Exploring Why Modern Philosophy is trolling (BvE0ejx7hNg)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=BvE0ejx7hNg

Music Hello everybody and welcome to a long awaited other episode of exploring why modern philosophy is trolling. So there’s some history behind this subject. I’ve been binge watching philosophy videos on the Guru’s awesome YouTube channel and I think Mark can give us a link of that in the chat. And the Guru has this amazing way to summarize and contextualize the philosopher or part of the philosopher’s work because he’s putting it in the historical context, he’s putting it in relationship to other philosophers and the personal life of the philosopher. And so he’s kind of taking a step back and looking at the work. I think that’s really valuable because when you’re looking into the work you’re usually not really seeing what the work is about and why things are relevant. And so he’s going through these philosophers and then he’s talking about Kant and how Kant is relating to Hume and how he’s really upset about Hume and that he spends like 13 years of his life trying to articulate an answer to Hume. He spent 30 years of his life to respond to someone else. Then he’s talking about Hume and he’s like, well, he came from a Calvinist background and now he’s making all of these prove about how determinism isn’t real. Like it can’t be real because we can’t know causality and there’s a bunch of problems with this. And so I’m just looking at this and it’s just like, oh, all of these people, they’re dealing with their personal problems and they’re expressing this in their philosophy. And Nietzsche was also one of the people that I watched. Nietzsche talks about this as well, right? Like someone’s philosophy says more about the philosopher than about reality. And so yeah, like that is a known thing. But then I keep on going and I get more of these philosophers and they’re all doing their own thing for their own reason. And I come at this post-modern philosopher called Jean-Francois Léotard. And at least when that video was made, I haven’t looked it up, but the guy was still alive, right? So it’s like, oh, this is what contemporary post-modern philosophy is saying. And he was talking about, oh, when I do philosophy, I basically say how things can’t be real. Like that’s my objective when I do philosophy. And what I want to get out of the world is like as many perspectives and ways of looking at things as possible. Like that was a stated goal. And every restriction upon perspectives is an authoritarian move. It’s the constraint of the freeness of whatever freeness he defined stuff as. And therefore, it’s bad. That’s basically the way that he judged the world. And that was the only way that he judged the world because you can’t judge anything else within that isomatic assumption. And so what does he end up doing? He ends up critiquing all the other philosophers and saying, you can’t do this because of this. You can’t do this because of that. And then he’s basically saying, well, the first reason you can’t do the thing that you’re doing is because it’s bad. Because according to my way of looking at the world, it’s bad. And the second reason that you can do it, and then he’s basically making like a smoke screen instead of looking for the truth, which I thought was like, oh, like that’s what philosophy is doing. Like philosophy is trying to afford us a relationship to the truth. And I’m like looking back through this lens, right? It’s like, oh, like this guy is like literally trolling the world. Like he’s saying like, we can’t have agreement. We shouldn’t want to have agreement because having agreement is to the exclusion of other things. And therefore, it’s bad. And so he’s basically saying we can’t commune. We can’t come together. We can’t be in one because if we’re becoming one, we’re creating a meta narrative. We’re creating an exclusionary principle. And that will end up in dogmatism. It will end up in an authoritarian show of force and of exclusion and the silencing of external voices. So when I saw that, I’m like, well, what are these other philosophers doing? Like, are they also trolling? And I’m looking at it and Nietzsche was the big fish. And Nietzsche said, I’m the Antichrist. Like he writes a book called The Antichrist, but he called himself the Antichrist. He’s like, well, this Christian morality, I got to like it. I want to do something different. Right. And then, well, what was Hume doing? Oh, I don’t like this Calvinism. Let me do something different. What is Kierkegaard doing? Well, I don’t like this Lutheranism. Let me do something different. And it’s like, oh, like you’re all rebelling against the things that brought you into being. And the way that you’re rebelling is often in a childish way, right? You’re not fully understanding, well, maybe Nietzsche did fully understand the value of Christianity. Although if he did, I doubt he would have done what he did. But without fully understanding the value in the thing that you inherited, you want to create the other thing. And well, what is the ways that they’re doing that, right? Like they’re trying to define a way of a relationship to the nature of being. Right. So if I can say that being, right, like which is basically the justification for things, right, because you’re participating in it, like it’s the thing that is informing you. If I can say something about it in a certain way, then I can justify my belief, and then I’m right effectively. And the others are wrong, probably. Yeah. Well, look, look, I want to slow you down, Manuel. It was a lot to the basic thesis. So for me, this particular video, the one that I posted, which was the Jean-Francois Lyotard post the postmodern condition. The thing that struck me about that video was it just validated everything I did with my videos on postmodernism and modernism. Like it’s like, yeah, it’s right there. And it’s funny because Sougrou, I don’t know if you noticed this, at one point he mentions the fact that calling it modern isn’t really useful. And then he slides right by it. It’s a packed, it’s a 45 minute video, you know, he’s really doing a good summary, but he slides right by that. And I think that you’re right. I mean, all of these guys are trolling in some sense. And it’s explicit with what Sougrou says, like it’s not so much that he says, oh, well, you know, this and therefore, he starts from framing as terrorism. Having a telos is terrorism. And this is one of the interesting things that that that Lantern Jack taught me. You check out the Lantern Jack YouTube series. He also has a Ancient Greece Declassified is the name of his podcast. He told me, he said, look, you go to these philosophy schools. And he did it. He traveled the world and went to all the famous philosophy schools that he could and got into the heads of the philosophy departments because he’s got a PhD. And what do you call this ancient philology because he doesn’t want to be associated with modern philosophy either. And he said, I asked them, like, what, you know, do you guys believe in capital T truth? And they’re all like, well, not all of them, but almost all of them were like, no. And he’s like, do you understand that everybody thinks that’s what you’re doing in philosophy? And they were like, yeah, we don’t care. Fair enough. They’ve got tenure, they’re heads of departments at universities. You think you’re paying them to find capital T truth. And they’re like, screw you, I got your paycheck and there’s not much you can do about it. It’s like, fair enough. That’s that in and of itself is trolling. Right. And that’s part of the problem. People don’t really realize how disconnected these academic philosophers, modern academic philosophers are from the rest of the world. Right. They don’t know or care about your opinion about what they’re doing. And they’re just doing what they’re doing to sound smart and be important. Now, Mills, this is a good question. Was Socrates a mirror troll? Socrates was not a mirror troll. The way you know this is that some crazy people may say that Socrates said, I know that I know nothing. Okay. That’s a lie. Let’s just be clear. That is a lie. He didn’t say that. He didn’t say anything like that. The context on the comment in the apologia from where that’s taken from is super important. And what he effectively said, and I’m going to paraphrase because I’m too lazy to have it up on my screen. I got rid of this a few days ago when I did all the research. What he effectively says is, and he’s comparing himself to somebody else. He says, that other person makes claims of knowledge that they don’t have, and I don’t claim to know things that I’m sure I don’t know. And therefore I have more wisdom than he does. That’s what he says. Okay. That’s a very different claim from I know that I know nothing, which is a paradox and therefore impossible and therefore should be ignored. We don’t live in a world of paradox. By definition, by the way. I’m stating that axiomatically. Definition of paradox, the usefulness in understanding contradiction and paradox is that those aren’t, they’re limits to your worldview, not limits on reality. You can cast them as limits on reality, but they’re not. They’re limits on your worldview. And so that’s one of the, I like both of these. After reading three modern philosophers, a young man who said it’s useless to read philosophers. Yes, can confirm. And that’s the thing is that these people are, they know they’re misquoting Socrates. They’re scholars. They’ve done the reading. Sorry, Mills. Yes. Look, it only took 25 minutes to find all that about I know I know nothing. I knew what’s wrong the minute I heard it. I’m like, there’s no way Socrates said anything like that. Stupid. Yeah, the philosophers have nothing useful to say. It’s all nitpicking. It is. Well, and this is what Manuel’s point was, right? Like, when you start looking into these guys one at a time, and sugru is such a great resource for this. When we discovered him, it was just like eye opening, right? It was like, wow, concise summaries of philosophers done by somebody who’s skeptical of all of them. We started off with him on Plato and Aristotle. And we were like, oh, great, on the old guys. And then the new guys came and we lost interest. And then I re-engaged. Well, every time I engage with one of these guys, I find out something seminal about them. And it’s like, really? You know, like, Kierkegaard literally is the Luther of Lutheranism. That’s all he is. It’s no more difficult. You can ignore everything that comes after that. He’s just, he’s rallying against the Lutheran church in the same way that Luther rallied against the Catholic church. He might have had slightly different critiques, but it was fundamentally just a critique of church leadership. And yeah, I mean, yeah, you get into this what Ethan’s saying, right? Sounds like all modern philosophers are just Protestants, Protestanting. Yes, that really is what it is. Bubble this maybe Plato and Socrates are good. Plato and Socrates are great. I mean, Socrates isn’t, I would say, Sargon used to have a complete philosophy. He’s very good at being a skeptical cynic. I have a video on that on Navigating Patterns. You can check it out. But he’s not very good at answering questions because he doesn’t make axiomatic statements for the most part. There’s a few in there, obviously. And all we have of him is from Plato. And so, you know, Plato, but Plato’s really good. Plato’s good. Aristotle’s good, too. I would say anything after Aristotle is, you probably don’t need it. And now, you know, you can say, well, you know, all these people read him. And I’m like, okay, the democratic appeal to democracy is not going to work. And it’s funny, Kusugu covers that in the video I posted, too. He covers the democratic argument, which is basically quantity, right? Well, if more people believe this, then it must be a capital T truth. And it’s like, I know of your mass hysteria, hallucinations. Have you ever seen a vote where people didn’t vote in a way that you thought was reasonable? No, it. Yeah, yeah. It’s interesting. Anyway, look, we found Suguru through Verveki and our engagement in that work. So we want to know more about Plato and Socrates, to be fair. So, yeah. Yeah, I think it’s good to know, right? So, there’s, I’ll just go on with my rant a little bit. It’s like, so what are they trying to do, right? Like they’re trying to find justification. They’re trying to find justification for their idea, right? And sometimes that idea is based on an observation, like, well, Adam Smith or something. Like, there’s a bunch of people, they see something and then they work it out, right? And then they start a new field of research or whatever, right? And then they get credited with their idea. And I’m listening to this and I’m like, this is in the Bible and I’m just going to bet that Confucius or whatever also wrote about this, right? And then they get credited by the idea. So what’s happening, right? Like there’s a new discipline established, philosophy, and then they get a canon. It’s like, okay, like this is all the philosophical text and this is the things that we’ve dealt with, right? And then some people disagree with the way that things were dealt with. And then some people think that spirits are a real thing that you have to account for and other things. People are materialists, so you get all these competing ways where you’re giving privacy to the one and the other, right? And then they start rediscovering these things that people always knew and like their systems of dealing with. And I’m like, but you’re living in this tradition, like why don’t you see the thing, right? They never go up to look down again, right? They just look up and they go, I see this thing over here and I’m going to create a thing above it to explain it. When they could just like go to the thing above them, which came before them basically, and read what’s already there. And I did want to interrupt and say, maybe I’ll give Plato and Aristotle a chance. And yeah, Bubbly, you should give Plato and Aristotle a chance for sure. I like what Mills says here. From the dialogues I’ve read, Sarkozy makes no strong knowledge claims, right? And Segru is a hell of a lecturer. He really is. And he’s not only a good lecturer, because that’s one set of skills, he’s also whip smart. Like, boy, can he summarize a philosopher. Unbelievable. Yeah. And he gets all the sides, right? It’s like, because what are these philosophers doing? They’re trying to play with perspectives. And so when you’re reading a philosopher fee, you’re in a perspective and basically you’re in the tunnel and you’re getting dragged along by the current of the narrative within the tunnel, which is actually what the postmodern guy is objecting to. Right. They’re basically saying, we’re better philosophers, because we don’t do that to you. But of course, we don’t manipulate you. I don’t think normal people know anything about postmodernists or anti-realism, or understand the implications, because nobody would ever engage knowingly with postmodernism if they understood where it leads. And the brilliance about this particular Segru lecture is that he shows you exactly where it leads. And it basically leads to them laughing about the fact that you figured out the trick that you can’t communicate. That’s literally what happens. And he says that, they laugh kind of maniacally about it. Right? It’s not exactly what he says, but it’s effectively what he’s saying. They just end up laughing. It’s like you went through the rabbit hole, it became smaller and smaller, and you lost all your skin, and you lost all your wits, and you can’t see anymore. And now you’re on the other side, and you’re free, but you’re nothing. And the categorization of all other philosophies as terrorism is so interesting to me. I mean, like, oh, they just sort of state it. It’s ideology. It’s ideology. Right. Because because it’s the problem of dogmatism. Right? Like, oh, like when you state something as true, when you look at with a lens, doesn’t matter what lens it is, you’re gonna, well, to use Peugeot’s terms, create a margin. That means that you’re going to exclude people. That means that you’re treating them unjustly