful it is. Well, that was certainly my experience when I went and saw Jordan Peterson and did the meet and greet after. Oh, you did do the meet and greet. Yeah. I heard you on the radio at first and so it was a little different. The radio is not the same because sound is the same. You know, you have the same experience of sound if you hear someone on the radio. But the screen. Yeah, the screen. I don’t know how we end up talking about this. It’s all part of the conversation. That’s right. So what is what would you say is your next step in terms of because I know you’re doing the series on Persig. People can check it out on your channel. But what are the next what do you see as the next steps for you in terms of exploring these questions? Well, ongoing it’s trying to figure out how to use this. Right. You know, and the reason I call it a quality existence is because that’s what I’m looking for. I’m looking for how to have a meaningful, the best possible life for myself, for my clients, for the people I love, you know, in the most genuine way and going through dialogues like this, going through, you know, muddling through it, which is what I’m doing. I am by no means an expert on Piersig. But but just being, you know, being doing it in a community like this is really helping. I’ve had so much good help from viewers who know a lot more about it than me. And and so it’s just progressing with that, progressing with understanding, looking at ways to implement in the world. And I want to this is a good segue because yesterday when I was or the other day when you did the when you did the dialogue with Paul VanderKlay, there were some things that came up for me that I think are so useful for what I’m doing. And they don’t necessarily actually relate to Piersig per se. This is this is more this is more what you’re doing. Although, again, I see I’m relating all these together. Sacramentality. I just really I really am drawn to that idea because what you were saying is that if you are oriented in the world towards the good and you apply this towards other people, this will deepen your experience of other people, whereas you can just be in the superficial subject, object negative. Or you can engage, you know, with people, I guess, in communion, would you say? Is that the right word? I think that’s a good way to see. So you’re looking for what you know, you’re using your quality detector. This, you know, you say, OK, my problem now is I care about in the Piersig’s terms, I care about making this person valuable. I’m not going to, you know, go to my base or instincts and just dismiss them, be negative about them. I care to make them valuable. And then, you know, as you’re doing that, the sub the pre-intellectual awareness detection quality will help you see the quality of the good in the other person. And that I just love that I think that that particular approach would be extremely valuable for people who have a tendency to go towards negativity. Maybe I can go back to saying, you know, what you were saying about you practice it and then it becomes second nature. So that would be something that if you practice it would really improve your view of the world. But you do have to get kind of a hold on it. You do have to have a connection with the spiritual, with the noetic, with, you know, with that sense in order to to implement that. And that’s what you said is that is actually an example of when you talk about how quality creates the world. Yeah, that way. Exactly. Yeah. That’s also a way which you can understand it, because we know, let’s say that if you engage others with that mindset, if you engage others in a manner in which you see Christ in them or, you know, you see the good in them, then you’re actually going to transform them. That’s right. That’s right. You’re going to it’s not just going to do you good. It’s actually going to because people are more malleable than we think. People are way more malleable than you think. And so by by by seeing in others that they will also slightly tilt towards that as well. They there’s a manner in which you’re also putting on them an expectation which they may not have. It’s not that light. Seeing the good in others isn’t as as as light as you think. It’s actually it can be quite quite heavy because you’re also you’re also putting on the other person a you’re framing the other person and that person then will also have a will inevitably feel a desire to fill that frame. No. Or it could it could be the opposite. Sometimes that person will flee away from that and worse. You know, this is the whole problem of the last judgment. Let’s say, you know, the whole problem. But there is that’s interesting. There is a chance that that you will also transform that person towards that the highest version of themselves just by engaging with them that way, by giving them, as Carl Rogers would say, unconditional positive regard, giving them a chance. Yeah, you know, the other thing that I just there’s actually three elements. The second one is I noticed that your framing of let’s just say health and pathology. Correct me if I’m wrong, is pathology is fragmentation and health is cohesion. So what is here? So. So. I believe the way I see personality that makes the most sense for me is is as divisions between parts