https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=OwEqL4-ISkc
The book, Language of Creation, Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis, written by my brother, Mathieu, is finally out. And so I have Mathieu with me and we will be talking about his book, about the structures, the impetus for writing it, and also talking about a whole bunch of other things like consciousness and how it relates to religion. This is Jonathan Peugeot. Welcome to the Symbolic World. Hello everybody. I’ve been telling you for weeks, we’ve been waiting for Mathieu’s book to come out. I’ve been telling you that it’s on the verge of coming and here it is. It’s finally out. So Mathieu’s book is available. You can find it on Amazon. And because of that, I’ve also been waiting and hoping that Mathieu’s going to come back on this channel so that we can talk. And so he’s here with me and we’re going to talk about his book. So I’m pretty excited. I have been going over the final copies and the final edits of the book. And every time I read it, you know, everything kind of builds up. And when you get, I always tell people when you get to about page 100, you know, you kind of start having seizures because everything starts to connect together. And it’s pretty amazing. So Mathieu, thanks for joining me. I’m going to start with a basic question. Maybe you can tell people what it is that prompted you to write this. What were you trying to accomplish? What was the motivation for this book on commentary on the Bible? Well, I’d say my first motivation is an interest in symbolism and in the Bible, of course. But then in looking for answers to certain questions, I realized that nobody out there was talking about symbolism in the way I was looking for, at least. So I went, I took certain classes at a university level in the Department of Religious Studies. And I quickly realized that it was feminism. It was classes about feminism. So it’s not about religion. It wasn’t about symbolism. It was about feminism and Marxism. So that pretty much led me to pretty much decided right there that one day I was going to try to write something myself because nobody else was doing it. So basically what I realized in general is that in academia, when they talk about the Bible and when they talk about subjects that are related to symbolism, what they do is always the same thing. They use their own categories of interpretation. So they use their own lens to look at the text, look at the stories, and they analyze it according to their own ideology and their own lens. So basically they’re using, well, it’s all grounded in materialism. So that’s right there. That pretty much annuls any possibility of understanding real symbolism because real symbolism is not materialistic. So if you look at it through a materialistic lens, you might get some glimpses of what it means. You might get some insights, but you’re always going to be in a situation where things that are actually simple will appear extremely complex. Because when you look at something with the wrong lens, that’s usually what happens. You can look at something that’s extremely simple if you look at the world with certain categories. And then if you look at it with the wrong categories, you might get an understanding of it, but it will be extremely complex and it will look, I don’t know, artificial maybe is the way they say it. Whereas if you look at it with the right lens, it’ll look absolutely natural and it looks as if it’s almost self-evident. Like, how could I miss that? That’s what happens when you change your perspective. When you use the right lens to look at the Bible, all of a sudden things become kind of obvious. You can almost predict what’s going to happen in a story when you have the correct lens. You see what’s happening. You know where it’s leading because you’re looking at it with the right kind of like if you understand science and you look at a projectile, you can figure out what’s going to happen in advance. You don’t need to see it. You know it’s going to fall. You can kind of guess the distance. You can even calculate it if you have the right information. So it’s kind of the same thing here. If you look at the world with the lens of symbolism, you can predict certain things in the Bible, but not just in the Bible, in the real world too. If you start looking at the world with this particular lens, you can make sense of a lot of what’s going on in particular where a lot of what’s going on right now. A lot of what’s going on in politics, a lot of what’s going on at the social level makes a lot of sense if you look at it with the proper lens. It’s almost, I don’t know how to say it. It’s almost like it has to happen. Like what’s happening right now, even though it looks completely insane, if you look at it with a proper lens, it’s almost like okay this has to happen. It’s going to happen. And then after that there’s going to be something else. So it becomes less of a big deal actually. I think that’s what really struck me in reading the book is that we both of us, we kind of have these intuitions of patterns and I have certain patterns that I work with and everything. But what’s amazing is that you really go into the text and you pull out what is really such a simple pattern. I mean it’s very basic. It’s geometric, it’s very basic. And then it’s almost like you’re reading, it’s almost mathematical, right? It’s so precise and it’s so simple. Even when I was reading the book I thought