because you cannot justify your stunning conditions. Right? Like they’re axiomatic. And so that’s not good. And they don’t realize that not having any judgment at all is also going to have a face to them. Like Mark talks about this, right? Like the norm action or tolerance, if you tolerate everything, things are going to happen in the world. And they’re not going to be good. Right? Because like, the guy was like, well, we need a political theory. Because like, if we can’t agree on what is real, like, how are we going to govern? Like, yeah, you’re wrong. Which is actually the thing that we’re seeing. We can’t govern anymore, because we can’t agree on the truth. Because we’re arbitrarily deciding what is true. Oh, like, if I have my climate religion, that’s true. If I have my race religion, that’s true. And they’re in conflict, and they can’t coexist. And then you have the people who have a conservative worldview that is based on the truth. And they’re like, well, guys, you’re messing with the truth by imposing your personal framing. And like, that’s not okay. And like, those things can’t coexist either. Right? Which is true. Like, in that sense, there is a culture, these things can’t coexist. Like, when you start going through the implementation, right? When things become real, the tolerance doesn’t work anymore. It’s the war of bad religion. So, yeah, Yusuf, I love that actual trolling. Yeah. Well, and look, do they say that any realism about truth is terrorism? Because we’re involved in sort of tyrannical enforcing these categories. Not leotard. And I don’t think any of them. I think what they say is, enforcing anything is terrorism. Leotard starts with terrorism. He’s, you know, doing this is terrorism. And he uses, Sugru points this out at the end of that video. He uses a very odd definition of terrorism that no one’s ever heard before. He didn’t say that. But like, it is an odd definition of terrorism. I don’t think anyone’s ever used it before. And yeah, like, it doesn’t resolve. It doesn’t mean there is no truth. But it’s not, see, the question of the exist… This is where I get wrapped up with people. Like, guys, this isn’t hard. The question of the existence of truth is irrelevant to answer. If the answer is there is no truth, we still have to cooperate together. And so we have to act as if. That’s not an option. Otherwise, there’s no alternative to acting as if there’s a capital T truth. If it’s in fact completely arbitrary, then anything we do is okay. Obviously, anything we do is not okay, because as the postmoderns point out, allowing ideas to spread out and flatten along a flat plane results in what we’re now calling culture war. And so the relevance of the claim is not important. There could be seven or 20 capital T truths, all of which are equally okay. But it’s not infinite. And it’s probably a small number. It might even be a single digit number. And you don’t need any more precision than that. And we’re so stuck in the scientific mind frame that we want this ridiculous level of accuracy and precision about something we can’t possibly understand or know until maybe not only we’re dead, but all of humanity is over in some fashion. You get into this trap of, well, now we have to define this accurately and precisely. Now we’re running into you can’t, because now you’re just talking about the future. And you can’t know the future with any accuracy or precision that’s satisfying. Because if you could, that means you’d be able to predict everything in the world. I like what Ethan said. The world isn’t evil confirmed. Yusuf agrees. Yeah. You all are a bunch of Wojcik’s crying about getting mega trolled. No, we’re not. We didn’t get trolled. I never read any philosophy. I thought it was all garbage back then. So yeah, modern philosophy trolling confirmed. It just gets funnier the more you dig into it. Oh, Mills, are you for the benevolent lie? For pragmatic benevolent ends. Well, hold on. Hold on. Like, is it a lie? Yeah, right. How are you defining truth? Right, that’s what you’re getting. Because like if a thing is self-justified, right, like if Marx says, and I think that’s actually the argument of the postmodern things, like, oh, we don’t know how many capital detrudes there are. And therefore, we need to have everybody exploring everything so that they can find the capital detrude. Not realizing that if that happens, they can’t communicate it to anybody else, because there’s no shared understanding of the world. But yeah, that aside, like when you’re having a capital detrude, that means that it allows you to live in accordance with reality. Right? Because that’s the definition of truth. Like it is true to reality. And that means that there’s a bunch of constraints put on you, and you’re going to have to accept those constraints in order to function. And Paul Verneclay, he was reading from this book, and they were talking about modernism, or not modernism, liberalism, and how liberalism is effectively the impulse to liberate. And then there was this phase of liberating from religion, and then from the tyranny of the monarch, and then from the class, and then from the self, right? Like there’s all of these oppressions, like, oh yeah, like nature is oppressing you, and now I can’t find it. It’s almost like if you remove one, several others pop up, like a hydra or something. I don’t know. And that’s a theme in all the religious traditions. Weird. It’s a coincidence. Nothing to see here. Don’t pay any attention to the fact that this is literally mentioned in every wisdom text ever written down. Yeah. Once you get rid of one, right? That’s why my buddy Adam had me watch this series, this BBC series called Monarchy. And it’s like, they can’t, England can’t get rid of the monarchy. They try, and then bad things happen, and then they beg for the king back, and then it’s a continual path. They just can’t get rid of it. For that reason. That’s the funny part. And so the idea that was happening with the plural or the liberalism is that there’s a new equilibrium that steps in, right? So you do a thing, and then chaos happens, and everybody needs to understand their place, and then there’s this other thing on the top, and then you need to be liberated from that. And that happens through a revolution, whether that’s a violent revolution or whatever. There is an upheaval, and then there’s a new status quo. And now the question is whether that’s a new capital detrute, or whether that’s a lowercase new truth that is still within the capital. That’s the trick that Leotard plays, right? He says we can’t have a constructed unifying narrative, to Mills’s point, and therefore we have to get these small narratives. And it’s like, wait a minute, you’ve just moved the scale of the problem. You’ve changed the problem at all. You just scaled it down. And that’s the funny part, right? Yeah, Mills, we didn’t take it as an accusation. I think it’s funny when people ask about benevolent lie, because you get into this question of what is capital T true. And I think the easy resolution for that, and by the way, hello, Charles, good to see you. The easy solution for what is capital T truth is to say thinking about it as truth is wrong. Thinking about it as what is true as an action is a better way to think about it. And that solves a bunch of problems, because you don’t get stuck in this, you can’t make a truth claim problem, which is effectively, look, this is Socratic, right? Socrates doesn’t make very many truth claims if he makes any at all. And that’s kind of suspicious, right? And it’s not a problem, but it leads to skeptical cynicism that I talked about in my video on that, on navigating patterns, right? So there is that danger to it, but also, you got to question things, because we are exploring, right? You can’t have everybody exploring independently of everybody else, or they lose the language. And then literally, he’s talking, Sagu’s talking about this, like, they laugh, they actually laugh about this. They think it’s funny when you pin them to the wall about the fact that now we can’t talk as humans at all. We can’t speak. Which is a performative contradiction, but yes. Yes. And they don’t care, right? Like, they don’t care. No, they laugh about it. No, no, they do care. They think it’s funny. It’s like, ah, is that, I guess, that’s the troll, right? They know, they’re laughing because they got called out for their troll. And, you know, that’s it. It sounds like you’re implying that PMs may be implying that PMs may adopt the emergence is good action. Yeah, postmoderns have to adopt emergence is good. They have no choice. It’s emergence everywhere all the time and only emergence. Would you say the grounds, would you say that the grounds truth in its relation to something like the form of man? No, I would say there’s no ground of truth. It’s truth is a matter of what you’re true to, which is an action in the world. It’s a participation. You’re not at it with a set of propositions because propositions work great on static things, but propositions start to break down in action. Well, you’re true to a conception of reality in some sense. So you’re participating with an anticipation of what is actually there. Yeah, exactly. When Archimedes over ran his bath, Thales declared that all is water. Well, yeah, I mean, see, the funny part is that’s the Greeks trolling people, but they were all in on the joke and everybody understood how funny it was. In the same way, I suspect that Zeno’s paradox where basically you can’t touch anything. You can’t reach anything because you can always divide the distance you have to go in half and therefore teach an infinite amount of time to actually touch a wall. Now we all know that we can touch things, right? Like you can reach destinations, right? So all it’s really doing is it’s a troll. It’s pointing out a contradiction or a paradox in the world that is a limit in that case to quantity. You try to quantitatively measure how far you are from a wall forever. You can never reach the wall. That is actually true. The only way you can reach the wall, it’s sort of like in karate where you punch past your person in order to get- You have to believe that you can reach the wall. You have to believe that the wall is reachable, that the wall has a quality of reachability, not a quantity of distance, a quality of reachability. If you can’t believe that, you can’t reach the wall because you’re stuck in the tyranny of quantity, which is also the tyranny of propositions. Yeah. What is this tyranny? Well, this tyranny is the need to frame things, to justify things, right? So to go back to all of these modern philosophers, right? That’s what they’re trying to do. And then they’re trying to frame things in a way that they get to do what they want, like they have an intuition or whatever. And all of this, right, is born from trauma, right? Like, oh, I had this experience in my childhood or this person said something and my whole world view collapsed. Or like, oh, the people around me are evil or like savage. And maybe that’s the default state of humanity. It’s like, well, why are you extrapolating an instance of something to the universe? And so they’re always in these games where they’re not consistent with their categories or with their observations. And this goes back to the tunnel, right? So you see, when you engage with a philosopher or with a philosophical text, they’re in a context. They’re writing for a reason. And then they start with an introduction. They have a telos, is that what you’re saying? Because that’s a tomorrow’s live stream and now getting patterns. They do have a telos. And when the telos takes control of you, right, like you might pursue something for a long time. So for example, I had this math teacher in high school and he wrote this math thing that only three people understood or something in the world. What was he doing? Well, he was trying to find the answer to the question that he was trying to solve. And then after like two and a half, three years of trying, he’s just laying in his bath and he’s like, oh, it’s not possible. And then he spent a year and a half more to prove that it wasn’t possible. And then he finished his thing. And then he could add it to the whole thing that nobody ever reads because there’s no relevant reason to even engage with it. But like he did it, like he made the proof. And so like that’s what happens with these things. Right. And it’s not just philosophy to your point. It’s also math. And yeah, it’s a bunch of things. And if you’re engaging as an external person and you don’t know why things are happening the way that they’re happening, like they start with an introduction, right? They’re like, oh, this is my problem formulation. And then they state a bunch of observations in the world. They’re like, yeah, I’ve seen that. Right. Like this happens in capitalism. Capitalism definitely has these characteristics. And yeah, maybe that’s not good. Like maybe we should do something about it. I was like, well, if you can, right? Like, well, and if it, but that’s the framing trick, right? Like this is in capitalism. Okay. But is it also in not capitalism? Because if it’s in capitalism and something other than capitalism, then the cause cannot be capitalism. Like it cannot, it’s off the table because people get this correlation thing backwards. Like I understand that correlation doesn’t equal causation. But when you don’t have correlation, you don’t have causation. Like people forget, like I’m dyslexic. That’s why I know these things. Like, yeah, but are you considering the reverse case? And is it symmetrical? Because the reverse case is not symmetrical, right? In one case, correlation could equal causation or not, right? It’s a 50-50 sort of shot to some extent. In the other case, it’s zero. No, zero. If it doesn’t correlate, that’s because there’s no causation there. Period. End of statement. There are no other options. And that’s important to realize that they’re pre-doing the framing. So Anselman, I reckon theologians give too much weight to philosophers, whether trying to adapt Plato, Aristotle, Heidegger, or whoever. So why? Because theologians are doing the same thing as philosophers, just on the other side of the register. And so they want the respect of being good with the propositions and the logic and the rationality and the reason. They’re just starting from spiritual starting points instead of material starting points. But they’re basically on the same ride. I mean, that’s why I don’t think theology is going to save the world. And it’s interesting because again, at the end of the talk that Sugu does on Jean-Francois Lyotard, he basically says, and I’m reading the transcript just because it’s so good. That particular talk is so good. He basically says he starts from the idea that silencing people is terror. That’s the word, terror. And he says, I’m fairly sure that no one else would agree with this definition of terror because that would mean everybody in America was terrorized. And it’s not the same definition they used in the Nazi death camps. And it’s not the same as it’s like, whoa, like, yeah, he starts at terror. This is the beginning of his thesis is if anybody tells you that your idea is not correct, they’re terrorizing you. It’s like, what? And then you can see that everywhere. You can see how even without knowing any philosophy, engaging any of this stuff or reading any of this stuff, they intellectually have led us to where we’re at because we’re acting out as if these guys had something useful and serious to say when in fact, they know they’re trolling and they would just be happy to see the world burn. Yeah. And he gave the example of Singapore, which is like the bane of all modern thinkers because like it’s like, oh, you mean that there’s a plastic regime, like literally that censoring the media and all doing all the things that should by no means be allowed and the people are happy, like what’s happening? Right? So there is this thing of the benevolent dictator. And like he literally said, it was like, oh, like the dictatorial regime realizes the problems with being a dictatorship. So they’re not doing the problematic things. And I’m like, right. That sounds great. Well, that’s the history of