of self and that these divisions can be very fragmented, especially in, you know, in cases of trauma. I’m actually going to show this book. This is The Way We Are by Frank Putnam. It’s not a famous book, but it’s absolutely brilliant. And what it does is it proves and this is the the states that we’re born with as infants. So it it really is a scientific way of proving that we are that that we have the potentiality for fragmentation and we have the potentiality for cohesion. And and in, you know, in kids who are in terrible circumstances, they end up being very fragmented in their adult life. And so to cure them is is to use methods to cohere. And that is I think which are, you know, it’s exactly the same pattern. Let’s just say it’s a fractal of the greater pattern that you’re talking about. Yeah. Is is around the center. You know, you go you would that be right? Not like it’s the antidote for fragmentation. What would you say that was in the Christian? No, but I think the word cohesion is the right is the right way to understand it. Love is another word for it in the sense that it’s a form of cohesion that doesn’t eliminate the particulars, you know. So it’s not that it’s not that you those different aspects of you, different personalities are different. You know, it’s not that they’re bad in themselves. It’s just that they don’t know each other or that they forget each other. Yes, they forget their origin, their their higher self, or they forget what’s what’s above them. And if they remember, then they become connected and they become proper expressions of of the person. You know, the same with all the desire. It’s the same with desire. You know, the the church fathers, they don’t they don’t think that most of the church fathers, at least they don’t think that desire is bad. They think desire is good. Desire is inevitable. By desire that you will actually also heal yourself, that you will actually enter into God is by desire. But desiring the good. Yeah, exactly. But the only problem is that the desires they have a when they have a will of their own and they they take over and we all feel it. You can everybody experience that where some desire will take over and you become that desire for a moment. You know, and then you usually remember afterwards, you’re like, OK, so why did I eat that second piece of cake? I always use that example. It’s like, what happened? You know, but it’s the same when you get really angry and you’re like, OK, who was that? Because, you know, all of a sudden you fell into this this mode of this desiring mode and and you you forgot yourself. So so I think that that’s the way to to understand it, you know, that the person that the person has to unite within themselves, their different aspects. And then but then there’s a cosmic aspect to that where the person also uniting the whole world. You know, when we talk about consciousness and the way the world exists is we also do that for everything. Yeah, that’s what the person, the human person is, is this this place where all things come together. But that also has to happen in yourself. Yeah. And so memory is the is the way that memory and attention is the way that memory and attention. Yeah. The way it’s presented. And I wanted to say that attention is like that, that caring and care. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. That’s the right way to see it. Yeah. And so and one thing I want to say about the fragmentation is, you know, just to go back to trauma, like often in kids who have been really abused, they don’t like one part of them won’t have a memory of the other. Yeah. You know, like convert multiple personality disorder, the worst case scenario, you know, the end of the spectrum. And so it’s interesting how that view in Christian in the in the Christian worldview mirrors the worst pathology in people. You know, the fragmentation or the most difficult multiple personality. We do. Yeah, we all do. It’s deluded to think you’re not aware of your experience if you don’t realize it. Yeah. And that and that is scientifically, you know, this is the scientific proof for that. Let’s just say not that that’s the pinnacle of everything, but embedded within our worldview, our scientific tools like that that help us, you know, help us understand. I mean, I know people very close to me who who who have certain aspects of them where sometimes they’ll say something. And then, you know, if I remind them that they said it, they don’t remember is they’re not in this. They’re really not in the same memory. I remember saying certain things. Right. Just that way. Just not in the same mode at that time. That’s exactly right. Fascinating, fascinating thing to notice. And it’s like it’s not it’s not pathological in the sense that functional, like a functional person. But sometimes when you see it in others and you can try to be attentive to yourself and realize, you know, it’s like sometimes these moments where you you lose you act you act a certain way, like what’s the party to want to impress other people, you know, and you’re acting a certain way and then you go back home and you’re like, what like who was that? Like, what what happened? You know, who was I in that in that moment? Very strange. And so you need something to help you cohere again. And