Hallucination - Live Navigation! (lHXyq3r596Q)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=lHXyq3r596Q

Young girl dancing to the latest beat Has found new ways to move her feet And the lonely voice of youth cries, What is truth? Young man speaking in the city square Trying to tell somebody that he cares Can you blame the voice of youth for asking, What is truth? Yeah, the ones that you’re calling wild Are gonna be the leaders in a little while When will the lonely voice of youth cry, What is truth? This old world’s wakened to a newborn babe And our solemn lists where it’ll be their way You better help that voice of youth find, What is truth? And the lonely voice of youth cries, What is truth? Alright, well, welcome, welcome. It’s been a long week. So on the one hand I’m glad to be here. On the other hand, man, doesn’t seem like we had enough time to prepare. But we did, we did. We got everything in. Got a page of notes just about. Got our Sam Pell. We got some La Croix. We got our Table Rock Tea Marathon Brew. Good stuff from Kenya. That’s the only stuff they have that’s not local. And like a popcorn. Popcorn is good. Meat popcorn for last year. That might be my new thing. We’ll see. So yeah, the topic is hallucination and fantasy. And so this, you know, blends into what is, what is reality. Like, what are we, what are we talking about? What are we doing? What’s going on? And yeah, I mean, I think it’s super important, right, to differentiate hallucination and fantasy or however you want to frame it, your perspective from things that aren’t your perspective, right? That aren’t there outside of your own head. And look, this is a tough topic to talk about. So I’m going to, I’m going to do my best. And I used hallucination deliberately because that’s the word of the day. And I’ll get into why. But it’s AI, right? It’s talking about hallucination because of AI. But let’s go into the dictionary definition of the word first. So the Oxford, right? An experience involving the apparent perception of something not present. That’s hallucination. Cool, right? But really, what we care about is not just hallucination, but fantasy and imagination. All three are related in an important way. So what is fantasy? And we can loop back in to imagination and loop in perspective because they’re all related, right? Fantasy is something that’s disconnected from your actions, right? It’s those things that are detached from your participation. And you say, oh, I participate with my mind. No, you don’t. Not in any significant way and not in any verifiable way. Did you really talk to a purple unicorn? And did it really talk back? And if you did, is that participation? I mean, you really…like, what’s your claim here? Were you abducted by aliens? And that’s the problem, right? We talked about this with the video in action, the live stream in action. Yeah, you know, you need a way to understand if an action took place. So it has to be independently verified outside of yourself. Now, does that mean that somebody can’t independently verify that you talked to a purple unicorn and it talked back? Nope, it ain’t perfect. It’s a problem. So again, why hallucination AI? What are they doing? It’s all the rage, right? It’s their term for mistake, error. That’s what it is. When an AI makes an error or mistake or lies, because usually it’s a lie, they call it hallucination, which is a cute word. And it loops into their obsession. And by there, I mean the sciency people, the materialists, with not just the limits of materialism, but the way out for them. So, you know, what is the way out for materialism? The way out for materialism is very simple. It’s hallucination. It’s psychedelic chemicals. They cause hallucinations. This allows you to self transcend or something, which, you know, no, no, not most people, not most of the time, not most drug use. No, most of the time you go schizophrenic. That’s the most common result from any drug that has any hallucinogenic effect, including, including marijuana. That is true. You look that up. That is, that’s the way it is. That’s the issue is that we’re using hallucination in AI. Why are we doing this? Because hallucination has the key property of consciousness. Consciousness is the ability to self deceive and therefore, according to the sciency people, the ability to self transcend. However, that isn’t true. The idea that deception is linked with transcendence is already suspect and I would argue observably false. Lots of people deceive themselves and they’re the same jerk they were afterwards. So what are you talking about? Why do you think because you can deceive yourself that that means you can transcend? Do you not understand that down is different from up? Like really? And down is easier than up because gravity. Lots of other reasons. It’s hard to get to the good. It’s easy to do the not good and it’s easy to do the evil. That’s apparent to us as humans. When life is struggle, it’s more likely to be towards the good. Doesn’t have to be, but more likely. And look, hallucination, fantasy, this keeps us from direct observation or actual observations of the world outside of yourself. And you need that contrast. You need to know what’s in my head and what’s outside of me. I’m not saying that fantasy is unimportant or optional. It is not. We need this to make predictive models that die so that we don’t have to. I’m paraphrasing Jordan Peterson here obviously. Right? But he’s right about that. But the downside to using too much of this hallucination, whether through psychedelics or your fantasy, through your imagination, right? Going into a total fantasy through your imagination. The downside is that there’s a disengagement with observation itself. There’s a disengagement with participation outside yourself, right? With the thing that keeps us grounded in reality, which is experienced with that which is outside ourselves. That’s important. So I’m not saying no fantasy. I’m not saying no hallucinations. I’m not saying no imagination. That’s absurd. But I am saying