monarchy in England. If you watch the monarchy series with David Starkey, it’s fantastic. And it’s like, yeah, that’s the history is this battle between who has what power and how much of that power and who’s taking power at any given time and what that actually looks like. It’s all it is. So Mills, you agree with the idea that emergence all the way up and emanation all the way down is correct? No, I don’t. I think this is one of those things people miss. It’s not the formula that I use. It’s really simple and nobody likes, well, not nobody, but almost nobody. It’s real easy, guys. It’s in all these wisdom, all the wisdom, all of them say the same thing. You don’t need to unite East and West. They already say the same thing. We’re bringing down something and lifting up something. And in between the emanation and the emergence, which is where we exist, we are the thing that can reach the emanation and bring it down. And we are the thing that can pull the emergence up. That is reality. It’s that simple. There’s three things. And so you can’t exclude the ethereal from reality and you can’t exclude the material from reality, but they are not reality because reality is the thing we create that we then call history after it’s been created from the interaction. I don’t even know how else you could ever understand this. I literally don’t know what other formula you could possibly be using. Also, Peterson talked about this with Stephen, whatever. Anyway, he said, what if evolution is exploring a space and if that’s true, then that space has to have pre-existed before evolution. So the only way that emergence can manifest in a means that can persist through time is that there is a pre-existing structure that can hold it. Well, and this is what I’ve often said. John Verveckis, evolution has no T-lows. And I’m like, all right, dude, I’ll grant you, if you define evolution as a process of discovery, then evolution has no T-lows. I can take the evolution, take the T-lows out of evolution all day long. It’s not hard. The problem is the space that it’s discovering, as Manuel said, which is a good paraphrase of Peterson, has a T-lows. Otherwise, evolution, all the theories that we throw in the bucket of evolution are wrong and can’t operate, literally cannot operate, because selection could not exist. And this is why I get upset about equality. If equality, then evolution fails and it’s wrong. Like all Darwin is wrong. All the people he drew from are wrong. All of it is, and I do mean actually all of it. Like literally every single piece doesn’t work. It’s not that you can salvage pieces. No, you can’t salvage any of them. Yeah, I just kind of had an insight. So you can say, well, like, okay, so there’s the structure of ammunition, but like, do we know if we have like this part of the pyramid or this part of the pyramid? We don’t know to what part of the ammunition we have a relation to. And I think this is the postmodern argument. Like, okay, if we start here on this side of the pyramid, we might get all the way up. And you saying like, well, what we have is right, like, we might be in a local optimum. Like just like evolution. Like you have creatures like the panda which are solely highly specialized that they can only eat one type of food and like spend the whole day digesting their food and like are incapable of relating to change. Right? Like that’s no good. And so the emergence of good argument, like to give them the benefit of the doubt is like, okay, like maybe we are the panda. Like, like there’s way the world is way bigger than we know. Right? And this goes to what was it? Renaissance or conservatism or yeah, no, Enlightenment conservatism from Burke, who effectively said, we should only implement things that we’ve tried. Like we can’t revolutionize things that we haven’t tried because then we fall into a pit of chaos. And like, we’re gonna get a worse tyrant than what we get rid of. Right? And so there’s this pattern that we get into. Right? Like if we chop off the head, we establish a new head and we don’t have control over what had we get. And after the French Revolution, right? Like everybody was like, oh, that was a complete disaster. And we don’t want to do that. But we also don’t want to give up on this progress thing. Right? And in order to make progress, we need to engage with new things. Right? So he, Burke was stating that we want to stay in constant touch with reality so that we can get feedback from the implementation and that we don’t implement an ideology. Right? Because that’s what happened. Right? Like there was all these people that did the thinky thinky thing. And then they’re like, well, let’s make the world in the image of my thinky thinky thing. And that didn’t work. And so this conservatism was not a conservatism in the sense that they were trying to preserve something, but it was a conservatism in conserving the process of evolving, developing. Right. Right. Conserving the quote progress. Right? And progress, like the word progress doesn’t mean anything by itself. It cannot be a communicative tool alone. You have to talk about progress in terms of tell us. You have to. Otherwise there’s no such thing. It’s undefinable. Right? And look, I mean, I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. The problem with progress is that Hitler was a progressive. No, really look it up. He was. He was a progressive. That’s what he was. Fascism was progressivism. It was. It was the progress from science. By the all this is science. Socialism is science applied to governance. That’s what it is. Maybe other things too, but it’s definitely science applied to governance. And that’s one of the problems is that, yeah, you can progress yourself right into genocide. That’s very easy to do. It’s a rational, reasonable, logical argument. It’s wrong ethically, but it is a rational, logical, argument. And I would argue that, well, this is maybe a bold claim, but maybe all progression ends in suicide. Yeah, that’s, that’s, that’s, because I see all of this progression lead to nihilism, right? Because like, like it’s all liberation from oppression until there’s nothing left. Like who are you at the end? Like for real, like Van der Klaay’s thing on homesickness was really nice. It’s like, well, America’s on the move, right? And like this, there’s all of this destabilization and identity, and then they start forming new identities based upon, well, like, what is the thing that you can keep? Well, when you’re on the move, you can’t keep your tradition or your home or whatever. So you can only keep the thing that you’re gonna build, right? So you’re gonna have to put your identity in the thing that you don’t have. So now you’re gonna create your identity instead of that you inherited from the past. And when, when, like, how are we creating our identity? It’s like, we’re gonna have to use the things from the past to create our identity. Like, like that has to happen. Right. And then, well, then you end up in the craziness that we have now. Yeah, so why do I think it leads into suicide? Because like, I, like, at a certain point, you don’t have anything. Like there’s, there’s no, you’re, you’re basically saying, I have this umbilical cord, like, keeping me stuck. Like, I need, I need to kill my father, I keep, need to kill my mother to liberate myself from them, so that my identity is not informed by them. I need to liberate myself from my religion. I need to liberate myself from my state, because like, they’re not allowed to tell me who I am. I need to liberate myself from my peers, because like, they’re not cool. Um, like, like, who are you? It goes on forever. It has no end. And things with no end are parasitic. And if it’s parasitic, yeah, it’s suicidal. And that’s the, you can only, you can only, uh, feed on your host for so long before you kill the host. And that’s why parasitic things are bad. And how do you recognize them? Self-reference. Self-reference is a bad sign, guys. Saying, I know, I know nothing is obviously absurd and can’t be useful to you. So, you know, these things are not useful. Uh, don’t be fooled into thinking they are, because they sound clever, or they put your mind in this, ooh, titillating contradiction. You know, it’s this novelty. It’s seeking novelty. And you can’t not seek novelty. A little bit of novelty is fine, but it has to be tempered, temperance, right, with this appreciation for the past, this embedded grounding that you have, this historical grounding that keeps you a oneness. Otherwise, you fly apart. And then it’s, and then you’re back to the parasitic behavior. You just fly apart. This is literally what Suguru says in this talk. It’s like, yeah, you get to the point where everyone’s speaking their own language. Well, I wish somebody had written that down in a book a few thousand years ago. Maybe we could have read it and learned something from it. I don’t know. And if you want to engage with newness, maybe you should have a mentor like Suguru who actually knows the ins and the outs of what he’s talking about, right, and can guide you. So, like, whatever you’re engaging with is a safe engagement. Because that’s a problem of these philosophers, right? Like, they’ve had unsafe engagement, right? Like, I think Kant said that you liberated him from his dogmatism. He’s like, okay, so you grew up dogmatically, so you have an internal tendency to be really strict, which is actually expressed in his following philosophy. So it’s like, right, oh, you got liberated. But did you? Did you? Right. You didn’t. Right. And that’s the problem. It’s like, are you sure you know? Are you sure you can see yourself as the result of reading a book? Because I don’t think you can. I don’t think you can outsource your sanity to the written word. Which is not to say it’s not helpful, but it’s limited, and we’re just not recognizing it. And it’s tempting. I can read all these books, and then I can have all this knowledge, and then when I have this knowledge, I can do all these things. And it’s like, or you can just do the things without the books or the reading or the knowledge. And there’s a deep asymmetry in that. The quality of gardening cannot be captured by the quantity measurement of putting forth the propositions of gardening on a piece of paper. It doesn’t work. I’m not saying it’s not useful. I’m saying that it’s not required. It might be better in some cases, but it also might be worse, because you could just read gardening books the rest of your life and never actually plant anything. And that happens to people all the time. There’s a bunch of people that run into that problem. This is actually what Adam Smith was talking about with specialization. So you can have specialization, which allows you to optimize for productivity, which is a measure of quantity. But there’s a cost, because you reciprocally narrow to a subset of a process. And what is your identity? Who are you when you’re doing that? Now you’re getting into a whole bunch of spiritual problems, because you’re making yourself literally a machine. And that’s good if you want to have an army, and when the guy in front of you dies, you can replace him immediately. That’s good in that situation. But maybe when you’re doing gardening for relief, you don’t want to be the soldier that replaces the soldier that was doing the planting. That’s not why you’re doing it. So your relationship to that activity needs to be informed differently. You shouldn’t use propositions and procedures to engage in that activity, because you can’t see yourself. You can’t evolve yourself within a following of a constraint. Because when you’re in the procedure, it’s like a tunnel. You’re going through the tunnel, and you’re trying to stay in the middle so that you don’t bump to the side, because then you fail your procedure, and you’re not going to get the result that you want. But as a consequence, you can’t dance, you can’t look around, because they’re in conflict with your procedure. And maybe gardening is not the best example, because there’s no time constraint. But if we’re talking about cooking, for example, where there is a time constraint, then you get stressed. There’s lots of time constraints in gardening. What are you talking about? There are just longer constraints. When to plant, when to pick, how often to weed. Different time constraints. There’s a bunch of them, but yeah, they’re different. It’s not a simple example, but that’s the point. The simple examples fool you into thinking procedures might work. And it’s the complex examples that show you procedures are useless. It’s like, oh, you know, oh, we need the procedures, but they’re actually not going to do the work. We have to do the work with something other than mere procedures. And that’s where people get wrapped around the axle. And this is the problem. The postmoderns understand full well while they’re critiquing, well, everyone else is putting you in a tunnel in philosophy and then carrying you through the thing, and that’s terrorism or whatever they’re framing it. They understand full well. That’s because you can’t do any other thing. And that’s why they laugh when you find out, oh, the end of your thing is nobody can talk. Yep. And they laugh. They do. They laugh. I’ve done it many times, these postmoderns, they always laugh because they realize that it doesn’t work. It just results in no one being able to cooperate anymore. You’re an individual. And to be an individual, you cannot cooperate with others by definition. You want to be an individual? Go right ahead and try. I dare you. You’re not watching the internet. You don’t have electricity and internet, that’s for sure. So, you know, go ahead. Be an individual. Otherwise, you’re tied to people in some way, whether it’s for the house you didn’t build, for the electricity you are not generating, or for the solar cells you bought to generate your own electricity. You can’t get around these things. And you’re going to end up in conflict. Right? When you’re not an individual, you’re going to end up in conflict. And you’re going to be part of a body, right, which means that you have to conform to it. But that also means that you have to protect your body because now there’s not your body. And that’s going to be adversarial at some points. And that’s the thing that they’re trying to avoid. Right? So, Peugeot was, Mathieu Peugeot was talking about that we’re at the end of an illusion in our society. Right? So, what’s the illusion? Well, the illusion is the consequence of tolerance. Like, when you tolerate things, then you’re allowing people to deceive themselves into thinking that what they’re doing is okay. And at a certain point, what they’re doing isn’t okay, because, like, it can’t exist anymore in the way that it is existing. And then you’re going to end up in conflict. Right? And then you could call that a revolution. But you can also look at it as like a tension. Like, it’s a vat in which pressure builds up. And at a certain point, you need to release the pressure. And then the question is, well, like, how are you going to release that pressure? Because, like, you need to re-establish order in some way. Well, you built the pressure up too much through the tolerance. Right? Males, an individual, was a harsh pejorative term in basic training. Yeah, I bet it was. But also, I mean, you have to look at this reasonably. One of the things that people do not understand about revolution is a revolution is a subclass or subtype of war. So, everyone’s like, no war, but revolution. And I’m like, do you not understand that a revolution is actually a war against your own ruling government, party, king, whatever? In all cases, there are no exceptions. All revolutions, because revolution is just a type of war. And people die in war. People die in revolutions. And it’s not just the people you don’t like. I’ll tell you that right now. So, you know, and look, when you understand these formulas, you can spot some genuine people or ignorant people right away. It’s like, oh, I shouldn’t trust this person. They don’t understand that a revolution is a war. And that people are going to die. And some of them are going to be innocent, because innocent people die in war. Like, that’s just axiomatically the way it’s always