I liken Jordan, Jordan Peterson, what he says, it’s an embodied sense of the truth. You’re cohering, you’re you’re lining yourself up, you know, mind and body and soul with what feels right, what feels like the truth. And I think that that is the third element I want to talk about in terms of things that would really help people with mental health problems is worship. It’s like the idea of worship. And I think, am I right that that is going around is having a center? Well, I would say I mean, you could say that you can see worship as circumambulation in that sense. You can I mean, a good way to understand is also in terms of hierarchy, which is a higher. So the idea is that what is it that you put at the highest point? And then what is it that you’re that you that you turn to? What is it that you celebrate? Yeah. And celebration and worship are are very similar. Worship is more celebration. I guess celebration is kind of the circumambulation. Worship is really is this recognizing the highness of something. They’re just just seeing it, just talking about it, you know, doing all these gestures, you know, bowing down all these things that we do to lower yourself in front of this higher thing, all these things that we recognize the the what is above all what is above all. And so it’s it is an or it is an orienting. Right. It’s an all the ultimate orientation. Yeah. And and and how to and I think difficulty would be in this circumstance how to reorient it toward the real high, not some subversion. You know. Yeah. And that’s the difference between idolatry and and I mean, in the Christian, you know, the kind of Christian world, that’s the difference between idolatry and true worship. But for Christianity, at least traditional Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, they don’t oppose anything. That’s something that happens in Protestantism is that they they want to always oppose the highest and everything below. And so they’ll say, you know, it’s like if you if you honor anything, then it’s a form of idolatry. But that’s not that’s not the right way to see it. What you’re doing is you’re separating God from from everything. Rather, the best way to do it is to have, let’s say, a category, which is the highest of high, which is worship, and then have a form of honoring for the way in which that infinite is seen in the world. So you you honor the saints who manifest to you the highest mode of being the high the clothes, you know, the highest mode of love of of being in communion with God. And you also honor the sacred places, the sacred sacred things which help you participate in that mode. To me, that’s the best way to do it so that you don’t because when you oppose when you oppose worship, complete when you make worship so high that you have to be neutral towards everything else in the world. It comes back. Yes, it comes back. Comes back without your will. And you you end up doing things that you’re not aware of. Realize it’s like I always tell evangelicals who tell me that the only worship God and you know, you don’t give honor to anything else. And I’m like, why what is this when you in church when someone sings a good song? How is it that that happens? Like, do you even understand what you’re doing? Like, do you also understand that you’re not aware of what you’re doing? Because is that the right reason to honor someone is because they sang well? There may be better reasons to honor someone besides that they performed well. Anyways, so it’s like you have to it’s better to be aware of it and to to to give proper honor to the different levels and then do it and they don’t exist. Do it anyway. You’re absolutely right. And so and so we go again. Yeah, I do it anyway. So we go back again to to like a. A uniting of all the parts. Yeah, that do exist. This is reality. This is life. This is being a human being. Everything is is that, you know, all these things, if you approach them in communion rather than rejection or rather than idolatry, then you have a integrated system. Let’s just say it works. Integrated system. I could probably get slapped on the wrist by some priests for just using words like that to talk about the Christian faith. But it’s totally understandable. Like it is. That is what that structure is. What a real integrated system would look like in the world, too, like a company, a family. You know, all of these things have to have that. Absolutely. That balance between between the highest thing that unites us and the participation of all the parts within that that that higher thing. So, yeah. And let’s just say integrated system is a fractal way of the bigger pattern. There you go. Yeah. Save that that way of talking about it. All right. I don’t know if there’s something else because we’ve been going for a while for about an hour and a half. So I don’t know if there’s something else that you wanted to to talk about. OK, there’s one last thing I think I’d like to bring up. So I think it’s really interesting and it’s a big problem we’re having now in society. And you’re I can’t I was going to watch it another again, the propaganda video where you’re saying the feminine qualities are just as important as the masculine qualities. And for some reason, in society, we’ve decided and I think it’s because of