it’s almost too simple for people who were looking for something flighty and complicated. It’s like you have to enter into that simplicity and then once you see it, then after that through the whole book you just keep showing over and over. Here it is, here it is. This is how it’s played itself out here and here and here. It’s quite astounding. So maybe you can tell us a little bit about the basic structure let’s say. Because I know a lot of it has to do with the relationship between space and time. So maybe you can give us just a little glimpse of what the basic pattern is that you kind of entered into when you were reading the text. Okay. Well basically, well I have a background in mathematics and computer science so that’s kind of how I looked at it. That’s not what people usually do when they read the Bible. They don’t necessarily interpret it like that. I began having pretty deep insights into the stories of the Bible when I started analyzing it like a mathematician. So basically I was just trying to figure out what are the fundamental categories of this cosmology. So obviously when I started reading the Bible, the first thing in the beginning, God created heaven and earth. So to me when you look at it with a kind of a mathematical lens, you say okay, those are the first actions. Okay, so we have God, we have heaven, we have earth. So those are the actions. If I derive everything from that, then I’ve got a sound, I’ve got a sound theory. Yeah, not theory, but I’ve got a sound system. So that’s the basic framework of the Bible, but I also think it’s the basic framework of every traditional cosmology there ever was. Well, all the cosmologies I’ve encountered, they’ve always been based on this simple structure, heaven, earth. And then there is the union of heaven and earth, and that is like the cosmos happens there. So it’s like the two poles of manifestation is heaven and earth. And then there is a third element, which is called man in the Bible, or Adam, and that is like a consciousness that mediates between heaven and earth. And that’s also something I’ve encountered in almost every other tradition. It’s not always called with the same names, but you can tell that it’s basically the same pattern. So that’s the first pattern. I’ve understood that for a very long time, because it’s obvious in the Bible. Like I said, it starts like that. Yeah, it starts like that. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s easy to figure out what all the implications are. Okay, so it’s like mathematics. I could state the axioms of the basic systems of arithmetic right now. And that doesn’t mean people could figure out what are the implications. It takes time to figure out what the implications are when you have principles, because a basic principle is something that contains huge amounts of implications. But it’s in a simple, simple form. So yeah. In the book you talk about how we often think that things are too complicated to understand. But then you mentioned that sometimes things are actually too simple to understand. Yeah. And their simplicity, you know, you can miss what it’s actually about because it just seems so it’s too contained in a seed, let’s say. Exactly. That’s something not necessarily everybody has to deal with. But if you study science and mathematics, you might be a little more used to that because if you have a simple scientific formula, like a simple equation that describes certain forces, that’s an extremely simple concept. But then when you use it in practice, when you use it to interpret as a lens, okay, so if you have a formula, you use it as a lens to interpret reality, you’re not trying to understand the formula. You’re trying to understand reality with the form. You’re using it as glasses. So I’m putting on some scientific theory, I’m looking at the world, and now I’m seeing all the implications of that theory. And I’m seeing also if it matches with reality, matches with what I would my idea. So basically, that’s the way I approach the Bible. So sometimes the concepts are extremely simple. And like you said, you have to not be turned off by that at the beginning because at the beginning, this is something I encounter often. Somebody asked me, for example, what does the tree mean, for example? I usually don’t know what to say because the tree is a fundamental pattern in this worldview. So how am I going to explain it? It’s the other way around. You have to give examples, examples, examples, and then you can come back to the fundamental notion of the tree. Yeah, you don’t explain what the tree is. You use the tree as a pattern of interpretation. It’s not the same thing. It’s like flipped it around. Because if I’m going to describe what it is, I’m going to have to use other categories to describe what it is. And which categories am I going to use? The categories of materialism? Well, that’s what most people interpret symbolism do. They use the categories of materialism, and then they try to interpret symbols with those categories. And the result is sometimes interesting, but it misses a lot of the obvious meanings that if you just change your goggles, then you’ll see the right stuff. So, yeah, okay. So heaven and earth, that’s the most basic categories that has a lot of implication. I use those categories throughout the book. Everything I say in the book derives directly from that pattern. And then there is another important structure is time and space. Yeah, so I talk about time and space, but