happened. And there’s no way around it as near as anybody can tell. And yeah, once you do the trick of tolerating, and just tolerating, and more tolerating, or giving people grace, or redeeming them before they’ve done anything to deserve the grace or redemption, you’re weakening them, right, in the long term, and you’re screwing yourself. Oh, Father Eric says that’s not what John Lennon says. Well, yeah, that’s definitely the… But imagine. But imagine, imagine. Right. Well, I like Anselman. Yes, war with the same consequences. Right. And so these people call for revolution, but no war. And it’s like, I don’t think you understand how the universe is actually formulated. And that’s a universe you were born into, and are subject to, as a subject of reality, which is the thing that you were created into. And it is that creation denial is right there. And like, that talk, man, I just, I’ve never felt more incredibly validated in my life than listening to that talk. I mean, Jean-François Lyotard is so transparently stupid. And Segru just freaking annihilates everything in 45 minutes. It’s also super concise. I love concise things. It’s like my favorite. I don’t read long books, right? I like short stories. Short stories are good. And thinking about revolution, you can make an analogy with a family getting a child, right? And then at a certain point, like, the responsibility or the care or the patronage is going to go over to the child. And it’s like, well, what is the child that you’re going to give your patronage to? Right? Like, is it your child going to murder you to take your throne? Like, is your child going to murder his brother? There you go. Like, if he’s going to murder their father to take their throne. Yeah. So like, what is it going to do? Like, is your child going to bring in a bunch of foreign women that will change all the traditions in your family, making it unrecognizable? Like, what is your child going to do? And so like, there’s this book where they’re like, kind of exploring all these problems with how to deal with that thing and inheritance and like children and like, what’s good and what’s not good. And there’s a bigger version of that on the societal level, right? It’s like, but this affects more people. Like, this doesn’t affect only you. And one thing that you do know is like, all energy spent in war, right? Whatever version that may take, whether it’s council culture or is not going somewhere else. And so this is a disease that is self-inflicted by the society. And there was this idea, right? Like, that you’re not allowed to be in opposition to the king because that’s treason and that’s not allowed. But like, if you allow people to be in opposition to the body that they’re in, you end up with a known body, right? And like, the body is like laying on the ground, like still having the same physical shape, but the body parts aren’t connected anymore and they’re not functioning as a unit. And as soon as some external force comes at it, it will fall apart. And that’s the moment that you need the body the most because like, the body is the thing that is there to deal with the external things, like it needs to deal with the things that are not the body. Right. Yeah, no, it’s a big pattern that you can’t escape as a result of having been created in the world and everybody wants to escape it. And it’s like, you can’t escape that which you were created into. Like, you can’t. There are limits. You can do some things to mitigate or whatever, but ultimately you can’t escape. Anselman is claiming there was a glorious revolution in England in 1688, which was a peaceful regime change until some fighting had to be done against the ex-king tyrant in Ireland. Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what went down. I remember that incident in the monarchy series. Yeah, it was quite interesting. Anselman, John Milton’s tenure of kings and magistrates argued for the legitimate deposing of tyrannical kings. Well, it’s happened throughout history. I don’t know why this is such a big deal. Rebellions are real. Kings rule on behalf of and with the consent of the people. They always did. This is the funny part. That’s why I like the series, Monarchy, because he really shows that there were no monarchies that worked the way people cast them in, we’ll say, recent times, because we have this oversimplified view of how a king and there’s a succession and that goes by birth. It’s not like parliament ever passes a law saying Catholics can’t be part of the succession and therefore the 65th cousin or something who happens to be the first Protestant on the list gets in charge. People don’t realize that’s what actually happened. There’s all this back and forth and even in France, there’s all this back and forth. Yeah, if you tolerate too much, and I would argue that was part of the problem was the king was tolerating too much opulence. That’s what Versailles is. It’s the toleration of infinite amounts of opulence to the point where a lot of people don’t realize this, right? You get the French Revolution, right? And what happens is no one in the parliament that wanted the king to pose, Robes, Pierre, none of these idiots, wanted to take control. None of them. It wasn’t a vying for power. What they kept doing is voting, well, we’re just not going to have a king. We’re just still not going to have a king. We’re just still not going to have a king. We’re not going to pass any laws because we don’t want to seem tyrannical as parliament. We’re just not going to do anything. We’re going to sit back and eat more cake. And it wasn’t the king that was doing it. It was the parliament, basically. It was the nobles. It was the soft power beneath the king. And that’s the thing is that, yeah, and until somebody went and chopped all their heads off, basically, that didn’t end. And they loved Napoleon. Napoleon hated France. He hated France. Corsican. And France had taken over Corsica and stolen all his family wealth and prestige. So he hated the French. So he was perfectly happy to choose. I can’t be one of those people with resentments having an idea of how the world should work. Oh my God. Wasn’t that true for Hitler as well? Yeah. Well, then a simplified idea. I mean, the whole problem, and I talk about this in my talk about the French Revolution with Adam on navigating patterns here. The whole problem with all of this is that ultimately Napoleon just doesn’t understand anything correctly. He misunderstands the so-called American Revolution and the Enlightenment philosophy. And so he tries to just be emperor of a vast land. And you can’t actually do that because you’re tolerating too much within your own borders. And then it all falls apart. And that’s exactly what happens to him. Anselman claims, the reason the British monarch swears to uphold the Protestant religion is that the popes are deemed to be foreign princes with no jurisdiction over the kingdom. Yeah, you should watch David Stark here. That also, like, it’s not a Protestant religion anyway. It was more a political objection to papal secular power. Yeah, it was all Jinda. And it was all based on Protestant. Like Henry VIII fell for the Protestant solution when in fact there were better solutions available to his problem. And he basically screwed up the entire country. And until you know that, you don’t get how bad Protestantism is. It just destroyed England. So I want to engage with this, right? It’s like, why would you do this, right? If you want to depose a king, just say that you’re deposing the king and that you’re committing treason, because you are. So why do you need to legitimize it? Like, you are committing a sin. Yeah. Just say, I’m a sinner. I think it’s for the good. And I’m a sinner. And get redemption. Right. Yeah, you shouldn’t legitimize it. You shouldn’t normalize it. Because that’s that tolerance thing again. When you’re legitimizing something, you’re tolerating it. And maybe you should agree that transgression is required in this case. And I will get redemption later. And if I’m wrong, I won’t get redeemed. That seems better all around. Right. And like, why are we trying to make this into a law or whatever? Right. It’s like, well, we’re outsourcing our responsibility. It’s like, no, screw you. Like, if you want to kill the king, you better take responsibility for it. Like, geez. Like, you want to behead the country? Really? Well, it is the responsibility. Take the responsibility for transgression, because then you can be redeemed and you can’t be redeemed any other way. Father Eric says, the 16th century Jesuits in Salamanca were writing theories of regicide too. We’re not anti-regicide. We’re anti-irresponsibility for it. You can do what you want. Nietzsche wrote a theory of regicide for Jesus. Like, how did you like that? There we go. Shall we open the floor so that we can? Yeah, we can open the floor. You’re going to post it or do you want me to? Well, if you want to do it. Done. Posted. Done. Done. Go join us. Come on in. Yeah, go and commit regicide. Trolls of our throne. Come in and commit regicide with us. Regicide against the YouTube kingship or something. Yeah, it’s pinned at the top of navigating patterns, that link. Father Eric, I remember one of them said that if a genuinely good king was trying to kill you unjustly, then charity would dictate you let him kill you. Well, yes, exactly. Yeah, that’s the proper use of charity right there. Don’t tell the Protestants any use of charity that doesn’t favor them. They don’t like. I’ve noticed that about this crazy Protestants. A strangely individual preserving idea and interpretation of absolutely everything. There’s very little, we’ll say, ultimate sacrifice in their system. That’s why I think and I know Paul Van der Kley used it recently. He liked the Christians for the lions thing. He really liked that. He used it in a recent talk too. I didn’t watch the whole talk. I just watched the last 10 minutes where he screwed everything else up but got that right. So whatever. Sounds like the guy had been reading play though. Yeah. Was he right to drink the hamlock? I don’t know. Yeah, no, yeah. I guess. It’s funny too, right? Because there’s the ultimate taking of responsibility. Right. Well, at the same time, I’m going to grow old and die anyway. I’m going to die on my terms. It’s still screwing it up. Good job, Socrates. But I don’t like this generally good king thing because now we’re just like, okay, are you the judge of whether the king is good or not? Right. The problem always boils down to distributed cognition. You’re a muppet, right? And what do you know? And that’s why, you know, because it doesn’t boil down to perfection. Like perfection in my eyes is X. Well, no kidding. Everyone’s got one of those and they conflict, right? It boils down to the collective consciousness. The distributed cognition has decided for all the faults of this king, we’re better off with him than without him. And who are you to override the intelligence of the collection of the collective? That’s really what it boils down to. And also, right, like in Christian stuff, like he’s an authority, a principality on the direct blessing of God because as he wouldn’t be there. So like, who are you to say no to what God dictated? Right. Yeah, no, it’s a tough thing too. Like nobody wants to hear that like, yeah, you’re the one that has to take the hit for the team, kid. Like nobody wants to hear that. But also, guess what? Still true. But that’s what they say to soldiers, right? Like, oh, yeah, you got to sacrifice your life for this piece of land now because of some general saying that that is the right thing to do. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, and it’s funny, right? Because by the time things get to war, everyone’s willing to take arbitrary orders left, right and center because things are so chaotic that arbitrary orders are better. You know, you can make all kinds of arguments about people taking hills in various battles. And it’s like, why do you need that hill? Can’t you just give it to the enemy and laugh as they’re screwed because they’re on top of a hill? You know? Well, it’s even worse with castles or something, right? So, like, yeah, it’s like, like, this army goes into the country and I’m like, well, we’re going to camp like a year outside of this castle to take it. I was like, what? Like, you’re going to spend a year like dying and doing nothing for a castle? Like, are you kidding me? But it works. That’s the funny part. It work doesn’t work reliably and consistently the way you want it to, but it works. And yeah, I mean, that’s why, you know, that’s why those scenes, those war scenes, like, you know, particularly Lord of the Rings, right? Where you’ve got the, you’ve got Helm’s Deep and he’s like, I’m going to ride out and die like a man. And then all of a sudden, you know, the wayward Rohirrim return to their king and, like, come in by the enemy and take them all out. Right. So, yeah, there’s all those, I like that version better than the book. The book’s story is a little bit different, but Jackson did a wonderful job making a story out of Tolkien’s work, which is not a good story, by the way. Great mythos, bad story. You know, and that’s the thing. Like, we like that story. We like the story of people returning, this arbitrary death, right? And this winning of spaces and all that. Like, we like that. And, you know, maybe we should like that, but also, you know, there are problems with it. So, you have to be aware of that. Yeah. I’m just thinking of all of these, I’ve been watching Asian shows for the last year or whatever. Yeah, you don’t want to know how many of these Asians die in these battlefields. And they’re storming the walls, right? Like, they’re not like, yeah, let’s just sit outside here. No, it’s like, we’re gonna make this happen. And I don’t know, I read the fantasy book and it said, like, when you storm a castle, you pay 10 to 1 in lives. And I was like, who would ever do that? Like, in that sense, sitting around, but then, like, when you sit around the castle, right, you can get backstabbed, right? And you need to have supplies for a year. So then you’re already like, I kind of already won. I just have to have reality catch up. Well, yeah, that’s another thing. Right. You know, in some ways, the trolling of the philosophers, this idea that they’re basically screwing with us, which I think is pretty much true, everybody past Aristotle, is important because what it means is that the resolution to being caught in fantasy land in your head with these philosophical propositions and garbage is that you go to war. You get the ultimate signal back about what is right and what is wrong. And some of the Jesuits, of course, were plotting to attack the English monarchs. Well, yeah, that’s why they were hunted down as subversives. Yeah, I like that in monarchy, Starkey goes over this whole like crazy guy who was trying to get back at the Catholics. So he found some justification and respond to the story. And that whole thing was like, whacking me. I’m like, what? This one crazy guy came up with the craziest story of all time and people bought into it. Politically expedient for them to do so. And a lot of monarchy is all about the intellectual class, which is usually the parliament or the noble class or whatever, right? Because they’re well read. They don’t have to work in the fields coming up with these great new ideas, right? Not sitting on the throne. And like I said, I mean, in some ways, it’s a credit to the French Revolution that the revolutionaries were smart enough not to take that to do anything. On the other hand, they just got a lot more people killed because they needed that to resolve sooner before Napoleon took power. And so much of the anti-Roman Catholic persecution was a duetto fear of revolution and regicide. I agree. Oh, look who’s here. Welcome, Len. You are muted. You can unmute yourself though. Oh, perfect. Did I figure it out? You did. You’re the best. Good to see you. Hello. First time on a livestream. Excellent. Congrats. Welcome. My heart’s a thumpin’. We are your internet famous. So my great aunt four generations ago was Catherine the Great. Oh, wow. My mother said that we always had special blood. I don’t know if