Discernment - live navigation (n5izisnoJ2M)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=n5izisnoJ2M

Young girl dancing to the latest beat Has found new ways to move her feet And the lonely voice of youth cries, What is truth? Young man speaking in the city square Trying to tell somebody that he cares Can you blame the voice of youth for asking, What is truth? Yeah, the ones that you’ll call and love Are gonna be the leaders in a little while When will the lonely voice of youth cry, What is truth? This old world’s wakened to a newborn babe And our solemn lists swear it’ll be their way You better help that voice of youth find, What is truth? And the lonely voice of youth cries, What is truth? All right. Well, I hope everybody liked that intro. I love the intro. Of course, the incomparable Sally Jo did some of the artistry for that. And then the Diddy, our sea shanty, is by an anonymous artist who did an excellent job with it, I might say. And I am thrilled to have it. And today we’re going to be talking about discernment. And this is part of the trilogy of discernment, judgment, action. If you take an action in the world, you’ve made a judgment. That judgment came from a discernment. It’s that simple. So this week we’re going to cover discernment. And that’s something like the ability to map your senses onto your feelings, to tell that there are parts and to differentiate those parts. From other parts and from the whole. And that leads to the ability to judge. Right. You have to have this capability of paying attention to these things and knowing that they’re things that are not all muddled, flattened, sort of squished together. And you might consider there is an engagement with your feelings. Where you know not to trust one or more of your senses entirely. You do discernment with your senses, your imagination and your reason. So you can’t reduce it to one of those things. It’s always this negotiation, this trade-off between those three aspects. And you have to temper your imagination, which is unconstrained, right, with your senses, which are unreliable. Right. With your logic, reason and rationality. And in short, I think one of the things that’s sort of missing from John Vervecki’s work, for example, is that all relevance realization really is, is a subset of discernment or maybe a superset of just discernment and judgment. The inability to do something like recognize that someone can be nice and still hold on to boundaries, as we talked about last week, is a loss of discernment. You’re just not paying attention to what’s going on. And you flatten the world or squished it into this where you either have to be nice or you have to be mean and there’s nothing in between and you can’t balance those two. But of course you can. And that’s what discernment is about. You’re not going to have balance in your life if you don’t have discernment. How would you know you were balanced? You wouldn’t. It’s that simple. That’s why you need discernment. So another example is the inability to recognize that your view of the world isn’t everyone else’s view. There are things you know about for whatever reason that other people don’t have a view of the world. There’s a lot of cases online where you just have information you don’t even realize you have that other people don’t have access to for whatever reason. I mean, I’m not saying they couldn’t get it. I’m saying they don’t even realize that they don’t have access to it. So you’re not going to have discernment. You’re not going to have discernment. You’re not going to have discernment. And that’s another piece of discernment. There’s a difference between information in the world and information that I’ve engaged with. And there’s a difference between information I’ve engaged with and information I remember. And there’s a difference between information I remember and information I find useful in the moment. And in this case, I’m talking about same information I remember. There’s a discernment there. You have to realize that these conditions are possible, that people can have access to something but never have access to it, that people can have access to it and forgotten it, that people have access to it and not put it together in the form that you expect. You can discern those differences, although not always ahead of time, because I don’t know what you’ve read. I have no idea. Somebody comes on the TV and they say masks are good for you. And you’re like, oh, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not going to get it. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I have no idea. Somebody comes on the TV and they say masks are good for you because they prevent a pandemic or something. And I have to wonder if they’ve read any of the papers on masks because I did. And I know what they say. And I don’t think those people do because that’s not what those papers say. That makes sense in our head that masks would work that way to prevent a pandemic. But all the actual research that’s been done. Nope. So there’s a big difference. Like, I can’t discern if they’ve just read a paper that said that because such a thing could exist. How would I know? Or if they’re lying, knowingly, or if they trusted the wrong person and therefore they’re lying through ignorance, they didn’t gauge the information. There’s lots of possibilities. Not a big conspiracy theory where everyone’s on the same page. It’s not necessary. Simplest explanation is usually the best. Most people are ignorant of most things most of the time. That’s all. Not hard. And when an event occurs that is supposed to result in something and it doesn’t. So you’re assuming a boundary has been crossed or you’re assuming a reaction is going to happen. And you’re assuming that it’s going to happen. And it doesn’t. So you’re assuming a boundary has been crossed or you’re assuming a reaction is going to happen. Like, I didn’t pay my taxes and nobody busted down the door and threw me in jail. Then your discernment was wrong. My political party got into power and so now these things that they’ve been talking about, they’re going to enact. And there’s lots of reasons why that can’t happen. Why it won’t happen. And it’s not just they were lying. Like, politicians will sell you the moon. They don’t have the moon. So you need discernment. You need to be able to step back and go, hey, my prediction of the world was wrong. That means there’s something wrong in my model. Not that means I need to find another exception that explains why this time it was wrong. This is discernment. The ability to discern quantity, measure, counting, from quality is important. It matters. It matters why. Quantity, quantity, measure, measure. It matters why. It matters how much. It matters how much. It matters how much. Quantity, quality, why. Three things. Quality is emotional. Quantity is just counting and measurement. The ability to validate externally, right? I count the same way you count. Our number systems don’t actually matter. Those are just representational. The act of counting results in the same basic thing. Four is four. Six is six. Eight is eight. Two plus two is still four. If you don’t think so, you’ve lost discernment. You can feel more than one emotion at a time. That’s a problem for using emotions as discernment. Because again, discernment is wrapped up with your unreliable senses, your unconstrained imagination, and your logic, reason, and rationale. The way you constrain your emotions is not your emotions. That’s either your logic, reason, and rationality or your imagination. Why? People say don’t let your imagination run wild with you. Why? Because your emotions can go crazy. You can imagine meeting the girl of your dreams and how it’s going to be when you’re married. It’s not going to be that way. You can imagine meeting the girl of your dreams and how it’s going to be when you’re married. It’s not going to be that way. And because your emotions overlap, they’re not the best way to discern things. You still need the other pieces. Quantity, on the other hand, is a very important part of your life. Quantity, on the other hand, is a measure along a single axis or within a single frame. So it’s very tempting because it gives you this accuracy, precision, which leads to a level of certainty. That linear, discrete relationship. Very handy. But it can’t discern things outside of its frame. And a lot of people get confused. So the big confusion in the world that everybody seems to have is the difference between income and wealth. They’re not the same at all. If you make no money, but you own a house, you have wealth. You have no income. Discernment. If you just think of it as money and you just measure money, if the money is not coming in and going out, what are you measuring? Nothing. Wealth is a way of measuring value. So in the framework of wealth, you have wealth, you have wealth, you have wealth, you have wealth. Wealth is a way of measuring value. So in the frame of value, wealth and income aren’t the same, but you can equate them. But when you reduce to a single axis, you end up with a bad number. And that’s one of the problems people don’t realize. You know, some people point this out like Jeff Bezos doesn’t have all the money that they say he’s worth. Because if he tried to sell all his stock all at once, he couldn’t. So that money’s not there. Not right now. But so to say somebody has a certain wealth at a certain point in time, there’s a little fudge in there. And you need to be able to discern that because you’re constrained by quantity to the axis or the frame that you’re working in. And it doesn’t work outside that frame. And if you’re picking an endpoint that you’re sort of relying upon, then that’s going to affect your ability to discern. Because you’re going to ignore the boundaries and constraints which contradict your end goal. And you’re going to prefer that end goal to all of the things that are coming up showing you that that end goal is not going to work. There are conflicts. And some conflicts have to be accepted. And we need to be able to discern that. We need to be able to discern conflict and overlap. And discernment helps you to know your identities. Because you don’t have one identity and you’re never going to have one identity. And whatever identities you have now are going to change over time. That sucks. Good discernment though. You know, when you are confused, you can jump to, you know, I’m a banker or I’m a programmer or I’m a gamer or I’m a Christian. If by identity you mean the proposition that’s measurable by others, you already have a problem of discernment. Discernment’s about understanding things like identity as a negotiation. You don’t get to pick your own identity. Because your identity isn’t you. You’re bigger than those identifications. The way people identify you is not you. You’re bigger than that. You wouldn’t want to be that small. That would be constraining and terrible. And there’s things for people to measure. And then they’ll judge you on the measures instead of judging you on the quality of what you are. You can’t judge participation by quantity. I can bang in twice as many nails of you as you. Does that make me a better Christian and you a worse Christian? These are silly ways to think about things. But people do it all the time. Lack of a better Christian. The ability to define a problem is discernment. You define the problem first. Then you define what you think might be a solution. Or better yet, find the problem. Define what you think might be a solution. Or better yet, find the problem. Define what the solution to that problem would result in. Then try to define a solution. Don’t reinvent education. Until you define what education is. Then define the problem. Then define what the end result should be. Then define your solution. Then justify your solution. Why? Because maybe you can fix anything if you’re willing to pay any price. Maybe that’s where they went wrong in the communist regime. They didn’t care about the price. We’ll kill any number of people to have this fantasy in our heads and act it in the real world. Or the Sam Harris problem. I don’t care how many children have to be dead for me to be right. Fair enough, Sam. But I’m still a no on that, on ethical grounds. Which Sam Harris doesn’t have. I mean, the idea of reinventing something that is so much older than you and larger than you, on your own terms, it’s absurd. And when we don’t recognize absurdity, it’s a lack of discernment. Because there’s no hope of you being smart enough to reinvent education. It’s not going to happen. The idea of education, the ways in which we educate people, are thousands of years old. There’s distributed cognition through thousands of years of time. And you can come up with certain specific examples and problems, but that’s not education. That might be one part of one thing within the umbrella of education. And fair enough. But even if you’re not educated, you’re still a part of the umbrella of education. But even then, are you smart enough to fix that? I don’t know. I don’t think so. I’ve met a lot of smart people. They weren’t smart enough to fix that. The really smart ones knew they weren’t smart enough to fix that and didn’t try. That’s how you know people are really smart. And when we don’t want the ideal, we flatten the world. We lose the discernment of things higher above us, outside of us. We don’t understand where our boundaries are. This is back to last week’s boundaries. We want the world to be safe. We want the world to be safe. We want the world to be smooth and perfect and flat and able to be interacted with on our own terms. Individualism. That’s what we want. We want an individual world catered to us. And who doesn’t want that? The problem is my individual world catered to me conflicts with your individual world catered to you. Lack of discernment. Oh, there’s a place where even if I could have that, it would be a problem. Now you have to discern that line. Where you end and other things begin. As we discussed last week. You need to look at these endings and beginnings. Because it’s not just nature, it’s people. At some point, people that aren’t you are there. And what mediates that is nature to some extent. And some people extend their boundaries to make them responsible for everybody. That’s an overabundance of empathy. Or attempted empathy. Or you’re trying to encompass everything. So you bring down the higher things. You move the margin into the center. You average the numbers. You clip out the outliers. And who’s defining those outliers? And this is the message of the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. These dystopian novels are always about the same thing. The flattening of the world. The compressing of everything. The bringing of the margins into the center. The expelling of the center out to the margins. It’s that flip that Jonathan Pigeot talks about so beautifully. And lots of our fears are just projection into the world. If someone has a fragile ego, they’ll pretend that they’re not. If they have a fragile ego, they’ll pretend that everybody else does. And talk about them behind their back. Rather than confronting them. That’s not because, in most cases, the person that they confront has a fragile ego. That’s because they don’t want to be confronted. They have a fragile ego. They don’t want to face that. So they just put it on everybody outside of them. It’s a lack of discernment of boundaries. People are way better with a little bit of honest pushback than some sycophantic soothing. At the end of the day, soothing makes you weaker, not stronger. So it’s only appropriate, relevant, when and only when you’ve been going to a place where you’ve been going too long. You’ve been anxious. You want people to stop experiencing something they’ve been overloaded on. That’s when you need to soothe them. Right. When you take away their experience, their ability to experience their participation, or the results of their participation, especially the negative results, you’re taking away their agency. It’s not good for them. It’s not good for you. It’s not good for anybody. It’s not going to be good for them going forward. It’s not going to be good for everybody they encounter. You’re just making the world a worse place by taking away those negative consequences. Evolution means, very clearly, that we respond better to negative feedback than positive feedback. Sorry, just is what it is. Because negative feedback is the type of feedback that tells us we’re in danger for our lives. That’s why you can’t soothe people all the time. That’s why they need a little bit of stress. But they need to be soothed when they’re anxious, when they’ve overextended. It can’t be soothed forever. You can over soothe them. That requires discernment. That requires discernment. That requires discernment. That requires discernment. That requires discernment. You can over soothe them. That requires discernment. There is a difference, which can be discerned, between dying for your principles and dying as your mission in which you destroy death itself. You can be Socrates. You can die for your principles, willingly. You can kill yourself directly. That’s not the same as dying for your mission, something outside of yourself, like destroying death. You can’t choose martyrdom. It’s involuntary. Socrates is not Jesus. You need to discern that. You need to know that difference. Socrates doesn’t even have the suffering of Buddha or the wisdom. People don’t go to Socrates and say, what should I do? They know he’s not going to answer. They’re well aware Socrates is not going to give you answers. That’s his whole trick is to never make statements. He doesn’t make truth claims. And on the other side of projection, we’ve got mimicry. And it’s an issue because, again, you can’t discern where you end or at least where your imagination ends and others begin. And instead, there’s an input that happened outside of you that you’re reacting to internally. It’s the opposite of projection. Projection is where nothing happened and you’re filling the space with your imagination, taking your imagination, projecting it outward because you don’t know where you end. But then you can mimic things. This is that whole thing about crowds being dangerous and mobs and all that. It’s a legitimate problem. And it is the problem of mimicry. We mimic. It happens at an unconscious level, largely. Not for everybody. Some people are super disagreeable. Some people just don’t pay attention. Some people are both. Pirates not included, of course. And this is why empathy can be a problem because you’re basically trying to mimic the people around you as a way of making peace. Or avoiding conflict. It’s those negative signals that we need, though. And maybe the only appropriate use for empathy is children and not adults. When we cannot discern ourselves as adults, we want empathy, which we had as children. And that will solve our problems because it always did when we were children. Knowing the difference requires discern. When is it that I need to step up and take responsibility? And when is it that I need to realize that I’ve been victimized and it was out of my control? These are good questions. I’m not here to solve these problems. I’m here to show you how important discernment is. I’m here to show you how important discernment is. And give you examples of where it’s missing. We should expect a distributed cognition, a cognition bigger than us. You can call it an agregore. You can call it a spirit. You can watch my various videos on that topic. I think I have three now. There was one live stream. Got over a thousand views. Great live stream. Three channels, one thousand views, spirits and agregores. These distributed cognitions have more discernment than any individual does. That’s their purpose. That’s why we need them. And they come in all forms, right? Government agencies, officials that are funneling experts, leaders that are taking expert advice and then deciding whether or not to throw it out or to listen to it. Why? Because they’re taking responsibility. You know who’s not taking responsibility? The expert. Don’t listen to experts. They have no skin in the game. To quote Taleb. It’s a great book, by the way. Read all of Taleb’s books. Skin in the game is particularly good. And without discernment, there’s an interesting pattern that you probably haven’t recognized fully. Now, I’m willing to bet you’ve recognized it and said, oh, I don’t like what’s going on here, but you’ve not been able to articulate it. And with the help of the QA, you can see that there’s a lot of people who are not able to articulate it. And with the help of the community and look, all of these streams are with the help of the community. I don’t these notes are the distillation of a distributed cognition. They’re not my observations alone or anything. I think it was this morning we were talking about this. You can be the villain. You can be the villain. You can be the villain. You can be the villain, the single person for doing something bad. The same person can also be the victim for being called out for their bad action. And then they end up same person as the hero for stealing the attention from the victim. So they get that heroic bump from stealing the attention and they act out the hero role, even though there’s a victim and it’s not them. And in fact, they’re the villain. We see this all the time right now, and we know it’s gross. We don’t like it. We know there’s something wrong about it, but we can’t say what it’s this cycle of somebody being a villain. Pretending to take on the victim role for being called out for being a villain, rightly, and then ending up the hero for stealing the attention from the victim from the situation. When we cannot discern the villain from the victim from the hero, it’s a problem. And that lot of that is passive aggressive behavior. That’s why passive aggressive behavior is so awesome to the people that wield it because they can be a villain. They can be a victim. They could be a hero all in one incident. And they get away with it. So you get the full cycle even like there’s no downside. I mean, it’s parasitic upon everybody around you. I hate passive aggressive people. Oh, my goodness, they drive me nuts. And the problem is, it’s hard to see these patterns, especially when we can’t discern values. Stating something should be is discerning a value, but avoiding responsibility for being the one who requests it. Because that would put you in charge and you don’t want to be in charge because then you have to be responsible. Right. But if you’re not in charge, your wishes expressed should be ignored. Sorry. You’re not in charge. Why? Listen to you. You’re not willing to take responsibility or put a work into what you want. You’re just whining. And notice how this works with children, for example. Notice how it works with adults. Children will go, Mommy, I’m hungry. And Mommy will sometimes foolishly say, What do you want? And the child will say something like candy or ice cream. And the mommy will be like, No, you can’t have that. How about an apple? The preferences of the child who cannot feed itself should be taken with a grain of salt. And this brings me back to the problem of the flattening of the world. It brings me into the problem of a lack of discernment where the center and the margin are being squished together. Where everything’s being squeezed. You can’t see relation anymore. If we’re all equal, we should all have equal relation. We should all have equal money. We should all have equal exposure and experience. And wouldn’t that be one that I can know what you think and why you feel the way you feel and what’s going on if that’s not real? There’s no discernment. The world is enchanted. It’s huge. It’s so much bigger than you. There are so many ways to interact that that means other people are interacting in different ways. And then I don’t know where they’re at. Yeah, you don’t. That sucks. Unless it’s beautiful. Unless it’s something to have gratitude for. But that’s up to you. You need to discern the things that you’re responsible for, for you. That’s what other people are responsible for. Other people aren’t responsible for enacting your vision of the world. That’s not what their thing is. Now, they may opt to do that, especially if you’re willing to lead them. But if you’re willing to lead, you’re willing to take on an awful lot of responsibility. And you’re willing to be a scapegoat. All leaders are scapegoats. They’re scapegoats for the mistakes of their experts. They’re scapegoats for their own missteps. They’re scapegoats for the missteps of absolutely everybody following them. It is a miserable freaking job. Not recommended. But we have to discern values. We have to know what to take responsibility for and know what to not take responsibility for, because it’s not ours. We need this discernment so that we can assess the quality of the relationships that we’re having. That’s re-enchantment. And that’s re-enchantment out of the intimacy crisis. We talked about the intimacy crisis before. Andrea with the Bangs channel, my channel Navigating Patterns with Catherine. Catherine’s lovely. Any video Catherine’s in, you should watch. You should probably watch most of Andrea’s stuff. She’s lovely, too. Just amazing, amazing interlocutors to speak with. Andrea has a gift for interviewing people. It’s really amazing. The quality of, say, a conference that Catherine puts on or an interview that Andrea does, it’s not something I can quantify. There’s a discernment between them. They’re not the same person. They’re not doing the same thing. They’re not even trying to do the same thing. I can discern that they’re not the same person. The way in which they channel the divine feminine energy is different. I can discern all that. Or maybe not all of it. Maybe some of it. I can discern that it’s different. When you can’t or when you don’t want to, that’s a problem. You need discernment or the world will flatten. It will squish. The margin and the center will become mixed for you. Maybe not for everybody else, though. Discernment. The man standing above the flog complains that he’s alone because he hasn’t discerned the trade-off he made. I want to be up here, enlightened, without all the noise of the city or the village. Up here, where all I see is nature. Now you’re alone, you idiot. That’s good, once in a while. But now you’re alone. How are you going to get food? How long are you going to stay up there? You can be the man above the fog. It’s fine. It’s a beautiful painting. I think it’s subversive and everybody who’s ever looked at it should have their eyes burned out. But that’s a different problem. Can you discern the absurdity of what I just said? Can you discern the difference between what people say and what they do? And why that matters? I derive people’s values and virtues from their actions, not their words. I ignore all their words. I’m not listening to you. You’re talking to me, I’m not listening to you. I’m telling you that right now, right up front. I’m watching what you do. I’m paying attention to the tone when you speak. And now there’s shock. Well, Mark, you’re the pedantic bastard that catches every, yeah, every, every word. Damn right. Because I don’t want you to rely on the things you say to yourself or to others. I want you to discern the things you do in the world. That’s who you are. Not what story you tell yourself. That’s not who you are. That’s not what you’re about. That’s how you treat others. Right? If you listen to somebody and they say, here’s what I believe. Here are the principles I’m operating under. And then you observe them not operating under those principles. They’re not principled people. It’s that simple. You don’t need to try to redeem them. You don’t need to give them forgiveness or grant them grace. You don’t need to do any of that. The first thing you need to do is to acknowledge that they say things that don’t match their actions. And adjust accordingly. That’s not to say ignore what they say. If some government official tells you they lied, you should believe they’re a liar. You should believe that their highest value is not being honest to you. That may not be a problem. But it might be a problem. You need to discern those two things. Somebody comes to me and said, Mark, I lied to you about X and here’s why. I’ve got a decision to make. Somebody comes to me and says, I have to apologize to you for lying to you. And here’s what frustrates people. If they do that, I often don’t ask them why. If you don’t know the difference between those two scenarios, you lack discernment. It’s a problem. And the biggest problem is people haven’t discerned what they want. They don’t know what they want. Why do you think Peterson’s so successful? Just mentioning that other people engage in the future authoring program. What’s the future authoring program? Imagine where you want to be in five years. Just telling people that that’s an option moves their attention. Now they have discernment they didn’t have. Why? Because they changed their attention. And that alone helps with discernment. It’s not everything. But it’s first step. Then they start to discern. I’m here. But I don’t have these things. Whatever they are. It could be courage. We could go with brains, courage, heart. What does Dorothy lack? And then you’re thinking, what do I want? And that creates a difference from future you to current you. Now, all of a sudden, you have discernible goals. You have an end state. You have a problem state. And you have an end state. You have an end state. You have a problem. I’m here. And I don’t want to be here. I want to be here. Now you can define solutions to those problems, exactly what future authoring does. Just changing the