it’s not the time and space that we can find in physics. Okay, it’s like an archaic concept of time and space. And I define them very simply. I define them out of heaven and earth, actually. I say, so space, this is going to be an example of a very simple definition that looks like it doesn’t really mean anything. But so space is when heaven and earth agree. That’s like the definition of what I call space. And time is when they don’t immediately agree. Okay, so it’s, you could call it truth and true and false. Yeah, because that’s what it is. True means heaven meets or agrees with earth. Okay, it means the meaning of something matches the fact. Right, exactly. That’s an easy way for people to see it. Yeah, the identity of something matches the fact of the thing. So if you’re a scientist and you have a theory, that’s the heaven. And then you do some experiments, you’re trying to see if heaven and earth match. So you’re trying to see if your theory is true to the fact. And in my experience, if the fact is true to the theory. So it’s the definition of truth. So in my book, I call that space. Okay. And I go, I talk a lot about it. It’s not just an anecdote. And then there’s the other side is when it doesn’t match. So that’s when you have an idea. And the facts of the facts of reality are not fitting with your idea. That doesn’t necessarily mean always that the idea is false or that the fact is wrong. It could be. Yeah, it just doesn’t fit any factors. Yeah, currently doesn’t fit. Sometimes it can fit with some work. Sometimes it can fit if you get a little bit clearer understanding. But anyway, the idea is true and false. That’s what I call space and time. Yeah, I have, I have a lot of ideas. I have this image that is, I tried to find one of the most basic examples that to help people understand how immediate this is, is imagine you’re a child, like you’re a growing child. And then you have a shirt and you wear this shirt, right? So you wear the shirt, the shirt is space, it fits you, and you’re wearing it. And then at some point, you know, the child grows, grows, grows. Now the shirt, it doesn’t fit. And so now there’s a, there’s a, there’s a, there’s a disjunct right between the, the reality of the child and his space, his clothing that he wears. And so the only solution to that is change. You have to change something. You have to change something that fits. That’s why I use that example to explain why I call this change. It’s time. Time is change. When things don’t fit, they have to change and they do. Yeah, you explain, what are the things you, you explain really that’s important is that we have, we think that change just means things developing, let’s say, but you really differentiate change, which would be, let’s say the, the, the change of the, of the, of the child becoming a man, right? And the change of changing the clothing that goes on the child. So one is, is, is something manifesting itself in its own identity. And the other is, is actually you have to transform into something else. Like it actually transforms into other, you have to adjust reality to fit an identity. And so it’s not, it’s, it’s too different. We, we tend to think those two are, are change, but you really try to, to, to separate those two because, because if you, if you think that they’re the same, then you, you end up in a confusing, in confusing place. Yeah, well that’s, yeah, I have a, there’s a, there’s a chapter in my book about exactly that. And maybe one or two. And that’s actually pretty important because it’s related to materialism. Yeah. Because if you’re not a materialist, things have an identity and they have a body or concrete reality and an ideal reality. And then when, when change means something happens where this doesn’t fit anymore. But if you’re a materialist, change doesn’t mean that because there’s no, things don’t have an essence. So it’s not even about symbolism per se. Even if you think in terms of Aristotle or in terms of philosophy before materialism, the concept of change is the same as the one I’m describing here. It’s the idea of transformation. So if you talk about transformation, you have to, you have to acknowledge that there’s a form. There’s a concept of form somewhere. So as soon as you have the concept of form, you have the concept of transformation or not transformation. So something can become bigger and bigger without transforming. Yeah. So that’s the idea. A shape can remain true to itself, even if it grows in size. It doesn’t, it stays the same in a sense. And here, let’s say you change a square into a circle, that’s a transformation. If you make a square bigger, that’s not a transformation. It’s not change. That’s anyway, just a way to distinguish the concepts here. Okay, so basically, in my book, I talk about, like I said, time and space, which has not very much anything to do with our current notions of time and space. And one of the important concepts is the fact that the time is cyclical. That is extremely important. It’s one of the things I go into in my book a lot because it has a lot of implications. We are absolutely not used to thinking in terms of this cyclical pattern. We’re just not used to doing it. So I try to give some examples in my book of what it means of how this pattern manifests the cycle. Because it’s something we’re not used to. I don’t exactly know why. It’s a strange thing, actually. Yeah, because we live in cycles all the time. I mean, we have days, we have weeks, we