I believe that. I don’t know that the royalty, because there was so much inbreeding. Maybe that was made a special. I don’t know. Well, if it isn’t her, you always have Genghis Khan to fall back upon. Well, the story in the family was that the history was she was a very kind woman and the history books deemed her as ugly as an ugly person. And so there was a lot of resentment towards people for the, like I remember as a kid, there was a story about they would like throw babies in the air and swords kill them and stuff, horrible stuff that they put in the history books. And my, my family said that that wasn’t true. So I don’t know. So we were talking about trolling. And I don’t know that philosophy trolls, I was more thinking about how being trolled by artificial intelligence. So something in the algorithm kicks up a novelty or kicks up an algorithm thing. And you, depending on your generation or where you, your point of view or the narrative, you could take it as being good or bad, or you could take it as offensive or not offensive? Well, I think if we’re looking at the modern algorithms, like they create bubbles, right, they create a network of connected things that are sort of an abstraction from ideological actualities, right, because they’re trained by people who follow certain ideas. Right. So in some sense, they are a philosophical network, right, like they’re just not a philosopher building a network. They’re downstream, right. So they’re informed by the philosophies. So you can say this gender stuff is a philosophy, right, it is, it’s critical race theory, it’s drawn, like James Lindsay talks about this, drawn directly from that. Right. And then, okay, well, it’s drawn directly from that. And then that informs somebody who’s writing the code, right, or doing the training or picking the training set for the thing to train itself. Right. And then that’s, you know, and then now the philosophers are like, the great part is they’re like, oh, we didn’t do it. We don’t touch computers. What are you talking about? Right. And they’re going to play all innocent, even though they’re the ones that poison the minds of the people who are doing the work. Well, after my talk with VanderKlay, the algorithm kicked me a video. And the name of it, you know, had the word queer in it. And for Gen Xers, queer is a derogatory thing. But for the younger generation using the word queer isn’t necessarily a derogatory thing. Right. So my intuition was that, okay, a millennial or somebody in the younger generation programmed this novelty piece and headed it, get a clickbait for it. But then there was no relevant, nothing relevant. It was like, I don’t, I’m not, it didn’t connect to anything. It was like such an irrelevant. So I didn’t understand. So maybe Sally Jo was right calling it parasitic or Frankenstein. I just, well, the queer thing is really interesting. Right. Because what is queerness talking about? Well, it’s talking about the periphery, right? Like the things that are outside of the center. Jo’s talking about. And so what did they do? Instead of having it as a derogatory term, they did the prior thing. Right. Like, they’re like, oh, we need to redeem the thing that’s outside of the thing by lifting it up and making it special. Right. So it became a badge of honor. Right. It’s like, oh, look, look at me having my unique identity. And my unique identity is by not conforming to the norm because like it is an anti identity. The queerness is defined against the norm that is stated by society. If I could be a new, you can say, well, society is a reflection of a natural norm that is inherited in the society. Right. And so the queerness is literally an anti or identifying against this other thing. And we started talking about the Jean-Francois de Yotard. And he was celebrating that. Right. Because like, what is this new identity? Well, this is a new way of looking at the world. And if we do evolution enough, then maybe a really, really, really beautiful pearl appears among all the ships. That’s literally his theory. Right. But then when you get right down to it, you ask him, how would you know that that was the case? He admits he can’t tell. And so even if he’s right, it’s not useful because you can’t make that decision. And you can’t show it to other people because you can’t even talk to them. If you have the best idea in the world, you can’t communicate with them at all in any way, shape, or form. So what use is it if it’s the best thing in the world, but it’s only yours? Right. That’s just the recapitulation of individualism as parasitic process. And yeah, pure individualism is parasitic, but also we don’t want those parasites. And that’s the problem with modern philosophy is that they’re trolling you. They’re telling you there are these new ways of thinking or that they’re going to figure something out or that they’re implying, oh, we’re looking for capital G truth here. And when in fact, none of that is happening, they’re not finding anything new. They haven’t gotten past Plato. Like explicitly Nietzsche, yeah, he doesn’t admit it. Heidegger admitted he couldn’t get past Plato. He admitted it in his writing. This isn’t even independent. Well, Nietzsche admitted that he couldn’t get past Jesus. They knew they didn’t. Right? They knew they didn’t. That’s the important part. Nietzsche said he couldn’t get past Jesus. So like he just took a different reference point. Nietzsche just said that Plato was always over his shoulder. It’s like, well, maybe that’s because he’s still above you and whatnot. Mills. So one of the products of the PM, postmodern philosophy, getting into the culture at large, was everyone deconstructing, right, or trying to, which you can’t deconstruct. It’s an invalid communication. The term deconstruction makes no sense in language, by the way. I tend to see this as a burning away of what is dead and the possibility of revival, but it’s not because you don’t know what’s dead and what’s not. Like you can’t judge. That’s the trick the postmoderns are playing on. They’re telling you, you can judge, and they’re telling you you can selectively remove things. You can’t do either of those things. That’s apparent and observable. And also, what is the thing that you’re going to remove? Well, that’s the log. Well, it’s not the log in your eye. It’s the thing in the world that is annoying you when you have the log in your eye. Like you’re going to have a projection from you and you’re going to create the world that is not resistant to your fault, your sin, right? So either you’re going to conform to the world and you’re going to have to change yourself and better yourself in relationship to truth, right? But if you say, well, truth doesn’t exist, then the only option that you have is have the world conform to you. And so you’re going to get rid of white privilege. You’re going to get rid of all the white people because they’re in the way of your success because they’re more successful and you’re supposed to be the most successful. Right, right. And you see that pattern. I mean, you in particular didn’t see this pattern clearly, right? Where they’re like, well, if Marc Emanuel just get off the Discord server, it will flourish, right? And Marc Emanuel are on the Discord server and he dies. It’s like, you guys think that success is something that anybody has equal access to. And then if the people who seem to have the success that you crave are gone, then you will then inherit it somehow or something. And nothing works that way. Like you build success and you maintain success. And if you don’t, it goes away. And if you can’t, you can’t have it. Pinnin’ some people can’t have it, whatever that it is. Like we’re all different. We all have different skill sets. I’m not going to be Elon Musk. I don’t want to be Elon Musk. But even if I wanted to be, I couldn’t, you know? And it is what it is. And yeah, you know, Father Eric is bringing up a good point about the Pareto distribution. Right. And that’s the thing. And Mills claims that what has become dead to those who deconstruct, then rediscovering with it. But they don’t, Mills. They don’t. See, none of this ever happens. When you talk to people, they didn’t deconstruct. They hit a wall at 90 miles an hour and their car went kablooey. That’s always the story. I’ve never heard a different story. People say, Oh, I’ve deconstructed. Tell me your story. And it’s always, I’m driving down the road and I took the wheel and I crashed into a wall and the car went a million pieces and now I don’t know what to do. Yeah. I don’t know what to do. Oh, look at this. Look up. Hold on. Hold on. Esteemed guest. Welcome Father Eric. Good to see you. See y’all. Cut off the head. He is our head now. We have to put him, there we go. There. Put me at the bottom. When we’re talking about reconstructing what’s that? Assuming that you don’t end at the bottom of a bottle or in whatever hole that will take you. Right? You’re not necessarily reconstructing because when you cut off the branch that you’re sitting on, you fall. And when you fall, you might get hurt. You might get hurt in a way that doesn’t allow you to get up again. So like, no. And also like, is the thing that you’re going to build back better than the thing that you destroyed? Like, cause like, like even if you can do it, like is it going to be better? Like this is the problem. Do you even know what you had? You don’t know. You have no idea. Well, it’s individual and nihilism, I guess. Nihilism and isolation is, that’s where that road took me, is isolation and nihilism. Yeah. You were told by the philosophers. Yeah. And then not even having the capacity to even know where to begin to communicate or begin to start the conversation, to begin to take a step, to reach out, to at least have somebody to bounce off your, to begin to sense make, to begin to sense make. So we outsource our sanity, right? Paul Van der Kley talks about this. We outsource our sanity and it’s important. And I like what Moses says, right? It’s called a hierarchy for a reason. We all have different gifts, right? And we can’t all do the same thing. Just cause I can do something with computers doesn’t mean Manuel can. And, you know, uh, Lynn knows how to save birds lives and I don’t, I don’t do that. So. No, that wasn’t me. That was God. Don’t you dare even with that. You were patient. We’re all being like, well, let’s, let’s tell you how to get rid of this noise. You’re like, no, I don’t want to get rid of the noise. I want to save the bird. We’re like, we don’t know how to save the birds. But you did, you had faith. And no, I prayed. I just prayed. Yeah, I would say that’s, that’s a good, that’s a good, good, uh, analog for faith praying, praying that the bird is okay. And then it is so well done. Well done. That was a miracle. So, so yeah, there’s this idea, right? Like Lynn, Lynn got at the place where the philosopher is laughing at her. Right. It was like, oh, you’re, you’re at, you’re at this bubble. You have your own language, right? Like nobody understands you because like literally you’re, you’re dissociated. All my friends on Facebook, trolling me. I mean, and the algorithm trolling me and not being able to commute or even reach out for help. I mean, it was this total dead end. Sorry. Well, yeah, but, but what happens if you’re disconnected, right? Like, and there’s some sense of, if you’re disconnected, like even the connect the thing, right? Like, like if, if I extend a hand and you don’t have a hand, me extending your hand is trolling. Right. Because you can’t reciprocate. And it’s like, I’m, I’m actually showing you your disability, even though I’m well intended. It’s like Joe Biden inviting the disabled veteran to stand up and be recognized. Yes. Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Unfortunately. And that’s what happens though. That’s you get into this clown world, this upside down thing. And I like Jonathan Pujo’s clips channel, a great clip from a talk he did. Well, I can’t remember who it was with now. It might’ve been Benjamin Boyce, but he was basically talking about, yeah, you can’t get around hierarchy. So what happens is you invert it because you can’t, you can’t get around it. So you just end up inverting it. It’s too bad. It’s too bad. Father Eric, what do you have to say about this, this Reganus in Excelsius thing on Elizabeth the first and a hardened, do we kill hardened heretics in the Catholic church? I don’t know. It really used to. Haven’t done it in a while. How long, how long back? I mean, did they kill them all or is that what they were doing? We were never that efficient. I know that’s the thing. Like heretics were redeemable. I think, I think it might’ve been a, a tactical error that caused more problems for English Catholics than it solved. Well, that’s certainly true, but I don’t think they, the Pope called for her actual execution at any point, although the Protestants love to demonize the Catholics on these weird grounds. The Pope tried to kill her with a knife. It’s like a what? No, they only do that. But, but, but it’s an interesting question. Like, like, like what, what is the question answer to this disaster of a culture war, right? Like, how do you redeem that which is straight? I don’t get the question. Well, there’s people that have strayed from the truth, right? Like, like we were talking about at a certain point, the tolerance has to end, right? So like, what, what do you do? Like, like how do you resolve that? You call people to repentance. Yeah, and if they don’t. Right. Well, and that, and that’s the issue. Mark the dust off the bottom of your shoes and move on. But you can’t. Look at, look at these people. They’ve kicked the habit of killing heretics. Dude, there are heretics all over the Catholic Church to this day, and there always have been, and almost none of them get killed. Honest to God. Look it up. I don’t know where these people get this fantasy from. It’s really weird, though. What was it? Copernicus or whatever? Like, they didn’t kill anyone. Galileo? No, he had house arrest, cushy house arrest. Galileo had really cushy house arrest. Like that is, that whole story is like, what are you guys talking about? He was treated pretty, it was, it was, it wasn’t his house either. Like it was, yeah, it’s just, it’s just crazy. Just admit you don’t know Mark. No, I, I’m not, I, no, no, I know it’s not in the, in there. Like the killing is not in the paper bowl. Like, I do know that. You can look it up too, by the way. You’re, you’re assuming I don’t know, because I didn’t actually do any research. That is false. He’s not closer to on topic. He’s, he’s saying people use an excuse to kill, to, to plot against the queen. Really? Well, that happened with Guy Fawkes too. Do we blame the Pope for that one? Like, how many plots against to kill kings are Pope’s fault? I don’t understand. Cause everyone’s got an excuse for why they, they plot to kill a monarch. Like they watch monarchy. It’s a great series. I learned a lot from him. He’s very limited in scope for history. Cause he’s just talking about certain aspects of monarchy in England, but that, that’s the thing. And the Pope did not call for the killing of a monarch. That didn’t, that didn’t happen. Not in that instance. It didn’t happen. You, you literally can just look it up on Wikipedia and they pretty much say, nah, that didn’t happen. Like they say it too. It’s not, it’s not that I don’t know. It’s that, well, the consensus is that that didn’t quite happen that way. And so the fact that, that a statement might, might’ve led to a plot is whatever. I mean, that happens all the time. So, oh yeah. Just a little joke. Uh huh. Look, look, everybody wanted to be in the Spanish Inquisition. They didn’t want the local courts hearing their cases. The Inquisition was kind or at least kinder than the local officials. Let me leave that out. You know what it is? It’s Monty Python history. That’s the problem. Monty Python history. More trolling from the philosophers, I say. More trolling from the philosophers. But that, that’s really the issue is, you know, these ideas, they do filter down. And, and we adopt them, whether we realize it or not. Like we adopt postmodernism if we’ve never read a line of postmodern