https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=00b09kJsXbs
There are two dragons then there is the inner and the at least until we reach some non-dualistic utopia where everything is one, there is the inner dragon of our own desires and fears. But I suppose like when we’re talking about management of resources, is that a phrase that we came up earlier? Like that where, where does the attention need to go? And it’s difficult. Like, you know, me, I suppose there’s something about my background that has led me to identify as the dragon. Oh, it’s consumerism. It’s turning people into consumers. Cause obviously as an addict, that’s what I am, a consumer and ultra consumer. And it seems that you, with your background in academia, this, the, the, this, uh, neo Marxist post, because like when I sort of like think about aspects of socialism, EG, you know, people are working too hard, just only work four hours a day, there should be time for fishing in the afternoon, which I think is in Das Kapital. I think he talks about fishing in the afternoon. You know, for me, that seems like a very beautiful and fair and just idea. Also, I don’t see them like, whilst I can imagine that they’re irritating on a campus, particularly for somebody who’s researched such a lot, I don’t see them as powerful, that’s my, that’s part of my intrigue. I suppose it’s comparable to when I was talking to Sam Harris. Another person who I admire, but who am I going, oh yeah, but I don’t like, you know, like I was, when I’m talking to Sam Harris about Islam, I go, yeah, but when, like, where’s, how is Islam gonna be like, I feel like even if you talk about Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, like Saudi Arabia is an economic entity. They’re not an Islamic entity in terms of let’s go do some Islam. It’s like, let’s go do some business. No. And like, and so I suppose here, well, my, well, I’m concerned mostly, I’m concerned mostly with the emphasis on, on the collective identity rather than the individual identity. Like the process that you just described, I would say, and this is the answer to the question that you posed at the beginning of our conversation is, is there something universal about the process that you laid out? And I think there is, and I think it’s at the core of individual development. And I think it’s the most powerful of forces. And so I think that the individual should be regarded as the proper locus of evaluation. And the problem I have with the postmodern neo-Marxist types, apart from the fact that their analysis tends to lead to a kind of nihilism is that because they’re making the group, the paramount level of analysis, this sort of thing gets ignored. And I, what I’m trying to do in my work, we have a program called the self authoring program that kind of steps people through these 12 steps that you just described. The first thing that people do is write about their past, all the emotional experiences. The second thing they do is take an inventory of their personality faults and virtues so that they can rectify the faults and capitalize on the virtues. And the third thing they do is chart a course for the future that takes them into account and others. And so, and I see it as a reflection of this universal process that you just described, and I think it’s the most powerful form of transformation, but more importantly, I also think it’s the one that risks doing the least harm. Like it hasn’t hurt anybody that you’ve put yourself together. It’s just good, right? It’s good for you. It’s good for the people that know you. There’s nothing about it. And it’s, it’s the right level of humility because you took what you knew to be wrong in your experience. You took personal responsibility for it. You made changes for yourself. You didn’t go around pointing the finger at what was wrong with the external world and trying to fix it. Now, look, it could easily be that once you have your act together, or maybe even before, you should be doing some things to adjust political systems or sociological systems. But the problem with that is what makes you think you can trust yourself? You know, and it’s like, well, I’m compassionate. It’s like, maybe, maybe you’re also envious of the successful and the probability of that’s pretty damn high by the way. And so you better know before you express that compassion, especially in the political domain, whether or not that is contaminated by things about yourself that you haven’t contended with. Do you think an honest declaration along those lines or specifically that in the political field would be refreshing? Look, I’ll tell you one of the, this is a very funny thing. So the ancient, the emperor of ancient Mesopotamia. So this is some of the earliest political documentation we have, by the way. Here’s what they used to do to the emperor every New Year’s day. They would take him outside the walls of the city. So he was responsible for everything within the walls. Outside was chaos and the unknown. They’d take him outside the city. They’d strip him of all