have years. Like our entire life is filled with cycles. It’s funny that people tend to think of time just as a linear kind of succession of moments, let’s say. Which, I mean, obviously, that’s not how we experience it. People often say things like, oh, Eastern traditions have cyclical time and Western traditions have linear. I think that’s just wrong. I think that’s just an example of, I don’t know how to say this, but it’s just an example of how academia is trying to kind of subvert the traditions of Christianity by any means possible. And one of those ways is to find other traditions and then use that to show that this one is lacking in some way. That’s actually one of the things that turned me off from the university level studies about the Bible. Most of it is subversion, to be honest. It’s all about, we’re going to subvert Christianity, or maybe even Judaism. Traditional religion, basically. We’re going to subvert it. We’re going to replace it with, I’m not sure what they want to replace it with, feminism, I guess. Yeah, but they can use, that’s why you hear people use other religions as a weapon, basically, in order to destroy Christianity. It’s not like they actually care about, you’d say, Northern paganism, but they care about it to the extent that they can say, well, look, Odin hung from a tree, and therefore Christianity is just baloney because here are other traditions where someone hangs from a tree. They just use it as a weapon to bludgeon Christianity. Yes, actually, this is one of the reasons why I wanted to write my book, was to get rid of some of those argumentations because they’re kind of childish. For example, someone sees something in some other foreign religion, and then they see the same pattern in Christianity, and then they say, oh, this one must come from that one. Or this one was a copy of that one. To me, that means you don’t understand the pattern. You don’t understand how fundamental it is, how obvious it is. And so to you, it’s just a strange thing. So how did it get from, I don’t know, how did it get from Africa to America? And then you have to find some weird causality because to you, I’m being very serious. I know, I can learn. These symbols are strange. They don’t make sense. So if you see them in one place and then you see them in another, you have to explain them to some kind of mechanical causality. But if you understand the meaning of it, you don’t have to do that. It’s obvious. It’s the pattern of reality. So of course it’s going to manifest itself. Symbolism is going to happen because that’s the basic structure of the world. Yeah, because it describes exactly, it describes a reality. It’s not because this is also one of the ways that was used to subvert acting as if it was completely arbitrary. Yeah. So the stories, the symbols, they’re arbitrary. You know, they were just made up by some person. Usually they interpret it in kind of a Marxist way. They were invented for power, control to… I don’t even know. I don’t even want to say it. I just get annoyed by those people. So you can always analyze anything in that lens anyway. So it’s not just religion. If you want anything, anybody says you can analyze it with a lens of power and you can criticize it like that. So it’s not even a valid criticism in my opinion. So anyway, when you start understanding the patterns, you see them in different places. You see them in the Bible. You also see them in different traditions. I’m not trying to say that all traditions are the same or anything like that, but they had a common basic framework of understanding reality. And it’s actually pretty amazing how universal it was. You look at Native American traditions and you see the exact same fundamental patterns. You see heaven, you see earth, you see the tree, you see the hoop, you see all these patterns. It’s exactly the same patterns. So that means it doesn’t mean there was necessarily a transfer of knowledge from one to the other, if possible, but it means that they’re just describing reality. It just happens to be not the same exact reality as the physicist is trying to describe. Yeah. But in the end, what’s interesting in your book, and it’s something that’s been kind of floating around in different discussions online and my discussion with Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein and everything, is that in your book you end up containing science within your symbolic framework because you talk about this problem of theory and fact. So maybe you can talk about that because I think that’s something that will interest people. Oh, yeah. Well, this is also one of the reasons why I wrote my book. The idea of reconciling science and religion is obviously very important to me, as I think it is for a lot of people, because it’s like a gnawing pain. Because it’s like our past doesn’t fit with our present and future, and there’s something unsettling about that. I don’t want to think that all of our ancestors were a bunch of idiots. I don’t want to think like that. So the idea that I want to reconcile these two universes is just something that’s in me. I don’t even know where it comes from. It bothers me. I don’t want to separate from the past. I want to join things together. So the idea of reconciling science and tradition or religion has been always in my head since I was a teenager. And I got interested in evolutionary theory. At first it was to debate it or confront it as a Christian. And then after a while, at one point I said, OK, I’m