philosophy. And to be fair, right, like these are perennial patterns, right? Like, Sugu was like, yeah, postmodernism is basically romanticism, but more extreme, right? So it’s like, it’s, it’s the identification against the dogmatic oppression of whatever came before it. Right. And then we get this liberal. So we got, we got a spiral and we get to the same place, but we’re farther from the center. Exactly. But, right, like there’s, there’s a way in which these things can be, well, propagandized, right? Like they can be promoted in things like the Matrix or whatever, right? Where it’s, it’s, it’s being put in, in a nice enchanting package and like you walk away with it. And it’s just as the introduction to the philosophy book where, oh yeah, that is a problem. Like I, I agree. Like the thing that you just articulated is a problem, but you don’t, you don’t have the context, right? You don’t, you don’t have to, the way to understand why and how it is a problem. And you’re just going to have to rely on the authority of the philosopher to tell you, well, as like it’s a problem for this reason, right? And if you listen to Verbeke, for example, right? Like the way he classifies problems is, is as a consequence of a paradox, right? Like so, some things can’t coexist, right? Right. Is it the, is it the consequence of the things coexisting or is it the consequence of where you’re looking from? And then if it’s the consequence of where you’re looking from, it’s not a paradox. Like you’re just wrong. And that’s, that’s the kind of like the questions like, okay, what, what is causing the problem? Like what will make the problem stop? Well, don’t, don’t let the philosophers tell you upfront things like it’s terror for them to look what and misuse the word in the process. Like, yeah, I like this comment. My world was rocked when I read that flat earth had been a 19th century attempt to discredit Catholics. Yeah. Talk about trolling. It really is trolling too. It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s fascinating that, that so much trolling goes on. And I’m, I answer, but I’m not going to defend the Jesuits. The Jesuits definitely have a problem, but like complaining the Jesuits and the Pope is that you can see. You can actually do that right now if you want to. Well, right now, the Pope is a Jesuit, but yeah, yeah. But yeah, flattening of the world. There we go. The Jesuits are, the Jesuits are not doing so bad at, at, at the moment, at the moment. Oh, oh, here we go. Don’t we have two popes though? I mean, Ouch. Technically, Cynthia, this is why I chop wood and carry water as much as possible. Yeah. You got to do the work, right? Then you don’t get trolled by the philosophers, right? The minute you actually start engaging in the world, the philosophers attempts to troll you into post modernism or, or whatever, Hegelian dialectic, whatever kind of made up garbage that they made up last week because they ate some bad food or something and spent too much time in the, in, No, no, no, it’s, it’s, it’s really not that complicated, Mark. It’s because they’re French. Well, that doesn’t explain all the German ones, but yes, Yeah, that’s, that’s true. Yeah. Now the French are a problem. That’s pretty. So was, who was master Eckhart? Now was he Catholic? I mean, yeah, but everybody was Catholic then. But he was a heretic, wasn’t he? Well, it’s, it’s more like, so he, he went in front of, I think it was the, the Parisian Tribunal, and he was not wanting to be in rebellion against the church. And he was willing to submit and, and recant. Basically, he got in trouble for being just kind of wild. So he was like making the argument, making the argument, making the argument, God is nothing. And then making the argument, making the argument, making it like God is everything. And I think it was just supposed to be kind of frame breaking, but it wasn’t appreciated. Yeah, that’s that. That’s that, you know, that, that whole idea of we can find God by looking where he’s not. And so the eye within the eyes, the eyes, the which God sees me is the same eye with which I see myself. That’s, that’s his favorite quote. I haven’t studied him really that much. So I think that’s in the Bible at a certain point, right? Like God, yeah, I thought, yeah, I’m not probably by my name and I will like, like my true name or something. Right. But a lot of these, yeah, a lot of these patterns are just extracted out and then they’re isolated. So for example, non theists, right in the classic tradition is as verveky somehow didn’t know, because Protestants don’t study anything, apparently, you know, the church, a bunch of church fathers were non theists. But in order to find out where something isn’t, you have to start by defining it. You don’t have a precise, accurate definition, but you have to kind of say like, well, you you’d have to define God to look where God isn’t like, it doesn’t work. It’s like a pinata, right? It’s like, if you missed a pinata, that’s one thing if you stand in front of it. But if you stand like next door, or if you never define what a pinata is, and you just start swinging, and that’s very much the trick that Segru points out in that video that I posted in the beginning, right? He says, Look, the starting point of the argument is that to tell somebody they can or cannot have an idea is terror. Like the word uses the word terror in a unique and new way. And it’s like, oh, well, if you’re starting from that premise, you can’t, you can’t philosophize on the basis of that premise. You’re making axiomatic judgment statements that are unsupportable by any stretch of any imagination. You’ve thrown out all logic, reason, or rationality forever, because your starting point is bankrupt. You’ve made an emotional plea of terror to make your argument and build it upon completely invalid. I’m going to defend the word usage of terror because what he’s doing is he’s saying there’s an oppression, right? And then the oppression, the systematic oppression becomes internalized through terror. And so because you’re conforming to a norm actuality, right? Because it’s an idea, it’s not a real thing, that is an act of terrorism. Like, yeah. It’s all a stretch. Well, Segru basically destroys that entire argument. At the end of the video, he basically says, This doesn’t make any sense. He’s confusing political principle and an epistemological principle, right? He’s just flat out destroying the usage and definition of words on purpose. And he’s knowingly doing so. And he’s doing that to get a starting point from which to make a ridiculous argument. And then at the end, he’s laughing about it all when you catch the trick, basically. And he says all postmoderns do that. And it’s like, yeah, that’s what happens. Mills, what is justice? Socrates was thoroughly apathetic. Did Socrates even deal with justice? Or is that just in the Republic, which would be Plato? Yeah, we’re doing a book club on Plato. I’ll post a link to the Texas wisdom community. Yes. Texas wisdom community YouTube, so that you can actually check out our awesome great book club. We have a lot of fun. It’s quite the thing. We get a lot of good juice out of the Republic. Imagine that. I think he does define it, right? But like, justice is like a second order thing. Like it’s a thing that’s contingent upon a body and the relationships within the body, right? And I think he defines it as the maintenance of good relationship or something. Right. Yeah. And again, right, for Plato in the Republic, effectively, what he’s saying is the only way to know justice is to look at it at a certain scale, the scale of a city. Right? You can’t know the whole opening of the Republic is you can’t know justice by using single person examples. It’s the whole opening of the book. That’s book one. You can’t do that. That’s what he says. You can’t do it. We’re going to have to talk about cities in order to get to justice because justice is that complex. And then they just, you know, it’s not about politics either. In fact, the word politics is only used a few times in the Republic and it’s used to refer to specific situations, not to the project in the Republic of building a city. So the ancient Greeks did not conceive of politics the way we use the word at all. And we conflate that by the way. So there are lots of good gems in the Republic. And so he’s defining the word justice or the concept of justice in relation to three other virtues, right? Virtues are not a static entity or like a being like they’re becoming or the process of becoming, not the process of being. And then, like, there’s a thing that emerges from those things, right? So it’s like a third order concept and like you can’t capture the other virtues in a good definition. So if you want to have a way to relate these things. But that’s the, that’s real philosophy. It’s all participation. He’s not talking on the abstract like the postmoderns. Welcome, Chad. What’s going on? I don’t know. What are you guys talking about? They’re talking about modern philosophy and why it’s trolling. What’s modern philosophy? Modern philosophy is basically the philosophy after enlightenment. Where it basically rediscovering or trying to redeem the Greek ideas, right? Like they’re getting the Renaissance, where they’re getting all these things back and then they’re building a thing. And what they’re building is a consequence of, well, them seeing the things that were known for a long, long time and then picking them out and then focusing really hard on them. And I went into the introduction of it. I advise people to watch because I’m pointing out like how they’re basically introducing their personal problems and making them existential in some sense. And then they’re basically pretending that it’s a problem for all of us. And then we get sucked into that problem from the base. Yeah, it’s pretty weird that they just have trauma and they try to resolve it by saying, you all have the same trauma as me and here’s how we’re going to fix it together. That’s the human condition. My trauma is universal. Yeah, they’re all like that. It’s really weird. Yeah, I’m not a big fan of the inflation of the trauma as a conversational centerpiece for people’s troubles. Yeah, like universal. That’s modern philosophy. And it’s hard to avoid, right? Because when you’re traumatized and you’re living in the world and you’re going to say things about the world. It seems like the whole world. When you’re traumatized, it seems like the whole world to you. Yeah, it’s very much Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard is the Luther of Lutheranism. That’s it. That’s his whole story. You don’t need to know anything else about Kierkegaard. I think there are different motives, honestly, because I think to me, I think that there’s a what I’m noticing in what you’re describing is this modern, postmodern thing. It’s like a marketing tool. No, they’re trying to solve a problem. I think they’re all genuinely think that the problem that they’re facing is of existential nature. I truly believe that. I don’t think they’re trying to fool us. I think they’re just stuck in a rabbit hole. Yeah. I think there’s a very big market for it though, for problem solving of this kind. But they’re not solving the problem. In modern times, there is. Right. Because science. I’m saying I think it’s very different than Kierkegaard. Because I don’t think Kierkegaard his motive was to get rich or have a scheme for making it. The philosophers, none of their motives were to get rich or have a scheme. It’s just they stuck people in because people like problems. And they can solve problems. When you can solve problems, you feel good. But the world does not consist of problems. That is not the world that we live in. The world consists of patterns that we continually have to navigate. Hence, the name navigating patterns. Is that the name of your channel, Navigating Patterns? It is. It’s an excellent name that Manuel came up with. So I don’t know. It was maybe a few weeks ago where I actually I was on the YouTubes and I saw a it was a Kevin Smith, you know, the Silent Bob dude. And he was like doing like this 38 minute monologue talk doing the Internet or a monologue for YouTube or People magazine. And the whole thing was talking about his trauma. Yeah. And he’s doing it dressed as Silent Bob. And it’s not it was very annoying to me. And like, I don’t know, because I it was something very disingenuous about it. I thought. Yeah. Well, he’s he’s he’s playing a role instead of being a person. And he’s not being authentic, because that’s not he’s not Silent Bob. I think that’s a character that he created that isn’t real. And that and that’s the you know, the irony of the fact that Silent Bob is the philosopher character in his movies. Right. He’s the silent sort of drops the one liners that ties everything together. Right. So he is the ultimate philosopher in Kevin Smith’s writing. And you know, when I first encountered Kevin Smith, it was it was a video put out called An Evening with Kevin Smith, which was honestly the funniest thing I’d ever seen in my life. I was four hours of him doing college tours talking about his time in Hollywood. And you learn a lot about Hollywood by listening to that. And it was really funny. And but a lot of people have talked about the past few years, he’s really broken down and and and like, had a break with reality and like gone off the bend. That’s that’s certainly true. I mean, if everybody around you is telling you the only motivation for anyone to do anything, including corporations is money, which is observably false, then you’re going to start acting like that eventually. It may take years. But I would say everything broken 2014. And now we’re we’re, you know, suffering from the break in 2014, which, you know, is very much GamerGate and all that. I mean, I think that’s true. But this is this is all the trolling from philosophers who are trying to explain the world to you in a way that is observably false and absurd and leads to bad things. Yeah. So that’s what he opened his whole video with is he just he recently had a break with reality and landed himself in like a I don’t know what a resting home. And there’s this like, I don’t know, man, I’m like, why am I getting why am I trying to why am I listening to Silent Bob for People magazine, trying to tell me some sob story? What is he trying to sell me? Like it’s just I don’t know. It’s just annoying. Well, you’re right. It was interesting, because Paul van der Klay’s I think it was his latest video he goes into like internal things in the CRC and they’re talking about the strategy, right? Don’t don’t talk to people and try to convince them with theology or whatever. Convince them with your personal story. Right. So that’s what they’re doing. It’s like, oh, I’m going to appeal to your emotions. And like, if I appeal in the right way, you’re going to agree with me. And I was like, well, no, like, well, that’s manipulation. Like, don’t manipulate, please. I agree with, you know, trying to use stories so you can tell your story. And then maybe somebody can identify with something. But like, what is the motive is what I’m I’m interested in? Why is what that but that’s that’s the point, right? Like in Paul van der Klay’s video, it was obvious, right? Like, I want the other person to empathize with me, right? And therefore, I want them to fight for my cause. I want an ally. Okay. Right. If people are looking for allies, that means that, like, they don’t want to take responsibility. They want you to take responsibility. Well, you’ll see this in like, you know, obviously, people will share their testimony in churches and whatever. But even in like, AA meetings, you know, guys will share their story. And you’re telling your story to somebody who is looking to grow. And so it’s there can be some encouragement that happens with that. But what’s inspiration, right? Like you have you have been captured by a spirit, and you’re trying to pass that spirit to other people, or the seed of that spirit. Well, I want to address some of these. Michael Sartori philosophers will never explore any philosophies that would eliminate the need for philosophers. No, they did. The postmoderns are all like, and they’re overtly like