https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=-JFyX9WTnZo
All right. Well, I’m back again with manual post, and what we’re going to discuss today is basically the concept of cultural cognitive grammar and sense making. And this is an exploratory conversation. So another deal logo is hopefully we’ll see what spirit emerges in the course, and we want to sort of discuss what sense making is why it’s important, how that relates to cultural kind of grammar which is a little bit more difficult to sort of get your head around in some sense that john brviggy talks about it quite a bit. But for me sense making is all about finding the intelligibility in the things around us, and we’re plagued by things like chaos, and we were pattern finding machines right we see patterns everywhere, even where they’re not. And so you want good sense making good sense we means knowing will say real patterns for good patterns from not real patterns or bad patterns patterns that will send you, maybe they’re temporary they’ll send you the wrong direction right away from virtues and values that would be bad. So you want that that sense and the, the way that for me that cultural cognitive grammar comes into it is the culture uses grammar language to make sense of to cognize to think about the world. And that’s part, that’s sort of a bigger bucket right it’s part of sense making. Because if something doesn’t make sense, and it’s part of your cultural cognitive grammar, or cultural cognitive grammars become corrupt, which is maybe maybe more likely, then it’s not helping you anymore, but it’s still part of sense making because it would have a negative affect right so if you’re, if you’re using a term. You know, and it’s in contradiction to how you’re implementing what you’re implementing, for example, then that’s that that that should your sense making should tell you know there’s a conflict between the words you’re using and the things you’re doing the conflict and other words you’re using because these these conflicts are important because that breaks intelligibility. So, so what do you think Manuel how do you, how do you like this, this topic of sense making in cognitive cultural grammar. So sense making is is something you have to do right like it’s necessary. And since we’re, we’re creatures who use language right we use propositions to to assist us in our sense making and to get the higher level. So, there’s a lot of understanding going and structure going and and and that is that is contained within within the cultural cognitive grammar right so the cultural cognitive grammar is like, like a structure that that holds our sense making and it affords that set of things, and then that it is it is important to realize that that you have a cognitive grammar right like you have a way by which you filter and privilege information and how you structure that and how you relate that to other information. Right, so that that is that is a thing that you have. And then, when we started to talk about cultural cognitive grammar that means that the culture over time, describe or develop the way to how to relate to reality. And then there’s also a local element of the culture which is more related to the implementation right or popular culture more correctly, and that popular culture is is using. Well, like the language right like that we inherited from our ancestors to to relate to a certain aspect of reality because usually they don’t they don’t have a holistic worldview. And I think when we’re talking about the cultural cognitive grammar and it being broken, we can, we can talk in two levels one is like okay like what we inherited from our ancestors is bad and like I don’t think we want to go there, because that’s what the ancestors tried to do and I don’t think that ends well, or at least we don’t have the tools to to solve that properly. And then, and then we have, we have this, this popular culture grammar right which is like okay I’m being in the world like I have certain needs, like, like how do we fulfill those needs. And, and when the structure that we’re using to fulfill those needs is insufficient or whatever we, we might get locked into certain perspectives and I think that’s, that’s the problem that people are running into all the time. Yeah, yeah that that sort of goes back to relevance realization, right, if you’re focused on the wrong things, you create a cultural cognitive grammar that focuses on those things and you’ll put everything in that frame and that’s just a bad frame all of a sudden and then you can’t, you know you, oh, politics rules the world and therefore when my candidate gets in office, then, or my party then then everything will get fixed and then it doesn’t, and that leads to resentment and frustration and, but you have bad framing on the side, but politics doesn’t fix the world. So, obviously, right, should be obvious, but people still keep that frame. And that is the result of postmodern frames are arbitrary no they’re not, they’re not our words are not arbitrary, none of this is arbitrary. It’s very much connected and when it becomes disconnected then there’s a problem. You say well everybody else is doing it too but that’s not helpful. And there’s a way in which I think that this links back to ways of knowing. Right, so if we go with a two two model way of knowing things. There’s a, there’s a way that you know things, say propositionally right or from the propositions procedures. There’s also where you know things from your participation in the world. Right, and I’m sort of talking about this before where you’ve got the farmer, and then you’ve got the person studying farming, the person studying farming does not know how to run a farm, and usually doesn’t give good advice to the farmer who knows how to run a farm. Why, because they’re not doing the work they’re not participating, all their knowledge is propositional from books, and from, you know, and framed narrative understanding of farming, which has nothing to do with actual farming. And there was a beautiful example that got brought up on clubhouse within the past week or so, where this person pointed out that actually, there’s a scientifically valid reason for the pagan, roughly speaking because the very old practice, practice of planting at night on the night of the full moon. And it has to do with when you turn the soil. The things that are there will automatically germinate the minute sunlight or any light hits them. And so the less light there is the less likely you are to get weeds, if you plant your seeds, when there’s there’s absolutely no light, even, even reflected light. And it’s like, oh, so that’s just a more efficient method farming that science knew nothing about, because it just discounted it as mythological and foolish and crazy because it couldn’t see the connection. Right. And so there’s a way in which we get stuck in this, in this framing of what we have to know things in order to do things it’s like no you can do things without knowing them. You know, in the in the propositional sense because there is a type of knowledge that is knowledge of how to do something, how to participate with something. And so that sort of highlights, maybe a mode of sense making where the propositional or explanatory sense or the articulation sense that you have of something matches the sense in which it’s actually done in the world. And when that’s not true, there’s a sense of bullshit, to use the technical term that verveke like so much right. And then somebody spewing at you. Oh, look, the way to farm is, you know, you have to you have to take into account temperature, and you have to take into account the type of seeds, and you have to take it right on and on and on and then the farmer knows no, all of that is less relevant than doing it on the full moon between this time and this time. Right, and or the new moon rather between these two times. And those other things might be relevant, but they might be less relevant, because again it might be that the weeds are more important and not having weeds and having good seed germination is, is that is the key. And so, that’s the sense in which, you know, there’s a mismatch and having that match up, you know with with we’ll say that the older explanations even though they’re not scientific explanations their mythological explanations, but they may make more sense because they match the participation in the world. And so that’s a better way of maybe understanding sense making is when things match in their explanation in their propositions in their procedures, and in their implementation will say in the, in the participatory implementation, and the poetic implementation. Right, the way things sort of weave together because it’s a poetry as it’s weaving together a bunch of things. So it’s a better deeper sense of, of what, what actually is intelligible. Right, so, so what I, what I heard you say is, there’s a, there’s a connection that needs to be had from from the proposition to to the participation and and that that that is required for proper sense making but I want to flip that a little bit and say, well, like, you can only go so far with your propositions until you need a certain deeper understanding to to bolster your propositions and and like there might be this this grammar available in your language to facilitate the deeper understanding but if you don’t have the participatory understanding, you cannot relate to that deeper understanding. And I think, I think that is that is actually the main problem because because when we’re saying we’re talking about fixing the cultural cognitive grammar right like I do think that that grammar is is available to us, right, like, because we’re not going to reinvent like, like, people already thought of these things way before us. So, so, so, if we’re talking about a matter of things being accessible and and and how to make them accessible and how to make them salient to people right because like if, if, if you want to have a scientific understanding of farming, like, yeah, like, why would you ever look at the full moon. Right, like, like, like, what would motivate you to participate in trying to understand that in the first place, because from the scientific perspective, that is, that is not a natural frame to to inhabit. Yeah, exactly. And yeah, I like, I like what you said I mean it you know, bad news. We’re not going to, we, as, as even a culture are not going to event invent some new word or concept that hasn’t been invented before. Very bad news. Good news, we don’t have to. This is good news. It gets all there. We don’t have to be wicked smart. We don’t have to come up with, you know, big brand answers. Those answers are available to us, we have to be willing to engage with them, because we have to be willing to engage with things that we didn’t create that we’re not smart enough necessarily to create, but we also don’t have to we can focus on more important things. And I think yeah that’s, that’s, that’s part of this idea that you know our egos get in our way of understanding things because we want this enhanced understanding and you can see a way in which when you’re searching for sense making, and you hear well articulated argument right where everything makes sense and falls into place and they’re, they’re using these fancy words and you know maybe some of our words are new or maybe they’re old words and they’re trying to cast them in a certain light right. And so that sounds very satisfying and it certainly makes sense. Right, there’s some some sense that it made, but if it doesn’t connect back to participation doesn’t make as much sense as it could. And so maybe better than nothing, but it may not be right. And that’s where sense making comes in and cultural cognitive grammar is not just about the words that you’re using but the way that you’re using them right and so a lot of it is on my channel. And I’ll just explore three aspects of terminology right, the aspect that you intended in, in your head to how you’re using it. The aspect that you anticipate other people are going to be interpreting it, and then the aspect in which it’s interpreted. Right. And so that’s a big problem because it’s not an avoidable problem because you’re not other people so when you use a word, any word, their words might be slightly different than yours or include things that yours doesn’t or not include the things that you think are most important. All of that is a problem. But as we drift further apart, as things get