rationality, I think, because rationality is essentially a masculine structure. And that’s what we revere, that we’ve also put in the highest value, you know, the highest attributes into that and lowered to the feminine. And then part of what you’re talking about is bringing the feminine up to where it needs to be in on par with the masculine. Is that correct? I think I think that. I think that a way to to to understand it is. How can I say this? It’s it’s it’s that the the absolute necessity of the feminine for the world to exist, that you have there is no way to avoid it. And so it’s to bring the the problem with saying higher. Yeah, I know. And in a hierarchical structure, in a way, the feminine is the is the opposite of the the hierarchical structure. And so it’s that’s the problem when we want to we want to make women equal to men. It’s like if you do that, then you’re already negating the power of the of the feminine, which is our the question, the power of the space, the power of of the opening up of. Yes, no. And so and so it’s not that I want to make women, you know, on the same level as men, but it’s mostly that I want to open up the space for us to be able to perceive and to engage in the feminine aspects of reality. Yeah. But then on the actual hierarchy, there each rung of the hierarchy, let’s say, has feminine and masculine, of course, for everything to exist. It has to. And so that’s why a lot of people who look at feminine symbolism very simply, they they they’ll say like, you know, man above women below. And you see that in in some of the representations that are used. But it’s like, yeah, but it’s like, what’s a queen then? You know, there is at every level, there is a coupling, you can say, at every level of the of the social hierarchy of the ontological hierarchy, there’s a coupling between the potentiality or the opening of the space and then the manifesting or the making public or making visible or whatever, you know, of that space, too. So it’s always it’s always happens in terms of a coupling. And so what I what I want like, but I think what you said is right is the problem with the modern world is that it’s actually very, very masculine. And a lot of the a lot of the feminism that we’ve seen is a is a weird masculine caricature, like a caricature of the masculine. It’s not an actual. It’s not an actual, let’s say, glorification of the feminine, you know. But the problem about it is it’s really hard to talk about this because of the mysterious aspect of what the feminine is. So there’s there’s a way in which I always I’ve always I always kind of hesitate to talk about it too much because even by explaining it, you’re you’re you’re the. There’s a desacralization which is happening in the very mode of explaining the feminine too much. You don’t want to explain it because that’s not it’s a question. It’s a it’s a it’s the very space. It’s the opening. So how do you if you try to explain it too much and you’re you’re you’re denaturing it, I don’t know if that makes sense. It doesn’t make sense. And so it’s a weird it’s a weird it’s a weird game that I’ve engaged in, which is to try to point at it, to try to talk about it a little bit, to give images, to give suggestion without without denaturing something. It does make sense. Would you say that is that in in in orthodoxy, it’s the Sophia. Is that correct? I mean, yeah, that’s a big problem. The whole Sophia problem because we had that very problem at the beginning of the century, which is that some theologians tried to talk about Sophia and the relationship between Sophia and the Virgin and the Mother of God and pushed it very far in terms of theological pronouncement to a point where they were talking about the Mother of God and Sophia, like talking about the Mother of God as an incarnation of Sophia, you know, in very difficult ways, which which which got slapped by the church like the church slap and said, no, this is not you can’t that this is not proper. It’s not a proper way to talk about God. It’s not a proper way to talk about it. And I think I mentioned it recently in a video where there are some things which are true, but they become untrue when you say them and they have to remain unsaid. And I think that one of the problems that Sophia ran into is exactly that problem, which is they’re trying to express something which should not be expressed, which should remain in in the unsaid. They’re trying to explain it rationally. They’re trying to rational. Exactly. They’re trying to explain something which is by its very nature is the opening up of the rational space, which is opening up of the space of of of the world. So you’re you’re denaturing it by talking about it almost. Now that does make sense. Yeah. So it’s so the feminine is a problem in that sense, because you want to sometimes I was like, I want to say certain things and I’m like, but I’m not helping. It’s like I’m not helping by by going too far in the in the in the pronouncements. You know. Well, I think I think one thing I got out of it, though, that I did find helpful is just keep in mind that the value of the feminine, you know, that that don’t dismiss it. It is a value. And another thing that’s interesting is all human beings have elements of both. Yeah, for sure. So so. And the way