that. You think that but that’s actually people aren’t that self-preservational. They maybe they think they try to be but people would rather be cheeky than self-preservational. Was it the enormous amount of Mary Jane, potato giant of the crowd that surrounds them, we never know what happened to Kevin Smith? Yeah, we’re probably never gonna know. And I like Clint’s comment that’s weaponized compassion or empathy. What’s a better story? A story that’s personal to, you know, to a person that maybe you’re not close to, or a story that’s general about a fictional character, but say more true or more real than reality or something. However, however, Peterson frames it, because I think Peterson’s right. If you’re talking about crowds, and people you don’t know, or large numbers of people, the generic story, by definition, is going to have more people, you know, be able to relate to it. Whereas if you’re talking to a person you know, then telling you their story is going to have way more weight than Snow White, you know, it just is. And that’s one of those things, it’s one of those patterns we can’t get around. You have to pick one. Are you targeting somebody that you know, or a few people that you know, or are you targeting a large group of people? And this is the argument everyone gets caught up with, especially Vander Clay in my third-way talk. He’s like, what about you, Mark? I’m like, no, no, no, we’re on the Peterson train. We’re not talking about individuals and conversions at the individual level. We’re talking about what leads people into an area where they are more open to at least symbolic thinking, if not religion in general, right? Those are two different things. You can’t swap one for the other. Like the tactics are totally changed. You’ve got somebody in front of you, those tactics are specific. And what is the purpose that you’re listening with or should be listening with when someone tells you one-to-one their story? Well, you’re trying to see in what way you can participate right now by comforting them or giving advice or whatever, or in the future, right? Like, okay, like they’re being bullied by these people. If I see these people, I need to react in a certain way. So you’re looking for a way to participate, right? But when you’re listening to the abstract story, right? Like that abstract story holds means to inform you, right? So it would be silly to start empathizing or whatever with that story, which is in some sense what the philosophers do is like, oh, I’m going to resolve the problem of the abstract individual in the story, because that’s a problem. And if I can find the answer to the problem, then I’ve found a solution to life or a part of life, right? Like this is what the fake, he says, grief is a problem. If I could solve grief, then I would be amazing. What about this? Is it, no, Mark, the personal story is always way more engaging, not to me, ever. So no, you’re just wrong right away, right off the bat. Yeah, not even Father Eric’s personal stories are more engaging than the general story to me at all, ever. Sorry, wrong. Here you go. One example destroys your own world. It’s not true. Peterson doesn’t do that. Yeah, I listen to the general in the personal story, because that’s the thing that I can relate to. Right. So I have a, I just wanted to say before I hop off here, I have, I have answered all of these questions successfully in my sub stack. So go to my sub stack. I read it. My mind ass read your sub stack, Chad. And I read the whole thing and I magnified it really big and I read every word, Chad. Wow, good for you, Lynn. That’s a lot of work for you. Thanks, I have to thank you. And I added a heart. Yeah, so yeah, take a look for it, right? I mean, I got all the answers there and it’s not quite navigating patterns, but it’s Chad, the alcoholic sub stack. But it’s also not philosophy, I hope, or is it? No, it’s not philosophy. We’re fine. It’s the perfect balance of general in particular. There you go. It’s like fine wine or the sweet and the tannics. It’s all just perfect. Add the little heart after you read it. He says to the alcoholic, good job, Eric. Right. Good job. Catholic’s got to keep our branding. We’ll see you next week. Excellent. Yeah. Yeah, we will. Oh yeah. It’s going to go to Chino. Chino’s going to be a big deal. The weather’s going to be perfect. So that’s what I’m looking for. No philosophers there. I think Chad is no more. There we go. What if I actually love wisdom instead of making money off of it? Can I be a philosopher still and still be one of the good guys? Well, look, I mean, I think that as long as philosophy is acted out, it’s philosophy. And if you’re not acting it out, I mean, Plato and Aristotle were wrestlers. Everyone after them, I’m not so sure about in terms of philosophy. My idea of modern philosophers is anybody after Aristotle is considered suspect until proven otherwise. And so far none of them have proven to be anything except reprehensible trauma children trying to resolve their trauma by extrapolating it to everybody. Well, so it’s interesting that the English tradition, which is in contrast to the continental idealism, right? So idealism is trying to deal with ideas, trying to emanate the ideas instead of God effectively, right? Because they’re replacing or they’re imagining God as whatever their imagination is, or they’re substituting it with their imagination. So like Nietzsche did, right? So in England, right, they have this more pragmatic boots in the ground aspect. So they’re more concerned about staying in relationship to reality. And maybe because that’s because they’re always walking through the mud, so they’re like really grounded. But yeah, so you have people like Hume, and Hume was like, he’s like, well, philosophy is nice, but don’t take it too seriously because like, you want to drink nice beer and eat meat, right? Like that was basically his idea. And like, there’s a bunch of people like that, which don’t take it serious in, well, like they don’t make it existential, I guess. That’s the distinction. They’re not depending on it to give them a big revelation that will save them from this disaster. Although Hume still had to deal with his Galvanist heritage. Right. Well, we all have baggage. And when we suppose that we can know enough to philosophize about things, that’s the first mistake. All the other mistakes seem to flow from there in the same way that you know that somebody tells you you can deconstruct. It’s like, I have my doubts on that. I just don’t think that that even makes any sense. And even if it did, you couldn’t do it. How are people going to recognize being trolled by the algorithm? I mean, rather than being triggered? I mean, I was so I was triggered. You don’t you don’t have to recognize you just don’t participate. You don’t have to engage. Look, look, if you want to know, right, when you know, when I’d heard the quote from Socrates said, I know, I know nothing. I’ve heard that before. But I was just like, whatever, these people, I doubt, you know, I just like whatever these people are just saying stuff. But when Verbecki did it, I was like, wait, what, because, you know, he’s, he’s fairly well read. And I was like, I cannot believe that’s true. I have to believe that Verbecki made a mistake. I have to believe that it’s wrong. And I went and did the research and it’s wrong. It’s not hard. When I was stuck in atheism, it was a first step for me, knowing that perhaps maybe religion or God had something to tell me. So I’m not going to totally dismiss it as it was a really good beginning step to open up my heart to see God, if that makes sense. Sure. Well, you feel, but again, you feel something. It’s your intuition. Like we’re trained not to pay attention or intuition. We’re trained to pay attention to, you know, what the science says or whether or not it’s logical. It’s like, well, look, logic is great, but I can, I can, I can make any, I can justify anything with logic, reason, rationality, anything. I’ve done it many, many times. It’s very easy to do. It really doesn’t, it’s not that hard for me. You know, it’s really not difficult. Right. The problem is that, you know, Hitler illogically, rationally and reasonably justified the Holocaust. So I don’t object on logical grounds. I object on ethical ground. Yes, you can get there. You can get there the same way the postmoderns get to laughing at you because, because you realize that language doesn’t work in their system and you can’t communicate with other people. They laugh about that. And like, fair enough, they should laugh about that. They’re trolling you when you caught them. Like the appropriate is the maniacal laughter of the evil you have perpetrated onto the world. Right. But you feel that it’s wrong. Like, and that’s the thing. We’re ignoring how we feel. We’re saying, oh, intuition doesn’t matter. Intuition is irrational. And it’s like, well, look, and this is what people miss. Socrates and Plato and Aristotle placed way more, we’ll say credit or gave way more value to mania or madness than they did to rationality explicitly. It’s in the text. It’s in the text. Everybody leaves that part out. No one’s going to tell you, oh, Plato was very big on mania. He thought mania was really important, way more important than rationality, way more important to transformation than rationality, madness, madness. That’s what he thought was more important. No one tells you that. They’re just leaving it out. What would be Plato’s argument against or your argument knowing that against somebody who’s like, oh, mania is super important, therefore psychedelics? Right. Well, look, I, I, you’ve made this point yourself that the drugs are the number one cause of mental illness. Right. Well, schizophrenia, right. The number one cause of schizophrenia is psychedelics. The single largest cause of schizophrenia. Yeah. Look, I mean, madness is not induced by psychedelics. Psychedelics have a very rationalistic experience, phenomenological experience in the moment with a lot of breaks in between, but that’s not the same as madness. It’s very hard to know what madness, you know, what mania really translated to, you know, in modern terms, because it’s kind of like, well, they mean like crazy, like run naked through the streets madness, or did they mean like, by madness, did they merely mean exploration outside of logic and reason and rationality? Because it’s a big range. I think I have an answer for that because Madhya Prasad is talking about the flooding, right? So you have these concepts, right? And then there’s this, well, this category can’t hold a thing, right? And then you have the flooding, right? And that means that there’s a chaos, right? And like the chaos can go up high, right? Which is a place you don’t like. So you want, you want to have controlled chaos. And I think if we take a look at Moses, or Noah, I mean, like he got drunk, right? Which is effectively taking in control the flooding, right? Like he’s doing a miniature flood in himself in order to recalibrate, right? Like you can see, oh, I don’t feel nice today. Let’s get let’s get a glass of wine, right? Like to chill out, right? You’re trying to force the relaxation, like in a sense, that’s a sin, right? You shouldn’t be using wine to relax, you should just be able to relax. So what’s the thing holding you back from that realization? But that’s the thing that you have to deal with, right? Like that’s your oppression. And so if you’re not dealing with the thing that’s holding you back, then you can get your relaxation. And like that might actually be good, right? Like taking a glass of wine, there’s nothing wrong with doing that once. If you make it a pattern, if you make it a solution, right? Like the philosophers are trying to provide a solution. It’s like the solution nature isn’t there. And you also have to recognize every time that you sin and you’re going to rely on the sin to provide you. But it’s more fundamental than that, right? At the end of the day, madness is not something you can control. And so if you’re using chemicals to control it, it’s not madness by definition. And that’s the problem. And the Greeks knew this. They knew this well. You know, they were very wary, respectful, but wary of the oracles, especially the oracle of Delphi, which, you know, there’s a lot of evidence that they were heavily drugged and other things were going on. They didn’t dismiss it by any means, but they were also very wary of it because they realized it was unreliable because you were trying to control something that by definition is uncontrollable. And maybe always trying to control something that is by definition uncontrollable is a bad thing. I would say that is axiomatically true. And I think the Christian version actually of madness might be surrender to the Holy Spirit. If you’re totally, what’s the word, an ecstasis, right? Or whatever. You’re filled by the Holy Spirit. You’re mad, right? You don’t have reason. You’ve lost reason. You’re operating with reason on a higher, you’re operating according to somebody else’s reason. Right, right. Or yeah, well, this is where reason crosses into telos and that gets, yeah. You mean reason or reason? This is my problem with Socrates. Didn’t he say, didn’t he have the experience of being the only one that could drink alcohol and not be affected? Ah, these are allegations. Yeah, that is the allegation that we’ve made. This is my issue is because, yeah, it’s like, or the Buddha eating pork, you know, that’s what he died from, eating bad pork. It’s just. These are suspicious stories, to be sure. And they’re probably instructive, right? They’re probably instructive, but you know, they’re instructive of what? And that’s where the problem comes in. What are they instructing you about? And that’s the problem with mania is that it’s hard to know exactly, right? Because it’s not an exact thing. It’s an exploration, but you can’t control an exploration in the same way that you can control something that’s supposed to say not an exploration. Well, so what, like, if we look at it symbolically, like, what is getting drunk? Well, getting drunk is having the things on the bottom of the hierarchy, right? Like the specifics get flooded, right? Now, if you’re not founded in proper hierarchy or whatever, like, the loss of the stability will, like, disrupt your capacity to relate to the world. Like, it will just break it. So my personal experience, like, I have multiple times that I basically felt part of my brain fainting. Well, that means that I didn’t completely faint. So that means that there was a part of my brain that was able to hold awareness while there was a dysfunction somewhere else. And that means that I have a capacity that I didn’t have that before. Like, before that, I would have fainted. Now, I want to address this. Expand troll meaning to include the method of fishing. Well, it’s always meant that actually. Trolling the motor around with the line in the water. And that was the game of trolling, was to see who you could catch or who you could fool or who you could get entranced, right? That was always the mode of trolling. That’s what trolling is. Trolling isn’t necessarily some specific targeted thing because you’re throwing out a bunch of propositions to see if you can rile somebody up. That’s a form of trolling. But it’s still just catching them in the net. Is the algorithm then trying to, in that way, do a type of enchantment? Now, I’m not saying it’s conscious or anything. I’m just saying who programmed it to do it. Well, the problem, yeah, see, nobody programmed the algorithm. This is the deep mistake. Algorithms do not work by being programmed. If everybody on Twitter posts smiley faces, the only thing you’re going to see on Twitter are smiley faces. No algorithm is going to fix that. Well, then what spit out this horrible thing to me? This algorithm. Well, the algorithm is doing this dance with the information it has in general, right? And the information it has about you. And then there’s a T-loss, the goal for the algorithm, which is to get you to watch more, maybe, or it might be to get you- De-cultivate you. Maybe they want to have you information outside of your bubble because they want to- Yeah, right. It could try