attention. You don’t want to take somebody’s attention and say how are you going to feel in your deathbed? You’ve skipped a lot there. skip to the end. You don’t want them to skip to the end. They’ll get nihilistic right away. And now, I want these things. This is where I’m at. Did you discern the trade-offs you have to make to get from here to there? How are we not? You need that. What trade-offs did you make to get where you’re at? Were they good trade-offs? Were you busy getting your PhD while your kids were growing up? That’s what my father did. He wasn’t a better person for it, that’s for sure. And look, maybe you’ll be the one in a billion. You’ll get lucky and you will be. I don’t think so. You want to take that risk? Is that a trade you’re willing to take? And here’s the real kicker. Just to round this out. Emotions can highlight discernment or hide discernment. They’re not a solution. Discernment is just hard. Do the work. Sucks. Life is struggle, man. Do the work. All right. That’s my rant. If you haven’t listened to the first two minutes or so of this stream, I encourage you to do so and appreciate the wonderful artwork and music and not terrible video editing skills of myself, but the artwork and music was not mine, of course. I have no talent for such things. The best channel to watch on is Navigating Patterns, of course. That’s the best channel on YouTube. I can confirm this myself using my own discernment of YouTube. If you need some discernment. And look, that’s a good point. We outsourced some of our discernment. Distributing cognition. We’ve got to be able to do that. You know, sometimes you need the advice of a priest. Sometimes you need to yell at Pastor Paul for not paying attention to justice. You know, I thought I did good. I didn’t I didn’t get all personal because that would have gone bad. I was thinking about that after I did it on his livestream. I’m glad I didn’t mention my father. That was a good point. I’m glad I didn’t mention my father. That wouldn’t have gone well. I would have gone completely nuts. And I’m not trying to garner any sympathy, so is what it is. But yeah, that’s that’s where we’re at. Let’s say I’m in this whole crazy to apologize. This is not obviously I’m not home. This is not my normal setup. But if you would like to join, and I cannot guarantee that everybody that wants to join is going to be brought in. But if you’d like to join, I will send out the StreamYard link and I will pin that link on whatever channels will let me, which I think is actually only mine. Sadly, but it will be in the chat of all three channels. Because I am still allowed to stream on Jacob’s channel, which is very generous of him. But eventually he has threatened that I will not be able to do that. Brando’s United seems safe enough. Oh, man, something true. Oh, man, something changed. Monitors. Who needs them? There we go. That’s better. Now it’s not terrible. Yeah, discernment. Get some tea today. I’ve got a little bit of water. No Sam Pell. Didn’t go to the store. This is a good clip. So my understanding from Jacob is that he wants his channel for his stuff, which seems totally reasonable to me. And so he doesn’t want us polluting his channel, even though I got him seven subs on my big stream three weeks ago with our crap, which seems perfectly OK. It’s just that that big stream got 600 plus views on his channel and closer to 300 or something on mine and honored and something, I think, on Randos. But it got him seven subs. So I was kind of like, are you sure you want to cut this off? I’m getting you subs at a time when you’re never going to use your channel, apparently. Unbeknownst to me, because I just did this because Jesse told me to. What do I know? I’m a slave to the distributed cognition. Distributed cognition happens. My hosts have lovely nuts that they got me and they are delicious. So I’m going to go ahead and get some of these. The lovely nuts that they got me and they are delicious. So I figured I would have some. I love almonds. And I love cashews. And I love discernment. I can discern almonds from cashews, from peanuts. Benjamin, just uh, just Jacob’s channel. Rando’s United seems to be wide open and I don’t think anyone’s taking responsibility for it yet. So as far as I know, I’m safe on Rando’s. Just that Jacob’s attempts to get everybody onto Rando’s haven’t been well thought out. And you know, some people are moving and some aren’t. Myself included. One of the problems is, if I have Discord open and Jacob starts a stream, it gives me that link to his channel. So I’m like, oh okay, I just click on that link, it’s easy. And I’m lazy. I’ve discerned that I am lazy. So I end up on his channel and then people yell at me and go, you need to take your awesome chats over to Rando’s. I’m like, oh okay. So that’s one of the downsides to multi-channel streaming. Sometimes comments end up split and then… Then you end up with no discernment. Because you can’t discern a comment you didn’t read. These are just some of the reasons why discernment is important. I think that makes sense. It seems like Rando’s United is more popular nowadays. Not than the original channel. And Jacob seems to be making more niche content on his channel. Yeah, for sure. I mean, it’s his thing. He should do what he wants to do. He shouldn’t be beholden to us. Especially in his extreme generosity at getting this StreamYard account and having a channel his size that people can stream to. I personally think everybody should just sign up for Navigating Patterns. But you know, I’m a little biased maybe. Especially with all this great artwork and music intro for the live streams. Might get some new music for the regular videos at some point too. Working on that. And by we, I mean not me. I’m lazy. Oh, Jesse says the intro was good. Well, that’s important to hear from Jesse. I like the intro. I did. I’ve been doing notes since Tuesday. Right up until like three hours ago or so. And that worked out well. And Jesse is threatening to be here soon. Okay. He’s like that though. People threatening me. It’s hard to discern if that’s a threat. A real threat. Yeah, people used to say, oh, I’ll be right back. And I would be like, thanks for the warning. Spectacular. Okay. Well, good. I hope my monologues, which are actually rants, are getting better. I incorporated a lot of stuff. Man, there’s some compression in there. There’s a bunch of adlib. It’s only a page. I had to squish down the editor. But I’m closer to the laptop here. So yeah, it’s been quite a journey here. We’ll see if I do one next week or not. Because I’m still in New England. So Friday nights are tough because everybody’s like, oh, let’s go. It’s Friday night. Like, I don’t want to go out with you people. That’s why I moved down south. They’re just not as much fun as they think they are. And I always have more fun on Saturdays for some reason. And I’m glad you like the rant. I can’t solve it. I can’t solve it. I am, in fact, saying that if you need evidence that we have to discern, watch the documentary ITER. I think it’s on Amazon Prime. Quite good. You will understand why we need to discern. Actually, I don’t think that’s technically CERN. But that’s OK. Sabine Hoffenfelder, whatever her name is, very good on YouTube. She has a bunch of debunking science videos that are just excellent. She’s really good. Her stuff on particle physics is bang on. I’m like, yeah, everybody knew this in the 80s. And we forgot. We’re a bunch of scam artists. Stream theory. Pay me money. Give me taxpayer dollars. Scam artists. Snake oil has existed forever and continues to this day. AI snake oil, particle physics snake oil, fusion snake oil. Watch ITER. It’s a hell of a documentary. Man, we’re five years away. That was 1945. We’re five years away. That was 1950. We’re five years away. That was 1955. We still don’t have fusion, guys. 1945. Been doing this a long time. It still isn’t here. Might be some discernible scam going on. And I’m a big fan of science and scientific research. But still. What was my observation about that the other day? The motive. Innovation through war switched. Innovation through Cold War. On that subject, think about if anybody has ever seen a nuclear explosion firsthand. I met somebody who did. He was pretty old at the time. I was pretty young. There are still plenty of nuclear explosions going on. Or a bunch of people in Japan who could tell you about it. When we get further and further away from these events, they become less easy for us to discern because we don’t see the negative effects. We used to. You could meet Holocaust survivors pretty easily 30 years ago. And that’s much harder now. You could bump into people who were in the Second World War. You could hear personal stories of an actual person talking to you in person. You could ask them questions. Wrong sees nuclear explosion every day. I’m afraid to ask. Day. Okay, day. Is that like something rap artist day day? And as those really nuclear explosions? I don’t think so. Talking about nuclear explosions. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. Is that like talking about nuclear explosions? I don’t think so. Talking about the sun. Is he? Is he talking about the sun? I hate decisions. I’m going to answer Mills question first while I try to figure out if I really want to deal with Claire today. Mills, how does discernment relate to salience landscape and semantics? Well, look, I mean, I poked it. Vervey early on. I think that relevance realization is just discernment plus judgment. Maybe judgments the next phase, right? It’s discernment judgment action. And then that cycle starts again. You have to discern your action. From the results of the action so that you can correct the action through your judgment. So it’s this cycle. I am not going to get comfortable today because hat won’t stay on. I don’t know. How did I have this before? I had it pretty good. Then it popped off of something. There we go. That’s better. Just going to squeeze my head. There’s plenty of extra space in there. There’s nothing on the inside. Oh, man. Of course, when you travel with your toys. You’re going to ruin your toys. There we go. That’s much better. That’s the way I like to have my monocle. So, yeah, salience landscape. Let’s say salience landscape is something like the things that. The sorry affordances that are available to you. How do you find those affordances? You need discernment. Right. Semantics are the way we express discernment. I think going off the top of my head. So cut me a little slack, but I think that’s correct. Maybe not be the only way. I’m not making exclusivity arguments, right? Because I’m an enchanter. So I try not to reduce things. So, yeah, I mean, there’s definitely discernment. In salience. In salience. And. The problem with talking about salience landscape is that. You’re sneaking in. Objective material reality and saying there’s a landscape there. I was asked if the difference is merely semantic. I don’t think so. I think they might be two different ways of talking about the same thing. All right. Does that make sense, Mills? I just want to get you straight in a way before I risk bringing Claire up to talk about something completely off topic. Maybe she’ll talk about discernment instead, but. All right. Welcome. Hello. I’m very happy to be talking about discernment. Does it mean judgment? No. You weren’t listening to the beginning of the stream. No, no, I wasn’t. Okay, quick recap. Taste. Discernment, judgment, action. Three things. I’m talking about just the first piece. To the best of my ability, which is discernment. You have to discern before you can judge. You have to judge before you can act. Anytime you act, you’ve judged. Did you discern? Because you may not have. You may have made a judgment without a discernment. So, okay, so you’re saying analysis, decision, action. I’m not saying that. I’m saying discernment, judgment, action. Is analysis discernment? I think analysis is probably much more complicated. I don’t think you need analysis to make judgment or take an action. Well, you could. Well, I mean, if you want to make a good judgment, you would. Well, analyze the situation. Nope. No, I know you’re presuming. You’re presuming that rationality is the highest value and rationality is not. Yes, I do. You know what? You can presume that. I don’t presume that. Okay. So what is the highest value? I think truth, goodness and beauty are the highest values right there. So, did we need discernment to know what is truth and what is falsehood? Yeah, I sure. Absolutely. That’s what this talk is about, discernment. Great. So we’re agreed that we need judgment to help us decide between what is true and what is false and what is wise and what is foolish. I don’t disagree about that, but that wasn’t what we were talking about. We’re still talking about discernment. But the point of feeling that your idea of judgment is going to be wrapped up in rationality and my idea of judgment is not wrapped up in rationality. Well, perhaps you’ll explain what your idea of judgment is. I’m not going to get into judgment. I’m going to stick to discernment. Okay. What’s the difference between judgment and discernment? Well, before you can judge, you have to discern that there is something to judge and you also have to discern what you’re judging it in relationship to and you have to discern that relationship. So there’s at least three points of discernment required for a good judgment. Okay, so you are interested in a good judgment which requires logic, reason? Nope. I said that in the beginning. But I don’t see how you can get to a good judgment without… Oh, I know you can’t see that. I have no doubt about that. That’s your problem, not mine. Okay, but you can’t explain the difference between one or the other. I can, but you’re not going to bother because it’s me. No, you haven’t asked yet. But before I do any of that, I want to address Benjamin Franklin’s statement here. I think about discernment as classifying. I think classifying is a bit further because it implies judgment that something belongs to a class or not, for example, or this part belongs to that class and that part belongs to the other class. So I would say that’s more than mere discernment or taking continuous and creating separate identities using some kind of metric. Well, that’s judgment too, right? That identifies categories. Categories are judgment. So I can say there are two things and not categorize them. That’s discernment. If you categorize them, you’ve made a judgment. So again, the difference is you can act without judging, right? But you didn’t do that. You made a judgment. It may not have been a good judgment or a judgment you were aware of. Could be a good judgment. You weren’t aware of that. That happens all the time. A people get lucky and B people work on intuition and often your intuition is more reliable for a good outcome than your rationality, which is extraordinarily expensive. I think you were happier without having anyone to talk to. This isn’t about my happiness. I’d be happier out partying, but I’m doing the stream instead. Right. Well, why don’t you make it more fun? Because I’m not here for fun and I think I’m having sufficient fun with my monocle and my fun shirt and my fun hat and I’m having fun with my monocle and my fun hat and I’m having fun with my monocle and my fun shirt and my monocle and my fun shirt and my fun hat and my fun graphics and Mills does discernment equal noticing. I think you need to notice to have discernment. Although maybe not consciously. So all you’re saying really is to make a good decision. You need to analyze the situation accurately and make a decision. Why not? I’m still not stating that. I don’t know because I’m not and you’re the one who’s tied up in analysis. Not me. You’re not contradicting me because well, because you wish to but there is no reason. I’m not contradicting you. You’re stating that I’m saying something that I’m not saying. I’m trying to help you to make sense of what you’re saying. I don’t need any help making sense of what I’m saying. It makes sense to me. Well, it’s just nonsense then. You’re just being… I’m sorry. You are not smart enough to understand what I’m saying, but it’s not me. But perhaps it’s just a display of mental illness. And I’m interrupting your therapy. That’s possible that you’re displaying mental illness. So Benjamin Franklin, how do you know there are two things as opposed to one or even zero? Right. Well, that’s discernment. Right. And so the question then becomes what is it that we’re doing to discern? Well, first we have to notice that we’re discerning. Right. And that’s the issue is that people need to notice that discernment exists. And I think that the reason why people haven’t been discerning say the difference between school shootings and insurrections and visiting the building that your tax money pays for, for example, which I would classify as impossible to be trespassing under any circumstances. Just because if I pay for it, it’s mine. Just saying. Then maybe that’s because you’re denying judgment. And in denying judgment, you’re cutting yourself off from your own discernment. So by believing you’re taking say neutral actions in the world, you’re actually putting yourself in a situation where not only you’re destroying judgment, but you’re destroying discernment. This is a good question. Why doesn’t Claire do go something more? Because she’s on principle and she would never hold herself to the principles. She tries to hold others to. That’s a particular problem on the left in particular. But damn, why is Claire so extra? I don’t know. I don’t know. I tried my best. She was really good on Vanderklae’s stream. I knew Paul would smother her in kindness because I’ve met Paul. Paul’s wonderful. Oh, wrong. She is ill. I’ll pray for it. Well, that’s very nice of you. I think, yeah, when some people just want to cause problems, they’re not really interested in. I would have thought that after our first encounter, she would come up with no excuses. I would have thought that after our first encounter, she would come up with new methods that might have a chance in hell of working against me and not methods that I’m too familiar with to be fooled by, we’ll say. But perhaps she is unable. Oh, it’s too bad. We should all grow and discern when we’re stuck so that we can be unstuck. I think that’s what Peterson does right with his past, present and future offering. Wait, there’s a past me. I wasn’t always like this. Oh, there’s a present me who’s not like the past me. Oh, and there’s a future me that that I could engage with. Interesting. Claire claims to discern mental illness. Well, then you should get that addressed. Do you have a therapist or that might be one way to to go? I mean, not that I’m a particular fan of therapy, but for you, Claire, I’m okay with it. I do need some tea. So, yeah, I mean, the ability to discern, for example, between a good faith actor and a bad faith actor. You need to discern those things. You need to know if somebody’s aware of their own goal in entering a conversation. And maybe you’re not. Maybe you don’t know why you’re there. I mean, I see this all the time, especially in this little corner. Some people show up on streams and you ask them why they’re there and they don’t know. And yeah, that’s that’s an issue. Don’t want to bully Claire, but maybe she could be a little more patient. Yeah. Well, she she didn’t even ask the question. She just said you didn’t answer this. And I was like, well, I didn’t. Your mental illness seems to be the compulsion to speak. I used to know the word loggeria, I think. OK, well, I think that. Qualifies you for banning. That’s too bad. I think there’s potential there. I mean, like I said, the end of the Q&A with Paul, she was actually fairly well behaved. But I don’t think she can help herself. She hasn’t discerned the problem. I think Manners lands the plate on this topic. That’s a good point, Skylar. I appreciate that. Discerning rude people makes a difference. Yeah. Well, and the importance of Manners. So let’s take it’s a it’s a really good point. Actually, it’s something I left out that I shouldn’t have. Then again, that’s every every monologue. That’s why I need Jesse here. I think I’m going to have to go back to the question. That’s why I need Jesse here. Excuse me. Let me just cough up a lung or two up. Yeah. Manners help us to have a liturgy, right? A pattern that when it’s not there, we notice it’s like, oh, there’s a discernment. This person has a lack of manners. This person’s saying, I said something that I didn’t say. Right. They’re projecting what they want to hear onto my words, which just happened, obviously. That’s a problem. And you need that discernment. You need Manners to show you to contrast what it means when you’re engaged in good faith and when you’re engaged in bad faith. And even when people use matters and politeness. So one of the big things, particularly down south, although it’s not nearly as bad as the northerners would make it out to be, is somebody who say, well, bless your heart. Now, sometimes they’re being facetious and sometimes they’re being genuine. That happens. And you need to discern those two things. And the fact that they’re being polite doesn’t help that. But when you’re polite and that’s the pattern, you can pick up the tone and then you can discern that. So the discernment’s not in the words, which people are over focused on, but the discernment is there as the result of that pattern. That’s part of discernment. Mills. Here’s a little levity my son said the British are the worst. She’s just got an agenda and she’s got a very successful approach. It’s just not successful with me. I mean, you got to if you haven’t seen the stream that I had declared jumped in on. It’s I was so happy. Nothing made me happier than that stream in a long time because I took a vow of don’t do that anymore, Mark, because you’re too good at it. And nobody stands a chance. It’s just it’s not fair. It’s just not fair. And if you know, you could say you’re bragging or boasting. Go watch the stream. She got zero points. Zero actual zero. No chance. No chance. And it’s too bad because like it’s just not fair. It’s not fair. That is a game that I grew up playing. I play it way better than almost anybody else. And so you can discern when people are interested in the discussion and exploration and when they just come to assert their ideology and attack you. This is a good point. It’s another thing I left out. This is part of that third way ism that I’m going to talk to Vanderklee about. Well, he he pegged himself on it, actually. I’ve emailed him twice and said or and bugged him twice on streams before about this. The Peterson way, as opposed to his hard slope versus soft slope dichotomy. You know, I know he’ll probably say I’m not a dualist, but there’s a hard slope and a soft slope. It’s like, let’s do things. You’re a dualist. So dualism means to. Yeah, there is a state of exploration where you’re not trying to force anything and you’re not trying to be forced into anything. Right. Or you’re not trying to influence things and you’re not trying trying to be influenced. You’re just kind of out there exploring with people. And it’s that’s the sort of thing that, say, Manuel Post and I do on a regular basis. And we sometimes scream at each other and swear at each other and end up with that hominem attacks, which are quite fun, by the way, because, you know, whatever. It’s it’s the limit. Right. Like, I can’t tell you that why you’re wrong or why I’m right. And so, you know, you will own nothing, any bugs and be happy. Ha, I win. I mean, it’s just so, you know, just being absurd. I think she was trying to do active listening, but being really aggressive about it. No, she was trying to force an agenda. I know what her agenda is probably better than she does, unfortunately, just because she’s one of those people who’s not transparent to herself. It’s very clear that that’s true, by the way. I could point you at innumerable points of evidence, but it would be kind of pointless. Watch the watch the live stream a long time ago that I did that she hopped in on on Jacob’s channel. I just completely wrecked her. It was not pretty. She’s undaunted. That’s why I don’t think she’s self aware to realize if you’re going to if you’re going to play, if you’re going to do that, don’t don’t use those tools. Those tools are not going to work. They’re just never going to work. Sorry. And something you could see PDK’s chat today that John and Claire were trying to goad the Christians. Right. And the thing was, I was a little trepidatious, but then I might know it’s Paul. Paul’s got magic. Paul’s got magic pastor, pastor, whatever power. And it worked. Wrong. Real Muslims have probably stoned those. You know, I don’t know. I would like to think so. But Skyler ad hominoid, hominid hominid should be fun. Yes. Ad hominid. Can we make a funny ism out of this ad humanoid? How’s that? That’s when you insult them by calling them a robot. It’s an ad humanoid attack. It can be fun. I mean, it doesn’t look it’s silly to say would you have a civil discussion? Why? I can’t see the boundaries. If you’re always inside the boundaries, how the hell do I know where they are? If no one gets a penalty for moving off the mat, where the hell is the mat? I mean, I’m not saying it isn’t there. I’m just saying it’s harder to see if nobody crosses the boundaries. And if the boundary you’re going to cross as an ad hominid attack with some stubborn Dutchman, it’s fun. It’s fun. You know, it’s not a bad thing. Sometimes Manuel gets upset about it, too. It’s really funny. But it is fun. And I think it’s positive. And you can always read anything as a negative. But I don’t think it’s negative. Here we go. Fun song suggestion. Humanoid. Boogie by Neil Innis. Okay. Oh, and what style of music are we playing? I don’t know if you heard. Did you hear the opening song and animation that I only cut together in a poorly cut together video? That’s rather lovely because that’s sea shanty. That’s a sea shanty that, like I said, a very talented musician did for us. And that inspired Sally Jo. I don’t know what she is. She’s just a crazy artist. That’s all she is. To do this wonderful animation. Well, after she saw my attempted animation, which was motivating in and of itself. You can’t put that on your channel. You suck. You can’t put anything on your channel. Your work is awful. But I did get the clips and the music together and I actually did take some time this morning to time it and cut things together and did the fade and all that. Of course, I screwed up StreamYard, but that’s a different problem. I also wanted to put a white fade, not a dark fade. But at some point I didn’t want to think about it anymore. I just left the fade in that I had. I said, this is good enough. It was good. I did a bunch of work discerning. Oh, how can I make this better? How can I change the timing of the music and the video? Just a little bit. You know, I don’t want to get crazy with it. Just to make it better. And I did that. I think I actually managed to accomplish that. So I’m rather happy about the whole thing. And yeah, I was in tears watching it. Because it was just so beautiful. And I’m blessed to have artists that will work on this and make it look pretty and bring some cool, fun, interesting stuff to the livestream, which is why I was really puzzled by Claire. Don’t you do this for fun? It’s like, well, no. But I have fun while I do it. Because I’m like, well, if I’m going to commit to this, might as well stay with the theme of the channel. Right? How do you have fun when you’re doing your serious navigating patterns, cultural cognitive grammar? You become a pirate. In your spare time. And this is my spare time, sadly. My Friday nights. We’ve got to get back to talk to Manuel about this. We’ve got to get back to doing sort of in the afternoon subjects, he and I. And we can drag people into that. Get some of the people in Europe. Because the only reason, not the only reason, the big reason I’m on this time slot is because Jesse wanted to participate. And he’s so good in the comments. And helpful that I thought that was worthwhile. And of course, it’s been super rich. I wish near him were coming back. I kind of reached out to him because that’s the Johnny Cash song. What is truth? That was his suggestion. And it just worked far better than my tiny imagination could ever have come up with. Inez, I went to school with a Sean Inez. We called him Ace. He’s kind of transhuman Frankenstein’s monster confronted by caveman good video with a Scottish accent and kilted. What kind of music, dude? Like bagpipes? Like bagpipes? Like bagpipes. What are we doing here? Bagpipes and boogie music? That would work. I could get down with that pretty easily. What happened to Jesse? Jesse said he was going to show up. And now he’s not showing up. These Aussies, man, I tell you. They’re going to be the best. They’re going to be the best. They’re going to be the best. They’re going to be the best. They’re going to be the best. These Aussies, man, I tell you. I saw Jesse on my Discord this morning, which was really cool. And it was late at night for him. He was about to go to bed. In time to wake up from my stream, he said. And he did some Australianism. I forget what it was. And then he was like, oh, and I’m like, no, no, no. I know Aussies very well. Thank you very much. It’s fine. I take that as the compliment that it actually is. Right? Thanks for sharing. I hope you enjoyed it. It was great to listen to you. It sounds terrible to US and UK people, perhaps. Here we go. All right. Anselman says. It’s hard to categorize. A bit monty Python or ponzo dog to top it. All right. Well, fair enough. It’s you