more differentiated as there’s more diversity in the world, diversity basically equals chaos. And so what happens is, we don’t have a coherent grammar anymore, we don’t have that cultural cognitive grammar in common anymore. And so that breaks the sense making capability apart not just sense making but the ability for us to communicate using actually starts to fracture and you get that tower babble thing, which might be why that story is there right to some extent it’s not the only part of that story but that’s one part of the story that’s one aspect of it. And you can very much see that in there that that breaking apart. So, yeah, I mean, there’s definitely a next level of sense making where one is just some guys standing on a stage doing a TED talk, you know, giving a story that that sounds good, very articulate, lots of cool words, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be wrong to not make sense, like lots of right things don’t make sense. There’s one sense in which the mind control space dragon of capitalism that’s forcing everybody to act strangely is correct, but it doesn’t make sense to talk about it that way, even though that’s a lot of people seem to talk about it. I don’t know if you have a terminology that that’s mine but because you can’t, you can’t do anything about it. Like, if that were true, it wouldn’t be helpful like if lizard people run the White House. You’re not fixing lizard people problem. Yeah, so, when, when we’re talking about, about having conversations and. So you can, you can see that when people enter a conversation with a frame, which better would be a value, right like, like, I, I find this important. I prefer to support that I erect a structure right like a structure of sense making that will convey that I’m right. So, what, what, what ends up happening when you’re doing that right like you’re not, you’re not coherent to to the value of the conversation, as such as primary over your interest and the interest that you’re promoting like so. And this is where we get into the tower of battle problem right because now when I’m having a conversation with with a person that that has that aspect. I have to. Well, I don’t have to but if I want to relate to them, I have to relate to their grammar. Right, like I have, I have to have a relationship to their grammar and like, I have to either prove to them that there’s a better grammar which is a really hard project because that would also mean contesting their value. Or I have to play within their grammar to to show them the contradictions and why their frame, which is built upon their value right is is insufficient to have right relationship with with their problem. And so if if we’re talking about fixing the cultural cognitive grammar right like you can you can look at yourself in those two frames right like either, I am able to step into their frame and participate on their rules to a certain extent, or I am able to lead them out of their frame in in into the bigger frame in which we can actually resolve the issue. And, and, yeah, right like that that would be giving them more grammar right and then the question is well like do they have the participation and I included personal value as well as as the external value and this is where people often get stuck right like because, because they, they start identifying with with the cause or, or, and then you, you trigger them emotionally right so so they’re emotionally invested in the frame that they’re in. And then you’re not going to get them out of that frame. Yeah, and there’s certainly people need to be open to new ideas, and people think they’re open to new ideas when they’re discussing something but most of the time they’re discussing something they’re trying to convince you of something. And they, you know they do that innocently right they’re not, they’re not deliberately nefariously trying to trap you into their, you know, evil world or something right. And usually what they’re actually doing is they are trying to justify thoughts that they’ve already in their head had conclusions about, and our vet invested in. And so they’re trying to bring you into their investment, more than anything else. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with that, except that if they’re wrong, it’s hard to show them that they’re wrong, it’s hard to break them out right. And so I talked about this, I mean we talked about it in the, in the enchantment video I talked about it again in the other enchantment video the shorter version, the explanation version that I just released. You know, that’s basically, you know, you have to be willing to hear something that you don’t want to hear and deal with exact counter examples, because if you can’t explain counter examples, you know, or your, your system doesn’t account for counter examples, and you can’t just say oh well that’s just an exception, that that that doesn’t necessarily work. It might work, it might be true. But it’s, it’s a good indication if there’s lots of exceptions or lots of systems like that where you have to say that’s an exception or that doesn’t count or whatever, then then maybe you are wrong, like maybe your frame is broken. And it’s very hard to get people out of frames. Right, like when there’s a lot of exceptions, it’s insufficient, right, you’re missing somewhere. Right, right, and the component you’re probably missing is a framing component, and not just a simple, you know, a simple matter of a misunderstanding or misuse of a couple words or a bad sentence, right, it’s probably that the frame that you’re using the lens that you’re using to look at this thing is just wrong, and it doesn’t work. And that happens, that’s okay, but you have to be open enough to kind of change it and I think that’s why when I, when I go over the concepts of my videos on this channel, right, I tend to do this thing where I have the three parts like the way you’re thinking about it, the way you intend what you intend to convey, right, in interpretation and the way it’s being heard, because I think all three are there all the time, and you want them to match as possible and when they don’t match, that’s when you, that’s when you run into this problem. And then everybody’s trying to frame everything. And, you know, if you, if you frame, and you know framing devices are all over the place right like well, how long ago did you stop beating your wife right that’s a framing device that puts a bad light on somebody. Like a brought up reason is I hate that. I hate that that mechanism. Yeah, but people use it all the time, and they use it in sneakier ways than that, where you don’t really notice that they frame something in a negative light, or in a positive light, when that’s inappropriate, right, when you’re supposed to be reporting facts, for example, you don’t frame things as negative or positive. That’s, you know, that that’s no good. I mean, unless you intend to and I often intend to right I use a lot of hyperbole to to highlight a that fact and be what I’m trying to highlight because I want people to look there. I don’t, I don’t just want people to come to some conclusion from some neutral space because I don’t think that’s reasonable. Right. I want them to look there. So, getting people to consider have you considered that you’re the daddy. You considered you’re on the side of evil. If you considered the darkness in your heart that you may manifest in the world right because we all have those problems. Oh, no. Right. And then that’s where the framing becomes important and then framings, give us sense making and understanding of a bunch of things usually, or one important issue. And so we don’t want to break that apart because you’re basically breaking your sense me. When you break your frame. You’re basically breaking your sense making about probably a bunch of things are about one really important thing. And that can be very traumatic. But that I think is the way in which sense making, if you can’t. And again, like you can tell an infinite number of articulate stories about something like I can give you five or six stories about the housing crash in 2008 2009 right, all of them are wrong by the way, but they sound very good and quite articulate, and you’d be like, ooh, happy and people have done this like there’s lots of stories out there about what caused it and you can invoke tranches and second order derivatives, and that was the real problem was the over leveraging it’s all nonsense that’s that’s not what happened objectively or at least as close to interest objective as you can get, you can look at that you can look at what happened, you can see lawsuits and cases and go oh, you know, none of this had anything to do with that. Right. They just nobody knew what anybody owned, and everybody lied about it. And now we’ve massive fraud and very basic simple fraud but you know, making sense of that in the context of evil economists were deceiving the public they didn’t even know what was going on. They had their models and their models are evil for sure, but they weren’t detailed enough to account for basic fraud, which is what was really happening. And maybe the basic fraud was made more profitable by the bad economic models. Sure, absolutely. And derivatives do that right anytime you use a derivative you’re actually leveraging, you’re leveraging things in the future and yeah if you’re on the wrong side of that lever then everybody loses money just definitely happened in the housing crisis but not for the reason of the lever for the reason of the fraud once the fraud becomes exposed you realize, oh the lever really looks like this, and then everybody, all the money vanishes, because effectively it was never there was always an illusion. And if you can keep up the illusion long enough you don’t, you don’t have too many exposures or too many foreclosures that are problematic, then nobody notices. And that’s not a problem. It can dissipate over time but eventually these things always catch up with you, especially when there’s no incentive not to do the fraud. So you can see the sense making lens really matters because if you’re wicked smart, then you know you want some complicated, you know, the I we think right you want some complicated answer. You know, to be to satisfy your own ego, and the people you’re listening to because they get very, you know, once you give something a really complicated answer to something really complicated. They are very excited like, oh, aha, that must be true because it’s complicated it’s like yeah a lot of things are really simple. Well yeah right like what is simple, right like, or what is a thing. Well, it is dependent on our relationship with it, right, our relationships with things are fairly simple, like I don’t know about. Maybe we should have someone in the comments respond with the complicated relationships that they have with things but that that that’s probably going to be the end of the story that they’re telling themselves, trying to to justify things to themselves instead of just realizing the simplicity that that their action has in it. And I think that’s, that’s what you’re pointing out, right, like, okay, like we can describe things in in a complicated way, or we, we can describe things in, in a way that that we use to navigate our action. And, and that that navigating action level is is the place that we live, right, like that’s the relationship we have with the world. And that’s, that’s what we should privilege over the other ones, whether they’re right or wrong. At that point is isn’t even relevant. And then, well, like, okay, so we’re having this, this, this, this idea right like okay, like, I have this concept of something in my mind I have my articulation of the concept. And then I have the person receiving my articulation. Well, like that’s, that’s a cognitive grammar right like like when I start framing the world in that way. I can have conversations in a specific type of way that allows me to do certain things. And when I think that the thing that I have in my head is the same thing as I say, then my relationship with the world will be a lot different, right, and one of the things that will also happen then is that I will be emotionally invested with, with how people react to the things I say because I have an equal science in my mind between my words and myself. And therefore, if my words get rejected, I get instead of that, I am propagating an idea and the idea gets rejected. Right. So, and if we’re in that space, then the