that it’s presented, like in St. Maximus and a lot of the Fathers, is that that that Christ in a way united both and transcended both. You know, so Christ is a is is ultimately androgynous in that in that sense. Yeah. But you. You know that. Yeah. So there is I always tell people that there is a manner in which I, you know, the church is feminine. When I pray, I’m acting in a feminine manner when I. Yeah, that makes sense. And so there’s there’s there’s this whole idea that. But yeah, but it also it also we always we also have to see the math and the feminine within their specific spheres. And that’s what that’s what it’s so hard. People just muddle everything together. You know, and I’ve seen this, too. It’s like, let’s say the argument that I use, which is that we’re all feminine in relate in in certain aspects of us, then they’ll say, well, there there you go. We could we’re all feminine, raw, masculine, genders, fluid, all of it. Yeah. No, that’s not what I mean. In the manner in which I am a man in the world, then then I in that mode, then I am not feminine. I am masculine. But in the manner in which I am the church and I am a supplicant in the manner in which I am, I am worshipping, then I will embody also all of that. I try to embody all of that, which is which the Virgin embodies. But in terms of, you know, in terms but I but I marry a woman because in that mode of my biological, my physical self of the social presentation of myself, I am a man. You know, it’s like so it’s like there is no just because we can see that femininity, masculinity exists in all aspects and all levels of reality doesn’t mean that it’s confused. It’s not confused. It’s not anything goes and it’s not whatever you want. It’s yeah, exactly. And and Phaedrus would say that’s applying the rational knife to something that shouldn’t be cut up. And that’s a big actually that’s a big component of the art of motorcycle maintenance is that’s how he characterizes cutting things up rationally is with the rational knife. That’s one of the tropes. And yeah, it’s in the art of motorcycle. I will I will have to read the Zen and the art. It’s a great book. And there’s two of them now. There’s a there’s a audio book. It’s easier for me. Oh, there’s a really good audio book. I mean, actually, someone has put it online and I can I can send you a link to that. It’s the voice actors. Fantastic. It’s good. It’s such a pleasure to listen to. Because I have way more time for audio books because I’m carving that makes sense. Actual reading books is very limited. I do. But it’s really limited. Yeah. You just have to keep it to what you really need to read. All right. So I think I think I think we should wrap this up and I. And I and I. Yeah, I really appreciate. I really appreciated your channel. I’ve appreciated watching the videos where you’re trying to kind of piece it together. I can feel the authenticity in your desire to kind of figure things out. And and we should keep tabs on on each other. I’ll try to to kind of keep an eye on what you’re doing. And. OK, well, thank you. And I will certainly do the same for you. And thank you so much for inviting me on your channel. And one one last thing I’d like to say is I love your introduction. I think that’s your painting, correct? Of Genesis. It’s not mine. No, it’s a it’s a traditional it’s a it’s a traditional from a German missile. It’s a it’s a representation of the six days of creation. Yeah, I love it. It’s incredible. And and it’s funny, you know, that that opening overture, the Eastern. Yeah. So she’s she’s here. I thought it’s always been my number one favorite piece of music. So when I heard that, I was like, oh, that’s wonderful. That it’s also like it’s people don’t realize that it’s that it’s actually like a resurrection, like the first part, because it’s starting right away at Easter. And when you hear that ascending part at the end of the clip, it’s that’s the that’s like the resurrection. That’s the Easter Easter moment. So and so it’s like to me, that’s what’s going on. But also in the image of creation, people like I’m giving my secrets away here. But you notice it’s the awakening of Eve. That’s the yeah. Yeah. So that to me is also like I said, it’s one of the things that I’m trying to do. What we’re talking about, we get too much or doing it explicitly or kind of turning around it and and pointing and talking. And so, yeah, makes sense. Well, thank you so much, Jonathan. This has been such a treat. And I’ve you know, I’ve learned a lot today. I continue to learn from you. And thank you. All right. And I and I also wish you the best on your own personal journey. I’ll be I’ll be looking forward to seeing where it leads you. Yes. Thank you very much. All right. OK, take care. If you enjoy the symbolic world content, there’s a lot of things you can do to help us out. If you’re not subscribed, please do go ahead and share this to all your friends. If you can get involved in the discussion, we have a Facebook group in which people can talk about these subjects, I will put all those links in the description. And also, if you can please support us financially by going to my website, www.thesymbolicworld.com slash support, and I also have a Patreon and a Subscribe Star. So thanks again and I will see you soon.