know. How do you discern the type of music that would be appropriate? Just check it out tomorrow. Check everything out. Check out all you be exploratory. I mean that’s what these talks are about, right? When I talk about boundaries or discernment or I’m going to do judgment next and we’re going to do action the following live stream. And like I said, I may take a Friday off next week here. We’ll see how it rolls. But really that’s about exploration. It’s not about me trying to force some crazy ideology on you or get you to join my cult, right? There’s a lot that goes into the exploration of the topic, especially through having engagement from other people, through engaging with the comments, right? And the opening monologue is just a way to bracket things, to ground them so that we start out in a particular way. And I think that’s super important. Otherwise, you know, these conversations tend to fly off on somebody wants to be on camera or they want to feel like they’re participating, even though they don’t have anything to say. And people get caught up in that loop, you know, where their participation is actually limited. And yeah, they’re just trying to make it a lot larger than it is. And you see that a lot. A lot of people want to just want to be on the stage. And they don’t actually have a reason to engage with the stage itself. And that’s, you know, what’s going on there, really? I don’t know. Do they know? Are they discerning the difference between somebody who comes up to talk to Paul, for example, in his Q&A and has a question for him or a statement for him or wants to excoriate him for his ridiculous misstatement of justice and them just wanting to be on there so that they’re on a YouTube video somewhere? All right. Let’s see what Vincent has to say. Welcome, Vincent. Hi. Hello. So I just got the thing from Claire. So she told me you threw her off. And then I came and I listened and you were talking about how her and John Vance were going after the Christians. And so what, you know, everyone, you know, nobody, everyone treats this woman like she’s the plague. Like, I don’t understand her. I’m against her too. But I mean, she just infuriates. I don’t think anybody treated her like the plague. Nobody wants her on their channel. She always gets thrown off. She gets blocked in the comments. She doesn’t always get thrown off. She didn’t have to be thrown off. Why did she get thrown off? She get thrown off because she kept making statements that I was saying something that I wasn’t saying. And she called me or at least implied that I was mentally ill. And I said, well, we’re not going to make any progress on this conversation. Right. So at a certain point, if people aren’t going to stay on topic or they’re just going to say, I discern mental illness or whatever, you know, I can’t proceed. Right. So you’re a Christian. Why should everybody else suffer? You’re a Christian? No. Where are you coming from? What’s your perspective? I don’t have any particular perspective, per se. A perspective on what? Like I. Well, I mean, do you fall into any kind of category? Christian, Muslim, Jew, far right, white, white, nationalist, atheist. I don’t fall into any of those categories. So you just kind of don’t have opinions about things? I have opinions. I just don’t fall into categories. Those are two different things. Well, I mean, but how do you I mean, OK, like, you know, obviously, ninety five percent of the planet, they have groupings of interests that make them fall into categories. I mean, it is rare. Maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. Maybe you do. Maybe they do. Well, most people do. I think it’s, you know, categories naturally arise in the population because there’s certain traits that are likely to be inherited or socially inherited together. And so I don’t think that’s true at all. There’s no evidence for that. The amount of difference between people is huge. It OK. Yes. OK. Well, I mean, if you’re going to deny that there is a phenomenon or a large phenomenon or prevalence of society. Well, you’re just kind of your I don’t. Well, I don’t. OK. Then what you can’t get a handle on me from which to attack. I get that. But look, it’s not that well, work like, OK, OK, OK. So then what is your problem with secular corona zone? I don’t know anything about it. Claire refuses to define it in any reasonable fashion. So it could be the best thing in the world. I have no idea. But I have no interest. OK. So then can I can I define the no hide laws for you and ask your opinion on them? You can if you want. Sure. OK. So the no hide laws are a very simple legal system and they give you the seven these seven laws and this is all you have to do. No idolatry, no blasphemy, no sexual immorality, which includes adultery and homosexuality, bestiality and incest, no murder, no theft. Do not eat the flesh cut from a living animal and establish courts of justice to enforce these laws with punishments attached to them. That’s it. That’s the whole system. I mean, there are sub laws to that. Like there’s categories of things like kinds of theft, kinds of idolatry, kinds of sexual immorality. But that’s like the the the the core. That’s all you need to know. So go. What’s your opinion? It’s like every legal system that I’m aware of in every culture. So so you think it’s so you think every legal system outlaws idolatry. In some form, yeah, I would say. What about? Well, idolatry is an actual real world practice. So pagans, neo pagans are practicing idolatry today. So it’s not practicing idolatry all the time. This is one of the things that Paul Van der Kley said to Claire earlier is that, yeah, we’re imperfect. Why would you call idolatry imperfect? I didn’t call idolatry imperfect. I call people imperfect. Can you discern the difference between idolatry and people? Well, you the way you said it, you said that, yes, there are people in the world who practice idolatry and people are not perfect. So assuming those two things go together, it would seem as though you were saying people who practice idolatry are not perfect. No, you’re just misusing the transitive property of mathematics in some place. It doesn’t belong. OK, so then why did you say people are imperfect at the end after saying people were who there are people in the world who practice idolatry? Why do you say that? Since you’ve since you seem overly pedantic, which isn’t going to work out well for you, by the way, but we’ll continue. People aren’t perfect. They are going to commit idolatry. That’s going to happen. I’ve never met a person who hasn’t committed idolatry. So the point of having a law against something that is inevitable would be what? Well, OK, idolatry is a very specific, legally defined term. So you can’t just run around calling it and defining it. The halakha, the Jewish law. No, no, no, no. Who? The Jews. OK, then who’s determining if that has been transgressed? Once the Jews teach the non-Jews the law, then non-Jewish judges who are learned in halakha would try the case. OK, so it’s a standard legal system that we have, say, in the UK or the US or France right now. So what’s the difference? Well, that it would outlaw freedom of religion because you cannot practice idolatry. It would outlaw freedom of speech because you cannot practice blasphemy. It would outlaw homosexuality. So those would change. Those laws would change. And there would be punishments associated with them. Well, didn’t work out for the Jews. Don’t think it’s going to work out. OK, well, there’s a difference. And that’s not a religion, right? You’re just talking about legal system. The legal system has very little different from the legal system we have now. Well, I mean, now you have you have free religion, your freedom of religion, your freedom of speech and you have freedom of sexuality. So if you want those three things gone, which a lot of people do, I can see why you would want the Noahide laws because it would bring a return to social conservativism without asking people to change their beliefs. OK, but we’ve already had those laws. We did away with them. OK, we could go back to having them. That doesn’t require secular cornism. No, I’m talking about Noahide does not secular. Or no, it doesn’t require any of that. Well, no, I just said we wouldn’t have to go backward. And it’s a new system. And it would also ban usury. So we would everyone be able to cancel on their debts. It’s another enticement. But it’s you know, people might prefer what you’re going back to would be Christian definitions of idolatry. And that’s not the problem. I haven’t even tried to define idolatry. No, well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I didn’t say you. I did not say you. I said when when the government’s outlawed idolatry was from a Christian perspective and it’s time I think that once people learn the Jewish perspective on these laws and how they’re really supposed to understand this, that it’s quite intriguing and enticing. And the no hides have very good arguments against Christianity, very good arguments against the Trinity, very good arguments to destroy the New Testament and make it look like garbage. So there’s a lot of potential. Well, you’re asking why. Okay. Well, okay. Okay. Well, you’re going to legal system and then you attract all these religions. Well, that’s what the legal no the legal system doesn’t try. You have to attack idolatry and Christianity’s idolatry. So yes, you’re supposed to hate and attack it under no height ism. Oh, well, then it’s not a set of laws. Now it’s a set of axiomatic beliefs. Well, no law is that if someone’s breaking the law, you have to stop them from doing it. If you’re practicing Christianity, you have to stop them from practicing Christianity because it’s idolatry. Who’s determining idolatry again, like the Talmud and the halakha the Talmud and the halakha the Talmud and the halakha and the, the, the learned Gentile judges who learned the halakha who set up the court, you would go before no high court and if you practice Christianity, you would be punished for idolatry. Okay, so I mean, are you trying to ensure that you’re going to be the first people shot? Because that’s that’s gonna happen for sure. Just like I mean, you can have whatever belief you want. Just who would be the first people shot consequences? Who would be the first people shot? The people that want some system like this that we’ve moved away from very clearly moved away from as a society. Well, no, but I okay. Well, the United States government did say that the nation was founded on noahide law. They did say that. And I mean, the UN did say that they’re mandatory for humanity to follow. It’s not like the governments are into them. And and hubbub has done a lot of work to get them into the school textbooks and England and stuff like that. So they’re growing in relevancy every day and in numbers because you’re converting lots of noahides into this system. So I don’t think anyone I think the government knows what side it’s on. And I’m not worried about a revolt of peasants against the against the noahide laws. If we have is I don’t think so. No, Israel and the United States government know what are you going to do against them? So you’re a top down power from what are you going to do against? Have you heard of the French Revolution or the English Revolution or I don’t the American Revolution? Those are three good examples of what happens. You’re not as organized or as determined as they were. And this is a very old and entrenched system. And, you know, I don’t think you’re going to I think that the politicians know who’s bread who butters their bread. And I think the people who are in control of the guns are going to be on the side of the noahide laws if or as they approach as they approach. Do you understand what you’re doing? Do you have any idea what you’ve just tried to do? I’ve tried to maybe make a prediction. No, you snuck religion in through law. How did I how did I know it’s not a religion? It’s not a religion. It doesn’t tell you don’t have to believe in God. It doesn’t tell you what to believe under noahide ism only. Look, you know, it doesn’t tell you what to believe authority. Yeah. And that authority is determining the law. That’s religious. It’s fundamentally religious. The halakha. No, the halakha. What is halakha? So what? The law determines the law. Somebody wrote a law and the law determines law. Why is that so? The law doesn’t determine things don’t determine themselves. That’s absurd. OK. Well, people determined it then. Yeah, they probably did. And they did. OK. Well, people have people have determined this law and religious authority. No, it wasn’t religious authority. Not if not. It’s not for the Gentiles. It’s not really you don’t have to believe in God. Nobody is telling you what to believe the noahide. Believe in God or not has nothing to do with your religiosity. It doesn’t know it doesn’t teach you what to believe. What exactly? I didn’t say it taught you what to believe. OK, wait, wait, wait. In order to have a law, you have to have some reason for that law to exist. And that is fundamentally. Oh, no, I know why it is. No, no, no, because they make sense. That’s why the Gentiles do it, because it makes sense. That’s why. So it’s rational. It’s rational. So that’s why there’s nothing rational about what you said so far. I’ve asked you about no ideology, no blasphemies, no homosexuality. Why is that irrational? Oh, why is that irrational to get you to rationalize these things and you are unable to do it? What do you mean? What am I doing? You’re just stating it’s rational. I asked you for the rationality behind the rationale. OK, what what is behind? Well, OK, I’m arguing. OK, no, no, no. Well, OK, I give you that. I’m an accelerationist. I pushed the Noahide law so that they hurry up because I wanted to get really bad, really fast. And then everyone knows what’s going on and they just attack it. So that’s what I’m doing. I’m an accelerationist. But from the Noahide perspective, you they’re rational because they’re irrational. And if you don’t believe that you get beheaded in the most harsh sense, maybe you’ll go to jail. Maybe you’ll get fined or whatever. But I mean, yeah, you’d be gone. I see. So you’re so you’re just rabble rousing at this point. No, not right now. No, no, I have a purpose. I have a purpose. I didn’t say you didn’t have a purpose, but you’re rabble rousing. OK, is that bad? I think so. And and look, I mean, I think Anselman pointed it out nicely here. He just said it outlaws ideology and blasphemy. That’s religious. Absolutely. No, no, no. OK. It outlaws. First of all, you’re allowed to believe and you’re allowed to believe whatever you want. You want to believe Venus is the goddess of the universe. You’re allowed to do it. You can’t do you just can’t bow to a statue of her. And you’re allowed to curse God in your mind, but you just you can’t say it out loud. Sounds like order out of chaos revolutionary. Yes. Wrong. Thinks that your attitude is idolatrous. Should we do something? No. Idolatry is a very specified, specific term. You can’t just accuse everything of idolatry like Christians do. Not everything is idolatry. Being. Yes, they do. That everything’s idolatry. Having admiration for movie stars is idolatry. Having admiration for football stars is idolatry. That’s not idolatry. That’s not idolatry. Is everyone treating Claire as some sort of bad guy? Follow or enters? Admit to being an accelerationist. Admit to being an accelerationist. That’s a good point. So so what? What is that? Why is that a bad thing? So you don’t think acceleration ism and burning people for their your your version of blasphemy and idolatry is bad because they think it’s bad. No. Well, I think that it’s coming and it’s going to take over anyway. So it behooves me as a person who’s against them to accelerate the problem so that the fire just burns faster. So the firemen go to it quicker and not like the Jews just wanted this to like slowly burn the house so nobody notices until it’s too late. Like I’m throwing gas on it like hurry up. I see. And you haven’t discerned that maybe that makes you the type of troublemaker that people wouldn’t want to hear from along with Claire? Um, no, because because it’s it’s for a good cause and it’s the best plan. So I don’t understand what the problem is. You’re making a goodness claim when you’ve only made a legal claim. Well, the law is OK. Well, the law is good because it’s good. And if you don’t believe that you get the head. That’s not true. You don’t get I don’t I’m not OK when I said you’re no, no, no. OK, no, no luck luck. The law is good because it’s good. That’s a typology. Yeah. Well, that’s a statement that you can’t back up with anything. It’s not. OK, well, I agree with you. I do agree with you, but that’s the way the system works. That I may seem like. Have you seen my first interaction with Claire? No, I have not. OK, let me let me just make a suggestion. You should watch that. And then maybe if you decide to engage, you might have a chance of engaging in a way that could be not. That could be novel or unique. But these tactics are not going to win against me. I just you’re dealing you’re dealing at a very low level compared to the level I deal at. I can be more pedantic than you can by far. OK, I think now I think following Jewish laws are pedantic. I think that that’s how it technically works. And I think I have a system and you don’t. And you really my system is organized like a legal system point by point. You have no point by point system. I’m not trying to know you’re calling me pedantic because I have a formulated system. No, I’m calling you pedantic because you’re trying to be pedantic. You’re just bad at it. No, it’s a different problem. No, I’m following a system. OK, I don’t know any system. I’m following the no high system. You don’t have anybody stating a tautology. And that’s the discernment that I’m trying to show people. You’ve made a tautology, but you stated that there was a rationality. OK, I don’t think you understand. Right. So this is why you would have to be beheaded because you have a problem with that. All right. Well, if you think I have to be beheaded, then I’m going to behead you. There we go. Problem solved. So yeah, there’s lack of discernment. You can be upset at whatever. Right. You’re allowed to be upset. I don’t care. Sorry. I just don’t care about you. Yeah, I don’t. I don’t. You know, look, I’ve been doing this online thing a long time. The odds that you’re going to come in with some magical system or trick or some kind of new version of trolling that I haven’t seen are zero, actually zero. OK. Well, you’re welcome, Fleabas. Look, I mean, I wanted to get him to the point where I could honestly say this is why you’re getting banned. And he handed it right to me. He couldn’t help himself. And I know me. I’m going to be an acceleration for Christianity by having children. No, not necessarily. Exactly. Well, and that’s the difference between being as good and all other is good isms. Right. Like, if you start with being as good, that axiom is pretty solid because you’re going to win against everybody. You’re going to you’re definitely going to win. This little corner is attracting. The amazing thing, Anselman, is that before these people come on, they need to watch me annihilate Claire when she got no points, zero, little zero points. She just didn’t score at all. So you would think that anywhere I was, she would avoid it because if she had done anything to Paul of my presence, I would have taken her out like because you can mess with me all day long. But you don’t mess with my friends. And Paul’s a friend of mine. Like, I would have taken her out so fast. Oh, it would have been nasty because I don’t I don’t tolerate people, especially not nice, nice friends. I have some friends that I’m kind of like a jerk. He deserves it. But not the people I like, you know, like Paul. But I do your homework. Like, figure out what I’m capable of before you come in here and try with your little tricks that work with your 80 IQ Internet friends. That’s not going to work around here. Hello, Cassandra. It is nice to have you here. I don’t know where Jesse is. He has promised me he would be here. And yet he probably spilled coffee again. There he is. All right. About freaking time. Jesse, he’s awesome. Unreliable. He’s calling me into the stream and I was like, oh, OK, literally. Oh, no, I actually I actually said, hi, Cassandra. I don’t know where Jesse is. He told me he was going to be here and then you popped up underneath and I was like, oh, OK, I guess. I guess magic works. And you can just say Jesse three times and he appears. That’s great. How are you, my friend? I do it OK. I was I almost I was almost like, oh, and a follower of Claire Claire was on here earlier. Right. And then one of her followers came on and I was like, should I should I have the amount of fun I had with Claire? No, Mark, don’t do that. That’s like that’s like too much candy. And so then are these two all over the Internet or are they focused on our court? No, no, they’re all over the Internet. They’re not all over the Internet. They’re they’re focusing on the weak points of Christianity. Right. So the the little the little areas of Christianity and this little corner is great for that. Right. Because it’s a bunch of crazy Protestants who have nothing in common and all they do is fight doctrine all day long. And then there’s a bunch of meaning crisis people who don’t know or don’t care. And they’re like, oh, we need as much information as we can get to make a decision. Right. And so it’s a weird mix in this corner ultimately. And I look I’m in this corner. I love this corner. Right. But also, like, come on, like what’s there’s a lot of it’s everywhere. Yes. Yes. Well, it’s it’s full of rebellious muppets, rebellious muppets and lost muppets. And to be fair, Vanderclay is not drawing that line. I’m going to I’m going to he’s he mentioned today in the live stream that he owes me a video. So I’m going to try to draw those lines for him. He owes Manuel a video, too. And it’s nice really to own up to that. Yeah. You got to hold him up to that. Yeah. He owes us both videos. That would be good. That would be good. That would be good for all of you involved. Yeah, I like doing videos with Paul. I need to do videos with other people. They’re better. Although apparently my rant was especially good this time. So that’s good. It was. I kind of watched it in segments and parts. Yeah. Did you see the animation? I did. That lovely animation and song. It’s a good start. It’s a really good start. Yeah. I love it so much. So much. Yeah, I think I think wrong. Wrong is is correct. They are lost. So they cling to whatever they can. Yeah. Well, and look, what are you going to do? Are you going to go walk into an ugly Catholic church? Because most of the Catholic churches are they’re beautiful on the inside. Like the Basilica in Columbia, South Carolina. I had been inside because the outside’s like a brick buildings. I mean, it’s a brick church. Tell the church you go inside. It’s like, holy sheep, this thing is beautiful. Well, I wish I were being attracted to it. I wish I were being attracted to it. That was that was that was stunning. So what are you going to do? Are you going to are you going to go to some place where there’s a bunch of Christians that are all the same to learn about Christianity? Like, oh, I’ll go hang out with the Catholics. That’ll teach me. That’s not going to teach about Christianity and teach about Catholicism. I might even be inclined to say, that’s all you need to know. That’s not. I don’t like that. They’re like, no, man, I want to read seven books on play. How do you want fair enough? And if you want seven versions of Christianity or seven thousand or something, come to this little corner. We got we got Unitarians. We got crazy Jewish noahide, whatever Jacob is this week. Right. And we’ve got all things in between. Right. We’ve got secular cornists invading our corner, really making absurd claims. Claire, look, I took you out in the first last year. I gave you a lot of time. OK, you didn’t learn your lesson. OK, that’s a lack of discernment on your part. Yes. And my streams, I can just click a button. No, I did win the argument. You can you can continue to tell yourself that I didn’t trounce you twice in a row. I’ll continue to trounce you if you want to some extent, if I feel like it. Although it is somewhat a waste of my time. But really, like at a certain point, take the L, take the loss and move on. You know, and hanging out in this little corner and risking, we’ll say, bumping into somebody like me who isn’t going to tolerate you and knows how to take you out. Probably not a good idea. You know, it doesn’t really matter who you go after. I protective of my people and for better or for worse, some of these people are my people. Sometimes I wish they were. But, you know, I made my bed and now I’m just getting off. OK, take your time. Oh, here’s Mills. Yeah, here’s Mills to back me up. Yep. Huge stack of books by my bed. Right. Well, like I said, like you come to the corner to find the width and breadth of Christian thought. And, you know, it’s not complete. But, boy, it’s pretty good. Like, where else are you going to find this spread in one place? And they’re talking to each other. Right. You know, it’s not like it’s not like Sam Adams isn’t interviewing everybody. You know, so there’s a there there for sure. And it bears no. Clint D. Lesson from talk radio host. Never argue with the man with the microphone. I’m happy if they argue, but they strayed in. I let them stray. I knew they were going to do it. I know what they’re going to do and say before they do. Claire, Vincent and I are making the point that Christianity is kaput. Yeah, not in the U.S. You just haven’t been here and should be replaced by a noahide laws or be secular. Coronation. OK, well, look, those aren’t things you can replace Christianity with. So I don’t know what to tell you other than that. Like, that was my point. When are you taking me out for dinner? Never. First of all, I’m poor, so I can’t even get over there again. I want to go to the British Museum so bad to I just spent like two weeks in the British Museum. Like sleeping in the British Museum just to see half the stuff I want to see in the British Museum. But you’re not talking to everyone fast enough. OK, my bad. I’ll talk to everybody faster. I keep tripping over my theological books. Yeah, Anselman’s another one. Ramp up the speed, accelerate. There’s no accelerationism here, sir. America does not have an official religion. That’s kind of how it works. Like, that’s what made America America is by not having an official religion. We could get into discussions around whether or not that’s the optimal way to operate. I might even argue that it is not. But that’s a different argument. It’s also not entirely true. Like, this is one of those things no one understands unless they well, even have a different argument. No one understands unless they well, even half the people that live here. You can have a state religion. You can’t have a federal religion. That’s that’s the other key that people are like because they don’t the European way of governing cannot understand the US way of governing. It’s not possible. You don’t have the structural understand. Sorry. That’s OK. Whoops. Anselman claims to have coined a few new words. Fantastic, fantactical, fantastic. OK. Oh, and Naomi still watches your streams, Claire. Claire claims that the unofficial religion of America is the pursuit of happiness to the expense of everyone else. They just haven’t banned me here. Oh, I can see why you have an interpretation. Like, whatever. But it’s ridiculous. Like everything else you engage Claire is ridiculous. But you’re good at it. So you have the skills in life. Fanatical. OK, Clint. Fanatical it is. That slogan was used on PVK already. Which slogan, Anselman? The unofficial religion thing. I think I had a good why I didn’t see his whole Q&A. I was busy, but the end stream that I jumped in on was pretty good. Now look at that. Now Vanderklaas releasing videos doing this to sabotage me. It’s his own happiness against the happiness of the group. I mean, I could interpret it that way. And a lot of people in this little corner, you can’t stream while somebody else is streaming. That’s so stupid. Tell him his mic is muted. Is your mic muted? Were you talking? He is muted. I know. He’s unmuted now. Yeah, but I’m just I’m just being, you know, too professional or something. Scattering about. Oh, Anselman says Malcolm Mudridge said many Americans made the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of pleasure. That’s true. It’s really not a pursuit of happiness doctrine in the U.S. It’s just taking stuff out of context. It’s a Will Smith movie. It’s a Will Smith movie. Yes, it is. Exactly. That’s it. Well, it’s a common even people in the U.S. take that out of context all the time. And I don’t I don’t. Why can’t you read all the words? Why are you? This is like my big bugaboo now is I’ve been reading The Republic and we’re doing it on the Texas Wisdom Community channel, which I should probably find a link to paste into. But because I’m on there helping the book, The Republic Book Club, which is quite good. Danny’s wonderful. So it’s nice to do this book club. The interesting thing is I had never engaged in the Republic on like it’s a this is a deliberate strategy I’ve been talking about since I was a kid. I’m not going to read the classics on purpose, like deliberately. I want to engage with that stuff on my own. Right. I don’t I don’t want to have to engage with it any other way. So I’m starting to read The Republic. And now I’m like the people that have told me about the Republic did not read this book or they missed something. I don’t I don’t know. I’m like they’re missing all the most important pieces. I got nothing. There’s clearly a problem. So, yeah, we do have a we do have a Texas Wisdom Community channel. That’s where Danny’s running his little book club. And we’re going to paste a link for that because it’s great. So if you want to see more of me or better yet me and Manuel or better yet me Manuel, Danny and his buddies and Ethan pops in quite a bit. We’re trying to get Adam back. Hopefully he’ll pop in. Then you should check that out because those are good. We might do a live on it at some point. That’s still up in the air. I guess it’s not up to me. I don’t I don’t run these things. Manuel does a beautiful job of being the guide for our little adventures. Oh, now I have a hard question. Why does Garth always ask hard questions? Garth, I heard you earlier talk about the true, the good and the beautiful. Jordan B. Cooper has a book called The Good, The True and the Beautiful Might Be Worth Reading. My problem with Jordan B. Cooper is that I haven’t been impressed with anything I’ve ever heard him say. But I will check out that book and maybe I could add it to the stack of about 14,000 books that I’m not reading. But tell myself I’ve been reading The Stupid Republic. I get up, I read the book and I hop into the book. That’s what I’ve been doing. Sometimes I read it the night before. But yeah, well, I’m doing it that way on purpose. Yes, there can be some benefit to that in some ways because you’re working knowledge. Yeah. ROM versus RAM sort of thing. So you’re whatever you’ve read, you’re and you’re considering you’re going to validate quickly. Yeah. Well, plus I do better stream of consciousness thinking. I may not do better stream of consciousness communication. That’s a different problem, but I do better stream of consciousness thinking. So a lot of people like, well, I want to I want to talk about something with you. I’m like, OK, well, you can decide at the last minute. I don’t care. It doesn’t make any difference to me because if it’s something I know about, I can talk about it. Something I don’t. I can ask questions about it. It’s really not a problem. Answerment. Have a lovely Easter. Sleep well at 2 0 6 a.m. Oh, gosh. Yes, please. Well, this is the problem catering to the Aussies, man. You lose the Brits. Answerment, I’m going to meet you at some point. Come on, go to Scotland. Oh, gosh. I wish I could come to America. I’ve got to come to England. I’ve got to go back to Canada. Yeah. Well, no, don’t go to Canada. Good Lord. Christine is from Canada, so I eventually got to get back and be nice. Oh, I’m sorry. I’m so sorry. I’ll send flowers. Yeah. Yeah, it’s been good. I’m skeptical as to what a book can teach you about the transcendentals, really. I mean, these these people. Oh, there’s all these politics and government in the Republic. I’m like, did you put book? Did you read? It’s not in the Republic. You’re not. You’re missing something in Chapter two, the part where they say we’re going to experiment with justice. They don’t say we’re going to experiment with society. We’re going to experiment with politics or we’re going to experiment with government. They’re using it deliberately to highlight justice. Why? It’s the scaling problem. So I could see says you can’t understand justice from your perspective of a single individual, you or some other individual or that relationship. That’s insufficient to talk about justice. Justice is bigger than one or two or three people. It’s city big. At least I know that’s gin up a fake city. It’s explicit in the book. It’s not I’m not making it up. He says all this. It’s right in the text. And then you go, oh, it’s a political experiment. No, it’s not. It’s explicitly not that like. I don’t I don’t know. Cassandra Anselman has not done the live stream. He refuses. Vanderklai. I mean, he was on Vanderklai once. I think Vanderklai has tried to get him on recently and he’s refused. But he certainly hasn’t been on my live streams. I guess I don’t rate. I only rate with the Aussies, not the Scots. Well, I’m a Scottish Aussie, technically speaking. Oh, even better. I’ve been to Scotland. So there you go. Yeah, I think we will eventually go that way. We’ll eventually not not to live because, gosh, it’s kind of picky dystopia at this point. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I saw that coming. When I was there, I’m going to get the hell out of here, man. Yeah. Terrible. Yeah. Beautiful country. Yes. Yes. I did. So I so. I’m not where I am now, although I’m not that far from the Appalachians, the southern part of the Appalachian Mountains. I hadn’t been there. I don’t know why I didn’t go sooner. I love mountains, but this past six years have been complete turmoil and cancer, death, doom, destruction, losing all my stuff, getting everything stolen. You had cancer or your mama had cancer? My mama had cancer. Yeah, that’s right. Yeah. Twice, twice. So that’s why I was down south. The first time was to take care of her. And the second time I was, you know, in the process of getting my my half million dollar house stolen from me in Massachusetts and then she got cancer again. Right. So I purchased a house five and a half miles down the road, thankfully. And yeah, that was a mess. But I had been to the mountains. Yeah. And in the south, it’s all Scots Irish, which is a special group of Scottish Irish, not quite Irish, not quite Scottish. And I had already been to Scotland because I went during during the fake news virus scam and. Beautiful like heaven for me because there was no there were no crowds. I can deal with this. I can go on vacation, but there’s no people around. This is great. It was just it was great. I wish I had infinite funds at the time. I probably would have spent them all on traveling. So that’s always the that’s always the feedback with traveling. You go traveling like, you know, I could have spent more money. I was too reserved. I was too scared. No, no, that wasn’t that wasn’t the reserve there. I was just like, if I had had enough money, I’d have gone to Greece and Italy and like I’d have done a European. I’d have gone nuts, but I had never had that much money. But so I had been I had been to Inverness. I had seen the mountain in Inverness in what November? Yeah, it was November and cold. Wasn’t New England called, but it was pretty freaking close. It was, you know, average winter. So I had seen some of that stuff. So then I go to the mountains. I go out to the Smoky Mountains. I’m like, well, that’s why they moved here. I mean, it’s in the text, but like Scotland, Southern Appalachians, I can’t tell the difference. Same same thing. Yeah, there’s lots of similarities. Misty in the winter, sort of cloud gray, wet, moist, farmland. Yeah, changing. So I’ve got the top down. I’m on the Blue Ridge Parkway, which is famous road, famous, super famous road in the US because it goes across the tops of the mountain range. Basically, it’s it’s insane. And there’s turnoffs every five feet. Right. So like I got the big camera. I’ve got my stupid camera, which is quite good, by the way. I think it’s a very high end phone. I’ve got my Nikon. I got the top down. I’m driving a quarter mile, a half a mile and turning off on whatever side of the road is your turn off on. Sometimes you can see stuff for miles. Yeah, sometimes you can’t. Doesn’t matter which side you’re on. It whether I’m going a quarter mile. It’s you know, the weather’s that changeable, just like it’s calling. And then I had to put the top up a couple of times because it started to rain. And I was like. And then it was sunny and it was top down and it was top up and it was top down. I was like, what is going on? I’ve driven like five miles. Like, what is going on? It was crazy. So, yeah, I was I was like, oh, that’s why they wrote that this is like home because. It’s like, yeah, I wanted to address Mills. Justice in a state of nature is different than a tribe, which is different than what you get with the Dunbar number. Well, Mills, it’s a very bottom up way to think about it. That’s what you’re making a lot of claims. I’m going to have to say no. Justice emanates from above. And it’s just bigger. And then when you’re at a small scale, it looks different, but it’s it’s not different. There’s no state of nature justice. Doesn’t make any sense to talk about justice unless you’ve got more than one person. Then justice matters. Justice doesn’t matter without humans. I mean, I’m if you haven’t seen it, Paul Van der Klay has a random conversation with Weston. And Weston has this theory of fallen Earth creationism. I think fallen Earth creationism is so clever. I’m a big fan. I think it’s great. I think it’s absolutely. I’m not saying I’m like all in, but I’m not saying I believe it. I’m saying that everybody else should take it very seriously. I think it’s great. Yeah. What’s that? Read his paper? No, no. Gosh, come on. I don’t read. No one reads. Reading’s bad. You should burn all books. But not Weston’s paper. It’s quite good. It’s not a full book. It’s like three pages or something. OK. Yeah, it’s not long. But it’s basically it’s basically what he’s doing is he’s I’m sure he categorized it this way, but what he’s effectively doing is he’s saying, OK, consciousness and therefore the fall is the instantiation of consciousness in the world. So that’s what the apple is. It gives us consciousness. And I like you can’t fight that. Not with the biblical texts. You’d have to be all in. They knew they were naked. That’s being conscious. Self-conscious. Fair enough. Now all of a sudden, the problems begin. Maybe it’s a change in consciousness. Well, you could call it the emergence of consciousness. I think that’s fair. That’s what does that imply, though? Implies that they were pre-conscious somehow. They weren’t perfect before. Did you watch? There’s a lot of there’s a lot of consciousness. Consciousness and conscience. The talks from Thunder Bay. Oh, gosh, come on, Marcus. Too many videos. No, I’ve seen Peugeot’s talk from that. I tried to watch the Viki and he was dribbling on for the first 10 minutes since I just moved on to something else. Viki framed the whole thing and Van Duclay fell for it. I was pissed. I was there. I was like, no, don’t. No, no, no, no, no, no. Peugeot’s talk. But for me, he took the first he took his while to to get into a rhythm or to get the trust of the crowd to say anything. Well, because everybody’s trying to circumambulate Verviki instead of. No, this is how it works. This is my view. You know, exactly. But you know that there’s a phrase that says, you know, you’re going to be a good person Maybe. You know, exactly. But you know that there’s a phrase that says never meet your hero. It’s like maybe we should kind of push that back into the consciousness of the generations. It’s like just leave them there, leave them there in text form. And like because maybe you’re going to get a better read than, you know, that sort of charisma problem of like, you know, getting in the same room as someone. I don’t know. Much of the muchness. I enjoyed meeting all of them. I wish I had more time with Peugeot, but he was mobbed. He had a crew and they just wouldn’t shut up. And I was like, man, I got my shots in for sure. But there was a bunch of stuff I should have told Peugeot that I just didn’t get a chance. Well, you had you used discernment. I did. I did. He was overwhelmed, too. You could tell. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think a quiet dinner that that would that would have done it probably just more one on one. He was very good the first day. So there was a pre meeting Thursday night that I made. You know, Ethan and I went together. We got there a little late, but he was perfect that day. Just we didn’t get a huge amount of time because again, everybody was coming in meetings. So but it was good. He gave me a lot of insight. The French Canadian up there because I haven’t I haven’t had a lot of contact. We used to have cousins and or distant cousins that would come down from wherever in domain. And but I’m not doing that anymore. I don’t think Lac Hermes is still rolling. I don’t know. I should find out. I was our festival, French festival. So it’s probably a matter of time before Peugeot is kind of included in the daily wire club if he’s not already informally. No, I don’t. I don’t. He doesn’t want any part of that. Okay. That’s what you said last time I checked. But we changed his branding. It’s changing his camera, camera work and sound quality. So well, I think that’s you know, it’s good. It’s net good. It’s definitely a net good. But it’s usually a sign of, you know, when you change these things, you’re becoming more and more invested in your brand. And so it’s always lacrimas still going on. It returned in 2022, established in 1982. Interesting. So what was the point of bringing up consciousness and conscious? The point was this is this is what they were really talking about. Where are there levels of consciousness? Like, how does that work? Right. Go back to the Adam and Eve thing. That’s the problem with defining trying to define consciousness is that now you’re into the dog and cat problem versus oxen or a cow or whatever. And it’s like, oh, wait, now it’s a gradient. Where do we draw the line? And then you have the that goes to the emergence of consciousness issue. And that’s why I brought it up, because they did. And actually, the mandraal, the new guy, he’s the one that did the most damage to the consciousness because he is talking about the science, trying to measure consciousness and failing so miserably. It’s hysterical. Quite the story he told. How was conscious? This might seem like a rhetorical question, but how is consciousness different from discernment? Well, I would say that consciousness is the thing that gives us discernment. But is that a chicken and an egg? I don’t think so. OK. Can you be conscious and not have discernment or just have a limited discernment? No, I don’t think so. Although I think consciousness is more than discernment. Yes, yes. Yes. But can you be one without the other? Can you have discernment without consciousness? I think the problem we’re suffering from is not is lack of discernment. Yes. And that’s why people say they’re not conscious, they’re acting with the mob. Right. But that’s not a lack of discernment. It’s a lack of applying discernment. Well, passion, right? Passion overwhelms what would otherwise be right. Well, it depends on your model, right? If you say your emotions can override your discernment. Yes. But I think it’s because so if you look at the knowledge, knowledge engine model on navigating patterns, right, the slides, because I did slides for your lovely people, even though you’re probably not worthy. I did the slides anyway. So if it’s a loss of poetic engagement, what’s going to happen is you’re going to take actions in the world. Believe you’re not taking actions. No, no, I’m a neutral observer or I’m in objective material reality. So all of my actions are just if that’s what you saw with Vincent and Claire. That’s what they’re doing. They’re starting from these things are just the law is justified. And because the law is justified, of course, they’ve taken a bunch of actions and done a bunch of free judgment. Then everything else flows from there. It’s like, no, no, no. There was judgment involved. And to get to judgment, to take the action of asserting that these laws are the right answer, you had to go through discernment when you skip those steps or think you’ve skipped those steps. All you’ve done is dulled your skills at judgment and discernment. And now all of a sudden drag Queen story, our whatever the hell it is, even conservatives in the U.S. Something about U.S. conservatives, not Australian conservatives or European conservatives. Right. Even they can’t make a good case for why this is a bad idea, because they’ve lost discernment because they’ve been busy saying you’re too judgy. Stop being so judgy. So they stop judging, which is not a thing that you could do. They’re still taking actions in the world. It does their judgment and their discernment because they’re denying that they’re even doing it. And now they’re zombies. Hmm. Yeah, it also depends if you’re starting from a model of muppets or people where where are they rational creatures or irrational creatures? And that that starting point matters with these sort of right. That’s why I said, yeah, you’re starting from rationality. Can’t stop from rationality. Yeah, because rationality or how we define rationality is a container of values. There’s a category. It’s a categorization system of imposed axioms and values. And we call that rationality. Right. Hold on. I want to understand what Mills is saying. So he says that was not their actual position. I don’t think I stated their actual position, but I think they were presenting the reasoning that would be presented as nonsensical facade for the underlying power dynamic. All right. In so far as they’re stuck in postmodern power from above narrative. Yeah, they are. Along with everybody else. They don’t see that. And I appreciate that they don’t see that. And like almost no one does. Fair enough. But they didn’t present any reason or rationality. They said this is rational and they justified it with a tautology. So they abandoned the rationality entirely, which you have to do to be like them. You can’t start with the law. The law. Things don’t start with law. That’s not that’s materialism. Right. Oh, look, gravity. Gravity. And therefore, no, something created the gravity. Right. That’s what you have to start with. You have to start at the beginning. You can’t start in the middle. That’s middle out thinking. See my video on navigating patterns. It’s thinking. That’s the that’s the issue for me. So their entire platform is based on that fallacy or not tautology. It’s not based on anything else. They don’t have anything to base it on. That’s why they made the rationality claim but then ran into the tautology. So you can see it in action. Their own inability to discern their own argument. They didn’t have an argument. They had a statement that Noah Hyde Law is correct because everybody agrees. So we need to move back to it. Well, if everybody agrees in it, why would we need to move back to it? We’d already be there. Oh, and by the way, we had Noah Hyde Law and we abandoned it. So everybody doesn’t agree or we wouldn’t have abandoned it. And I’m not saying that that’s a correct way to argue. But given their framing, destroying their frame is correct. So I don’t want to say that, oh, because we abandoned something, we shouldn’t go back because I don’t believe that. But I but I also don’t believe that the Noah Hyde stuff works. So I’m just grabbing the video here. Hold on. I like to put my links in. Give me a second, Mel. I’ll catch up to you. Maybe another another way to combat this is what is their reason for arguing in the first place? Yeah, exactly. They’re trying to make what are they? What are they doing? Yeah. All right. So the discernment of tautology generally may be what they are trying to provoke. No, I don’t think so. No offense. Claire Vincent, her crew, 105, 105 IQ. They’re only slightly above average. I’m sorry. I did just they’re just not that smart. It just is what it is. You need to be able to discern that. You need to be able to discern that tautology as justification for the exercise of power. Well, yeah, I mean, that’s that’s postmodernism. Right. It is what it is. I’ve never heard this word. What’s tautology? Well, tautology is just basically stating something as an axiomatic fact, usually self-referencing. Right. So they were like, well, the law is good. And therefore, and I was like, it does. I call them and therefore arguments when I use it in their for like I’m not even saying they’re bad, but you got to have a good one. You know, like I like tautology being as good and therefore. You know, it’s just what else are you going to use? Go ahead. I’ll wait here while you fail to find a better formulation. And you can say, Mark, you can’t know that. No, I can know that. It’s really easy, actually. And if you think it’s not, then you’re the idiot, not me. It doesn’t take long to figure this out. Oh, I like I like this. I’m going to steal that and not credit her medically sealed reasoning. Yeah. Tautology is our her medically sealed reasonings. So was their entire argument. Right. Because, but again, I look, I’m OK. Like, if you just come to me and say, I have the system and I’m going to justify it using the following axioms. I’ll walk with you. That’s not what they did. They said we have a rationality. We can rationalize this. And then they didn’t rationalize. Well, that’s a different problem, because now it’s bad faith. Don’t come in and say, I can rationalize my belief and then say the law is good, which isn’t even it’s this law is good. It’s like. Maybe. And if you want to come in and say, emergence is good, I’m starting from there. I’ll engage you in that conversation. Don’t then say I can rationalize that emergence is good. That’s a different argument. This is this is the discernment. Well, and I have really good discernment for arguments because the Internet may be new to all of you. The Internet is very old to me because I have been on it for a very long time since I was very, very young. I was still in high school when I was first on the Internet and I was on the Internet with some seminal figures in all of this. You and they were very old at the time and I was very young at the time, but I learned from them. And like I talked about this in my probably two years ago now with Vanderklai, my first talk with Vanderklai, my name next to Jordan Peterson’s name on YouTube. Excellent. Oh, yeah. No, Paul was very generous. Paul’s a wonderful person. He’s just great. And he pushed the video and he did a clip and everything. Like it was the first video he did a clip for was the video with first conversation. Oh, yes, I am quite blessed. Paul has been a blessing to me. Yeah. And and it you know, in there I was telling the story about the trolling game. The original trolling was a game. We knew what we were. We were all playing with each other against each other. We wouldn’t go out and troll innocent Aussies like Jesse or something. That’s no fun. First of all, it’s Jesse. He’s a muppet. But more importantly, you wouldn’t want somebody who didn’t know what they were doing because the whole point of the game was to have such good argumentation that the other person gave up. That was the point of the game. Right. And when you play that game, do you think we didn’t argue flat earth, ancient aliens and a thousand other things you can’t even imagine? Of course we did. And you know what? If you’re good at it, and this is somewhat debate does this in college, you’re supposed to be good at the argumentation, irrespective of how good the argument is. Right. So if you’re making an axiomatic statement like Atlantis is floating above us right now, and I’m sure there was somebody that made that argument probably really well, you have to be good with the logic, reason and rationality. You have to have excellent discernment for what was said and how it was said. You have to. Yeah, those skills are skills that I learned very, very young from the very, very best. So I can tell you for a fact, Claire’s not there. Yeah, she’s just not. That’s not a ding. Like, look, there’s a top one percent. She’s not in it. So are 99 percent of the population. It’s you’re in good company. Steal away. I got it from someone else who was warming against her medicine indicated the name implies a topology rather than just for referencing to Hermes Trismegistus. I didn’t even make the her medic. I mean, I’m sure I did in the past, but James Lindsay really drove that home. Those talks are haunting. Those folks are haunting. Yeah, he really he really had something to say there. Yeah, he goes a little too conspiratorial for my mind, but whatever. I mean, there’s Freemason buildings everywhere in Australia. I’m sure there’s Freemason buildings all over the place. So there’s something there. Well, you can say it is. It was a tradition in a time. Yeah, exactly. Well, yes. Well, yeah. And what’s the same argument for cathedrals? Yeah, yeah, sure. And you can then link the cathedrals and say they were all built by Freemasons. Yeah, yeah. But Freemason wouldn’t build a cathedral or the Vatican. You know, if you look at the Vatican from the aerial shot, it looks like a snake and all the stuff. You can you can do all these things and they’re fun. They are fun. They’re a version of trolling, right? That’s what they can be. Yeah, what I found interesting, what you’re saying is that you’d say like Internet one point or zero point one, you know, like the beta Internet, early Internet days had this rhetoric or had this community function of debating. And then that spills over in time. It echoes out. But then at some point, a part of it gets abstracted from the original node and that forms its own like the Twitch. You just think the whole continuation? No, no. Here’s what happens. So here’s the irony. I’m working with this company. This guy in South Carolina of all the places in the world. He sees an older guy. He was on some of the Internet committees back in the day and stuff. Oh, like my father was on that committee. Yeah. The Internet. It was originally very secure in order to get on the Internet. You had to be smart. Right. It’s like the it’s like the difference between BBS is and the AOL crew. Right. If you run a BBS, you had to own a modem and to own a personal computer. You’re to hook it up to the phone line and to get it to work. These are not trivial things to do. You had to run software. Then you had to get on to you to learn each builds a board separately. Roughly speaking, I mean, there were a few big ones that were everywhere, but people would customize them anyway. So that didn’t help you all the time. It’s like, well, this is a bubble love BBS, but you know, it’s different from Ted’s version or whatever. It was a high barrier to entry. So what does that mean? The filter requirements for being on the Internet in the early days were very high. Like, for example, you had to be in a university or the military. You’re already dealing with smart people. Now, could you be in any university? No, none of the college, none of the community colleges. Right. It had to be a big school, a big name school. So now you’re in the top 10 percent already. So in the old days, everybody on the Internet had a high IQ. Everybody. This is sort of like the clubhouse problem, too. That filter dropped. Right. With CompuServe and AOL and then subsequent Internet to the home. Now that filter is lower. Same thing happened to Clubhouse. The minute it’s not that they open the floodgates, it’s that they let the barbarian Android users on. I’m a barbarian Android user, by the way, although somebody bought me an iPad mini so that I could be on Clubhouse. I’m a very generous friend of mine. So I knew it before the Android floodgates opened, but it’s not more people. It’s the average IQ of the people on the platform literally goes down because the barriers not there. The filter is different. Well, the quality of the quality of communication, I guess. Stick clear of IQ. That’s that helpful. But it is something there, but it’s not helpful in terms of communicating to most people. It’s just a helpful analog. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or metaphor. Right. There’s certain type of people that would want to go on Clubhouse specifically on an iPhone. You’re kind of filtering or you’re marketing to a certain type of person with certain values and preferences. And so once you change the dynamics of the preference set up, the group, there’s a cost filter. The trade-off. Apple phones, they’re insanely expensive. And who’s using an Apple? This is the irony. It’s the opposite of the old Internet. People use iPhones, use them because they want something easy to use. They don’t want to deal with technology. It freed up all that cognitive power to engage in the final things in life, if you will. And also, will that be all or shall you be dining in the veranda today? My butler made the most gorgeous pancakes this morning. Well, honestly, you would not believe how many Hollywood people were on Clubhouse and not even like big name peoples, but probably people more that you would know. Right. Camera guys. I wouldn’t even call them because it’s not it’s all the people that run things. There are like producers on there and all kinds of things like they were hanging out there. I heard some stories that I was just like, you’ve got to be f’ing kidding me. I know way more about Hollywood than I ever wanted to. And I’m not like I engaged in those rooms. I just ran into a few of them and people really like me on that platform. So I like what I have to say for some reason. Well, I semi rediscovered you on on on on Clubhouse, by the way. Oh, I didn’t realize that. I had seen you bunch around with Paul’s videos. I guess the interesting guy. And then I was really into I still am friends with Amy and Walter for a bit. And he I know, Damien. Yeah, yeah. He’s gone a bit too socialist. My liking. I still had a good tweet today, actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was there in the early days with his community building stuff. Not the early days of Facebook, but his membership things and giving him tips on what to do and how to improve his sound and video quality. He appreciated all that. If you like, you know, he he offered to give me some writing lessons and things like that. Oh, cool. Yeah. Yeah. I like pretty generous guy. I don’t like him to just perspective of his videos have shifted from a more of a used to have a more neutral perspective. And now it’s a little bit more he’s emphasizing something that I don’t not necessarily on board. And then, you know, he called Jesus as one of the first. So, yeah, not going to go with you on that. Jesus was not a socialist in the way that everyone thinks of that word. And that using using those terms and categories for a particular type of message. And yeah, I’m not. Yeah. Not even that. It’s yeah. It’s a political move like you’re actually highlighting the political frame above spiritual values. And I’m like, he actually tweeted out the other day to I’m religious, but not spiritual. I was like, yeah, that’s telling that’s very telling. I was I was encouraged by that. Yeah, I was like, that’s that’s kind of the opposite of what we I don’t know. It depends on your preference set. But I would say that you need the reverse of that right now. You kind of need to be able to discern spirits, which is why the agrigore video went well, because that’s what we’re dealing with. We’re in, you know, technologies that amplified the use on that stupid, silly video. Well, I couldn’t believe I can I talk openly? I guess one of the things I think people may you maybe appreciated that because it did. I’ll say, yeah. And I hope I can’t remember the guy’s name. I think he’s an Australian. He’s in Melbourne. They came a bit of a coaching video in the middle of their bit of a therapeutic thing. I think that’s that may be interesting to people because there’s not a lot of that space of male to male empathy or understanding or sort of. Community, I’m not sure how to say this. That’s fair. Forgiveness is also where an Easter. But yeah, it’s on my mind. But yeah, that that came up there, too. It’s something unique about that interaction. Yeah, it was. And Andre and I have been friends. I’m the knowledge engine. Andre, when it made the breakthrough, not manual manual wasn’t there that day. Andre and I were working on something else. We were working on memes. We were working on that. Anyone to show me his tarot cards? OK. And yeah, that’s when the breakthrough happened. We took a break. Mills, the store kind of boosted the concept of everywhere. Yeah, definitely. Yeah. Well, it didn’t boost it. They resurrected it because they’re a bunch of necromancers. Literally, you’re going to see necromancy. Watch the stoic resurrect a word from 1527, I want to say, but something maybe 1581, something like that. It’s it’s an old occult word. Hmm. Hmm. And the guy pushing it, who was a waste disposal guy? Which was just symbolically interesting. Yeah, no, I can’t remember. He talked to Paul Vanaclay and a few other people. He was one of the main nodes of that ecological phenomena of pushing that word out. He was a waste disposal guy. Yeah, I thought this is really interesting that you’ve got a guy that deals with. Certain things of that nature, and he’s, you know, looking at the waste of medieval text and selecting out. Yep. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, you could call it necromancy. That’s a tawgology of whatever we just referenced a couple minutes ago. I was like, what? What is what? How is that helpful? Right. What’s that word actually doing there? Just it’s the thing I talked to you guys about last night is that while I made an error with my. Figuring out how to get to a logical argument there with the description language game comes up all the time for me now. I’m like, ah, something I have said as someone else said, Mike, that’s not the way it’s not. It’s not it’s what you’ve said. That’s not what you meant. And trying to learn to discern. There we go. Trying to learn to discern is what you said what you felt will mean or, you know, someone said to you, is that what they mean? Is that right? It’s what they said. But that word is not what they mean. They mean something else. I need to have a value set to determine whether you trust that person to continue to engage with them or to participate in a conversation or a dialectic with them. You should find a way to engage. That’s what I try to do. Virtually. Yes. That’s what the channel is about. That’s what navigating patterns is about. Right. Cultural cognitive grammar. Let’s put definitions into words such that they actually have utility again. Right. Because when anybody who disagrees with you is racist, we can’t communicate anymore. Like the communications all done. It’s finished. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I actually had. Remember that with that with my current employer, we will lightly talk. He was lightly. Yeah. Not sure how much to go into it. But essentially the end of the conversation was this person brought up their experiences in the country. I referenced a movie of that country called The Ghost in the Darkness. And then she jumped into describing that the animals weren’t the problem with the country, but it was the people. And then I was like, OK, the conversation was done at that point. It’s like as soon as like, OK, the movie from the 90s that no one’s seen. Cool. All right. This is a little bit about the movie. It’s great. It’s great. And then it quickly turned into darker political descriptions of that country. And I was like, we didn’t need to go there. No boundaries. Yeah. They didn’t need to be. The movie represents the company country rather country is politics. It’s all one thing. That’s the things at least. Yeah. I learned a lot. I was like, OK, there are certain things, certain people you just can’t talk culture about because they invert what culture is. It’s just the low order of the low order representations of a place in time. And so they discern, oh, even though that movie was made in the 90s, it is X because the value set has changed now rather than the value set was then. And not to say which one is right or wrong. It’s just you just have to start somewhere in a conversation. And then if you impose your your perspective on culture, you supersede politics above culture. And then you’re always going to you’re always going to want to run to the extremes of a conversation rather than finding common. It’s not that you want to run to them. You’re not a choice. Right. No discernment. It’s all collapsed. Yeah. Yeah. You can’t look. I mean, we’ve got to be a little fair. You can’t afford discernment if you’re by yourself trying to understand something like a country. Like, first of all, what are you high? You can’t understand a country. Country has more than one person’s in it. You’re one person. The distributed cognition and the stuff that the country does is bigger than any one person, not in the country, bigger than any one person anywhere ever in in time or space. Like, you can’t do that. Now, you’ve been told you can’t told you to understand these things. Oh, here’s a way to understand country. Look it up on the CIA facts database and you’ll see all the economic and political information. And then you understand the country that you do not understand until you’ve been to Edinburgh. It’s full of zombies. I mean, that little there are zombies. They are there. I said that on a live stream with Fander Clay once and somebody from Scotland said, You’re absolutely right. It’s better in England, but not much. Now, I didn’t stop in England. Unfortunately, I was stuck in the airport. But I’m sure they’re living off the bones of their ancestors and not paying attention. They’re not revivifying. They’re not contributing back into the legacy that they were born into. Right. They’re not. And that’s eventually going to degrade. And I think that’s why Europe is in the shape that it’s in. I think that’s why when you talk to Claire Kha and some of these other people over there, like some of the people in England right now are totally hardcore end of the world. We need to know how to live on our own, which is just ironic because you almost can’t do it over there, especially in England. It’s worse than the rest of continental Europe. But, yeah, England’s in real trouble. And they are anti-government and anti whatever. And they’re all on Odyssey because YouTube’s evil. And it’s like what? It’s crazy. But they don’t face they sense like Vincent, they sense the end is a possibility. It’s a potential. But they don’t discern what to do about it. So no, I had ism or secular corn ism or whatever. Seems like a valid answer because it’s a compression. What are they? Sorry. What do those mean? What do you mean by no, I had these. The way Vincent described it is just the law is good. And the law as defined by some Talmud Torah thing, I don’t know. I can’t keep track of all this crazy garbage, but it was just the law. And I was like, you can’t compress everything into law. And he’s like, no, no, we’re not. You can have whatever religion you want. And I’m like, no, no, no. The law is justified by the religion. The religion is bigger. The law is smaller. The thing that comes first is the bigger thing because it comes down from above. It’s the emanation. Right. A certain loss won’t work because of the constraint from below that the emergence. I’m not that hard, but no one has discernment. Right. Verbeke doesn’t talk about emanation. He says the word emanation. I get that. Right. And I say, beatlejuice three times. And it works just as well as saying emanation three times, which is to say you haven’t said anything. See, you can say, oh, no, no, emanation is really important. Now, narrative is really important. OK. How? Now I’ll believe you if you can answer the how and the why question. But they don’t even bother. They breeze right on. And then everybody else gives them a pass because, oh, sure. I know what emanation means. They said they understood emanation. So we’re good. No, you’re not. And they don’t make that discernment because it’s hard. Look, you want to keep up with John? You want to keep up with John Verbeke? Good luck. I’m not trying to do that. He’s a smart guy. He’s got ridiculous facts. Writing on coattails, there is a latency, which means the effects kits in. It’s too late. And to some extent, there’s a lag. I wouldn’t. I mean, latency is a factor. The lag is the bigger factor. The effects cascade. Well, look, it depends on somebody asked me, I forget where. They said, you know, how did you know how to move out of New England like six years ago? And I was like, well, I wanted to move out like four years before that, but I couldn’t. That’s what depression does to you, too, as well. Depression gives you quite a decent lag on life. Right. What you know and value and what you actually want because you’re reciprocally narrowed. Yeah. Right. But because it’s an addiction to nihilism or something, roughly, I mean, I’m being self. Yeah. Well, no, it’s an addiction to nihilism. Because if you’re addicted to yourself, you’re narcissistic. You’re doing OK. You’re probably like, yeah, everything’s cool. You’re in the center of the world. But in depression, something like a black hole is the center of the world and you’re getting sucked into it. Right. And you’re narrowing on it. But somebody asked me like what what you know, what how did you know? And I was like, the traffic changed. Sounds absurd. It’s not absurd. You can’t change the traffic patterns of a city that have been there for five, six, seven, eight, ten years or whatever. They’ve been changing at a very slow rate in a month, which is what happened. And you can say, oh, nobody knows. No, no, I could tell you in eastern Massachusetts for any time of day how long it would take you to get from one city to another. And my accuracy was ridiculously high. It was so high that people just couldn’t believe I could do it. I did it every time. I had a very good map of the traffic over time, and I didn’t have to go there to have it because I knew the roads that well. So I was just like, it’s going to take you 20 minutes or take you 50 minutes if you do it at rush hour or whatever. And it was bang on. It was totally bang on. And then in a month, all the traffic changed, all the plates changed. So we’re different states, states that shouldn’t be working a message. We Connecticut should be working in Boston. You’re working, you know, that side of Massachusetts, maybe Worcester, but you should be working in Boston. That’s a hell of a commute. You’re you’re you’re driving like two hours at that point. Guaranteed after a long place from New Jersey. That’s four hours. Now, you’re not coming from New Jersey. Fair enough. They’re coming from Western Mass. I was like, and they’re coming late. And I’m like, well, I leave late on purpose, so there’s no traffic. Why is there traffic? This isn’t good. City can’t handle that change. City can’t take a 30 day change in in people coming in and out of the city. That doesn’t work. You know, so you don’t you don’t need much information. Now, that doesn’t tell you what changed and why it changed and how it changed. But I don’t care about that. Like, that’s a resolution level that I don’t need to deal with. I just need to know to get the hell out of Dodge. So I did. I got the hell out of Dodge. It’s not hard. Right. It’s it’s and it’s always this confusion. This is one of the things that just bugs the crap out of me. People will often say, well, look, you know, they’re they’re not evil. Right. They’re just incompetent. And I’m like, maybe. But I can take an action and it’s the same action, irrespective of incompetence or evil or error or whatever. I fire their ass. If you want to rehab them, do it on the backside. You don’t have to you don’t have to redeem them because you know what’s wrong, because first of all, you don’t know what’s wrong. And second of all, they’re not even asking for redemption. And third of all, we got to work to do this as a government thing. Get rid of them first. We have them later. Like, I don’t understand, Bill, any of it. Like, I’m like, well, you have enough information to make the only possible decision. Pull the trigger on that. Worry about the rest. And some other time, we get rid of the problem first and then address the person in some way that you can. You don’t want to redeem a bad lawmaker by keeping them in the lawmaking body while they’re still broken, whether it’s incompetence or evil or what, it doesn’t matter. Like, that doesn’t make any difference at all. Or they’re making too many mistakes. It doesn’t matter. You got to get rid of them first and then deal with it. I did want to address the emanation and the return in opponent processing. All right, look, I’m going to ban opponent processing from my channel forever. There’s no such thing. People who say that are not Christians and they’re not good people. We are not in opponent processing. I’m not going to be in opponent processing. My brain is not in opponent processing with the rest of my brain. That’s garbage. I’m in cooperative processing. I am cooperating with Jesse. That’s why I moved my stream to Friday night, not because Jacob wasn’t streaming because he’s Jewish or semi-practicing. I never even entered my mind. Jacob said that. I was like, that’s why you think I did that? That’s hysterical. Never even entered my mind. Wouldn’t enter my mind. It has nothing to do with my values. They’re his values, which I didn’t even know about, by the way. Yeah, I like this. Mark’s domiciled experience. Yes, Father Eric, that is very much true. Existential horror at a Connecticut plate. Listen, Connecticut drivers are the worst in the country by far. Yeah, well, I shouldn’t say by far because New Jersey routinely competes for worst driving experience of all time. But there’s very little difference between Connecticut and New Jersey in terms of driving stupidity. But Connecticut’s still worse. Like every time New Jersey gets close, Connecticut’s like, no, no, no, I got this kid. Hold my beer. And then they do something dumber. I mean, literally every trip I’ve ever taken because you’re probably going to go through to Connecticut to get to New Jersey. So when I go to New Jersey or when I used to go to New Jersey or visit my aunt or whatever, yeah, it was always this contest. Something dumb would happen in Connecticut. And I’d be like, well, I’ve never seen that before. I could never have imagined people doing something that stupid. And then I get to New Jersey and they kind of try to bump up the bar. And usually they’d miss. Every once in a while they’d get bitter. And I’m like, oh, well, there you go. They beat Connecticut. I go back to Connecticut every single time. Connecticut was like, no, no, we got this. We can be way worse. I’m just saying. It’s objectively, observably true. Also, most horror, most yes. Well, most horror is by its nature existential. Otherwise, it’s not horror. It’s drama. So it has to be drama and not horror. Yeah, yeah, exactly. You have to have some level of other for something to be horror. Right. He’s a priest. He’s a priest. So his cognitive load is taken up and all this crazy like sit, stand, liturgy, Latin, nutty stuff. He doesn’t have the capacity to engage with which states have the worst drivers. And he shouldn’t. That’s my job. It’s your job. We all have our little niches and skills. Like, what’s wrong with that? In your opening spiel, you mentioned the need to push back on others in order to bring them around to seeing how they are blind in so many words. I wouldn’t paraphrase it that way. My friend, this sounds like a good example of opponent processing. No, they are not my opponents. First of all, let me explain something to you. If you’re my opponent, you’re dead. I’m just going to kill you. I’m sorry. I’m I’m a kill. I’m a shoot first, ask questions, never kind of person. You do not want to be my opponent ever at anything. I will take you out. I will take you out immediately. I don’t escalate. I literally do not escalate. I don’t do those signals. I don’t do those signals. I’m efficient. So I’m like, we’re going to get you done. You know, Claire is not my opponent. Right. I’m also not trying to convert her. That’s not it. And like, I have discord open when I’m on a stream. I’ll open to describe what I’ve done with my stream, sir. Yeah, look, you’re not my opponent. OK, I’m happy to try to cooperate with you. Do I get banned now? I say it three times. Yes. Yes. Yes. That could happen. The bad frame. All right. Drivers in North Dakota are very polite. Over all, drivers in the South are very polite over overall. In fact, it’s a very polite way to say it. Drivers in the South are very polite over overall. In fact, it’s so funny. I get up here and they do the New England thing. Everyone’s cutting people off and they’re driving crazy. And they’re like three lane switch to get off at the last minute and all kinds of crazy. It doesn’t phase me. I go down south, one person almost sort of kind of cut somebody off. And I’m like, oh, my goodness. What was that? Because it’s so like when I’m here, this doesn’t happen. And then when it happens, it’s so hysterically funny. Because when I’ve had a car up here and I’ve traveled and gotten in my car, I’m just Boston driving mode is just an actual video game. So for me, it’s like, all right, well, I’m just playing the Boston driving video game and I’m really good at this game. So I’m going to beat you all. And I usually do. So it’s just me. I’m good in traffic. I’m really good in traffic now. Down south. Yeah, yeah, I’m totally different driver. Just be open, long roads, you know, Gorge. I just don’t care. Yeah, right. Not in a hurry. No one else is. Yeah. Everyone’s. You observe the phenomena. Whatever. The phenomena of traffic changes your behavior. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. This is this is city driving. I need to like be ruthless, essentially. Yeah. Well, it’s like that over here. As soon as you get out of the city, everyone’s fine. Calm. There’s no dumb mistakes on the road. Things are just what they should be. You go in here. It’s like, no, you need to know all the shortcuts, all the back streets, all the little particulars of how to signal to people and actually thank them for like, you know, letting them come in. Yeah. Like reading the traffic and all this stuff. Yeah, no, I looked I lived in a small city outside of Boston. So it was just very different driving there. That’s all. It’s not. And then it got bad. Like I was like, oh, this is no fun. Friggin Sally’s upset that I had Claire on. That’s fair. Did this happen when I wasn’t here? No, I didn’t. I didn’t. I watched the first little bit because I was catching up. It’s a long weekend. You claimed to watch my streams, but actually. What? Minutes. That’s enough of the first bit. See how it is. Look, Mark, component processing. All right. Where’s that band button? The thing is, if you’re always thinking, if you use that model, you will think everyone, including yourself, you will think that you’re not going to be able to do that. If you use that model, you will think everyone, including yourself, is your opponent. Is your opponent. Right. And then you’ll treat them that way. Yes. Whether you realize it or not, unconsciously, you’ll treat them that way. And you’ll just make the world worse. Harmony. That’s what you want. You want to be able to harmonize with people. And it takes. It’s so funny. They’re all like turn the other cheek and be friendly to everybody. Opponent processing is great. It’s like, do you not understand the psychological projection you’re engaging with? You want to surface the conflict on honestly. You really do. That’s what you want to do. You don’t want to hide it because then it’s going to come out in ways that you don’t expect. You’re going to become Claire Carr. You know, you’re going to be sitting there making claims that are religious in nature and pretending that they’re no, no, I’m just dealing with the law or with politics or with economics or whatever other bad frame you’re dealing with. Mills, you’re wrong again, mate. Sorry. Well, it’s not that it equals enemy. That’s not the problem. It equals opponent. It equals competition. And that’s bad. Like, we don’t need to do that. We can’t. We can. We can. Have competition between non opponents. But when you have opponents, you can’t cooperate because it’s not cooperation and your competition is not as generative. The fact of the matter is, if you’re fighting over the same ground in opposition, you are not rising up, which you can only do in cooperation, which I make the argument that that is the difference when you’re stuck here. And at a two dimensional level, it’s opposition. You have no other choice. Right. The only way to transcend is by both sides making a small sacrifice to get higher. And just another side so you can find it. OK, look, dialectic is evil. OK, it’s dualism. Period. End of statement. Dualism is wrong. We do not live in a duality. That’s not the world we live in. It’s a dualism. It’s a dual. Right. Dual. Dialectic is the statement of a dualism. It’s, ooh, this or that. You know, then there’s a Hegelian dialectic, which people are confused. Like, the original dialectic is not Hegelian. Hegelian dialectic is just frickin’ evil. It’s just thesis. It’s just thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Oh, you’re smart enough to be the synthesizer, I suppose, just by, oh, oh, wait. And you’re smart enough to be the one who’s determining which is the thesis and which is the antithesis. Oh, isn’t that convenient for you, you individual? You’re so smart. See how Hegelian dialectic fools you into not cooperating with people? Like, I don’t want a synthesis. I’d rather a cooperation. I don’t want a thesis and an antithesis. I don’t want that. I want to find common ground. Right? That’s what I want. Processing, like in a pickup basketball game. We want a good game. Yeah. Well, and look, just to go back. Okay. There’s no such thing as dialectic framing. It just doesn’t exist. This is a garbage concept by crazy people. Sure. What was that, Justin? You can be in a dialectic for sure. You can be in a dialectic for sure, but it’s a dual. Yeah, but the framing comes first. Yes. I know. You can frame things into a dialectic, and that might even be useful. Should you? I can argue very easily. You can also never frame things in a dialectic and do everything you could do in a dialectic, and everything will be better for everybody in every single possible case. Now what? Because I can make that case, and you can’t argue your way out of it. Sorry. You’re not going to be able to. Especially if you only understand things in dialectic. You’re going to be trapped in dialectic, and I’m going to be playing way up here, and you’re going to lose every game. And if you want to watch that, go look at the dialectic framing of the Claire Ka. I’ve got to find the stupid video now. Which livestream it was where I just took her apart? She scored zero points. Zero, because she was stuck in a dialectic. And I know which dialect she was stuck in, and I just never condescended. I did that with Vincent today, too. Oh, you want a category so that you can attack me on that category? I’m not going to play. And he was defenseless. He had nothing to do. Father Eric, processing Lake in a pickup basketball game. We want a good game. Right. Well, the good game is the value, right? The value determines how you play the game. But look, this is a good question. What about opposable thumbs? Are they in opposition? No. Only if you’re doing this. How do you know the difference between your thumbs? Because this is left to you, but this is right to me, but they’re still thumbs. So what are these distinctions? They’re not in opposition. They’re not in opposition. Yeah. Yeah. This is and this is the look. I mean, if you want to look, if you want to put it in spirit and aggregate, this is the spirit of Lucifer or Satan invading our language and fooling you because you’re not making discernments. Unlike professional, which is winner take all. Maybe Father Eric. I don’t know. Well, no, professionals can cooperate. Professionals had to cooperate. That’s why they formed guilds. Right. You can’t. The concept of professional doesn’t make any sense in it in an opposite opponent competition. We the materialism. Well, right. Yeah. All roads lead to evil materials and mills. If there’s no bridge, but it’s better if there is a bridge, how do you characterize the relationship as cooperation? You can’t build a bridge from each side. If you’re an opponent and opposition to one another, you’re not going to do it. That’s what opposition means. You can’t have two bridge builders either. You have to have one bridge builder and they otherwise you have to one. I coordinate the cooperation. Otherwise, you’re going to end up you’re not invoking. No, you did invoke Hagel. You don’t even know it. That’s not just you. Like everybody invokes Hagel without realizing it. They’re not because you haven’t read Hagel and you shouldn’t read Hagel. Don’t read Hagel. My goodness. Don’t don’t even read summaries of the guy. It’s all garbage. I promise you on my life. If you read zero philosophers after Aristotle, you will be totally fine. Like nothing. You will lose nothing from your life at all. At all. Zero. It’s honest. Just be a good person. Maybe go to church. You don’t need any of this philosophy garbage. You don’t even need the Republicans. I didn’t even have the Republicans. I’m still not done reading it. You don’t need it. You don’t even need play out and Aristotle. You don’t. I’m just saying we still play hard to pick up game. Right. Right. Right. Because the value is the game. The condition or the value is the is the cooperation. How are we going to cooperate? How are we going to cooperate? Yeah. Sorry. Right. Common ground should be the goal. How do you reconcile the many to get to that common ground? You don’t reconcile the many. Look, look. Have preferences to be a group. You have to have. Hold on. Hold on. No, no. The problem is the requirement of all of the inclusivity. OK. I don’t care if Claire caught is saved. I literally not my job. I actually not my job. Like for real not my job. Also not my job to ignore her or be mean to her. That is also not my job. Right. Because I am not in opposition to her and I am not including her at all costs. There’s a discernment there. There’s a third way. This is the talk that Vander Klay owes me. This is the third way. Right. I don’t have to be mean to her. I don’t have to ignore her. And I didn’t. OK. I also don’t have to include her. And I didn’t. I get I I engaged her until she made a mistake that I knew she was going to make. And I kicked her out. And I did the same with Vincent. OK. It’s it’s not that right. Boundaries are defined by virtues and values. So you can have someone in which is being virtuous to welcome people in to be hospital hospitable. But your values determine the actions to take when those people cross your values. Right. You use values to determine other values. You’re like well I’ve been I’ve been virtuous which is a value. And now this person has crossed my sense of respect or my my hospitality. And then so I’m going to enact my what is it. Everybody’s everybody’s looking at boundaries like these hard things that never change and therefore no one can come in. It’s like well that’s a mistake. So in a pick up game there’s only one team. No in a pick up game the teams are subservient to the goal of cooperation literally like that’s the definition of a pick up game. Thank you. Thank you. I don’t like that word but that’s OK. Those guys get a pass. Well Nils look right to Dan Clay. He told me today on his live stream at the end that he knew he owed me a conversation. He knew what it was. It was Manuel a conversation. He knew that. I’m right here and say look I really want to see this talk. The more people bug him about it the more likely he is to do