social dynamics and the social game that we’re playing totally changes right like we need to have different affordances for people right, and you can already kind of see the world that I’m drawing up and you’re going to probably know some people who live in that world. So, so yeah that that is why the cultural cognitive grammar is important. And, and why fixing that problem isn’t necessarily changing words or whatever right like it, it is. It has to do with the other person and their capacity to make that discernment in general, but also make that discernment in the moment, because those two things are also not the same. So, so yeah like like, no, no, we’re in the realm of transformation and we’re getting into, well like, okay, like, what does that require of us to be able to make those discernments. Yeah, exactly. I think, I think there’s a way in which, when you know when, when we’re interacting, it should, you know, it should be incumbent upon us, not to impose our views, right, impose our grammar, but to make it understandable to the other person. If we don’t do that, then they can get confused right so if I’m using the word race in a way that doesn’t make any sense to you because I’m referring to people of all races but kicking them out as important and special that those two things don’t work because race would be specific to one, one particular type of race right once you once you mix it up and start, well you know this person of this race is not the same as the other persons of this race. Now the word race is not useful anymore right in that context. And so it would be beholden upon me to explain when I’m using race but you know what I actually mean right and then what the discernment is. And if the discernment doesn’t make any sense to the other person, then there may be a reason for that like maybe it doesn’t make any sense. Maybe the person’s trying to magic you to entrant you right, or maybe the person is unaware themselves that they’ve been enchanted and told the narrative that it doesn’t work doesn’t fit can’t participate with. Right, and so you want to engage in such a way and I tried to do some on this channel right and you know, in the navigation. I’m trying to show people exemplify this whole idea of word usage. And why and how it’s important right to fix that relationship like if you have a view of capitalism that isn’t useful because you can’t participate with it correctly or because if that if this definition is true, no possible solution exists because because lots of definitions of capitalism imply no no possible solution there’s no solution to these problems right it’s like postmodernism right if powers the thing and powers at the top, you’re never changing that ever. So, I mean don’t have that frame because it’s not a helpful for him can’t participate in that frame correctly. Maybe you can explain a bunch of things that way. Maybe that makes you feel better. Better. Fair enough, we need to feel better sometimes. But if you can’t participate with it. You know what good is and that that’s why I’m a pragmatist right, because if the participation can’t happen. Then we’re in trouble, and we want sense making that doesn’t just sound good and feel good and make us comfortable. We want sense making that we can participate with right we want it we want that intimate connection, not just with the person we’re talking to, but also with the world at large, and hopefully with the virtues and values as well right we want all of that stuff to be connected because that’s enchantment right now re enchanted is possibility potential in the world. If the world is just power and the people at the top have it. There’s no possibility of potential for you. You’re screwed. You’re totally screwed. Now you go oh well but there’s ways to get that power right it’s like, okay, what are what are they who conveys that power, because in a lot of cases, you can come up with examples where mandate didn’t work. Right, somebody said they were going to implement a bill and it never got passed, like, are you sure power works that way. Are you sure it was properly conveyed right, are you sure it came from somewhere above will say right, because it doesn’t seem to. Right. And then, you know, that’s it that’s see my video on power and principalities because those are those are two important videos. Those definitions are important because they help you to make sense of the world in a way that the culture is using the terms, rather than in a way of your understanding of the terms, or your desire to understand because a lot of people want to understand or make sense of things in the mode where they were whatever failures they have are excused by their explanation. So, they’re using explanations that allow them to take no action, or allow them not to take responsibility for past actions, or allow them not to take responsibility for not taking action. Right, or, or they are taking action. Right, and then they, they will be enslaved to the narrative to achieve power. Right, so then, instead of sitting in the narrative, where they’re subject subjected to the power they’re sitting in the narrative where they’re subjected to to gaining power right like, so it’s like okay like, so what did you actually gain by trading this, this war chief for this other war chief. And, and yeah like like those, those issues that have been discussed and, and there are solutions actually. Yeah, people don’t usually like those solutions, because, because then they need to give up the narrative and their sense making and they need to reconstitute themselves in a new frame. And, and yeah right like, like, if, if that frame is is closer in accordance with reality right like that, that should be the place that they want to go right but then in order to, to be able to make that decision right like you need to have this highest value which is being in right relationship with reality that that allows you to, to give up something of lesser value to to maintain that highest value. And that, yeah like that that value can be instantiated in the conversation like I said earlier right like it can also be instantiated in in your life as such, or, or in a relationship right like like like that value of having the thing and being in right relationship to it is is something that you, you need. In order to do all the other things and that realization is maybe the first step to fixing the cultural culture of grammar. That is like, okay, yes right like there, there are necessary things right like things are not arbitrary. And one of the necessary things is, is that you’re in a thing, or in a structure, and, and that that has certain requirements of you and you have to voluntarily participate. Which, which means, make sacrifices right is you’re not going to participate without giving up something else in the world. By, by making that sacrifice, then a new realm of potential opens up right and now we can go back to, to this participatory element right like so if you don’t have that participatory experience of, of okay like like that space is there right like like the affordances that that come into being as a consequence of me participate participating in this way, then, like, like how are you going to relate to that, like how are you going to understand that if you don’t, if you don’t have insight into it, right, because, because you can’t you can’t conceive of it, like it is. It’s not real until you have the experience of it being real and and and then. And then, when you when you when you get that right like when when you get the pattern of of that affordance, then you can you can start transforming yourself as as an individual that is participating in that way in the world right and that’s totally changes your culture and your way of grammar right like the way that you’re relating to people right like the way that you’re you’re valuing things. And, yeah, right like, and that’s why it’s a big, big thing, like it’s really foundational to to people’s self conception. I think, I think that’s that’s part of the problem is feel get caught up with that. They are making an excuse, you know, in terms of, you know, maybe to excuse their behavior with these narratives and they don’t necessarily realize that or maybe they, they got their excuse from somebody smart sounding on the internet, and then they like aha this I think that’s the framing in which my failure to get a better job is not mine. It’s actually due to, you know, the powers that be or the lizard people or, you know, the way the way capitalism works like fundamentally I’m not properly valued in capitalism because capitalism doesn’t know me or something you know, equally crazy. A lot of these cultural cognitive grammar traps are set up or framing traps are set up to explain the lack of intimacy. Right to explain and excuse that missing intimacy that missing connectedness that deep connectedness that we need to really be better people right because you. And that’s the thing in which being around other people makes you worse because, you know, you both have flaws and it’s laws plus laws. Right, but there’s also a way in which it makes you better and hopefully around people that you know you make them better and they make you better. That’s the thing. Right, it’s not all like everything you add is a negative or everything you add as a positive. There’s good mixes and bad mixes and yeah this gets back to discernment which nobody wants to do. Right, so it’s really important about cultural cognitive grammar and figuring out if you’re in a bad frame and figuring out if you’re enchanted it’s all about discernment around these topics like how do you interface with discerning a good grammar from a bad grammar. What is the culture doing when the culture is talking about safety. Right, or what’s it doing when it’s talking about follow the science or what’s it doing with what’s the culture up to like what’s the zeitgeist like what’s really going on underneath those things when we’re using Yeah, and it just appears to me that when you’re making an excuse right like what are you doing right like you’re, you’re, you’re basically saying, right, like, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know how to get on the other side of the wall. Like, I’m not even sure if there is another side of the wall. And now I am. I’m going to construct a world where either I should have been helped over the wall or wall shouldn’t exist or the wall is impenetrable so you can’t ask me to cross the wall. Or, so that does, I don’t know, like we might, we might have a complete list of that but like it’s not relevant what the list is right like what is important is they’re acting out a pattern, right, like, okay, so there’s something that’s inaccessible to me. And maybe inconceivable. And how can I make the world work where that is true, instead of saying well no, there, there’s an insufficiency in me because there are people on the other side. And I can join these people and like I just need to find the right circumstances where I can find a way to actually get to the other side of the wall. Yeah, that’s trade offs and transformation. Yeah, yeah. And so, a lot of these narrative framings are so we don’t have to transform, we don’t have to make a trade off, we can get, we can get something for nothing in essence, and it seems in our world like that’s happening all the time we’re just we’re just getting the good and not getting bad or we’re able to just get the good and not get the bad. But I think that’s, that’s not the way the world is for better or for worse. And I think that’s where the problem comes in is that now we can’t, we can’t, we don’t have the option to choose that. And yeah, the fact that somebody else is doing something should give you pause. Like, why am I not doing that and look, there’s been, there was a, there was a time I was working for a pharmaceutical company, research lab learned a lot of pharmaceutical industry working at the research lab, learned a real lot. And the owner is the coolest guy ever. He’s like just one of these cool guys, legend in the industry apparently. I only worked for the one company and he got bought by another company but while I was there but he said, well you know how to build these, you know, complicated compute structures right, this is before the cloud roughly speaking right. And I had built them, I built them a test one with a couple of rigs, they paid for all the hardware so I get to deal with very expensive hardware for free and get a bunch of stuff