going to read Darwin’s book. I’m just going to read it. I’m going to stop just assuming it’s wrong and I’m going to read it. So I read it and I thought it was really interesting. And I saw in no way how that contradicted my ideas about God or anything like that. So to me, they had no contradiction. At first it did. But then slowly I started to see that I had a weird glimpse at one point. I could say maybe a kind of a spiritual experience where I was trying to reconcile these worldviews. So let’s say evolution and creation. And then I had this weird glimpse where I saw how if you include the theory of science in the evolutionary process, then everything changes. Exactly. It almost becomes like a religious worldview. And this is one of the reasons why we were interested in Jordan Peterson. First of all, you’re the one who first talked to me about Jordan Peterson. But then I became really interested when he started talking in these terms because that kind of coincides with some of the glimpses I had when I was trying to reconcile creation. Well, now I wouldn’t even use the word creationism anymore. You see, creation and modern scientific knowledge. I had this glimpse where I saw that the whole problem is the scientific theory is not included in the worldview of the scientist. So the scientist is not putting his own theory. It’s like he’s separating his theory from the world. Completely. It’s as if his theory doesn’t actually exist in the world. He doesn’t think about it. It’s a blind spot is what it is. It’s like I don’t at the same time. I understand this is where the power of materialism comes from. It’s like I don’t even know how to say it’s like a denial of of spiritualities. The theory that the scientist has is part of the spiritual realm. I’m careful when I use these terms because I know people will interpret it in a it’s not material. Your theory about the world is not material. So no matter how you look at it, it’s not material. So because of that, they they act like the theory itself is not part of the universe and has no influence on the universe. But it obviously does. I mean, if you’re a scientist and you discover something that explains reality, then reality changes. It’s not it’s not a weird metaphor or some weird new agey thing. You’re a scientist. You have a theory. You experiment. You show that it works. And then you transform the world. You change the world with your understanding of the world. So tell me again how your theory is not in your model of the universe. There’s something missing there. When you understand the world, the world you influence the world. You don’t even have to look at it at quantum level or anything like that. You can just look at it at a normal level. The scientist understands. He makes the connection with reality. Then he gains power in the world. Not necessarily that particular individual, but humanity using that knowledge gains power control and control over the world and understanding of the world. So why why is it your theory part of one of the forces that’s in the world? Why isn’t it part of your model? So anyway, so that was the glimpse that I had at that moment. And it kind of blew my mind. I don’t know how else to say it. It took me maybe 20 years to deal with that. Yeah. To deal with that idea. Just that idea, including the theory in the model. So I guess my book is kind of maybe the culmination of that. It took a lot of twists and turns. And finally, it’s not the subject per se of the book, but… It permeates the book. Yeah, my understanding or my questioning about that problem is what led me to understand traditional cosmology in a certain way. And in the end, what I see is that the traditional cosmology is that what I’m describing. It’s a universe in which the scientist has included his theory in the universe and has included his model of the universe in the universe. And even when I just say that, you can see that that is how traditional knowledge works. Because if you look at ancient patterns, it’s always you have a cosmos, then you have a mini cosmos, and then you have another mini… It’s like a fractal. It’s like putting a mirror in front of another mirror. It’s exactly what happens. So that is how traditional knowledge works. This is really, I think this is really for the book, this is really to me one of the glorious aspects of your book is that… We talk about, let’s say, microcosms. People have been talking about the notion that man is a microcosm for centuries since Plato or whatever. But what you are able to do in your book, which is amazing, is you actually show it. You actually show it even in diagrams. You create these diagrams that are fractals that move into each other. And then you do it with the story, then you kind of show how within a story, the different aspects of the story are mini versions of the whole story. And that is just, to me, it’s a tool de force, like we say. You’re really able to show it. Because it’s easy to talk about it. We have an intuition that that’s how the world works sometimes. But you’re able to really show it in terms of… What I’ll do is I’ll edit, I’ll put some diagrams just to show people, at least they’ll see the diagrams on the video of how you’re able to embed these parts into each other. Yeah, that’s something I wanted to mention with regard to my book. One of the ways that I dealt with the problem that I was describing at the beginning of our discussion… The idea that when people try to understand symbolism or