it. Can you come on here. I could host him in a heartbeat. I’d rather go on his channel. Right. Yeah that’ll help a lot. Yeah I’d rather go on his channel first and then pull as many as I can because whatever. We’re trying to get you to a thousand people. That’s right. That’s the goal. The goal is to get Mark. Claire it’s not primary point of identification either for or against. Well look it wasn’t just Claire. Everybody warned me Vincent’s one of her lackeys and I was like OK whatever. Everybody’s welcome on my channel until they cross a line and then when they cross that line I get rid of them. Because look maybe I have to make this clear. I’m trying to show you all discernment. The whole point of navigating patterns is discernment. It’s not a it’s not a trick. Like I’m just trying to show you guys how I do it. I’ve got videos that talk about this is how I do this. Like it’s not I’m not hiding the ball. The teams are subservient to the common goal in the forbidden phrase. It’s there’s nothing forbidden. What is with you occultists. Let’s let’s shoot the occultists. Father Eric in seminary pick up games the goal is to have the teams as balanced as possible. Right. One team was not trying to overcome the other group. Right. Because you both want to learn. So you want to balance out the teams so you get better. OK. Exactly. Well that’s not opponent processing. It’s not to say there aren’t opponents in there but they’re opponents within the game. That’s the spirit of the spirit of opponent processing. Spirit of cooperative processing. This is this is the this is the you. OK. If you’re in a community it’s common unity. You cannot have opponent opponents in the common unity otherwise they are an opposing to your call. That’s well said. There you go. There you go. Jesse. Now you can do the magic like I do. Excellent. Well yeah. The team’s father Eric the teams are cooperating. That’s right. These damn Christians embody St. Mac. Look I said I don’t. Does he do that. I have no idea. I didn’t read that book. Ethan if St. Michael casts out evil then. Yeah. Well I think I think it is evil to talk about. Look we’re in a very disconnected world and people are throwing around these dangerous words and because they’re not in a context they become dangerous. So when you use effective altruism outside of a context that could mean literally anything. When you use opposition or opponent processing outside of a community it means something very different than if you use it within a community right or within the frame of a game right. These are these are problems like you need to be careful with the language the cultural kind of grammar matters. I mean it’s one of the deep points that for Vickie makes where I mean it can’t be overstated and I wish he’d focus on that instead of a garbage honestly that he’s focusing on now. And you know if I see him again I might mention that to him and say look you know this stuff this other stuff you’re doing is not as important as the really important work. And I already made the case. Relevance realization is discernment. Maybe it’s discernment and judgment but discernment is more important. What is this? Who is like God? Why don’t you answer that for us Jesse since you asked it. No I was just I was just translating Eric’s Eric’s. Oh is this that quiz. Do this. Do this. Yes. Yeah they do day us in the church. There’s there’s two flavors of Latin that I’m familiar with. That’s Michael’s name. Anything that tries to take God’s place need to be cast out. OK. Look at this. We’re learning all this crazy useless theology. Mills every church body hashes out doctrine every so often. Are they not on a put that. If they are then they’re doing it wrong. I think that sounds Protestant to me. Like it just. Yes the spirit of Protestantism is opposition that Protestantism itself is based on the concept of opposing the Catholic Church. They don’t have any unifying principle. That’s why they keep splitting apart opposing sides of an issue. Hopefully not. But trying not to rupture the common unity. No no the Methodists really really. You’re going to bring up the Methodists. The Methodists are the least of the splitty. I mean come on. Like. Do you. I don’t I don’t know. I mean I’m not even like really studying this stuff but like just from a 40,000 foot view. Really. The CRC is about to destruct itself. Like come on. They’re all screwed up. And they and I mean Van der Kley says this explicitly right. Gay marriage comes around all the churches destroy themselves immediately. Yep. Every single one. Now he’s placing it on. They picked the wrong side of the issue which is ironic. But actually it’s the issue. It’s the fact that you just can’t agree on something basic that’s right in the Bible that is unambiguous. There’s. And it’s the solar scriptura allows you to do that. Well you know I want to redeem gay people so they should get married. Because secularism or something I can’t make any sense of their arguments but that’s roughly what it is. And then they they split apart. Then you think the Methodist split was bad. Come on. Look at some of these other churches that these Protestants have nothing holding them together. And that was that there was a live stream there that I think Jacob started it. But it ended with Bruce and Andrew. And poor Andrew who’s young. Could not make the case for tradition. And I was actually mad at Bruce. I was like dude come on. You know he wasn’t helping Andrew make his argument. I’m not opposed to what he was doing. I get what he was doing. I’ve done that before myself. But Andrew wasn’t able to make the case that tradition is that which lasts. And there’s some essence to a tradition so that you can change tradition over time. But it’s basically the same. Tell us. It’s probably the best way to put it. And Bruce knows this. And I know Bruce knows this because I’ve had excellent discussions with Bruce arguments. And we fight. We fight. Bruce and I fight all the time. It’s all you know. I mean we get back together. Everything’s fine. Like if I go to Maryland we’re going to have a. You know a meal together or whatever for sure. I just forgot the last two times through Maryland to plan anything so I didn’t get a chance to stop. But the ability to make the argument. Maybe Andrew will get better as a result of Bruce’s engagement. I hope so. That was Bruce’s intent. I talked to him about it. It’s definitely isn’t. I never doubted that was his intent. He’s a really good person. He’s just a wonderful human being. Despite being Protestant. You know what happens. These little exceptions. I still. The more the more Protestants I beat the more I’m like oh my goodness. They love to blame the Catholics for everything too. The whole idea that Andrew was trying to defend was that all traditions are not equal on the basis of. Which is a very evolutionary argument by the way. Not that I mean disagreement but. It’s part of it right. The other one is does the tradition serve country or the. Sorry the community. Yeah. All these propositions have embedded. I would say or emphasis is. What are the what’s being prioritized or emphasize there is telling. Yeah. Well look as soon as you say like. Country or tradition like you say. Traditions align to your country then you like. You know. You know what I mean. I mean. You know. You know. You know. You know. You know. You know. You know. You know. You know. Traditions align to your country then you like. OK that’s. Well let’s let’s deal let’s deal with it. Let’s deal with it and flee this is question. Why do you think Protestant denom’s aren’t traditions because they haven’t lasted. I haven’t heard you hash out the definition. OK. Let me just be clear about this. Although we’ll use we’ll use Father Eric’s help here. Traditions need to have an authority which is explicitly decide denied in most Protestant churches. There has to be an authority. It has to last through time. Nothing in Protestantism lasts through time and it can’t like it’s not even an option. They can’t fix it. It’s a feature not a bug. So. And I pointed this out before. Right. When you don’t have an authority holding things together across time. You get constant change. This is why I am furious. At Vanderklai and has he and all these guys for being. Empathetic towards Sam Adams. OK. Sam Adams put himself in a situation where what happened to him was going to happen to him. Inevitable. It was certain. It was as certain as anything can be because he locked himself into chaos. Literally. He went to a non-denominational church on purpose. He said this clearly in the moment wasn’t wasn’t hiding. He then said he was excommunicated which is a lie. Sorry. Just a lie. It’s it’s as inaccurate and imprecise as a statement can get. He was not excommunicated. They didn’t want him cooperating anymore because Protestants in particular not that not no Catholics but the Ministers of the Catholic Church. No Catholics but the majority of Catholics don’t believe this but Protestants very much seem to believe that if you have bad beliefs even if you never mention them that’s going to somehow spread to other people. And so they are prone to this. We’re happy to have you at our church but we don’t want you playing music. We don’t want you working with the children. We don’t want you teaching. We don’t. They’re very like that. I’ve never met a prostitute nomination where I hadn’t heard that story from somebody which is weird because that never happens in Catholicism. I’ve just never heard that story and I’ve been around way more Catholics than Protestants. So it’s weird that in a small sample size it’s 100 percent. It gets actually 100 percent. And it’s not that it happened to the person I know but it happened in their church. And the funny part is they think that’s what the Catholics are like. It’s actually just what Protestants are like. Catholics aren’t like that at all. Not not all of them. They’re exceptions but like Catholic churches do not behave like that which is not to say you know if you’re a bunch of Irish guys trying to go to the Italian church or Catholic church or vice versa that they’re going to let you in. But they’re not going to let you in and then change regimes like like happened to Sam Adams and then kick you out. That’s not going to happen. Right. That’s not going to happen. Nils. So anybody going to mention that Catholicism is no sort of force available most of their history. Well except that they don’t. Like I don’t know where you’re getting this from. I think I think people need to read more history. Like that that’s actually a sort of a core misunderstanding. It’s the governments that enact these things not the churches. It’s just I’ve heard people in same sex marriage being asked to leave the choir. Occult behavior cannot be punished by law. There you go. Yeah, you know. You can look at something like the Inquisition and then unless you actually read about the Inquisition for real which requires you know source material not summary books by people who came later who may or may not have had agendas that they may or may not understand. People would rather be tried by the Inquisition than their local government in most cases which is weird. So people would deliberately commit blasphemy to get out of the clutches of their local government and into the clutches of church jurisdiction because church jurisdiction didn’t extend to law in terms of you murdered somebody. So it’s not like the Inquisition was some horrible thing. It was actually the better of two options for many people. It also wasn’t perfect. Right. And did they burn people? You know, you kind of start looking at the actual numbers. Right. How many Inquisitions were there? How many Inquisitioners were there? And how many people were killed? Because now we’re now we’re in these tiny percentages all the time. Now we’re in these tiny percentages all the sudden. And it’s like, okay, can you show me a legal system with a better record? And the answer to that might actually be no, by the way, in terms of killing people and in terms of killing innocent people. I’m not sure of that because I’m not going to do the math. I’m not going to do the research. But you’ve got to consider that. And it’s hard to consider because I want an easy answer. I want to just read it in a summary book. I don’t actually want to go through the source material. So Mills, you’ve given me a reason to go do some homework. Well, good. You know, the best thing about autodidacts is that you just give them homework and send them on their way. And then they’ll come back to you with the answers. Father Eric, the Inquisition was run by a bunch of nerds with nerd priorities. I agree. That is true. They were all these that they were the you know what they were, Father, they were the kind of crazy priests that would get pedantic around something like canon law or something. I think I I don’t support it, obviously, but I’m just saying that’s. Oh, boy, I’m going to get struck down by lightning. Oh, well, I believe it’s just like this stream. Yes. Yes. Well, the stream is sometimes like that. I am guilty. My people. Yeah. You mean you whatever. Mark already beheaded someone earlier. Yes, I did. Well, two people, technically. Yeah. Well, look, I gave them a chance. Like, that’s that middle condition. That’s the third way. Third way, like Vanuatu talks about this like, look, there’s this hard slope or this soft slope, the hard slope is you only let people in if they’re going to list and they’re going to clean their room. They’re going to, you know, whatever. And the soft slope is you let everybody in. You’re all friendly to them. It’s nice as Peterson doesn’t do that. Let’s do either of those things. Right. He has this whole method around using your imagination to put yourself in a situation where you can discern, define a set of problems. Right. And then come up with solutions to them on your own. Like I talked about the beginning of the stream in my monologue, which if you have not seen, apparently is excellent. So I’m happy with that. I want to address Ethan’s comment. World would be a much better place if we started burning people again. Well, look, I obviously support burning books, people, all kinds of things. I’m big on the burning. We need negative signals. We don’t have any. Everyone’s too busy not judging and being kind. And now there’s no punishment for being bad. But there’s a big upside. And that’s what we have. We have a bunch of people acting poorly because there’s no downside. So the problem here is the real problem. You all may think that’s a problem. Like it’s a problem for all of you because of me, because if I ever decide like, you know what? Somebody took my house. Maybe I should take somebody else’s house. You’re all screwed. You’re all screwed. Because I wouldn’t take one other person’s house. I bring the system down. And that wouldn’t be good. We don’t want to encourage this sort of behavior, especially not for me. I’m efficient and competent. Fulivus, your arguments for the Church of Rome go beyond its longevity. We have some real issues theologically. OK, here’s the problem. If you deal with theology, you will always have issues. The best thing to do is to ignore theology and leave it to the crazy nerds that like it. And if you’re going to get in it, get all in. Like go to a monastery and be theological. It’s a great idea. Don’t live in the world. Be like commit like all the way. That’s fine. Then I want to listen to your silly theological discussions. You won’t be online. It’d be great. Everybody wins. I don’t like the Church of Rome. I’ve said on YouTube before, I’ll say it again. I think the Uppity Bishop of Rome needs to go back to being the Bishop of Rome. I am not a fan of the way the papacy is set up. I think it’s a problem. I’m not even saying no pope. But this pope in Rome thing is creating more problems than it’s fixing. And, Phlebas, I disagree. This is a very Catholic message. No, it’s not. Keep the people sheeple. No, no. It’s an anti-individualistic message because individuals are stupid. We’re muppets, guys. We’re muppets. We’re part of muppets so you’re not getting it. They made a mistake getting rid of the Latin. They made a mistake getting rid of the Latin. But look, there’s another way to look at the Latin problem. The reason why you want Latin is because if you don’t understand the words, it will force you into participation in poetics. So I will post the link for the Knowledge Engine video. This will hopefully explain it. The reason why you want Latin is because if you don’t understand the words, it will force you into participation in poetics. So I will post the link for the Knowledge Engine video. This will hopefully explain it. The reason why this video is kind of key is because it is the key thesis for everything that I talk about, which is to say that once you understand this, and I’m not saying I did a good job with it. I think I slides. It’s good. So the Latin Mass Matters. So the Latin Mass Matters is a way for understanding why something like the Latin Mass matters. The Latin Mass Matters because you don’t understand it propositionally. So you’re down-regulating one side of your brain, and that automatically up-regulates the other side of your brain. And you want more participation in Christianity. You like to protest, not because you stand for the Latin. That’s the issue. All right. Father, I can defend the Pope. Pope’s job, visibly embody unity. I think any bishop should do that. Mediate disputes. I think any bishop should do that. Three, say that’s not Catholic. I think any bishop should do that. I actually like the Orthodox guys the way they do that. That about any Christian? Those are all just general Christian things. I like, this is the problem with the Pope, speak infallibly when infallibly speaking. That’s so absurd and ridiculous. They should just drop the pretense at some point. I don’t know why they keep the pretense of papal infallibility is about the most foolish possible thing the church ever did to itself. It’s hard to have any sympathy for the Catholic Church or the Pope after that. It’s like, guys, why didn’t you just pin a target on your back and kick me signs? I don’t get it. What did you expect to happen out of that? Father Eric, how do you get Moscow and Constantinople to cooperate? How do you get the French able to go to the Italian Catholic Church, dude? Same problem. That problem’s not going away. I don’t understand why you think the Pope fixes it. He doesn’t. Do they ever cooperate? I have no idea. I think maybe they do. I don’t think, I don’t, it depends what you mean by cooperation. Exactly. I don’t have a problem with acceptable conflict. There’s an acceptable level of conflict. If you believe there isn’t, you’re going to screw your life up and the world. And so I’m a no. I’m not a fan. Acceptable level of conflict, not an acceptable level of opponent opposition. Right. There’s no acceptable level of opposition. There’s only an acceptable level of conflict. And you need that conflict to cooperate. What’s flexibility? If there’s no overlap that needs to be resolved. The question is, are you resolving it by one person, winner take all, or winner take whatever wins, or are you resolving it by both of us give up a little and transcend? That’s really the cooperation is all about. All right, Mills. Vervecki’s latest release critiques many of the same things as you. Oh, that’s good to know. Vervecki follows my work, by the way. Being unmoored is infantizing yourself. Yep. Never committing. Are our lines being drawn and a choice coming? I don’t know. You know what you’re referring to. I think, I think, look, I deeply ashamed that I didn’t really click on the man in the fog image that Vervecki uses on his channel. And when I did, I was like, well, this was right here all the time. He’s an individualist. There’s no divine feminine. He and Peterson almost state that quite regularly. So. Right. Right. But that’s the core axiom that causes all of the occultism. Right. All this neoplatonic garbage. I mean, Lindsay made the case, you know, which I agreed with, which was. Neoplatonism leads to the occult. It can’t lead anywhere else. It needs to Gnosticism and occultism. And I was like, yeah, you’re right. It does. It has to. What’s the no, the religion without a name, right? The religion that is not a religion. Yeah, exactly. These are all just descriptive language tricks, magic tricks on on ways of getting you to believe in the construct of the no-tricks. It’s literal sorcery. Right. It’s literal sorcery. You take them, you take words, you scramble them around and you use them in a random order and you tell people they mean something. Fair enough. This is Hegel. Literally, this is Hegel. This is actually Hegel. Not that he’s not the only idiot to do this, but this is literally what they’re doing. They’re like, I can I can make up a word thesis that’s abstract and represents a thing. And then because that is true, because it is true, anything that I define as a thesis is now a thing. That’s the problem, because that second part’s not true. You’re claiming an authority to discern the world that you may not have. You’re claiming an ability that you may not have. And that’s very much what guys like Vervecki are doing. Well, Fukuyama, I was listening to a talk on Fukuyama’s The End of History. And one of his points is the demand for recognition is what drives innovation and change. And so you could just see all Hegel’s work is just the demand to be recognized as a superstar. His time by scrambling words, by putting things together. That’s Fukuyama and Derrida. That’s VJ. Like all these guys. Fukuyama studied under Derrida. Look at who these people work with. It’s word salad. You need to discern word salad. Sally Jo. Well, Vincent was like, kill all the nonbelievers. Wow. Infinitizing. How do you know who’s the nonbeliever? What is wrong with people? Not infantizing or whatever. I don’t know. Can Mark explain the divine? Is this a serious question, Fleabas? Of course, none of us should touch it. If you want it. All right. You want to see the divine feminine? Watch the first two minutes of the video. Listen closely to the music. Watch the art. Watch the wonderful editing, which is all I did. It’s not even wonderful. Okay. You just point to Mary. Ethan, don’t make me pull out my verveky memes. There you go. No memes on YT. Okay. Well, that’s fair enough. Yeah. No, seriously. The whole like femininity is supposed to be hidden. Okay. This. This. This is all of this. This pirate thing. This isn’t a thing that I did. Okay. This is pointing from the divine feminine. Okay. The artwork behind us, the logo. I didn’t do any of that. Now, that’s not to say that I didn’t contribute to it. Okay. But I didn’t do it. Okay. I didn’t do it. It was done by a female. It’s in the background. It’s really that simple. It’s the bedrock. It’s the thing that points. Right? I have snacks. I went downstairs deliberately and said, Hey, can I eat in the office upstairs? Which is, you know, just wanted to check. And my buddy was like, Yeah, sure. Whatever. I don’t care. Good. Why? Because I was told by the divine feminine, who was an actual person in this case, the divine feminine was speaking through this person that that was a good thing. And then I saw it. Wasn’t I saw it and then I asked advice. Hey, feminine person that I know randomly. What do you think of this? And not that I don’t do that. But usually the order of operations is a female points at something and then I go. And now I’m able to discern. I can’t discern without that pointing. It’s not to say I never point on my own. I do. But. You know, you know, and my nuance here is that as a man, you should kind of in mediate between masculine and feminine energies or masculine and feminine spirits. And that’s the that’s the proper thing to do is to for both both sets of humans to both, you know, operate in that sense of mediation between the times you’re called to mediate between masculine and feminine energies. And then there’s a time and place for these things. And they are spirits. It’s not a person. People embody spirits and energies. So. Yeah, binary that they they they are they are things that cooperate together. And the rightful the true, the good and the beautiful. Right. We’re talking about this last night is you use it as a filter to see the world and use the way to interpret information coming at you. And so, yeah, what you what you give out and what you let in, you need to interpret through the truth, the good and beautiful. And you can’t take one of those descriptors out. Otherwise, you just have oppositional forces. You’re just trying to define what’s true with what’s good and what’s beautiful with the good. And like you you need kind of three in order to see reality like a like a contrast hierarchy. Yeah. Can’t have a duality. There’s no contrast. Well, the duality is just another version of opposition in some sense. Right. Right. Right. Well, and everybody says I’m not a duality. Right. Well, and everybody says I’m not a dualist. And then they list two things. And I’m like, you’re a dualist. Yeah. Well, even even on what’s his name? Look back here. Language of creation. True. He actually is not. He’s he’s quietly dismantling dualism in that book by going, hey, it starts here. But there’s actually other things that make it up into a not a dualistic model is there’s the mediator and then the microcosms. Right. He’s always showing mediation and the practicality. Yes. And the change. Right. You’ll get important. There’s mostly land and mostly water and the transition. Yes. Yes. That’s the third way is to transition. The way in is not through the edges. That’s the problem. Well, it’s not stable ground. So, yeah, Mills, the divine feminine, I think, is the church being the bride of Christ, the receptive participant. It’s a lot of things like, yeah, stop reducing these crazy autodidacts like to reduce. He thinks he’s a matchmaker. Well, he’s trying to get a community going. All those crazy Protestants are trying to cooperate with each other and they can’t be the guy that he’s on the polls channel. That’s quite argumentative. Yes. Not in person. He didn’t say to me at Thunder Bay. I was sad. OK. Accelerationism, yes, assuming religious will be swayed by consequentialism is a bit of methodological misstep. Well, the misstep is coming on here and trying to do dialectic with me. It will never work. OK, you cannot win that game against me ever. I already know the tricks. It’s not going to work. It’s also just a boring conversation. Is he about to suggest Sally Jo is divine? No, she is a conduit for the divine feminine. We all are. That’s my point. It’s a nuanced point. Right. Well, that is the important point. Well, that’s why I pray to anything. I still need to study both of these more. I am in the process of being less reactionary to these different traditions. You know, I don’t think you need to study anything, honestly. I spoke with a bunch of Plymouth brethren. I know not directly Mennonite, but sharing anabaptist roots. These are unimportant things. Like, hey, Paul did did good today on his live stream, actually. Look, live the good Christian life problem solved. Like, it’s it’s not it’s not even remotely difficult. There’s Bruce. I mean, read C.S. Lewis’s me Christianity. There you go. Problem solved. There’s lots of ways to solve this problem. Hello. How are you doing, Bruce? It’s good to see you. I got to move you in the corner. Sorry. I. That’s fine. I was joining for my phone, so I don’t know how well this will work. We’ll see. Sorry. It’s a little little. Hey, did we meet? Did we meet on my first my first live stream? The seven hour one. It’s possible. I’ve been on a few. I think we could also conversation about Jackson Pollock. And we were. Yes, that’s it. Yeah, it was a misunderstanding between the different things that people emphasizing and trying to point out. And someone got confused and. Tended to a bit of a spit. And I was like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I don’t want to derail this for that. Yeah, no, no, it’s fine. I was going to know where where people are, where they’re coming from. Yeah. So yeah, I’ll get to that. Yeah. So yeah, I’ll get some something out of it. So you’re you’re discussing discernment still or we do on some other position. We’re always discussing discernment. Yeah, that’s fair. I’ve never not discussed this on my channel. Whether people noticed or not. It’s a good point. Yeah. Spirits and patterns are the same thing. So in my perspective, spirit and a pattern is the same thing. Hmm. Yeah. Give away all my secrets. Sorry. She told. Yeah. Processing. No, we had Claire call on here earlier. Your favorite person. Processing. Oh, really? You know, it’s funny how the how both of our. Both of our ethical odds do intersect. Well, there’s a there’s a there’s sort of a shared vision in some way there. I think that’s what I’m trying to return. What is the thing that she is trying to emphasize in the world? What is her message? Well, I mean, she she articulated it relatively concisely today with Phoebe Kay, I believe, which was basically that the West or at least the United States has been saying that for a long time across the board. But I think that’s the thing that she’s trying to emphasize. And I think that’s the thing that she’s trying to emphasize. And I think that’s the thing that she’s trying to emphasize. And I think that’s the thing that she’s trying to emphasize. And I think that’s the thing that she’s trying to emphasize. And I think that’s the thing that she’s trying to emphasize. And I think that’s the thing that she’s trying to emphasize. Yeah, I mean, it’s just like everyone else, this sort of culture war stuff, really, in a way. I’m not I’m not advocating for merely a culture war, you know, battle. That’s just the one thing sometimes. Yeah. To quote a really famous person who’s quite intelligent. It’s not a culture war. It’s a war for culture. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I don’t think that’s not Mark said that. Yeah, I don’t think that’s me. I just want to. Yes, Ethan. Claire was on PVK. She was well behaved. He loved her to death. She couldn’t do anything about it. And she had to be gracious. And it was hysterical, completely hysterical. Plus, I was there. So I would have ripped her apart if she touched PVK anyway. But I do also good. Well, he also led well. He was like, hey, I have to get other people. I’ll give you your time. I want to see your face. There are rules. There are boundaries. There are guardrails, you know, so. And that’s not it. He did a great job. Sure. Oh, look at Ethan. I’ll go back and watch. You should watch the end of the PVK stream. I was on it. Damn it. It’s true. Mark was there. Yeah. That’s the reason I clicked. I did. Oh, thank you. Well, I did want to get I did want to get at him about that fricking justice issue, because that I was really disappointed that actually really hurt my feelings. What he said. And I was like, you’re going to be kidding me. Paul, you can’t can’t believe what you just said. That’s insane. Well, I don’t know the context of that. I didn’t see that. They were he made the statement that we should ask the question whether or not it was just for a university to offer a Ph.D. program and something that couldn’t earn somebody enough money to live on or something to that effect. And I was like, this is not a justice issue. And I convinced him on the stream that he was wrong. Like, this is ridiculous. This is just the worst possible framing of all time. It definitely seems like an odd framing. That’s that’s a pretty low resolution economic. They were talking about justice with Nate Kyle. Oh, I see. Except they weren’t talking about justice because none of them knows anything about justice. If they read the Republic, they skipped over Chapter two or something. I don’t these people that tell me they read the Republic. I’m like, what book did you read? Like, I mean, at this point, I’m just like, you’re going to be f’ing kidding me. Like, you’re not describing anything that’s in the Republic. You’re describing things that aren’t in the Republic explicitly. But I don’t know. I just driving me nuts. Maybe I’m wrong. But isn’t justice the conclusion of things? Like you go and now justice was served. And that’s it. Like, you know, like the person goes to prison. The mediation has been done. Justice, you know, injustice was served. Justice is kind of directional and it has a limitation that you call justice. And then it’s done. So you can’t have an open justice. You can’t like say it was just to offer this program. Yeah. But when you squished the world or you flatten the world, right, or you bring the margins into the center, which, by the way, I think is the trick that I need to use now is the three. Those three constructions. When you squeeze everything down, you’re not accounting for time. This is that third way thing I was talking about. Like, no, it’s not that I exclude Claire as a filter. It’s not that I let her talk forever. I let her in. She makes a mistake. She crosses the boundary. I kick her out. That’s not hard slope or soft slope. It’s neither. Right. And that’s the problem is that. When you don’t recognize that. Maybe you think justice is something that is just an end state that is desirable. But just justice in some sense is the statement that we’re imperfect. And it is the correction for that imperfection. Because you have to account for time. You have to be able to make a mistake. Hold on. Hold on. Fleebus. How does all marks Protestant spirit bashing account for the wizard PBK? You can be against the pattern of the thing. And for the people. I have nothing against Bruce. We have excellent hardcore nasty debates. Not as nasty as Manuel and I would go full ad hominem attack. We’ll just go nuts on each other. Bruce and I don’t go that far. But, you know, look, we have deep, deep disagreements and huge long arguments where people are raised voice and definitely on the borderline of no, you suck and you’re a bad person for sure. But we always pull it back. It’s fine. Bruce keeps coming back. You know, everybody else is like, oh, he’s so mean. Nobody will come back. I’m like, lots of people come back. If you’re not coming back, maybe that’s you. I don’t know. Well, there’s a lot. Yeah, there’s a lot. It’s kind of like what you were saying was you’re taking the margins and moving them to the center. What I like to say, which is somewhat similar, is you people tend to emphasize the boundaries. And so while I do think that’s useful in some scenarios, in other scenarios, I think it’s OK to have a unity on tertiary issues with people. Right. And so I know. I’m in common what you have in common. It’s not that hard. Everybody’s so this is the opponent problem. Everybody’s so hurrying up to be in a dialectic and to be an opponent that they forgot. Let’s just figure out what we have in common. Jesse also boundaries are meant to be crossed. Like, you can’t cross a wall. You have to scale a wall or destroy your wall. The boundaries are meant to be crossed. Otherwise, you can’t see them. I made that point in the monologue. Yes. You want to answer this question, Jesse? Not yet. I do like the directors films, and I’ve heard a lot of good things about that film with Colin. What is the killing of a sacred deer? It’s a Greek Greek guy. It’s about a guy causes a tragedy on a young gentleman’s family and he befriends them later on. It’s one of those like existential type outhouse films. But it does it does deal with some of the themes that these people are trying to discern his relationship with this other this other gentleman. That’s I think that’s where he’s trying to pull that in. Is John talking to you or me? I’m going to I’m going to know. I mean, look, John, this is really easy. She said it wasn’t religious. So did Vince. So I don’t want to tell you. You guys can’t have it both ways. You got to pick one. Either you’re being strictly legalistic or you’re talking about religion. It’s not both. I don’t have any presumptions about religion. I have videos on religion. You can watch them and then maybe you’ll be somewhat armed to mount a defense or an attack. You’re welcome to try that. That is fun for me and you will lose. But like if you want to make me have a good time, I’m not going to object. I had a blast just eviscerating around the first stream. Ethan Ethan Ethan is hell bent on trolling me in the worst possible. I love this. This is fantastic. Mark has five licenses. Notice the quantity for Protestants. PVK has one of the that’s that’s as anti me as you can get. I love it. Five is a good number for the for the five points of Calvinism. Yeah, of course. You’d bring that in here for the five solas. Well, I just did number that makes sense. Bacon your goals. Lanthimos is the director of the Greek director of that movie. I figured that was the lobster is a better for my food. I haven’t seen it. I haven’t seen it. Yeah, that’s the same guy, John. Like this is the hordes of Claire supporters. They come in, they say, well, I don’t support Claire, but and then they boost points because they think they’re clever. It’s just like, guys, your Muppet. I logged into BBS with two computers and I could get away with seeming like I was two different people. You’re not at that level. It’s not going to work. I’m sorry. You’re just like there are people that are up here and you’re not any of them. You can play the game if you want, but you’re going to lose every time. And I like to win. So I’m all in on this strategy of yours because I’m going to win every game. And I like to win. I don’t think you should give me that pleasure. But it does. Will you track from from the cooperation? But like, I’m not going to say no, I have a great time. Well, part of good discernment is to realize who you’re talking to and what values they have and what things are emphasizing. And if there’s a competitive person, like if you’re going into a dialogue or an argument with a competitive person, you know, you’re playing by a certain set of rules. And so it’s like my analogy with drawing swords. Like if you draw swords with someone, it’s kill or be killed. Like be warned. Yeah. Well, that’s what I use Vincent for. Right. Just show you discernment. Like he was you saying it’s rational. And I’m like, all right, well, give me the rationale. And he couldn’t. OK, so you’re lying. It’s not rational. You don’t have a rationale. It can’t be rational. I’m not opposed. But you lied. You said it was rational. Then do it. When I say do the trick, that’s what I mean. You can’t say I can do this. I can show you the rationality in my system. And then when I ask you not show you the rationality, I don’t like I don’t know what to tell you. Like at some point you’re just being dishonest. I’m not saying you’re being dishonest specifically on purpose. You’re probably too stupid to realize the contradiction that you’ve trapped yourself in. But that’s not my fault. And you also need to be able to discern that. Maybe we should just get we just shouldn’t give them a time of day, even in the comments. We’re going to keep hijacking the conversation. Circular reasoning. May I post a link of a scene from the film? I think it’s related to this subject. No, it’s going to be interesting to find out what you guys think. Maybe we need to watch the film. I think we need to watch the film. I don’t think you can. Okay. The point of Book Two of the Republic is that you cannot understand justice from the perspective of one or two or three people. It’s not possible. A scene in a movie. Not going to do it. This is where the cities come from. Socrates says this is impossible. And he demonstrates it in Book Two. Here’s why this is impossible. There he goes. Holy crap. Socrates is right again. Because he’s always right. Spoilers. Socrates is always right when Plato writes about him. So he then says we have to scale up to a city. The purpose of the Republic is not to show you a political system. Explicitly not that. It’s like actually stated that that isn’t what it is. If that’s what you read into it, you need reading and comprehension lessons. I’m sorry. You just do. This is one of the problems with autodidactism. There’s no one there to tell you you’re a moron. And sometimes you’re a moron. Like, you’re just, people can only be so smart about so many things. And then you run out of smart. And it happens quicker than you think. And it happens without your knowledge or understanding. The danger here is we keep defining against. And sometimes you just need to go, okay, we’re crossing boundaries. We’re into a conversation now that’s unproductive. Cool. All right. We’ve crossed a boundary. Let’s get back to a different goal. Like that’s sometimes what’s needed, especially within arguments. We need to change and find something else that we can find participation in. Yeah. We need to agree on definitions and you may have to go back and redefine, right? To do it. You also look, again, third way is you don’t have to avoid people. You don’t have to get away from them. You can engage them, expose them for being bad actors. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And we can do that. And if they don’t do those things, they don’t get those things. It’s really not that hard. Like, that’s where the rationality comes in, is that there has to be some connection between action and consequence. That’s what rationality is really talking about. It’s not talking about anything else. And that’s where the rationality comes in, not in trying to figure out a way to be this fictional Jesus who just forgave everybody immediately and healed the sick and never of the temple for being money changers. Right. Like, he did that. He overturned the tables. He did a bunch of other stuff, too. Like, I don’t know what else to say. It’s right there. Sure. Yeah. Well, many people, you know, they take the particulars that they want to see in the story archetype and they emphasize those and ignore the others. And now you have a new Jesus, new idol. Right. Right. It’s a social Jesus. Well, I mean, whatever flavor. Yeah, whatever flavor it is. And that’s where she has a point like, oh, yeah, the Christians keep idolizing and that’s bad. And I was like, well, that’s not a Christian problem. Like, you can take the Christianity out of it and it’s still going to happen. I mean, this is our point against Verbeke’s work, Awakening From the Meaning Crisis YouTube Discord, a Discord YouTube channel. Sorry. With Jules from Australia. Interestingly, these Aussies are all over us. Lovely conversations about written are mostly, but they’re good. It’s good. It’s early work, but it’s good. It’s actually really good work. They I came to the one just I was like on the edge. You’re in trouble, Mark. And I was like, I saved myself from falling. I was like, I’m going to go to the hospital. You’re in trouble, Mark. And I was like, I saved myself from falling. And I managed to do that. And Manuel’s brilliant always. So like just anything manuals in, especially when it’s planned. He just does a great job. Yeah, Manuel had it and I had a long conversation the other day that we recorded and he did a good I think he did a good job of probing and asking good questions, but still allowing me a ton of time to explain. I guess I think that’ll be out on Monday is what he said, but we’ll see. Oh, yeah, I hope so. Yeah. Yeah, I heard. I heard you have a talk with you. Looking forward to watching it. That’ll be interesting. Yeah, it was. Yeah, he’s I think he’s a good. Yeah, he’s a good interviewer in a way. If you want to see that as an interview. Yeah, no, he’s definitely honed those skills and he runs the Texas wisdom community book club here for for the Republic. He’s doing a really good job with that. Those are skills that he honed over on The Awakening from the meeting crisis server over three years. So he’s a really good facilitator, you know, maybe a little too structured at times, but like now we’re new thinking at some point, right? It’s like, oh, he’s not perfect. Oh, my. He must be human or something. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that’s part of the discernment, right? It’s like there’s a standard by which you measure perfection. You take the standard, you apply it, discern. And what flaws can you find based on the standard? Well, that would that would that would be the next layer up, which we’re talking about maybe next week or the next live stream, which may not be next week is the judgment. Sure. So it’s discernment, judgment, action. So we’re going to do judgment next and then we’ll do action after that. Well, that justice discussion will come into play. Yes. Well, and I’ll be through at least book three or mostly I’ll read I have to read book three tomorrow morning. So I read book. What would help our morning? What helps people gather better discernment? Well, first, just realizing that they have it right. And this whole formula of not admitting to judging destroys discernment, in my opinion. And I would say it’s valuing. Well, look, again, I think the way it’s happening right now in large part, not everybody, but we’ll say we’ll just we’ll just go after the 80 percent or something. Right. We’ll use the Pareto. I think 80 percent of the people are believing that they are not judging because they were too judgy in the past or religious people are too judgy or whatever. And it’s not even religious people necessarily. Right. But you shouldn’t judge people. Right. They’re using that paradigm. Now, my argument is that’s not a thing. You have to judge to act. And therefore, you are judging all the time because you’re taking action. You can’t not act in the world. Right. So when you convince yourself or other people convince you that you’re not judgmental, you’re lying. But what you’re doing is you’re pretending as though that process doesn’t exist. The process that precedes judgment is discernment. So I’m pointing in order at the discernment and saying, no, you’re not judging. You’re not judging. You’re not judging. You, right, basically, you will regain your means of because I have to act in the world and that’s not bad. I just need to pay attention to it. And that’s super important. I do want to address this. Benjamin Franklin, I’ve been thinking about the subject of quote, canceling. What is the correct punishment? I feel working a job that you don’t want to do can be a kind of punishment, but the left wants to take away. Yeah, well, it’s the only tool they have. Tuck down power from above, take things away. That kind of punishment work too, it seems. So do they want to cancel or not? Well, this is the problem. Look, this is how you can discern a bad system or a person with no principles. I went over this in the monologue in the beginning. When you come up with a contradiction, that’s not real. We don’t live in a contradictory world. If you see contradiction, that is the limit of your frame. That’s what it is. That’s why Meno’s paradox exists. That’s why Zeno’s paradox exists. Zeno’s paradox for me is just the limit of materialism. You’re stuck in materialism, you engage in Zeno’s paradox, you realize materialism is limited and here’s its limit. If you define the world of material, you can’t touch a wall, it’s not possible. Can’t touch anything. Can’t come in physical contact with anything if you’re stuck in the material physical frame. If you’re stuck with measurement, it won’t work. And in this case where you have the left is claiming work is bad and at the same time taking people’s jobs away, yeah, that’s a contradiction. Did you just have a bad frame? Throw it all out, everything will be fine. Other people thought about this differently in the past and it worked, maybe use that. It worked, right? So working, if you wanna be pessimistic about it is a necessary evil. Or you can just do a job you like, it’s not that hard. Or you can realize when you’re pointed at the job, when you’re not discerning the telos from the action, you’re in trouble, you need to make that discernment. Nobody works to work. Nobody puts together cogs to put together cogs. That’s not the reason you put together cogs. And if you’re putting together cogs for the purpose of getting a paycheck, you’re an idiot, don’t do that. Like grow, like become better. Become the person that realizes that A, going to work means you can go on vacation. Okay, look, I’ve been a consultant for years and I’ve been unemployed for over three years actually. I can’t go on vacation, I’m on vacation all the time. It’s impossible to go on vacation, doesn’t work. Work gives you vacations, it’s a gift. Have a little gratitude, right? Also, having a paycheck and having a structure to your day, as Peterson points out, very useful, both of them, separately, independently, covariantly, right? And so that’s also a gift. You complain about the type of work you do if you want, but you’re focused on the wrong thing. You complain about the type of work you do if you want, but you’re focused on the wrong thing. And people who focus on showing up at work every day and doing something, realizing that that thing that they’re doing is impacting other people’s lives in a positive fashion, they have no problem. No problem, doesn’t matter what they do. It makes no difference, coal miners. Yep, I know I’m gonna die when I’m 47, but I’m gonna leave my family with enough money to survive. And I’m okay with that. Really? Yeah, really. You know, like, these are real people in Tennessee. Yeah. I don’t know what to tell you. Right, so yeah, I mean, there’s a higher good to what you’re doing. It’s not merely cog making. And I think that, I think it’s also fair, though, to say that people work so that they can get better at their work, but that’s still not their ultimate. And I think if most people are honest, that’s not their ultimate goal. That’s your closed world. If that’s what you think the world is, you’re shrewd. I don’t think people think that. I do think people get stuck in despair. Well, yeah, I would equate those two things, for sure. Okay, yeah, yeah. And so what the left is doing- That’s the survival model of work. Right. That you work to survive, which is a bad model. Yeah, it’s just a bad way of thinking about the world. I want to address this question real quick. So Benjamin Franklin. So there seems to be a duality, right? But there aren’t any dualities. Right. So it’s wrong. That’s what I’m saying. It’s wrong. This seems to be a duality. Yeah, that’s why you know it’s wrong. Discernment done. Like you don’t need any more information, right? Working an undesirable job is punishment for not getting- What’s an undesirable job? I worked releasing cars for a towing company. Was that undesirable? I did boxes at UP. I loved the UPS job. I absolutely fucking loved it. I was totally just absolutely in heaven. Yeah. You know, like why is that an undesirable job? Who’s it undesirable to? Yeah. It’s undesirable to you to get another job. Like this isn’t that hard. Like I don’t understand. Simultaneously, they love those- Do they? No, they don’t. You know the left loves themselves. You know who else they love? No one. And I get that they lie and I get that you want to believe them. But they’re obviously lying. Like at this point- Yeah. I think one of the biggest lie was that wasn’t one of those- There’s a giant lie that’s like do what you love and you never work a day in your life. That’s a lie. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s a lie. That’s bullshit. That’s an insane position. That’s what gets people into this position. You get a turn. When they say, well, I’m doing it. Yeah, it is you’re doing it. Right, you’re doing it. It’s doing this sort of undesirable job idea. Well, what do you mean? You’re working for what purpose? Just to work? No. And so if you’re working, you should take joy in whatever that work is. I mean, this is a biblical concept too, right? So you’re a slave, okay? Let’s just straight up, right? Slavery, okay? Well understood that if you are a slave, you are a good slave. What that means is you work knowing that there is more purpose to your life than just slavery or working, right? But you do it well. You don’t need to narrativize it though. In some sense. The narrativization is where the problems come in because there are necessary conditions for doing anything. If you want to cook something, you’ll have to clean up or you’ll have to pay for someone to clean up for you. If you want to accomplish something there, I hate to use the word trade off, but there is trade off. Almost every action you make, there is trade offs. That’s what Thomas Soule says, right? Yeah, Thomas Soule’s pretty much spot on. I want to address this Ethan stuff too, right? Judge, lest ye be judged, or judge, sorry, judge not lest ye be judged. Most people fail in thinking that being judged is a bad thing, so they’re terrified of judging, right? God judging you is actually a good thing. That’s what you want, right? That’s right. And it is that deep confusion and misinterpretation. It’s the soul of the scriptura. They are going to interpret this any way I want. No, you can’t. There’s a real reason not to interpret it that way. Yeah, that’s so low scriptura. Yeah. Oh, fair enough. I like that. I’m going to steal that and not credit you. I didn’t come up with that. There’s a fair distinction where you probably shouldn’t be reading the Bible in public, but that’s maybe a very interesting argument. But like, yeah, that’s that kind of issue. Yeah, no, no, no, but like it is a discernment level with it. If you’re reading something on your own, are you actually getting the full amount of the full breadth? In spirit of the information. Both and, but it’s not. Yeah, it is a both and, but people don’t recognize the danger that they can be going in. Yeah, look at this work. Work is hard, but I get to raise my turtles and maybe that’s good. Are you doing good in the world? Is your job enabling you to do good in the world? Then why do you? Why do you care? I don’t want to be judged as a kind of identity. Look, your judgment’s not up to you. Like you’re totally missing how judgment works. It has nothing to do with your ass. You’re not involved. I want my opinions. Yeah, you want, I want, everybody wants. You know what? It’s disappointment for everybody. Like, I don’t get it. Like everybody’s acting like I’m the only person you take. We’re all in the same Muppet boat. Like, we’re all suffering from these things. All of us. Why should we privilege your suffering over everybody else’s? Tell me. We need virtues and values. This is the thing. I keep going back to virtues and values because it is virtuous to do things that are difficult. And that’s, that’s, and that’s, that is also a value in itself to do things that are difficult and to not do if you are making a valued based judge. Exactly. Exactly. You can’t get around the values. You can’t get the values and they go away. Yeah. It’s always, it’s always the same question. By what standard are you making the measure? What’s the standard? Yeah. Or, or maybe not the measure, but, but how are you discerning the quality? Sure. Yeah. Oh, both. I mean, both. I’m not trying to take away from your point. You’re right. No. Both and. Pastor of Muppets. That’s funny. I like Pastor of Muppets. That’s great. We have a, we have a meme, a master of Muppets meme based on the Metallica album cover, which is just, I mean, I can’t express how joyful that makes me every time I think about it. You make an assumption with quality, don’t you? Like you don’t, you don’t always know that the same steak that you bought last week in the same package will be the same. You make an assumption that the thing, you know, the Coca-Cola will always take the same every time you take it. You don’t actually know for certain you have to, you know, not a leap of faith, but it’s something akin to that. You’re making a quality. That’s true. That’s true because you’re expecting the consistency and reliability. Faith is when you’re not, you have no reason or cause to expect either consistency or reliability. Now that’s the issue of faith. Yeah. And that’s the problem with total induction, right? So if you live your life according to just induction. Right. You expect things to be tomorrow as they were yesterday. Then you’re only reasoning from your own, your own perspective. So your discernment is flawed because you have no submission to God in my world view. So now you’re essentially attempting to discern by reason of induction, which will fail every time. It fails logically just as a proposition, but it also fails practically. Right. You’re going to be in a loop that you, well, you think you’re in a loop. And then when the world comes in and this is always the case, like when the second person shows up, that loop is broken. So, right, you could be, you could have your discerning ideas and then you have another person. Now what? Now you have to evaluate your own sense of discernment with theirs. And so where do you go from there? You can reason from induction, but you can’t do that because there’s another person there now. Right. I would argue you have to find out what the person wants to emphasize. Well, but again, but that, but that the point is, individualism works until you add one other person and then individuals and fails completely. And this is what all the arguments are about. It’s like, oh, you’re an individual. No, you, you are not, you have never been and you never will be. That is not a condition that you can ever exist within. Individualism is a lie. You are a person and persons are connected to other persons. Okay. That just is what it is. It was, you were born that way. You were born dependent upon your parents. Period. Right. Right. There’s a, there’s a somewhat of a paradox there because you are indeed responsible for your individual choices. Right. But they’re not in a vacuum. You’re responsible for your choices. They’re not individual choices because they don’t only affect you. Sure. But you are, but the responsibility is still on you. Yeah. Look, yes, you are responsible and you are also a slave to the fact that you were born into this world under these conditions in this time period. End of statement. So you can say, I want to abolish slavery. You can’t abolish the slavery of being an infinite or, or, or a child or dependent upon other people for your stuff. Now, if you’re living in a cave by yourself, a, I can’t hear from you. B, you’re living out your dream. We both win. I don’t have to listen to your stupid arguments and you don’t have to listen to me at all. Just mantle your retardedness. It’s perfect. It’s like, go do that. If you’re not doing that, you’re dependent on, I don’t make electricity. I don’t make the internet work. I’m not saying I can’t fix every problem on the internet. I actually can. I’m saying I don’t. Other people do that. Okay. I’m happy that they’re there. I’m happy to pay them for that. It’s perfectly fine. Am I a slave to their behavior, to their competence? Absolutely. Do you have any idea how much screaming my buddy and I have done today? Just based on people at large internet companies, not knowing how basic technology works that we actually know how it works. You have no idea. I’m a slave to those idiots. I get it, but I am. I think there’s nothing I’m going to do about it. I’m not saying there’s nothing that could possibly be done about it. I’m saying there’s nothing I’m going to do about it. Right. Yeah. And willingly, I would emphasize that you have to be. Oh, I was going to say just willingly. I have this conversation often with people that talk about like doomsday, you know, grid going down sort of things. I would willingly, willingly go into slavery to fix the grid. Yes, exactly. I would willingly do that. And that’s what I was like, you know. That’s the other side of the equation. You are doing that. You are doing that. Well, but no, no, no, no, no, hold on. There’s a really important point here. Everybody who is keeping the electrical system working, everybody who’s keeping all those technicians, they are our slaves. Right now. We are their masters and they are our slaves. OK, if slavery is not going away, you are a slave master. I’m sorry. You may also be a slave. People don’t like that. But that is the reality of the world in which we live. Sure. And that’s the problem. I do think. I’d want to use a different word. These people are kind of think slavery is maybe we need to change it out because some people are going to get too lost in the. The social justice use of that word and not in the kind of the traditional. One thing I wanted to emphasize, I know, I know, but you know what I’m trying to point to. Relations, you are in relationships to things. Your body is a system of relations. Like your gut and your mind are in, you know, if you’ve got problems with your mind, more than likely, you’ve also got problems with your gut. And you have to kind of learn to mediate those relationships with the relationship between me and this microphone. That’s why it’s an intimacy crisis. Yeah, right. We don’t understand our relationship to the people that keep our electric grid running. This is one of Peterson’s excellent points. Right. And, you know, look, Benjamin Franklin, aren’t we all enslaved to each other and simultaneously? Yes, in different ways. This is the enchantment. Right. We’re in relationships to. We’re in relationships. Right. And so, yeah, you can’t you can’t avoid making people feel bad. You also can’t avoid making people smile if you try like smile at them and improve their day. So what are you supposed to do with that? What are you supposed to be the best person you can be? Like, it’s not that like you’re supposed to just grab your cross on your back and. And. Trudge upward. That’s it. That’s the answer. I would say learn how to harmonize with yourself and others. Like learn how to restore the relationships. But that requires a sacrifice from you. This is the problem. I know. I know. I know. That’s the issue. It’s a sacrifice. You can’t be the way you want to be and have what you want to have. You got to pick one. It’s a trade off. It’s a trade off. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and I think one of the issues with that is people see. They have a transactional idea when it comes to the trade. Right. So they’re thinking if I if I trade, I’m losing even if I was gaining something in the trade, I’m still losing something. And then that trade, that sort of tit for tat transactional idea. That’s that flat world again. Right. Where it’s opponents. It’s like, oh, I’m giving you the money that I earned and you’re giving me the money. You’re giving me the door dash or whatever the stupid thing is. It’s like, no, no, you’re enabling this person to work part time and make extra money. Right. And they’re enabling your comfort. Why is this a problem? It’s not an opposition. Everybody wins. Everybody can win. It’s not a closed system. When it’s a closed system, communism is correct. Wealth redistribution is the right answer. We don’t live in a closed system. No, no. That’s the difference. Yeah. If it’s robots that you created, sure, communism. Great. It’s closed. It’s not that, though. Right. Well, they decay over time. Like, entropy means if you live in a closed system, you’re screwed. I mean, this is why nihilism eats everybody. Because once you’re a materialist, you’re going to build a closed world. That closed world is going to close in on you and reciprocally narrow. Closed world can’t reciprocally open. It’s only going to narrow because entropy is real and you’re kind of screwed. We have to revivify it. We have to constantly keep working it so that it grows. It won’t grow if we don’t put our time, energy, and attention into it. Yeah. There’s that slavery idea again, right? Working, right? Becoming a servant. Yeah. I would want to emphasize its maintenance. It’s the relationships between things. If a robot works perfectly for a long period of time, people stop learning how to restore and fix and maintain that robot, eventually get to the knowledge problem where things start breaking down and no one knows how to restore the right relations or the right functions within the robot. Same thing with humans, like the community situations. If we don’t learn and can constantly maintain community relationships, people no longer know how to do that. You get to stupid ideas like social distancing. The people are losing that ability to maintain and restore the relationships and their connections to things around them and their community. Yeah. That failed immediately, right? The idea of social distancing? That’s not even possible. What are you talking about? No, no. It is possible. It’s highly possible. I don’t think so. No. It’s just embrace Satan. You’ll get all the social distancing in the world. Well, what I’m trying to say is that the social distancing was attempted to enforce this idea of contagion that didn’t spread. It’s a false discernment. Yeah, there you go. That’s a better way of saying it. Yeah, totally. But I don’t think people weren’t socially distanced. They were just put into a new frame. Some people rejected it and some people tried to enact it. And that’s Satanism, right? Whether you realize it or not, it’s not really relevant. There’s no way that social distancing can manifest anything remotely good. And therefore, it is evil because it is completely devoid of the potential for good, which is not good, potential for good. That’s the discerning factor because then you have three things, not two. You have the good, the absence of goodness, the absence of the potential of goodness, which is evil. True, the good and the beautiful. They have to coexist. You have to pursue them together. Right now, we’re pursuing beauty above everything and that’s not going to work. I went after Karen Wong about that on the meaning code. It’s not beauty. It’s safety. But I don’t understand how you, this is the hard part is I don’t know how you divorce truth from beauty. People are trying a little way. Be the Jackson Pollock you want to be. There you go. Or look at the Soviet art. The Soviet propaganda art is literal lies in beauty. Yeah, I get where you’re going with that. I was more saying is that you’re not, people aren’t acting in a vacuum when they’re creating beauty. There is a truth that’s there, but it’s not oriented correctly, right? And that’s why it even, that’s why you can even, it speaks to people at all. Right? Because if there were no truth, it wouldn’t speak. No, it does speak to them. That’s why it works. It does speak to them. That’s what I mean. That’s it. There is truth. Although there’s a small amount of truth. No, truth, no, no, no, truth is not the thing that moves people. Beauty moves people, independent of truth. Truth moves people independent of beauty. They’re both moved independent of goodness and goodness is moved. They’re all independent movers. This is the problem. Everybody keeps trying to reduce. You can’t reduce it. They’re independent. All three of them. Maybe in your example, Bruce, you’d say it’s the good. It’s this propositional tyranny of the good and they’re kind of being sold a different relationship, different way of maintaining their sanity and it’s kind of hijacking predisposed good. Yes, but it’s not beauty in that sense. Well, fair enough. You can find really great service, communist art. It’s beautiful to look at in the technique, but it’s not good. It’s hijacking a proposition of good. It’s not true. Overt lies. Goes without saying. And that’s the problem is that in hindsight, we know that. Did they know that at the time? No, of course not. That’s why they’re still to this day, well, a bunch of stuff that worked under communism. We need that back. It’s like people are still social distancing. Because they don’t know how to discern anymore. Because it’s like discernment is something you have to maintain and act in the world. You have to recognize and navigate the patterns. Once you stop having that relationship with yourself and the world, of course, you’re not going to be able to discern the good anymore. Well, and that’s why it’s navigating patterns. That’s why this is important. It’s the relationships, the intimacy, the quality of the relationship. That’s intimacy. That’s what’s important. And those are the skills you need to navigate. I can give you all the procedures for sailing a boat. You won’t be able to sail the boat with that. It’s not going to happen. You need to sail the damn boat. You need to participate in the boat, being in the water, and being pushed by the wind. And then, you know, I’m not saying you can do away with procedures. They’re kind of handy. We use them all the time. But they don’t get you there. In the same way that Zeno’s paradox proves to you that measurement can’t get you to the wall ever. Yeah, I think that’s this idea of sanctification. If that weren’t true, then people would be transformed and immediately inhabit. There wouldn’t be a participation in the glorification, sanctification, theosis, that you want to call it, of changing, of being reformed, of doing what has happened in you. So that’s kind of what’s going on there. That has to occur. With orientation. Right. Well, then that’s why it’s navigation and not direction. Because the Sam Harris model is if you move away from the worst possible evil, then you’re moving towards the good. And that’s A, is observably false. And B, is impossible because you can’t know the worst possible evil. The whole thing’s absurd. And nobody discerned this except me. I was saying all along, this man cannot be a moral agent in the world. I said that from the beginning. I said it every freaking time he got brought up since whenever he got popular. And I knew he was going to blow up. And he blew up. And he’s continuing to blow up. I would say the same of Eric Weinstein and Brad Weinstein. They’re going to blow up if they, well, Brad already did. I would say Eric never didn’t blow up because he’s just a different type of not good actor. And I would say the same is going to be true of Peterson. If he doesn’t switch over real quick. I said this a couple months ago. I said the exact same point on Peterson a couple months ago. And people gave me stink about it. I’m like, no, he’s got a trajectory. He’s not true. He’s trying to accomplish too many things already. That’s the problem. Well, and he’s got the wrong aspect. Look, politics is a bad frame. It’s just a bad way to understand anything in the world. Just don’t use it. It’s a game you don’t have to play. I mean, it’s interesting because- Games you don’t have to play. Right. He was like thrust into the public eye by way of politics. And I thought that he was navigating that out of politics. But it’s like he slipped right back into where he slipped right back into it. He was. He was. But he got convinced that his move to Daily Wire was political. And I have three videos on that. It wasn’t. Your Sam Harris video has to be one of your more popular, right? Because I really thought it was excellent. Well, thank you. I would say Peterson changed the relationships between himself and the audience. And that is the central problem. He’s relating to his audience with a different message, with a different orientation. And some people are on board for that. And some people, literally, like sailing a ship. Some people have jumped off. And some people don’t want that ship to even get to the destination it’s meant to get. Yeah. I also think that he strangely shackled himself to- You have to at that level. Once you’re at that level of public attention, you need some sort of categorization. Otherwise, you can’t be a free actor forever. Well, no, I think he was carving out a category. No, no. He had to start standing somewhere. And he didn’t have a religious tradition. And so he ran into a problem. And I think that’s a good way to frame it, Jesse. Yeah. But that doesn’t lead you to the Daily Wire. That’s my point. It does. No, it does. It does. No, it does. Bizarrely, or even innately conservative, you’ll find somewhere that really supports you holding that position in the public. It’s not even if you’re a conservative. If you don’t want to be on the ever-moving left, if you want something stable, you’re going to end up at a very moderate, and the Daily Wire is very moderate. Yeah. Yeah. Ben Shapiro regularly gets shellacked by Orthodox Jews saying, if this is the way you live your life, you’re not Orthodox. And he says, this is not the way I live my life. Okay? I’m a reporter. I’m a journalist. This is not, these are not my beliefs. What that tells you is that there’s way further right, and they’re pretty rigid about it. And Ben Shapiro’s not there. He’s not on the right. I’m sorry. He’s not. He doesn’t go far enough for me. The reason why I don’t want him anymore is because he won’t call out evil. I’m like, no, Ben, stop giving the benefit of the doubt and being nice to these idiots. Tell them they’re evil and be done with it. There’s a whole reason for that, but I don’t want your stream to get canceled. No, I can’t be assertive. Your reasons are wrong. My reasons are correct. No, no, no. They don’t require your framing at all. There’s a framing that there. I know. My framing doesn’t require your framing. Your framing is completely, completely insane and based on ridiculous criteria. And my framing is not. It’s based on if you hold a position, you can hold the position. And that’s irrespective of who you are, where you’re from, where you were educated, and all of those other things. And that’s why everyone’s ending up there. Like everyone’s ending up at Daily Wire because it’s the only stable, non-moving place in the middle. Nobody wants to go hang out with the Orthodox Jews. Although I like the Orthodox Jews. I hang out with those like Jews. It’s fantastic. But nobody wants to do that on mass and in public because they’re pretty conservative. They’re largely conservative for sure. They’re really conservative, though. The most conservative, but they’re pretty close. They’re out there. The Zionistic political frame is my problem. That’s what I’m stating. Yeah, yeah. No, I knew you were going to go there. That’s a problem. It’s unnecessary. You’re going to have the same issue without Zionism. No, that’s not. My point is it’s wholly at the helm of much of the reasoning for the way they act. That’s all. No, I think it’s the other way around. I think the same reasoning justifies both positions. I don’t agree with the reasoning, but the same reasoning justifies both positions. And so you have an overlap, but one is not causal to the other. That’s my issue. Oh, I see what you’re saying. Okay. It’s just there’s a huge overlap there. Sure, there’s a huge overlap there. But I also know like a lot of Orthodox Jews who are not Zionists. Yeah, that’s true. You’re right. That’s the problem. It’s hard to reconcile these things because we’re too busy putting everything in binaries. And it makes it difficult because we need to make decisions. And the end point of a decision is still a binary no matter what. And that’s where it gets tricky. It’s like, well, we think that’s the whole process. It’s not the whole process. We’re narrowing down a bunch of things. We’re finding, oh, these are the two top things. And now I have to pick one of the two top that you’ve already ruled out a hundred things. And so we tend to think of things in binaries. And then the overlaps aren’t we can’t deal with them. So we just say, oh, well, everything must be here or there. And that’s just not we need that intimacy back. We need that sense for how big the world and how connected the world is so that we can navigate these things. Because if we’re not navigating, we’re just using direction. We’re going to get stuck in a binary again, and we’re not going to be able to get out. And then it’s all tribalism and war all the way down. And I saw somebody today, somebody that I actually like. Oh, well, Elon Musk, you know, labeled the New York Times and NPR. And so he’s starting a war. It’s like. Why would you use that word? Because he made a decision as a private company that you don’t like. So every time somebody makes a decision you don’t like, they’re they’re starting a war. Is that really the language you want to use? Is that the signal you want to send in the world? Is it somebody disagrees with me and therefore they’re at war? They’ve declared war. Why would you frame anything that way ever? Yeah, but then everything becomes war. Disagreement becomes war. You’ve taken the center and sent it to the margin. Right. Just only extremism. But that’s the result of the binary thinking. You can’t get around that at that point. And there was no reason to go there to begin with. Benjamin Franklin brings up a good point. He’s asking you what the difference between Zionism and American nationalism is. Well, I mean, they can be similar in a way, but the problem is not inherently with Zionism. It’s sacrificing your own place for the sake of another while dragging it along with you. If that’s what you’re doing. Yeah, that’s the issue, I think. Not. Right. Look, I mean, if you’re living in Israel and you support Israel, there’s no difference between that and American nationalism. If you’re an American nationalist living in Libya, like that’s a problem. It’s a big problem. I don’t know. It’s a problem. It’s a dissonance that you’re ignoring. Right. Yeah. But it’s a big problem. It’s a big problem. It’s a big problem. It’s a big problem. It’s a big problem. It’s a big problem. It’s a big problem. Ignoring. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So yeah, I mean, in some sense, to support the place, go be there. If you’re not there, do you really support the place or are you doing something else? I don’t know. I’m not making a claim. Or you’re a provocateur in the place where you are and you’re looking to… That’s what I mean. How can you be fully where you are if you support something else, some other place as a nationalist? I would argue that’s not possible. Right. Because you’re not… That’s still not… Yeah. And that’s not navigating the middle. That’s being both extremes against each other. Right. And that’s lack of discernment. You have to be able to discern. Look. Yeah. If you support a country as a nationalist, you need to live there. Otherwise, you’re up to something else. It’s not that hard. This is the discernment. Right. Yeah. And maybe that something else isn’t bad. I feel like that’s very easy. I’m just saying there’s an issue there. Right. And I think that’s easily understood. I don’t know. I think that’s very simple. Well, but it’s not. I mean, people don’t have these discernments. I mean, obviously, this is… Somebody may be from Cuba and living in Florida, and they may desire Cuban self-determination and Cuban nationalism. Sure. That Cuba is a foreign, maybe perpetually, but in America and France is the same. But it’s… Yeah. It’s the same bad problem and it’s bad. Yeah. And it’s also the wrong frame. They’re probably… The nationalistic frame is not… Their culture is one thing, but that’s not nationalism. I think… That’s cultural identity. Right. Right. The real problem is that it’s nationalism in the future versus nationalism now. If you’re a Cuban nationalist, you have to live in Cuba now. Right. Right. You can’t say, I’m a Cuban nationalist for the Cuba in my imagination. It’s not nationalist. If that’s true, then you’re a terrorist, then you need to be taken out. Okay? That’s what we’re talking about. You’re living in a country that you want… Potentially. There’s potentially a conflict there. I don’t think it has to end that way. I’m only just emphasizing the ridiculous nature of that. That’s all. Right. But that is the problem, is that there is a conflict and you need to be able to manage it somehow. Discern it. Yeah. That’s the topic. Right. But you can, instead of assuming that people are telling the truth because they know themselves well enough to even tell the truth about themselves, which is false, like Peterson talks about this, you don’t know what you’re up to. It’s true. You can assume that what they act out is what they believe and all these problems go away. You don’t need to listen to people. You can just watch what they do, ignore their words and problem solved. Honestly, it really is that easy. I mean, nobody likes that answer, but it’s like a simple, easy thing that anybody can do. You can look at people’s actions and discern how serious they are about things and you don’t need their words. And if their words match, that’s great. Then you know they’re honest. But the words alone are useless. All words are definitionally propaganda. The question is, what do you do? Because the words aren’t worth anything. You can tell me that you care about human rights and then you can go home and beat your spouse. I don’t know what else to tell you. I don’t think they’re even necessarily in conflict. I’m just saying your words and your actions don’t match. That’s all I need to know. If you come onto my stream and you say, this is a rational way of being in the world, and then you can’t rationalize it, you’re a liar. Did you mean to lie to me? Probably not, but you did. I don’t know what else to tell you. It’s simple. Everybody wants to be smart by coming up with this complicated, complex thing that they figured out. The world is easy, guys. That’s why you need other people to tell you you’re lying. If you’re a Roman Catholic, stay in Rome. That’s good, Phlebas. Yes, absolutely. That’s really good. I agree. I also agree. I think it’s a real good. All Roman Catholics should go hang out in Rome. Go back to Italy. Is the American in France a terrorist who wants self-determination for America? He doesn’t want self-determination for America, dude. You’re just coming up with bad scenarios that can’t be true. If you want self-determination for America, you need to go to America and enact that. Otherwise, you don’t want self-determination for America. Period. End of statement. You’re using the wrong framing. Yeah, what do you do it? I mean, you’re not doing anything in that case, right? You’re just talking. Yeah, you’re just saying. You’re just saying. You want to believe what people say because you want to believe what you say to yourself. I get that. You’re lying to yourself, and they’re lying to you. Get over it and move on. It’s not hard. But that’s that whole thing. Like you believe somebody about what they’re doing, right? Right. And if you’re not- Yeah, I only pay attention to what people do. I don’t. People say things to me all the time, and it’s like… I barely hear their words. Yeah. You know, I test people, but testing people is easy. You just sit there and wait for them to screw up. And if they don’t, you can trust them. trust them. That’s all. Like like you Bruce, you’ve always been super consistent on the super important things and almost all the things we argue about I’m sure you feel differently. I think are thoroughly unimportant to get together and share a meal which is really I don’t care about much else. Yeah, I’m… no I understand that. I would agree to a point. That’s true. Yeah. If you’re not doing relationships, what are you doing? You know, right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. That’s the problem with theology is that the more you engage in theology, the more disagreement. Yeah, I would agree. I do agree with you in a sense, because if you’re if you’re merely doing theology, right, not applying it, what are you doing? I think, look, I think theology is great. If that’s your vocation, but then you don’t have a family you’re in a monastery. I think theology is great. If you’re engaging in armchair theology with a friend who’s been a friend for a long time that you’ve participated with, I think theology is great. Do I think theology is great in any other circumstances? No, I think in every other circumstances should be avoided like the plague that it is because it cannot lead to good. It’s it’s you know, it’s neutral, right? Well, what are you doing? Yeah, you have to be doing something. You’ve got to be doing something. Well, right. And theology is definitionally propositional. So you’re not doing anything. You’re just yapping about doing things. Yeah, you should. The propositions that you’re making should you should see that in your actions. Right. And if they’re interactions, you don’t need to talk about it. That’s the other part. Like this is well, yeah, I think that’s where that’s where we disagree. Yeah, that’s where we disagree. I have cooperated with people I’ve never spoken to. It’s fine. It works great. There’s a long tradition of that. Like I people who are good with words like the words. I totally get that. You should be of that bent. I’m just telling you it’s not required. Right. No, it’s yeah, it’s not required. Right. And so why focus on that? Just don’t. Focus on that. What are you talking about, please? This seems easy for you to say from the outside. What do you mean outside? Oh, I guess as a non Christian, I guess is what you say. Like non theologian or not. OK, but if you read theologian, they’ll all tell you the same thing. I I’m cribbing this from them. This isn’t that I don’t I don’t come up with things by myself that often. I told you that the beginning of the story. This is distributed cognition. I am collating and correlating distributed cognition. OK, if you read Church Fathers, right, if you read theologians, they tell you and you can look at their lives. It’s not hard. That’s true. They are like that. That’s what they are. They are monks. They are in libraries. They have Ph.D.s. They do not have families for the most part. The ones that do, they’re engaging in the armchair. The Jews do this the best, right? But you engage in theology after the meal. There you go. That’s how you do it. First, you eat. Then you argue. I do the same. Yeah, I agree. Right. It’s all about if it’s not couched in the participation, it’s just going to splinter just like a lot of churches do. They get caught up in doctrine and dogma and then they splinter. That’s what the gay marriage debate is. Let’s get into the details and the weeds and theology and the justification around why we can do something that clearly the Bible says you can’t do and shouldn’t do and is just contrary to the whole concept of Christianity and evolution, by the way. I don’t know why these guys are justifying this garbage. Well, it’s materialism in a way, right? Because you’re basically were animals. Well, it’s that solo scriptura thing you were talking about. I like that. Why is Benjamin Franklin stuck in this stupid frame? He’s not being hypocritical. He’s lying. It’s not hard. It’s not hypocrisy. Lies are different. Just lying. Stop coming up with an imaginary situation that doesn’t and cannot exist. There are things that do not and cannot, like unicorns. Not going to happen. The nationalist is in the country that he’s a national of. Otherwise, he’s not a nationalist. It’s not that hard. Really. I promise you, if you just use the words to define participation instead of using words to create imaginary participation, you will be better off in the world. You’ll understand everything in the world. It will take no energy mentally. You’ll be able to function much better. You’ll be happier, less anxiety, like the whole nine yards. It’s really just a joy when you simplify your models. It’s really a joy. Mm-hmm. You know, engaging in these Derrida and Foucault word games where imagine a dragon, and if that dragon could breathe fire, then he could breathe fire on anybody. And so you should be afraid of it. Dragons are real. Stop. Stop. Yes. If the thing that can’t happen could happen, why are we having that discussion? This is silliness. It can’t happen. You don’t need to worry about things that can’t happen. That’s why we have things that can’t happen. This is proper discernment. Dragons in the biome are real. Uh, well, will be, not are. They were. Or were. I don’t know. It’s your crazy book, not mine. I didn’t read that book. This timeline in that book is all screwed up as near as I can tell. They weren’t concerned with time, though, so to be fair, like they only care about pattern. I am a pragmatist. I hope you’re talking about me. I’m definitely a pragmatist. I taught. That’s the thing, too. Everyone’s like, you can’t know that. You can’t, you know, you can. You can tie everything to pragmatism, and it solves so many problems in the world. Why are people torturing themselves again? I don’t understand. It’s postmodern, frameless framing and reframing and constant garbage for no reason. When does a simple model that just works? Either way, you can be crazy if you want. Or you can have a much easier life and be a pirate navigating patterns on the open seas. It’s up to you. Well, it’s getting late. I need to get out of here. All right. Well, I’m going to close the stream down. Bruce, it was a pleasure to see you as always. You too. We’ll do it again soon. Have a great night. All right, everybody. I hope you watched the first two minutes because they’re great. And thank you for joining. And I don’t know if I’ll do it again in a week, but maybe I will try to announce by Thursday so that it’s on this normal thing. Let’s all discern better. And when we can’t, let’s outsource to distributed cognition. Have a good night. Keep navigating those.