working that otherwise wouldn’t be working. And I built this and he said, you know what, why don’t you do that? What are you doing here? We were paying you well but we’re not paying you that well, you could make lots of money. And he said, yeah, but I had to fly all over the country and sure I could charge, charge like 500 an hour was a lot more money than it is now. But I don’t want to fly around the country and stress myself out. I’d rather, you know, near Boston at the time, I’d rather just drive into Boston and, you know, have a nice easy, easy commute or I’m not going to airports and stressing out over that because especially back then that would really stress me out being in an airport. And, you know, missing flights and stuff would have driven me crazy. So, I said it’s not worth the money. I could have made the money, it was easy to do. I’ve always been able to make a lot more money than I’ve actually made. That’s not hard for me. Maybe it’s hard for you. But you know, I knew I was trading off that money for comfort. I just was. Right. You want to make a lot of money, you got to give up some comfort, right, you got to give up your time, or you got to give up your weekends, you got to give your holidays, right, you got to get beyond call, right. There’s, there’s, there’s all these things, there’s all these trade offs you have to make. And if you don’t know what trade offs you’re making, because you’re always making trade offs, and I have to do a video on that. I haven’t done it yet. You’re gonna do trade offs video, it’s gonna be hard. Right. You don’t know what trade offs you’re making. It’s a problem. And if you if you have a narrative that fools you into thinking you’re not making a trade off, you’re probably enchanted by a bad narrative, right, it’s probably bad framing. And yeah, there’s got to be a way we can figure out what bad framing looks like. I mean, I know we’ve touched on a little bit here, right, in the context of cultural cognitive grammar and how it, you know, it’s one way to make yourself feel comfortable. But, you know, when it doesn’t work out, that’s got to switch from comfort to resentment and anger. And a lot of people, you know, as they go on and they, you know, I know this one thing is going to work, even though it’s never going to work. They get more and more frustrated and more and more angry, and more and more resentful, and that’s not better, because we need less of that. So, so one bad framing is wanting to have your cake and eat it too, right, which going going back to the wall example right like I want to live in my excuse on the side of the wall but I also want to be on the other side. And it’s like, yeah, those, those two things are mutually exclusive, and if you’re, if you’re going to live in the state where you want to hold those two things for yourself right like you’re bullshitting yourself right like you’re, you’re recognizing the trade of, but you’re not willing to accept it. And that that that is that is definitely bad framing right like in another way to look at bad framing is is is a paradox right like where you think like okay, these, these things can’t exist to get right but that that just means that that you’re missing a piece right and that piece is probably within participation, right, like, because because it requires you to have a specific type of insight. And I’ve been saying from the early days like, I think, religion is is like a structure that allows you to transcend paradoxes. And, and so there’s this this affordance that that the transformation that gives you that that that you can, you can straighten those paradoxes and and and hold these things in the tension that that they’re supposed to be, or maybe not even intention at all. And, and so, so, so that, what are we talking about well no we’re talking about intellectual honesty and and carefulness or, or, or, or, anyway, yeah, you want to have. You want to take seriously, the yourself and the concepts that you’re holding. And when when you when you get into these situations right you should immediately enter in a state of humility and say okay, like there’s definitely something going on that I don’t, I don’t, I don’t, I’m not aware of. And now I’m going to have to figure it out. And until I’m there I’m just going to hold everything as know it like, like, it is, it is a need of uptake. Yeah, yeah I like that I think, yeah. And it also gives you a container for transformation. Right, it gives you a content and containers give you orientation, but give you all that ability to orient based on the constraints and container constraints are important because without constraints, we don’t have contrast and without contrast we can’t see, and, and the constraints, allow us to orient and see both separately, independently, and and and give us a space, so that if our transformation goes wrong. Right. We can find out right we can. It’s pointed to by the by the constraints of the container and by the aim of the container roughly speaking, or the aims available in the container. And we need to find other people to help us, because they can locate us in the container, and they can lend their agency. Right, and they can support us while we’re breaking down our worldview to go through transformation. So that’s very important part of transformation and as a culture we need to take our cultural cognitive grammar and transform it to something that conforms with clear and in contrast, clear, clear constraints back into a way to communicate in common, because right now we’re not, we’re not communicating in common we’re communicating kind of all over the place and yeah the religious framing basically gives us a master frame to deal with with paradoxes with contradiction, understanding that you’re in a contradiction but I think, and it also helps us intellectual honesty because in the, in the view in a in a worldview where you’re a small spec of created, you know life amongst a lot of other created you know, however many billion people on the planet right six seven who knows five, something like that, a lot more than I can conceive of that’s for sure. You know, in a, in a, in a world on just one planet where you’re stuck with billions of people. And there’s something out there that created it all. And that can help engender humility, so that you can get that intellectual honesty because one of the problems intellectual honesty is, it’s another one of those things that people use to you need to be more intellectually honest, like, no, no, no. I need to be more intellectually honest with myself first, and then we can talk about intellectual honesty of everybody else, because if you want people to be intellectually honest with you, you have to exemplify. And that’s really where the problem comes in. It’s like, if what you exemplify is anger and resentment, you’re going to get anger and resentment back. If what you exemplify is intellectual honesty, you’re going to get more intellectual honesty. And I sort of saw this last night on clubhouse I went in and I said look, these development models are cute but it seems like people slide back and I know we talked about this in clubhouse on Monday we do a meeting Monday, Monday at 1212 Eastern right on clubhouse. And, you know, in our, in our little in our little clubhouse room and meeting Mondays are great but I went over it again. Right. I went over the whole thing again. And I said, Look, there’s a bunch of people I know were good critical thinkers, some of them taught me how to think about things they taught this skill to me. And now they no longer possess it themselves. I mean that act that actually happens. And then somebody spoke up and said, No, that actually happened to to a person I forget it was an aunt or, or something like it was a relative of hers. She’s like, she was a scientist. She was actually very critical. And now she’s stuck. Actually believing what Rachel Maddow says on MSNBC is like, Whoa, that’s a big change. It’s a big change and we don’t recognize that because we’re not intellectually honest with ourselves, but we expect it from others. And we need to exemplify the things we want from others. And if we’re sending out anger and resentment and, and oh woe is me and oh I this is bad and this happened to me and, you know, like, I got sob stories for days. If you want to play the sob story game I’m probably going to win. But I cannot try not to do that I don’t know I was homeless so I don’t way more about homelessness than you do. And occasionally I have to pull that card, but I don’t start there. I don’t think that’s fair. Right. I don’t start with, you know, look I got a house taken from me. Right, like, actually, two under different circumstances. I don’t start there. Why, I’m trying to exemplify intellectual honesty, I’m trying to exemplify critical thinking, I’m trying to exemplify a way in which you can understand the world better with simpler models. Right, and and and easier participation and better intimacy ultimately, which is where I think this is going to lead is that is that intimacy, and cultural cognitive grammar is so important because we don’t fix that we end up not being able to communicate effectively. And it’s that ineffective communication back to the Tower of Babel, that that’s the real core of the problem with sense making right we don’t have effective communication. And, and that’s part but not all of the sense making crisis. So, talking about this, this container of religion. I’m going to, I’m going to flip it again, because in the flip day today, which is really funny. But, okay so then you’re in your individual individualistic content. So, now you have a problem, or even worse you’re going through a transformation. And how is someone supposed to help. Like, like, are they going to climb into your container, and, like, like, you’re anticipating your lived experience and, and then validate your perspective, and then affirming your trend transformation, like, like that that, like, at that point you’re, you’re playing a game where, what can you do, where you can say yes or no to, to what, what the other person is doing and and then, like, the other person always has the rebuttal like yeah but you’re not in my container, and therefore you’re not authority. And then while you, you can, you can bind together with a with a set group of people who are having a similar problem, and, and having a local solution a similar local solution and then you get, you get a local affirmation of, of, okay, right like the thing that I’m doing is correct. And everybody right like this is what they call the bubbles right like everybody’s validating your perspective because they’re all there, because, well, like, we can translate the problem that you’re having into a value right like they’re organized around the same value. So, so, so then, if, when, when you’re all pointing at the same value you’re gonna you’re gonna have a level of coherence and and maybe even a set of solutions right like that makes sense in relation to that value right but then we go back to the day and it’s like okay but you can’t live on one value. Right, like when when you live on one value you get out of balance, and then at a certain point, like you stop to be able to function and go here to reality. And it doesn’t matter what what value you have although some values right like you can look at the trends community right like they require transformation, right, which, which is really intense while other values allow you to to maintain more of a separate identity right like if they’re not pointed inwards for example but pointed outwards that that is that that is a more durable game but again right like because it’s a more durable game, you can play it longer before the world falls apart right like they’re all like the running of the cliff right and then the question is well like like how many people are going to follow that clip and how bad is that going to be. Yeah, like that. I like the way you frame that yeah the whole idea of the containers the shared space that you can occupy with shared constraints and shared shared shared space of values and virtues, right, a shared space of aims. And then that’s the only way you’re going to do it because otherwise you’re going to create a bubble so how do you create a bubble you find people that agree with you on all fronts with very little or no conflict. Right, and then that’s just going to inflate because you’re going to pump each other up continuously, and then eventually that’s going to burst