interpret the Bible or any traditional story, they’re using the lens of science, they’re using the lens of different disciplines, academic disciplines, that are all grounded in materialism, because that’s the world we’re in right now. So one of the ways I tried to help the reader look through a different lens is by using images, diagrams. Because what happens… I’m not a neuropsychologist or anything like that. But there’s a part of our mind that when it uses visual images, it doesn’t interpret them the same way as language. So I found that it was possible to get the person to look through the lens of certain categories by using pictures instead of words. Because when you use words, the person interprets that language with their own categories. So if I use a certain word… So for example, this is something I talk about in my book. If I say the word heaven, well, most people will interpret it with a current lens and they’ll say, I’m talking about the sky and the atmosphere. So if I use the word heaven, I have to be very careful to remind the reader that I’m not talking about the atmosphere. But the problem, it’s okay for a couple of terms like that. But when all the words don’t… At some point, every single word that you’re using, it has to be reinterpreted. It becomes a little bit painful, right? Because every word I have to say, oh, when I say this, I actually mean this. I don’t mean what you think. When I say this, I mean this. It would be extremely painful. So what I did was I used pictures, a lot of them. There’s a lot of images in my book. And it’s always the same pattern. I repeat, repeat, repeat. The purpose of that is for the reader to kind of get this imprinted in their brain, the basic fundamental patterns of symbolism. So you have the hierarchy, you have the cycle, you have the idea of heaven and earth, right? Like a duality of heaven and earth. So that pattern is repeated, I don’t know how many times, maybe over 100. There’s diagrams on everything. The reason is because I want that diagram, that picture to get imprinted in your mind so that you don’t think about it anymore. And you just slowly start to look like glasses. You don’t know you’re wearing your glasses. You’re looking through them. You’re not looking at them. You’re looking through them. So if I repeat the same pattern, the patterns kind of becomes your glasses, right? Your lens. So that’s the reason why you have so many diagrams. Basically, I use the same patterns and I use them to interpret different parts of the Bible, different stories. The story of Cain and Abel, the story of Noah, the story of the fall out of many of the serpent, the tree, everything. So I reuse always the same patterns in every single story to interpret. So basically, the idea is that they’re all based on simple definitions, except we’re so not used to thinking of that, that I couldn’t just give the definition and then talk about it as if it was acquired because it takes a little bit of time to intuitively acquire this way of thinking. So there you go. That’s why you have so many images. Yeah, but that’s also why I tell people, like, make it to like page 100. Like at the beginning, you’re building. It’s a bit more of an effort. You’re building, you’re building. And then once you reach some of the examples that you give, I say page 100. I’m not even sure if that’s the right place. Maybe even a bit before. Then all of a sudden things start to click. Like you, I could, I, you know, and it’s funny because you and I, we were, you’re probably the person who think the most like me, let’s say in the world, I would say. But even though despite that, as I was reading your text, it was, there was really a magical aspect to it. Like it was really, I could feel it changing some of my perception. Like I could feel it transforming some of my, of the way that I view the world and kind of fusing things together in my mind. And so I think it’s definitely, it’s definitely, yeah, it definitely has something magical about it. Like it’s, I think that people reading this book, it’s, if you read it honestly, it’ll be difficult to reach the end without being changed in terms of your frame of view, like in terms of the way you see the universe. Yeah. And of course the idea always is not to become insane or anything like that. Maybe I should give that warning. Don’t become insane when you read that book. Because it happens when you change your lens. You change your lens, you can go insane because what happens, and then you try to communicate those ideas to people around you. And then they have no clue what you’re talking about and they look at you like you’re insane. So that’s probably one of the key factors in becoming insane is when you start saying things and people around you are acting like you’re saying gibberish. So just fair warning, don’t go insane. Because that’s… Fair warning, don’t go insane while reading my book. Talk to people who are already thinking those terms. Exactly. That’s hilarious. Oh man. And I think that one of the things that is really going to be surprising to people is that you really don’t shy away from any subject. You talk about time and space and about society and about cycles of time, but then you talk about human beings, you talk about sexuality, about taboos, about all the weird stuff. A lot of the weird stuff in the Bible that, you know, about giants and fallen angels and all this stuff in the Bible that is so weird, people, they look at it and they just think