his emperor garb. So he’s no longer emperor. They’d make him kneel. They’d humiliate him. I think the, if I remember correctly, the priest would hit him with a glove and say, okay, in the last year, how name all the ways that you didn’t embody Marduk. Marduk was the God of the Mesopotamians and Marduk was the thing that took on the great dragon of chaos. And so it was the, it was the responsibility of the emperor to, to kneel down and say, here’s all the ways that I haven’t been acting out my proper self and have brought the kingdom into disarray. And then he would be forgiven. They would act out the reconstruction of the cosmos. That was the New Year’s celebration. And then he’d go in and try to be a good king. I like that. So yeah, yeah, no kidding. Absolutely. It’s like the confession of the emperor. Here’s the way I haven’t been good. Are there any comparable, are the powerful held up to that kind of evaluation in any form now? We don’t have rituals for that. Well, I think- Because we don’t acknowledge the emergence of order from chaos. We don’t, uh, uh, emerge, uh, acknowledge divine principles. So the powerful, and I think this is possibly because of assumed meritocracy, but I mean, people that are in positions of power, they’re there for a reason. You don’t need to start stripping them naked and taking them outside the city and saying, how often did you wank in that oval office every day? Get out. Yeah. Well, I think there might be something to that. And that’s the danger of pride that goes along with ascension in a hierarchy. Well, because I’m here in this position, I must deserve it. It’s like, yeah, but there should still be something that you’re bowing down to. And that might be the abstract idea of sovereign authority itself. If you think about it only psychologically, that’s a figure that essentially has a, a touch of divinity about it because it’s the perfect ideal. We’re in a monarchy right now, huh? So that’s the Queen, the anointed and appointed monarch. She represents, you know, but I suppose in a post-secular nation, she becomes the emblem of Britain rather than the emblem of God on Earth. Well, I think, I think it actually functions to some degree. In the same way. Well, I do think so because the Queen, your Queen in particular, our Queen as well, because I’m Canadian, you know, I mean, I think Elizabeth has been, uh, uh, an embodiment of moral virtue. I mean, she’s done a remarkable job over the last, what is it, 75 years now. She’s held herself to an incredibly high moral standard. And I think she does sit in the background as emblematic of what sovereign authority might look like. But of course you’re postmodernist and this is an area where, because I’ve been, uh, I’m English and I can’t get away from the love of the Queen, but I would also say that she is an emblem of authority and of power and of wealth and land ownership, and that there is, that there is an order that ought be respected and can’t be challenged every so often. This country sort of toys with the idea of Republicanism. They’re always grateful when there’s a wedding, like there is this week. So that no one has to think, is this right? That we’re paying for this bizarre spectacle? Yeah. Well, but it, but it is useful to think about it in a symbolic sense. I mean, one of the things that constantly threatens the United States. I think there should be four branches of government, legislative, judicial, um, um, executive and symbolic. Because the problem in the United States is the president keeps tilting towards King, you know, the Americans like the idea of the first family and the first lady, and it’s like, yeah, no. And it kind of tilts towards a dynasty. And you’ve seen that happen with the Bushes and the Clintons. And it’s not, it’s, it’s not a good thing. And it might be nice to have someone take the symbolic load off the president and just act that out. And your Queen does that very nicely because all of the pomp and circumstance of the state and all the drama and ritual of the sovereign can be played out in that sort of dramatic space. And your legislature and executive branches can go off and do the administration. It’s interesting that the, uh, that the, the dynasties exert themselves in a sense, it’s a demonstration of your argument that there are certain hierarchical systems that find their way into fruition regardless of regulation. But then I suppose there’s rational reasons. They would have the resources, the experiences, the connections. Sure. It’s easier for them, but that’s also the, that’s a danger to a republic is the fact that, and it’s part of the potential corruption of the state is that, well, it’s easier for the children of those who have authority to have power. And you don’t want people attaining the pinnacle of achievement because of power. You want them attaining the pinnacle of achievement because of competence. Yeah. Yeah. And those things always struggle. They all, and it takes a society that’s very awake to stop the hierarchies from degenerating into hierarchies of power.