though and then that’s going to be painful. And that’s what people are running into right which is why you need a container that has nothing to do with just you, or just your value or just a value or just one set of values. And that’s the real key right now we’re back to play those forms and I DOS. Right, which I think is a much better way to think about it. And that’s so much bigger than the people in it that it can’t be a bubble because you can’t inflate it because it’s already way bigger than you can inflate it. And yeah, I think that’s super important so it’s I, I like that but having these containers and understanding which containers those containers are in is, is really important because a lot of these container arbitrary so you can you can you can gene up a container And yeah, I think that’s super important so it’s I, I like that but having these containers and understanding which containers those containers are in is, is really important because a lot of these container arbitrary so you can you can you can gene up a container called economics I think that’s super important so it’s I, I like that but having these containers and understanding which containers are in is, is really important because a lot of these container arbitrary so you can you can gene up a container arbitrary so you can you can gene up a container arbitrary so you can you can you can They can’t predict the things they say it’s all post post facto right post talk rationalization. It’s all looking back, none of it’s able able to have any predictive power or prescriptive power or limited prescriptive power anyway, and they don’t recognize, say the limitations of their own of their own bucket and you can see you can see that problem everywhere people aren’t recognizing the limitations of their containers. Science has limitations. And this is one of the points that was making clubhouse last night, one of the limitations of science is if something’s new, science doesn’t know anything about it. So it has to be new for a while. And then, and then after it’s not new, people have to come up with ideas, and then those ideas have before no hypotheses, and then those hypotheses have to be tested. So science, before that we don’t have science. And so you need a bunch of observations to even get to that point. And so new and novel by right. Don’t fit that criteria, so you can’t science them yet, because they’re too new. You need a lot of data to start science you know a lot of observations to start science and then you need ideas, right, you know, oh well there’s some previous science and show me, show me the new quote new science right and see if they match. And that’s a problem is that if you don’t recognize the limits of these things you’ll try to apply them and I know, you know, people talk a lot about what we need is, is a different kind of rationality. I don’t think that exists, like, we just need different sense making skills like sense making skill where somebody tells you something that is accessible for you to enact in the world to participate in directly. And you participate in it, and it works for you. That’s good sense making. Right, as opposed to somebody just telling you something, and you can’t participate, or it doesn’t lead to anything, or the fact of its existence can only frustrate you or make you angry or sad or whatever, right, or can only justify your already existing feeling that that’s not helpful. That’s not helpful that that’s bad sense making, in essence, that’s bad sense making. And that’s the distinction is the bubbles don’t exist in a large enough container, but it’s easy to get into bubbles because they’re comfortable, but then they inflate and they take you out, and it may take years, or it may only take months, doesn’t matter, you’re going to get taken out by that because it’s not big enough to hold all the things it needs to hold. Yeah, so, so we’re talking about a bunch of things right so we started off with sense making. So, we’re doing sense making in a frame, and I’m still not sure about whether the frame has has the grammar inherent in it or not. I think I think the grammar is also dependent on on your skills right so you might be in a frame but you don’t have the capacity to fully inhabit the frame. Well the frame, the frame affects your, your meaning, right, because I’ve done words and meaning. And it’s content plus context and contact part of context, you know, a good part of context is framing. Right, and so yeah, it’s going to affect the grammar, because that’s part of the grammar is the context. Right, but, but, so, so the frame is is erected as a consequence of a value, because that that is that is informing why it is there and the way it is there. And that that is important to recognize when, when, when you’re, when you’re evaluating your, your cognition or, or the way that someone else is cognizing in front of right so so one of the advices I give to people is when, when, when you’re talking to someone, right, there, or someone talking to you. They want something like they’re, they’re trying to achieve something of value to them. It is important for you to relate to what they value, and to provide them answers in relationship to that value. And as long as you’re not doing that. This situation is meaningless. Right, like, you will literally frustrate the situation. So, and then the second thing is like, okay, you’re, you’re not aware of the other person is probably not aware of what they value and you’re not aware of what they value right so what do you want to do well. You want to establish what, what is, what is this conversation about like why does this conversation exists. And then, when you have a agreement around what is valuable in the conversation, you can erect the same frame as that other person or at least a close enough frame. And, and now you can have a conversation about how to fill in that frame and and how to evaluate the things within the frame in relation to the value right like you value, like, I don’t even know what he’s like, yes. If it. If you’re constructing your conversation and that way you’re playing a whole different ballgame. Right and then. You can obviously do this all the time right but if, if there is something of value, right and you can sense that conversation right because then there’s an emotional component that that is being present, then this is the way that you can resolve it right and if, if people are looking for emotional validation, like, maybe the right solution for that conversation is, is to shut it off. Like, don’t, don’t engage around that value. Because what you’re going to say is not going to be heard in the way that it is, it is intended. And you’re only gonna rub against that person’s sense of self. Because, because they’re committed to that aspect and then you can, you can just, instead of entering into the conflict you can disrupt that conversation and steer it into something that is related to different. Yeah, I like that. Yeah, yeah. There has to be a way in which you can understand, say, something that’s too comfortable, right, or something that doesn’t have enough conflict to ring true. Right, it’s too too agreeable in a sense. And I know I’ve said this before like the only honest man is a disagreeable one. Right. Yeah, you have to be willing to conflict with people in order to tell the truth. And maybe that hurts. But if you don’t do it, you can’t engender the truth you can’t you can’t go after the those highest virtues and values, because there’ll be a mismatch between those virtues and values and, you know, where you are in your bubble and we all have these little bubbles that we’re in and we should be actively fighting them what do I feel most comfortable about today. Hmm, maybe maybe and do something about that. Right. Have I ever had this idea challenged how well can I articulate my ideas because a lot of people have great ideas, and then they go to articulate them, and ideas don’t sound so great. And the problem is, if it’s an idea that requires participation beyond yourself. So, like, oh I want to fix the world. You better be able to articulate it to other people. Otherwise you’re in trouble. And if the only people you articulate to our people in a bubble. That’s not going to help, because you can’t get everybody in your bubble, because some people are in different different bubble of different containers. And I think that’s the problem is this idea of nasty containers. And, you know, just having that concept because we tend to, to boil things down right we go oh okay well there’s one, there’s one lens we have one lens, like no we have lots of lenses. And we need to be able to flip between them. Otherwise we become trapped in these narratives. Right. If you’re not doing that. And so, some things will make sense, but some things won’t make sense anymore. And that’s really important and interesting to know. Maybe the reason why I can’t articulate my ideas to somebody else is because they don’t make sense. That’s like, oh, they make sense to me. Oh, that’s the worst problem. That means it could be a framing issue. And if I can’t break out of my framing. Maybe my idea just is wrong. Maybe it’s just not going to work. And because again if it only works for you and your little group of agreeable people. But you need more people than that to make it work. Maybe it’s not useful. And that’s where we get where we get caught up you know where you get capitalism turns into this magical mind control space dragon. So what you’re talking about there is, is, okay, so I have a group of people. We’re all in agreement about something. Because we have this disagreement, we have a affordance in our relationship that that allows us to be with each other in a certain way right. So, now that we have, we have that being with each other in a certain way we might make conclusions about the nature of reality, right. But what you’re experiencing is a consequence of the nature of the affordance, not a consequence of the nature of reality. And that’s, that’s where, where you get into trouble right so then, then there’s two, two problems right like is, is the thing real, or is the thing only existing because people are there to get some emotional validation and thereby they’re also validating you right so that that that is literally an illusion. Right. And then, like, is, is, is that so then, like that doesn’t even exist right and then, like, is, is, is the relationship of those people, like a relationship that they have with you, or are they having a relationship with the value and, and the fact that you’re there is is, is, you’re literally just a sideshow character in relation to what, what, what they can get out of that value right. So now you step out of this bubble. I have this maxim I think. Like, don’t apply the rules from inside your bubble outside your bubble. Like this, this is a moment to rub that one in. But yeah you step outside of your bubble, and then, okay like people don’t react the way that the people inside of your bubble are react well not like that, that just seems natural right like, because that’s why it’s a bubble, like, like, that’s the nature of the bubble and then then you can you can you can you can take three positions there right like you can say well like we need to have everybody conform to my bubble, so that we can do the bubble thing. So, that the person doesn’t realize the goodness of whatever I have inside of my bubble and they need to be enlightened into the goodness, or, or you’re going to have to, like, basically drop your, your world. And we align with with the space outside of your bubble, which is going to be a traumatic event for you. Because like, yeah like that is you having to give up to to that value that you’re all dear because. So, so yeah like I think I think that might be a good description of that process right and it’s like, so maybe we should flip that around and what would be the right relationship, right, like, because, because, like, yeah, you’re going to be in a bubble anyway, right, like, because, because just familiarity creates a set of affordances that aren’t there with other people right so so. So that means that you’re going to have to act differently with people you know and people you don’t know. So, so the right relationship would be where the tension between you acting within your bubble and outside of your bubble is minimum minimal right so you want to end up coherent to a set of universal expressions that or your mistakes in the way that you, you