it’s absolute insanity. But you kind of bring it all together. And I think that that’s something that people are really going to open their eyes. Like the last part of the book especially, I think is really going to surprise people in terms of how not only talking about all that weird stuff, but talking about it in a way that helps people see what’s happening now. It’s showing us exactly where we are now. What is all this weird stuff that’s happening. Exactly. All the inversions, all the upside down world. It’s like you make total sense of that, especially in the last part of the book where you start talking about those subjects. So I think it’s going to be, yeah, I’m really, you know what I’m also excited is to start to see people talk about it and start to see people discuss it on social media. So it’ll be interesting to see people kind of bring things up and see how it morphs into different things. Yeah, I’m curious to see also what the reaction will be because I have no idea if it will fly or not. I’ve been doing this for about four years, so I’ve completely immersed myself in this way of thinking. So to me, these things have become absolutely obvious. So I don’t know. I got some first comments like on the first day that it was out, it was so funny because I didn’t even know that it was out because I think it was kind of you put it up on what’s it called, Kindle, right? And I didn’t know it was out and someone else on Twitter said, I’ve been reading it all day. And I thought, what the fuck is that? And said, I’ve been reading it all day and it’s exactly everything I was hoping for. Then I got another comment, someone telling me, he’s saying that, yeah, their mind was constantly being blown. And so every comment, obviously, every comment that I’ve gotten has been more than just, oh, it’s good. It’s been like, okay, this is really changing, really changing the way I view the world. So I think that at least for people who will read it honestly, it’s going to have the effect that we’re hoping it’s going to have. Yeah, one of the things I want to say is that I’m not trying either to convince anyone of anything. I’m just describing something that I understood. I’m not trying to convince anyone. This is also why I don’t shy away from subjects because I’m not trying to I’m not even trying to reconcile the ideas that are in the Bible with our current way of understanding. I’m not even trying to do that. I’m just trying to describe my understanding of these stories. And sometimes it gets a little weird, but the weirdness is not is not absurd. It’s a weirdness that makes sense. It’s only a question of, OK, we don’t see the word like that right now. Or we don’t see it like that anymore. Maybe in the past they did. At least it helps us to reconcile the past a little bit instead of thinking that our ancestors were a bunch of fools. And at least say, OK, they weren’t concerned with the same things as we are. Yeah, we’re interested in technical knowledge. We’ve advanced really, really far in technical knowledge. And we have brilliant insights into that. But we’ve also lost a certain kind of understanding that our ancestors obviously had. And yeah, it’s important to not make light of the fact that our worldview is completely different from that of the past. There’s something eerily wrong about that. We have to figure out some ways to bring them together. Like I said, I don’t try to do that in my book. What I try to do in my book in terms of science, in terms of the relationship between tradition and science, is just to give a way out to the spiritual understanding of the world. And I’m not complaining or anything like that. I love science. I’ve always loved science. I’m just noticing that religion is taking less and less space. The problem with that is it will be replaced by something else. And that thing is going to be weird. If we don’t understand what’s happening, something very strange is going to happen. It’s happening now. The weird stuff is happening is because… No, but it’s already happened. We had a cycle of it in the 20th century. I mean, communism and Nazism was exactly that. It was exactly a space in which the materialist worldview, something was filling up the void of the spirituality in the world. And so we killed 100 million people. Now we’re taking our breath, but we haven’t dealt with anything. It’s like we’re basically just taking our breath from those 100 million deaths in the 20th century. And if people think it’s not coming back, unless we can reconcile these things, it’s going to come back. And like you said, it’s already happening. We look around. I always tell people, we are sitting, we are standing in vile, we’re sitting in a place where we can’t even breathe. So we have to figure out what happened because traditional knowledge is not the same as the way we think it is. And so we have to figure out what happened. And so we have to figure out what happened. And so we have to figure out what happened. And so we have to figure out what happened. Because traditional knowledge is not the same as experimental or rational knowledge. And when I say that, I’m not saying that it’s irrational because it’s not. But it’s a kind of knowledge that’s been passed down. It’s passed the test of time. That’s not nothing. That’s a big deal. It means it works. That’s what it means. It means there’s something in it that fits with reality. Now it doesn’t necessarily fit with our scientific understanding of reality, but maybe