to shake you out of the bubble. There’s lots of different potential T-losses. And the algorithm actually has more than one T-loss, as far as I can tell. And so what ends up happening is that it’s trying to do this dance between these pieces of information, right? These bubbles of information that it has. The zeitgeist being one of them, roughly speaking, right? And then your preferences, at least that it knows about, being the other one. And that’s the problem, right? It’s a very random sort of thing because my algorithms are very well-trained, but then I understand technically how they all work. So I know how to manipulate them. And yeah, with one or two exceptions, because I’ve made some mistakes, you have to be super careful with your browsers and your cookies in order to fashion the algorithm not to misbehave. My algorithms are great. My Twitter feed’s awesome. My Facebook feed’s awesome. My Instagram feed is awesome. My YouTube feed is pretty good. It’s not awesome, but it’s really good. It’s very quiet. Every once in a while it throws me a curveball. I don’t know where you get that from. So yeah. I don’t think so, Michael. Michael, I think you misunderstand human motivations deeply. Philosophers will never explore any philosophies that would eliminate the need for philosophers unless it allows them to become celebrities. No. No. Philosophers explore stupid things all the time. They’re not all intelligent. And the fact that you think that they could do that is already a problem. Most people aren’t competent at all for anything. Some people are competent at something. Well, he’s gaining an abnormality by doing the normal philosophy circle-jerk thing. Marcus is trying to use the lame exception, reduce money. Look, people don’t motivate the way you say they do. And I understand that slapping money or celebrity or profelicity or whatever identity or whatever goofy T-loss is on things works really well to map them in the past. That’s almost never somebody’s motivation. And Manuel’s point in the opening statement was a lot of these philosophers are being driven by their traumas, period. That’s all they’re being driven by. They’re not being driven by anything else. They’re being driven by their traumas and their desire to overcome their own personal trauma by generalizing it out to the population and then resolving it at that layer. And of course, that’s stupid and doesn’t work because your personal trauma is unique to you. Right? So their motivations are actually around their trauma and they’re not singular. And the other motivation that I ascribe to philosophers, which is a positive one, is that they actually make an observation in the world. Peter Snowe talks about the guy who was watching the kids. What was his name again? Pigeot. There we go. Jean Pigeot had an observation in the world. And then he builds this whole framework on top of his observation. Also, there’s a bunch of people that have an observation and they’re like, oh, this has a bunch of explanatory power. And then they get enchanted by this idea. Right? And sometimes this idea is so amazing that you build economics as a science or you build psychology as a science or whatever. So there’s this idea that drags the personal law. But what does that do? Right? It reciprocally narrows your understanding of the world through one domain. Do people have ideas or do ideas have people? Right? And I feel like I’m ambivalent on that question. Right? But that is the point. It’s not always that people know where things are going to lead before they go down the rabbit hole. That’s what the rabbit hole is. They have to go down the rabbit hole in order to find out where they lead. Right? I think in some sense, that’s the purpose of philosophy. It’s like, oh, yeah, this guy goes down there. But they present their trip going down into the underworld as if that’s universally true or important or anything. And we got inherited with all of these frames. Oh, the economic frame. Oh, the political frame. All of these things are a consequence of philosophers having means to describe the world. Or like zeitgeist, like fashion, right? Like Freud, like the unconscious. And then people start using that concept and they start building it out. They just start applying it outside of the philosophical frame and they use it to manipulate other people. And because it is, economics is a useful description of the world. Right? Like it gives you information that allows you to actually make actions that are reliable in a certain way. So if you’re going to build something upon that basis, upon that intelligibility, it is going to have lasting power. Is it eternal? No, because it’s not an eternal pattern. What is it used for? Right? Because, you know, this is, well, on Friday, I’m going to work tomorrow. I’m going to go into this in my monologue, my live stream is Telos matters. And the reason why Telos matters is because when you start misusing things, they don’t work. And so if you misuse politics or economics as a goal, which it’s not, they’re not telos, then the frames break and people don’t realize this. And Mills says, maybe you should make a video called How to Train Your Algorithm. Maybe it’s kind of like training your dragon. Yeah. Well, and Ethan, the more attuned to telos you are, the less effect material things like alcohol will have. Exactly. Right? The solution to materialism is proper telos. And once you tune yourself to telos, you can get a lot of control over yourself. I mean, that’s what stoicism talks about, ironically enough. And there’s this idea, right? Like where you have the first generation adopters, like this is true almost everywhere, whether it’s in a field of science, right? You have the people who come from the world of chaos. And then there’s like an answer. And like, they know why the answer is important because like they were struggling finding the answer. So it’s like they’ve been contextualized completely. And then you have the second generation, right? And they kind of grew up with the other people struggling, right? So they’ve had participatory experience in some sense of the problem. And they get taught by the people who have personal relationship to the struggle. And then you have the third generation. And like in the third generation, everything goes apart. Because the third generation loses the relevance. Like they lose the understanding of why things are as they are. And they start playing the game based upon the rules of the game that they’re given by the people who have described the game scientifically. And like there’s also this other thing, right? Like the first generation is small and the second generation becomes bigger, right? So there’s a growth like in the population. So like the competence of the people in the field is probably lower than the first generation because they make the breakthrough. And this this is a pattern that Plato discovered in trade effectively, right? And this is true in science. It’s true everywhere. And like it might not be exactly three generations, but the pattern is there. Is that why Vanderkley says spirits continue on? Yeah, it would be interesting to find out the relationship in Vanderkley and for that matter, Jean-Jacques Muget’s mind between spirits and patterns. Because they go on with principalities and powers. And I’m like, I don’t know why you need powers if you have pattern, but whatever. And I still don’t like their definition of principality. I think it has too much of the wrong type of something like agency. And I’m still up in the air on how they’re parsing all that. But I think it’s amination. It’s an aminating structure. I need to hire to use my agency to sign off. All right, Father. It was great to see you. Thank you, sir. So I don’t like this one. I fixed it. Relax. I fixed it. You can go back over there. There we go. I started this live stream. I’m going to take the spot. Oh, yeah. So the distinction between a spirit and a structure or a container of an institution and then the embodiment and the system. So there’s a container and then within the container, there’s a relationship to the container, which is the system. And then there’s people who have to live it out. And I was thinking of this in the context of nobility. So a noble person gets a title and then his house keeps the title. But at a certain point, his house may fall from grace. It might no longer embody this title. And what happens then? How do you resolve that? Because like in some sense, it’s like an eternal recognition of the name, literally. Out of the name, I learned that name is the thing that gives law or that which rules in some sense. So there’s something of that name that gave the right spirit, that gave the right law. And we’re recognizing it for that. But now the manifestation of the name, the body that the name has in the world, no longer is exemplifying that. They’re not upholding that, which is kind of what Israel did. They didn’t uphold their status of the chosen people. What do you do if that happens? Well, we know what happens. We know what happens. All over the Bible. Yeah, that’s not my… I’m fine with emanation. I’m fine with spirits. It’s the principalities and powers part that still… I don’t know how they square that circle. It’d be interesting to hear them talk about it. I should have asked Jo when I was at… What’s wrong with saying that the principality is an emanation? Okay, that doesn’t resolve the agency issue that they clearly place in the principality. That’s still my issue. It doesn’t go away because you say it’s a type of emanation. Well, going back to the philosophers, the philosophers have this idea that there’s this interaction between the system and the potential that the system gives the individual within the system and the individual agents. Effectively, what they are saying is that because we dissociate it from nature, we’ve started entering in more and more systems. Our freedom or our ability to use our freedom is constrained as a consequence of the necessity of the system. That’s all true. Well, so, Dan, the fact that there’s an information happening from the system towards us means that there’s some type of… Yeah, I agree. So, you can use emanation and spirit. You don’t need principalities or powers. I still agree. I don’t know why Virgil uses that. I don’t know where the powers and principalities come from. You don’t need it. Well, I think the principality is the container for the spirit. I think that’s… Maybe. Where’s the powers at all? I think the powers are natural law. Maybe. I can’t tell. I don’t believe him. Yeah, powers are fuzzy for me. Yeah, right. Well, thank you, Dan. It’s fuzzy for you. It’s fuzzy for me. I don’t believe him. I don’t think there’s such thing. I’d like him to explicate it a little bit better because he just says powers and principalities moves on. Well, I think the way that Feke would describe powers is like the arenic qualities. So, like the rising of the sun informs our behavior in certain ways. I mean, if you want to invoke natural law, I would just use natural law. Again, why these extra words? I don’t know where they fit into anything. Because they’re at the top of the hierarchy? Is there at the top of the hierarchy? No, they’re not. They’re powers and principalities. The issue is that they’re arenic. I do think that you have to submit to them. So, you can live with nature. You can live with the seasons and you can’t go along with them or you can ignore them to a certain extent. If you live along with them, then they become an entity that you have a relationship to. The spirit of nature. Yeah, absolutely. I agree. You’re not going to resolve the powers and principalities. No, I’m not going to resolve it. I get it. Right. No, I mean, that’s my problem. What are they getting at when they’re referring to that? Because I don’t think they’re necessarily wrong. I just don’t know. I’m genuinely curious about what are they on about? Why are they using these extra words? I don’t understand. You don’t need any of those words to explain any of the things they’re explaining. So, there must be something more there, maybe. I don’t know. And that’s still the question. That’s the open question in my mind. Well, I think if we’re looking at it from a Christian perspective, if we want to find out the will of God, listening to all of these things is appropriate. Right. Well, you have to track them all. Well, then that’s all you have to track. To me, that’s like, oh, yeah, track quality, not quantity. Yes, I agree. Track the qualities and not the quantity. And then that solves the budget. All that’s really saying is don’t be idolatrous. Don’t engage in dogmatic thinking. Don’t. Those are all the same thing. When you’re putting the primacy on the quantity and not on the quality, you’re screwing up. Because you can’t measure everything a king does to know if he’s a good king. You have to balance it with the quality of all the things the king’s doing, which quality is inclusive of a bunch of stuff. Whereas quantity, you have to divide stuff. Then we get the story of joke. Yes, that’s the story. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. You have to divide stuff up to measure it. So, quantity has a problem in the division. And what is the authority making the division? That’s always the, it’s always easy not to say you can’t ever, it’s just to say you’ve got to be real careful. So anyway, I don’t know, Manuel. I’m pretty complete on this topic. So, Ethan’s got a nice comment here that ultimately you should be submitted to the telos, yes, and not constraints. Also true, Christians are for lions. Submission to constraints makes incredibly volatile reality, hence the inevitable nihilism of materialists. I agree. I agree. All right. Well, I’m going to go too, because we’re going mushroom picking. Excellent. Have a wonderful time mushroom picking. I’m going to be up in the mountains picking morel mushrooms. So, getting the flood going. See ya. See ya. Well, yeah, I guess I want to end with a public service announcement, right? Like, what do you do about distrolling, right? Well, you go in with a purpose, right? Like, when you are setting the rules for the game, you cannot be enchanted because you’re getting the thing that you want out of what you’re doing. But then you need to know how to do that and what that means. So, if you want to know about the context of a philosopher, right, like engaging with a video, like we’ve been talking about, is really, really useful. Like, me reading Das Kapital fully is like, what is that going to gain me? Like, where am I going to apply this knowledge? Like, I’m going to change as a consequence of reading this. It’s not like it is a free act. It’s not free in the sense that it takes time. It is free, not free in the sense that it effort of me to resist ideas, right? And then there’s ideas that I don’t recognize and I can’t resist. And it’s just shaping my understanding of the world. Like, I’m going to see the patterns. I have to navigate the patterns that I just put in my head. And if those aren’t good patterns, then I’m screwed. Right. Yeah, yeah. No, there’s consequences. Yeah. And to the point, and I’ll address Ethan’s issue, your constraints are constantly changing, tell us, and therefore the divine do not. Where do you place your identity? Well, look, I think that’s an excellent question. And I think that that is the point, that way to resist enchantment in general, particularly from philosophers, is called tell us. And that is why tomorrow at 7 p.m. Eastern, we will be doing coincidentally, all this happened coincidentally as usual, we will be doing a live stream on tell us. And that is the magic secret. You know, and you can, you know, go back and boundaries, discernment, judgments, right? Action, right? All these things, avoiding two stairs. The tell us is going to tie all that together, hopefully, if I can pull off the monologue, which I’m still taking notes on. But anyway, I’m glad so many people engaged. I’m hopeful that this was helpful to people. It seems like we had some good engagement. Like, subscribe, tell other people, tell everybody how awesome navigating patterns is. Go to Chad’s sub stack. Yeah, yeah, excellent. All right, guys. Well, thank you very much and have a lovely day.