engage with with things that that are are independent of of who you’re interfacing with and and that universality right like that, that brings the reliance back on to you and your relationship, as opposed to the person that you’re relating to. Yeah, and I think I want to be a little fair right so intersubjectivity and agreement. Right, which is what intersubjectivity is based on is a form of sense making, oh other people agree with me right because we outsource our sanity because we’re, we’re looking out constantly we can’t can’t look inward very well or maybe at all. If you’re not meditating you’re definitely not even looking inward at all. So, there’s a way in which that’s a form of sense making is having a bubble, having intersubjective agreement having other people agree with you that’s that’s what I would call that weak sense making again because has to be participatory has to participate with lots of people, not just people with which you already agree that’s not helpful. I mentioned this before I’m always, I’m always concerned when I don’t get pushback, and my ideas, did they understand them. Right, or, or am I wrong and everyone just afraid to tell me right because that happens to right. And so, you always want some pushback to know that that someone’s looking at this as seriously as you are. And that doesn’t mean they have to disagree, right, they can just push back and just be a question like, are you sure that x or can you explain why. Because if you’re not able to do that, right. So, so that’s a bit, we’ll use one of my favorite one of my favorite kick boys is game a game B, right, I asked these game a game B people all the time. How’s that going to work. That’s all, like it’s not I’m not challenging them on the disaster like, but if your idea is good. And again I don’t even think it’s wrong. Your idea is good. If your idea is right, but also good. Then, how are we going to do this. And if you don’t have an answer to that. There’s a problem like you can have all the right answers you want. But if they’re not implementable. And so, asking, asking them, how’s that going to work, what do I do, how do I participate in making it happen. And the fact that they never ever have an answer at all, or at least a practical implementable answer that I can do means that I can participate with them. And so, you know, they all think they’ve got an idea that’s great, and they all think that our just going to implement this, but they don’t have an implementation, they don’t even have a theoretical implementation. Right, that anybody can actually participate in they have a bunch of theories about how magical incentives work or something which is not how incentives work I mean, you know, great dictators know how to do incentives. But that’s the only way to do incentives as near as I can tell so no thanks. I’m out. And people constantly well the government incentivized you by paying you or the government incentivize you by telling you things or whatever. Yeah. And then you go to America where you know almost nobody will ever, you know, people go, oh you’re incentivizing me for something, I’m definitely not doing that right because it’s just that rebel spirit that Protestant ethos everywhere in the United States. And so, it works for some people, but doesn’t work for enough people and almost zero incentive plans work for enough people and incentives often backfire that’s in Freakonomics is great great series of books read all the Freakonomics books, man if you want to understand critical thinking, and how stupid you are about the world and how little you know and how much you’re a muppet. Read the Freakonomics books I think there’s three or four of them. I forget. But, man, some of the stuff in there. And they talk about, you know, incentive system so that it’s one of the, it’s in the first Freakonomics book even I think, right. Oh, there’s a daycare and people keep coming late. So what they do is they go alright well what we’re going to do. We’re going to charge everybody an extra, an extra 50 or whatever the fee is right and so now that they can relate to it, certainly, even though you change the incentive from zero, zero penalty zero physical material penalty in the world for picking up your kid late from daycare to an actual penalty that the penalty people care about is in their head, whether or not they feel guilty. And so once you made it acceptable and made a trade off there that works, they didn’t feel guilty anymore. So more people picked up their kids late and just paid the extra money. And you do that all the time so you think you understand incentives and how to get people to do things, and it turns out that it doesn’t work that way. That’s not the way the world works. This is an economic model and economic models, as I pointed out earlier, are wrong. Click, the world doesn’t operate on economics economics only works when you look after things have happened. It doesn’t work prescriptively or predictively. So, you know, when you landed this helicopter in front of the supermarket or whatever, right, it was like, yeah, I’ll just pay the fine. That’s really, really common behavior. So, what do you do right like yeah you, you know, established to comparable value hierarchies. Yeah, like when, when, when you’re relating to potential or, or to other values right like, because what is killed, like killed is some sort of consistency. sense that you have in yourself and transgressing against your consistency should weigh more than 50 bucks right so so yeah there’s those people are correct in that level of sense making like and so. So this, this brings me into okay so. So, there’s. There’s obviously a frame in which those people were relating to the situation. And, and they can change. They can change that frame right like they could have intentionally done that as well but like the incentive imposed that relationship on them in some sense right and I think I think that that is what the purpose of an incentive is it is is imposing a relationship and then having an expectation that that relationship will result in the specific behavior. But, but yeah like like we have that capacity to have that relationship towards ourselves as well. And that’s that’s that’s where, where we can we can potentially do do some magic. Right. So, so, if, if we, we find out our own grammar right like our own sense making structure, then we, we can have intercessions is that the word. Yeah, I think that’s the word. So we can intercede at a level in our sense making so that later behaviors don’t manifest or will manifest more more likely right and and and in some sense, we’re talking about steering our manifestation through our sense making structure. Right. And, and, and that’s, that’s where you want to get it right like that. That gives you a level of agency. Remember your cognitive grammar, dad I think it is the thing that we value. And we’re trying to get up. So, so, yeah, that’s maybe a little bit of motivation I don’t think we want to go too deep in that. Like, that that’s out there guys. Yeah, I like that idea right because, again, it’s all about having these containers, large enough containers that are so big that they can’t, they can’t be inflated basically because they’re already bigger, way bigger than the mat, and they’re common spaces that people can adopt and and agree to constraints, at least for the purpose of agreeing to constraints that you can cooperate with people. And then, again, there’s a sense in which there’s virtues and values there that are that are manifested are manifested. And then you can orient right in that direction, and that increases the odds that the thing you’re trying to manifest will manifest. And that’s actually super that’s that’s the super important part right that the ability to manifest the things you want to manifest. And it’s okay constraints are there, because they allow you to do the manifestation, and then some set of trade offs, for sure. And then you can do those in order to have the contrast to see so that you can orient. Right, and then you know navigation is all about orientation. It’s all about orientation, and then taking action. So you want to nudge those actions in the right direction, imperfectly though, though, you may have to right. And then, once you’ve done that it’s like, oh, right like okay so that there’s a way in which I can control the grammar that I’m using and and control the way I’m sending it right and to try to manifest the right thing or right discernment or right relationship, all of these things at once. And that is about stating your container clearly you know I think I think economics is a bad frame right I think politics is a bad frame just never use it, you don’t need to. And that’s why it’s definitely a bad frame. Why it’s definitely counterproductive, and why I can’t provide answers to too simple. It’s too simple, and it inflates itself like the political machine inflates itself. Right, this is why governments get bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. Without any relationship to anything important or useful or or or manifest in the world. And that’s a bubble like politics is its own little bubble. And yeah generates its own its own weather or whatever. Fair enough. But that doesn’t mean you can use that fact to solve anything. I think that’s it’s that’s just a maelstrom of problems. And maybe they have some of them have to be dealt with but maybe they can’t be dealt with within that frame, and they have to be dealt with within a larger container, right, a more, a more religious container maybe right or container that at least has virtues and values in it which politics cannot have. And that’s the issue is that need to manifest which is in values, independently in your own container and hopefully it’s a common container. Right. And I think that that is important part right like the, you want to, you want to manifest those values and those matters values are the thing that manifests the containers. You know, if you want to, like, like politics is not a value. Right, like politics is a frame that allows you to have a understanding potentially of certain dynamics within the world. But that is that is not the realm of action. The realm of action is, is in relation to your value and and the manifestation of the value and then the values are also not connected to to the physical manifestation that that they take right so one of my bugaboos lately is this idea of status right like like status can be manifested in many ways. Right, so you you can have status in relation to the women in the group, you can have status in relation to the man in the group and sometimes they overlap sometimes they don’t, and sometimes they conflict. Right. So, so, when, even when you value status, right like that does not directly inform your behavior, because the complexity of of the space that you’re relating to and the potential manifestations and like you don’t have only that value you also have other values like, I don’t know, getting home, laying on the couch or whatever right and sometimes those take privacy over over over your, your social status right so so that reducing these, these, these concepts into a specific manifestation and then having it as explanatory is is reducing the complexity of the situation and thereby disabling you to navigate that situation correct. And, and such, that is, that is the thing that I, I want to warn for like, okay, so, so, if we have a frame, then that frame needs to be in relation to a value and that value is something that is not in the world. And when we start confusing what is in the world with the value, then we start having a different set of problems. So now we can, we can go back to, to the sense making part right like what we can check, we can check our sense making right like is, is, is our concept or of what what’s happening is, is that also fight right like, am I certain of, of the thing or do I have room for the potential and different manifestations of it and that is that maybe that that goes back to the value of the container as such, right like that is the value that we need to hold over the value that we’re trying to pursue in the moment. I like that. I like that. Yeah, yeah. So what’s occurred to me here is, you know, we, we talk a lot about. And I have yet to do video on this but it’s coming. It’s on the list. Maps, which are descriptive versus models which can be prescriptive or predictive. And then the reason. So, I suspect there’s an infinite number of