it fits with some aspects of reality that we’re not aware of. So we should never just throw away ancient knowledge like that, as if it was nothing. Something that’s been around for thousands of years might contain some information that you don’t know as a modern person. And especially as we move, and this is something that we’ve talked about and it’s something that’s kind of been popping up more and more online and in different discussion, as we move towards these movements in cognitive science and this movement towards trying to understand consciousness and human consciousness, we’re seeing little glimpses of a connection where as we talk about cognitive science, there is this notion that you then once again do have to fit cognition in the world. Cognition has to be a phenomena in the world. It has to be part of the universe. Our thoughts have to be part of the universe. Our understanding has to be part of the universe. And when that happens, all of a sudden, some of the structures, we are seeing some of the structures that you talk about in your book popping up, even in scientific discourse. So that’s really fascinating. Yeah. Well, we were talking about this before we started recording the… you sent me a link to a… Yes, Sam Harris, of all people. He shared on Twitter this discussion with Hoffman, I think his name is. I think it’s Hoffman. I’ll put a link in the description, a podcast where he talks about the science of cognition. John Hoffman. John Hoffman and how basically he positing a theory that consciousness is a constitutive element of the universe, which I mean, it’s like that’s what we’re saying. You know, we’re trying, that’s where we’re going. Yeah. So there’s like bridges being created right now, I would say, between traditional knowledge and scientific technical knowledge. And I think it’s great. I don’t know where it’s going to… exactly how it’s going to happen, but it’s clearly there’s things are happening. Things are coming together. So I don’t… hopefully my book will help a little bit in some aspect of that, maybe to understand religion or this perspective in its own way, not in the way, not interpreting it through a different lens, trying to adopt that worldview, see the world through that worldview, instead of just analyzing it from a different perspective and looking at it, because there’s always a little bit of a cynical undertone to that. When you look at religion with a lens, it doesn’t matter what lens you use, if you use sociology or anything like that, psychology even, there’s always a little bit of an undertone of cynicism. It’s normal because part of you has to look at it like it’s not true or like there’s something wrong with it, because it doesn’t quite fit your category. So you have to like deal with what doesn’t fit in a way that’s kind of a little bit cynical. So it’s like, I’m going to accept this part of it, but this part of it, nah, it’s just, that’s just, we’re not going to go back to that. We’re not going to even try to understand it because it’s just nonsense or it’s just nonsense. That’s the word. See, that’s the thing. I mean, if you’re a scientist and you look at a phenomenon and then you see an anomaly, you’re not supposed to say, oh, I’m not even going to look at that, it’s stupid. No, you’re supposed to say, whoa, maybe my theory doesn’t account for that anomaly. I have to change my theory to account for that anomaly because saying that an anomaly just isn’t important, that’s fine for a while, but then you know what happens. The scientists dealt with that problem many times. You can put the anomaly under the rug for a while, then it always comes back to take you down in the end. So it’s the same thing when studying traditional knowledge. The anomalies are there to tell you, hey, there’s something you don’t understand, not the other way around. So that’s my perspective on it. All right, guys. So the book is out. It’s on Amazon. You can find it at your different, whatever country you’re in. Go to Amazon, put Mathieu Pagot in the search or the Language of Creation and buy the book. And buy the book, leave a review as well. We’re trying to push it now and hopefully we can attract a little bit of attention to it. And this is the play. So we’re going to be talking about the book once in a while on this channel. And I want to foster discussion as well. We’ll try to find spaces for all of you guys to discuss the book and talk about the ideas. And we’ll try to find ways to do that. Another thing is that some people have been asking me how is it that I can encourage Mathieu? Because Mathieu is kind of, he doesn’t have an online presence. He has a slightly more hermit personality. And so he’s not online, he’s not on social media. For sure. So what we’re going to do is I’m going to put a link to Mathieu’s Patreon account. He’s going to open a Patreon account and his PayPal. So if people want to support what he’s doing financially, then we’ll have a way for you to do that. And so stay tuned. And hopefully Mathieu will also come back because while he was finishing his book, he said, no, I don’t want to make any videos. I just have to focus. I need to finish this thing. But now it’s finished. So I’m hoping that we’ll see more of him on my channel as well. So I don’t know. We’ll see about that. Yeah, we’ll see about that. I have to find ways to coax him, to coax him to come onto the channel. So, so all right. So people stay tuned and thanks for thanks for watching. All right. Bye bye.