descriptive maps for anything, you know, or at least there’s a comment really explicitly huge number so take something like economics, and you know there’s probably an infinite number of economic models that work, because there’s a bunch of explanations you can have for the math. Basically, so the math doesn’t have to change, you can have a bunch of explanations for why the math went the way it went. But because it’s all descriptive and it’s all post fact that it’s all after the fact, all of it. I think it’s fair to say, there’s no way to know what story happened at the moment. Right, or what interactions happen that we’re part of a story because things just go here in the world sometimes. And so, when you’re doing sense making. It’s easy to make sense of a description, because there’s lots of them and that that we touched on that earlier. Right, but there’s a sense that you should have about your participation in the thing. Right. And so, because we live in this objective material reality world where we’re told that the objective material reality is a thing and we can inhabit it, both of which are false. I think that, you know, I’ll go up to a video on objective material reality at some point. That’s coming. That’s definitely got to go there. I think that what happens is we try to we try to do that we try to sit there, and then we’re not bothered by the fact that we can’t participate in something that we’re just spectators all of a sudden because we’re hanging out objective material reality so of course I can’t, you know, be And that’s because the capitalist, you know, my control space dragon has everybody worried about profit instead of my awesome talent in the world. Right, obviously, and and and that’s where that’s where the problem comes in is that it’s very comfortable to sit there. But what we want to do is engage with prescriptive and predictive models, because those models should have enough potential and enough uncertainty actually in those models, not total uncertainty, obviously, you know, zero, right, but you want some uncertainty, so that there’s different ways in which you feel that you could participate. Right, and that others can participate because of it’s, again, if it’s just you that now you’re in a bubble again. Right, so you want to understand the relationship of the participation in these things and so again, if, if you see a mob, and you assume there’s only one participant in the mob, and that they all had the same single goal. That’s probably not reflective of reality, right, you need to ask yourself, well, what is that, what are the possible participation, how would I have participated if I were in that mob, right without being heroic will say right just like, what would I do if, if I was in a mob, and somebody broke a window, like would I also break a window because that happened a lot in Seattle. Right, would I throw it once somebody once one person throws a rock throwing rocks becomes acceptable to some extent right and then that snowballs. And so that’s not directed. There’s a story you can tell about that there’s probably an infinite number of stories you can tell about that. But what happened in the moment was somebody just got frustrated or figured that they were going to rabble rouse or had had some plan that well throw rocks at the building as part of, you know, some operation to get back at the feds. Now we can go loop, which would like that definitely happens. That happens all the time, actually. I know people who have implemented these things, or you can watch video of people giving people bricks and things like that. And then, you know, destruction starts. And so the purpose of the destruction is well there’s destruction here and here. These two destructions are different. These guys are looting. These guys are fighting the power or whatever they’re being anarchists whatever whatever nonsense they’re up to. Right. And so, you can see a way in which there’s multiple ways to participate you can’t be certain about what the mob is doing and why. Right, but you can be certain that there’s a way to participate in a mob, and that’s a better way of sense making, what could my way of sense making be. I think we’ve taken participation out with this OMR with this objective material reality, which is very much the realm of science. And so now we’re not connected to anything anymore so we’ve lost intimacy. But when you lose intimacy you lose the most important sense making which the sense making about how you fit into the things around you. And that’s the real key. How do I fit, how do I make sense. How am I in this world. What is it that I do that affects the world, and what things that the world that happened in the world affect me. And what is that relationship because that’s all about intimacy. Yeah. Just going to the mob idea rightly. I don’t judge the mob by its average. Right, like that’s not the relevant part. Right, like there might be 10% or even less of the mob that are manifesting a specific type of behavior. But that’s, that’s the part that you need to relate to that that is the part that’s going to affect you and it’s going to affect the world. And the fact that there’s other people in there is irrelevant. Those people do not matter. And it is. This is true for other groups as well. Right, like, when you relate to a group right like you might have to relate to the leader, the thought leader or right like, and there’s only certain aspects that that are relevant for you to relate to and when you’re relating outside of that relevancy like what are you doing like, okay, you’re convincing someone who isn’t manifesting anything in the world. So like, like, you’re changing the opinion of an irrelevant person. So there’s there’s this aspect where, where a group. What was the word again, like, Joe used it. In the Roman legions there was there was this, this one person that was the spokesperson right like that, that you’d speak to. And, and, and they, they’d be the spoke fees for the group right and they had that systematized and organized as as as a physical role. So it’s interesting that that these, these things were there right and like people actually physically manifested these, these aspects because they, they realized literally and figuratively, the necessity of, of having these these aspects in in a body. So, and that role was was separate from from the Centurion, I think. So, So yeah, like, so, so, so, when, when, when we have the container. The container is a thing that that that works on different levels right so we have we have the big container which which contains everything, and then, and then we have the smaller containers which which are related to, to values. And I think, I think those. Well, what would you say the middle container well they they relate to your identity I think yeah right like so so that that is like your identities. Yes, right like you don’t have one identity. So, so it is important to to get, get some some relationship to those containers as well. And maybe take take a lesson from, from the Romans right and then start, start institutionalizing your relationship to your container. Okay, like, I’m, I’m ritualizing, for example, going outside of the door right like when you’re an outside of the door person. There’s a different set of rules right and so you can make that transition include a mental transition in into that new identity. And, and then you making those things ritualized and conforming those rituals around the purposes of of the new identity is in one, one way, enchanting your world to go back to the enchanting aspect right, but it is also preparing you to be a better version of the person inhabiting that container. And the fact that that that you’re having that conscious relationship with your container, right like allows you to to realize with that when you’re in a container that you’re not familiar with that you have a relationship to that container and then you can inform that relationship to that container in the moment. And I think that goes back to your bugaboo of identity and status, right. Yeah, you have an identity in every container you’re in, and those identities are different and they conflict, because that’s how it works. And that sucks but you you have to, you have to be willing to submit to the idea of container to the constraints of each individual container to the fact that in different containers of different identities. And therefore different status, right, like, look, if I, if I, if I go somewhere, and there’s people talking about computers, my status is very different than if I go somewhere and people talking about religion, because I don’t know anything about religion, right, not a not a theologian at all. Right. And so, necessarily my status can be turned out. That doesn’t mean I’m in a low status in either case, right. But it’s different. And so the idea of status, and also status has changed the people, everything static right everything. And why is everything static because again, they’re trying to be on mark. Right. And then why are they trying to reduce everything one identity, or more, they want to be in this objective material reality frame all the time, so that they can relate to things the way they want to tell my relationship to everything right, but that’s not intimate, that’s a one way connection where you’re treating the world like a vending machine and try and get what you want out of it. And so my status is, I’m the guy with the most podcast people, and therefore, you, you, I’m interviewing you, not the other way around, right, or I’m the one that asks the questions here, you know, whatever it is, like, fair enough, maybe that’s true, maybe that’s not the way it has to be doesn’t really matter. It matters though that you acquiesce to the fact that there is status, just because you have a status doesn’t mean you’ll keep it. Other people have status and status can change. Like, oh, right. And also, your status here and your status there are different. And then every container you’re in different like your relationship to your father and your relationship to some person of the same age who’s not related to you is different, and it’s supposed to be different. And you have different identities in those cases, because you do. It’s just a hard fact of reality, right, and something you can’t really get around. And it’s correct, because it’s important because otherwise the world’s just this flat, boring space. And that’s what gives us to nihilism is this, when we shrink, try to shrink everything down and relate to it from objective material reality, which doesn’t exist. Then, then we lose the intimacy, we’ve got all the intimacy out, everything’s a one way connection, and we expect a vending machine for the world. But we really need to get into these containers that can help us to relate to our own identity and our own status, and also relate to the conflicts within and to your point, like, look, maybe you’re a little worker bee in some structure, maybe it’s a volunteer structure, maybe it’s your work, maybe it’s a hobby that you have, maybe it’s a group of people you’re doing a book club with or whatever, maybe it’s a meditation group, doesn’t matter. Acquiescing to that helps the group, right, not trying to be something that you maybe can’t be or shouldn’t be, like, maybe you have better skills, but no one cares. People may not care that you’re the best administrator in the world, right, they may only care if you’re the most articulate person, or they may only care if, you know, you, your interface with people is friendly. Right, and I’ve talked about this before, you know, there’s been groups where, you know, especially engineers tend to have lock horns a lot, right, it’s like, oh, no, my implementation is better, no, my implementation is better. They’ve all played the same thing. So the implementations are equal by any reasonable measure. Right, but one engineer wants to do it his way, the other engineer wants to do it his way. And then there’s a person in the group who is not an engineer, or has a title of engineer, but isn’t very good at it, but super nice guy. And then every time he’s in the meeting, they don’t fight. Why? Because he’s exemplifying something for him. He’s not helping on the technical side. I’ve seen this many times, by the way, this happens all the time in computers. He’s not helping anything, like, from a technical perspective, but him being there and being friendly and nice and talking people down and, you know, having that skill, even though he’s not in charge, either. Sometimes they are, but often they’re not in charge, makes everything work. And it’s kind of magical. It’s like, well, you know, the boss should be able to do that, but the boss can’t do that, in some cases. Sometimes, sometimes yes, but in some cases, and is that the best way for the boss to constantly call out one engineer or the other? Because then it’s like, well, you know, you’re always making one engineer unhappy as the boss, that’s no good. If you can do that without making people unhappy because they’re exemplifying this nice guy who’s in the room, that seems like a better solution. Right, because then no one gets upset. No one’s feathers have been ruffled. No hard decisions have been made by anybody. The power hasn’t come down from the top and knocked you over. And so there’s a way in which you have to acquiesce to your role in the structure and your role is not determined entirely by you. And it’s not determined entirely by you and your skills. And it’s not determined entirely by you, your skills and your desires. It’s not determined entirely by you, your skills, your desires, and where you think you should be. Like, it’s not determined by that. And you have to acquiesce to that, submit to that, so that you can be more efficient in the structure because the more you fight it, the worse it is for everybody else too. And that’s one of the things we don’t, people who are inherently disagreeable like myself tend to disrupt structures quite a bit. And sometimes, you know, that’s what I’m paid for. So sometimes that’s good. Sometimes it’s not what I’m paid for. It’s not good. If I make a mistake and do it anyway, which I try not to, but you know, whatever, I’m a people, so I’m all but two. So there is a way in which this is linked to identity and status and containers. And all of that is super important because that re-enchant and gives us back that possibility and potential and the intimacy because when we’re not fighting against the structures we’re part of, when we’re trying to get in right relationship to them instead and use proper discernment, who knows what will manifest? Yeah, so I wanted to add like if the king comes to me and he’s looking for some wisdom that I have, then what is our relationship? Who’s on top? So the relationship is a consequence of the way that people are in relation to what’s being valued, right? The king is at that moment coming and he’s deciding what’s being valued, but that implies a dependence. And that is primary in that situation. Well, in some fairy tales you see that, right? You see the people making use of that. I think Democles or something, right? Like he said to Alexander. Alexander was like, I’d like to be you or something and he’s like, yeah, I’d like to be me as well. So there’s all of these things where, and this is related to charisma and authority and it’s like, okay, like I now have right relationship to the container and to the situation. And I’m not using the implied social structure to navigate my standing. I’m using the spirit of the situation to realize my relationship to what I’m engaged with. And this goes into the intems, right? So, okay, like in order to gain all these skills, right? Like you need to have that awareness that you’re in these things, right? I’m not trying to make a propositional argument here, but like you need to have that intuitive sense. And then you also have to have the acceptance and that submission, right? And then the intimacy can come forth as a consequence of the ways of participating that open up by you being receptive, right? And why am I saying being receptive, right? Because what is the distinction, right? Like if you’re submitted, you’re not rebelling, right? And the rebellion thing is a thing that puts you in contrast to something else. It puts you in a relationship and it keeps you stuck in that relationship. You’re unable to transcend that relationship because that relationship gives you your identity. You’re not the source of your own identity. That relationship gives you identity, right? And because that relationship gives you your identity, that closes off that potential in the world. Well, when you have that submission to the container and your relationship aren’t defining you, right? Like then you have all this capacity to relate to all of these potentials in the world. And that when you have the skill, right? Because that’s a requirement, right? And that relates to the intimacy as well. But your relationship to all of those potentials, right? Like that’s where you get the intimacy. And that’s where you also get that ways of manifesting in ways that are outside of the implied structure that is presented to you. And this is where you can make miracles happen. Yeah, I like that. The certainty closes you off from the potential, right? The more certain you are, the less potential there is, right? Those have an inverse relationship. And so you want to be in the container, not rebelling or at least rebelling minimally, right? And so that you’re opened up to the possibilities outside the container. Not only all the things the container affords, but all the things that the container could afford and the things outside the container can also afford. And there’s no other way to do that. And so that sort of squares the circle, at least in my mind, on a container status identity, right? And to some extent, objective material reality and its non-existence and why even if it did exist, it would harm you. Like it’s a bad idea to act as if it exists because you lose intimacy, lose connection. You can’t lose a whole way of sense making, which is how do I participate? What feels right about my participation in this thing? Because without the participation, you can’t manifest. And without manifestation, it’s not going to be a world you’re going to live in. Even if you could theoretically live in it, you’re not going to live with it if you can’t participate. And so there is that participatory way of engaging, right? That informing the world that reinflates, re-enchants, you know, all of the world puts the potential there for you to make an intimate, deep connection with it. And it’s those deep, intimate connections that manifest these miracles, roughly speaking, right? These things that are otherwise impossible. Otherwise impossible. I think that’s a good way to think about it. So, yeah, I mean, I like the way that the cultural cognitive grammar is thinking about these things correctly with a stable grammar inside of these nice, stable containers allows us better sense making through participation. I think that’s the generalized sort of theme and conclusion that we’ve come to. I don’t know. How do you feel, Manuel? Do you feel you’re pretty complete or do you want to go deeper on something in particular? Yeah, well, so I think we want to rehash a little bit, right? So the sense making is a thing that’s necessary. It is happening, right? And the cultural cognitive grammar was the structure, right? So we kind of went into, okay, like, what are the substructures that we can use, right? And we go to containers. We went into frames as well, right? And then how they were constructed, right, from a value and how our relationship to that is. So maybe we want to close up with like a tease of, okay, like, cool story, bro. Now what? Right? Like maybe we should go there, right? And then it’s like, okay, right? We need to get that participation going. You need to start setting practices, right? Like you need to start getting some discernment for yourself, right? Like the discernment is in two parts, right? Like one is the discernment for the place for action, right? So you need to create the space within your day that you have a moment where you can implement your action. And then the second one is you need to have the discernment in the manifestation in the world, right? Like, okay, like what are my options for action? Like how do I implement my options for action? And those are two levels that you have to relate to. Maybe you want to add a different level. No, I like that. I like, yeah, I think that understanding that we have a cultural cognitive grammar and that we need to take care of it. And that other people are using that a cultural cognitive grammar to manipulate our behavior is also important. And the way you get around that is by understanding framing and containers, right? What is their container? What is their framing? How are they using these words? And then coming up with your own models or at least being aware of the models you’re using, you’re using already to frame things. And so that you can come up with better models and hopefully my models, right? Because like a lot of them, my models are helpful for that, right? Because they’re nice and simple, relatively speaking, and they allow you a lot of affordances in participation and bringing back this idea of understanding your participation, your connectedness, your intimacy in the potential of whatever it is that’s being laid out. And it can be only propositional as long as it has a way for you to participate. But you need to focus on your participation and not focus on trying to be in an objective material reality where you don’t matter or where you’re not affecting things. Because if you’re not affecting things, you’re not participating. You’re not able to participate in those things. And that’s not good. Then it’s not a real thing, at least from your perspective, whether it’s whether it could be real or not, it’s not relevant because if something’s real and you’re not doing it, it’s not real to you. And you know, that sucks. And yeah, and that’s tough because there’s going to be conflict and we can’t avoid conflict by hanging out in OMR all day and all night. Like, that’s not going to work. So you want to bring back that sense of how do I participate in something that can be bigger than even I can imagine? That can work in a way that I can’t even imagine today. And that’s where you want to be because that’s re-enchanting the world and having a deep intimacy with the things and people around you. And yeah, practice, practice, practice, whether it’s practice in a meditation group, practice in a church service, practice in a yoga class, right? And then build relationships from there, outward from there, because when you meet people, you never know what that’s going to, you know, how that’s going to change you and what that’s going to do to you. And yeah, it’s going to be tough and some people suck and they’re going to say bad things or do bad things. And you have to be careful. Sure. And it requires a lot of discernment, a lot of energy and effort. Absolutely. And a ton of time. But who knows what can manifest from that? And even if it goes badly in the beginning, it could go well, you know, further down the line. Yeah. So one thing I want to pick out there is, okay, so you’re having your grammar, right? So first become aware. And then second one is evaluate, right? Like, okay, like I have this, like, what are the implications of me having this? And when you’re there, right, like then you can start making decisions. Like, oh, like, is this actually a thing that I want to be doing? Like, why am I doing this in the first place? Right? Like, how did that even end up happening? And maybe you might learn something or two and leave a comment, please. Yeah. Yeah. How’s that working out for you? Yeah. And engage with others and talk to others about your ideas. Don’t be afraid to engage with others because that’s part of sense making, right? Is this outward looking thing. And engage with others who disagree with you so that you can get some certainty about what it is you’re thinking and doing and how your grammar is working for you and how your frames are working for you. And yeah, absolutely. You know, leave a comment and tell us how we’re doing and what you want to see more of or less of or what you liked or didn’t like or, you know, future topic ideas, any of that, because feedback is very important, right? It’s all about signaling ultimately. And having good signals is the thing that helps us with sense making. The better signals we have, the better sense we make of the world and the better sense I can make of the world, the better sense other people can also make of the world. And that goes for everybody, right? It just kind of spreads out. And that’s where that’s where the potential exists, because I don’t know what can manifest if we all have better sense making. But I know it will be better.