you can have too much and you can have it at the wrong time. You’re wandering in a dangerous jungle and you’re thinking about pink unicorns. You know, they’re talking to you and the tiger comes out of the brush and you don’t hear it. You think that doesn’t happen? Is that what you think? You think that doesn’t happen? Fantasy is that which is disconnected from your actions. Those things you do in the world that are independently verified, verifiable, detached from participation. It’s detached from participation. We need participation in the world with nature, with ourselves, with others, right? And look, you might recognize that. That is my formula for the three frames. And I have a video on the three frames. So it’s worth engaging with, right? Because that’s the way it works. So it’s worth engaging with, right? Because this will help you with the contrast. What is fantasy? What is not fantasy? Again, good question. What are those things? How do we know them? Well, we can use the three frames and contrast three frames and triangulate and orient ourselves. Because in order to navigate, you need orientation. That’s what you need. How is all this related to perception? Is our perception purely what the world truly provides? Of course not. Is our perception all that the world is? No, of course not. We’re only perceiving a small part of it at any time. Somewhere right now it’s fully dark on the earth. I can’t perceive that. I don’t have that perspective. I have an imaginal model of that perspective because I know what it’s like to be in the dark. I don’t know what it’s like to be in darkness right now. I’m not in darkness right now. I still light out my window. I have the shades closed because lighting, YouTube, important. But there’s light, trust me. It’s a big hole in my shades. So our perception is not everything and it’s not pure because it’s being filtered by our senses. This is an old philosophical argument. The scientists are just describing it now because they’re real up on the times. But then again, they just discovered that hearts actually break when you fall out of love with somebody. They just discovered that. Thousands of years everybody in the world has known this and they’re just catching up now. You expect them to catch up with something complicated by like, oh, your perspective is mitigated by your senses and your senses are limited because the physical creatures and physical things are a little, you know, they’ll catch up. Don’t wait for that. We can know things long before they get there. So this perspective that we have must be a mix of what we can see, which is limited, as I pointed out earlier, what we imagine, right? And what’s independent of us that maybe we can see. So we can see things that are not so much visible, but we can see things that are not visible. And then if I move my head, then something else is like, I can’t. You can’t do it. Limitation. Physical world is all about constraint and limitations. What it is. And we were born into a physical world. So we can’t see things that are not visible. So we can’t see things that are not visible. So we can’t see things that are not visible. So we can’t see things that are not visible. So we can’t see things that are not visible. So we could not edge. Physical world is all about constraint and limitations. What it is. And we were born into a physical world. I’m not saying materialism has nothing, throw it out, it’s all garbage. I’m saying materialism has limits. It is limits, in some sense. In fact, all limits or constraints might even be a function of material. I have no idea. It certainly sounds that way. It certainly feels that way. It certainly could be that way. The problem is, we kind of prefer the model in our head. Right? We prefer the model in our head, that model of the world that we have in our head, to our observation of the world. We do. Not everybody, but a lot of people. We get upset when the world doesn’t work according to our model. And we should. We need that to survive. It’s like, oh, the model in my head doesn’t match reality. What does that mean? That means a tiger could eat me, and I won’t even know that there’s a tiger or that it can eat me. That’s bad! But then when we have this conflict, we blame those forces outside ourselves for not complying with something they have no access to. Instead of us changing to survive in light of that which is. And again, in some ways, it’s better to pay attention to your imagination, to your fantasies, to the hallucinations, because they can contrast and show you, oh, if you were this type of person, you’d die because of this. It’s like, oh, well, that’s good to know. But it can go too far. There’s something like a balance. I don’t know that it’s an actual balance. There’s something there. And the problem is, in our imagination, in the fantasy land, not only is anything possible, but also we do things. However, they do not impact the world outside our head. And it’s important that we do things inside our heads so that our mistakes can die without killing us. Oh, that’s a mistake. That’s good to know. Oh yeah, had I yelled at that person, they would have gotten upset and everything would have been worse. That’s good to know. Maybe I can do that in the moment and go, oh, maybe I shouldn’t yell at that person. There are other ways to come to that conclusion. But imagination is very powerful and it’s very useful, and we can’t do without it. But we don’t know what other people see. We don’t know their perspective. We can guess at it, but man, there’s that blue versus gold dress thing. What do you make of that? I say there’s no objective worldview. Not hard. Nobody likes that answer. But that’s the answer. There’s no objective worldview. That’s why the dress has different colors to different people. And worse, colors change based on the colors around them. Isn’t that annoying? And you’d come up with thousands of materialist explanations. There are literally at least a dozen that I know of materialist explanations for why all that happens. So what? Even if all of them are correct, even if only one of them is correct, you’re not changing it. What does that make? It happens. Your perspective is different from other people’s perspectives. And when you try to model somebody in your head, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t because we need to, you have to understand it’s a model and it’s wrong. That’s just that simple. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Forget what I’m quoting there. It’s out there somewhere. You can look it up. You’ll be okay. You have Google. You have a live stream. And again, we can learn from our imaginations. We can learn from them. We can’t learn the same things the same way as we can by doing them, by participating in the world. But you have to impact the world in your head to do anything at all. But after that, you need to follow through. You need to jump the IZOT gap. You need to break out of Zeno’s paradox and stop measuring the distance to the wall or measuring the things you need to be to do the thing. And you need to do the thing in the world, in the three frames. Video link earlier. You have to get from measuring the distance to the wall to touching the wall. That’s not a material thing. That’s not something outside of your imaginations. And look, in the same way that knowing is not doing, fantasy, imagining, hallucination is not doing. It’s not doing things. Which is not to say it’s not useful and you don’t need it, but it’s not doing. Zero participatory knowledge, which is what John Vervecky calls it, I would call participatory information. But this is why it’s information. Because participatory information feeds the rest of your brain, perspective and knowledge, to alter both up and down the stack. And look, this gets into the model, the knowledge engine model. And it’s important because a lot of people contribute to this. Andre, Manuel, obviously Manuel contributes to everything, I think, at this point. Sally Jo, our buddy Nathan, the cartoonist in Canada, a bunch of people, too many to list. And obviously I have a video on that, because it’s a video. Obviously I have a video on that, it’s a video on almost everything. I planned a video on the universe soon, like just all the component parts. But look, that’s the way our brains are working. We need that participatory information, we need that imaginal information. We need something to alter our perspective. And we need something to alter our knowledge, that’s within ourselves, so that we can draw stuff from outside. Do we break free? Not so much as we make space. No, Ethan, I don’t think that’s the way to do it. No, Ethan, I don’t think fantasy is simply the absence of incarnation. It’s a good question, though. No, it’s more involved than that, because it’s a subset of imagination. Because your imagination can stay on course and just map reality really closely, and we call those people unimaginative. But they’re not unimaginative, they’re un-fantastical. They’re not engaging in fantasy. Fantasy is talking to purple unicorns, like being abducted by aliens while you’re really at home with other people. Which happens, but these things happen. I’m not making stuff up, I’m saying, no, no, there are reports of this all over the place. So it’s this subset of the imaginal realm, if you want to go with the Ravichian language, which I am less and less enamored with, as I find more and more danger-flawsed. So why do we have this dangerous hallucination, imagination, fantasy, perspective thing? What are we doing? What is going on? Purple unicorns that talk to us and we talk back? What is that? It’s disconnected from reality. Why do we have this? It’s a good question. Why do we even have that ability? Don’t we want to stay in our lane, close to reality? No. Close to reality? No. I would argue you can’t stay close to reality. What does that mean? In order to sense anything that I’ve said this time and time again, and not enough, because you can’t say it enough, contrast. You need contrast to see. You physically need your eyes to move back and forth and up and down and jitter. The phobia of your eye actually moves. Hundreds of times a second, if I remember correctly. Because if they don’t, you can’t see things. At least not correctly. You’ll see objects when you move your head fast. But only for a tiny instance. This has been measured in the brain actually. Not a phantom measurement, but also when materiality backs up your ethereal point, you know, kind of more evidence is good. That is what your fantasy, your imagination, your hallucination provides. How could you see reality without contrast? You could not. Are they opposites? No. Opposing? Perhaps in some ways. But in a good way. Your imagination cooperates with your rationality to provide you with a sense of yourself, of others, and of nature. The three frames. Already linked it. Not going to link it again. It’s right in the chat. Great video. Everybody should watch it. Many times. I need my view hours up to get monetized. Yeah. Anyway. Let’s view some statements about the situation we find ourselves in as humans that relate to the topic at hand. Shall we? You can have lots of fantasies that aren’t connected to each other. But all that does is add more chaos to your life. And look, I’ve known very sick people. You know, who had legitimate problems. And I still know people like that, right? But there was one kid at school when I was at my private Catholic school that was rather expensive at the time. He lived in a Doctor Who fantasy. And I, being me, was perfectly happy to engage in that fantasy. It was fun. But he thought he was Doctor Who, like, as in he acted that out. And, you know, he could talk to Romana, who’s one of the characters. If you don’t know Doctor Who, then shame on you and get off my channel immediately. I don’t even want your heresy here. I’m kidding. Tom Baker, best Doctor Whoever. Proven by science. So it must be true. He interacted with these characters as though they were talking to him. And clearly, you know, he had issues. But like, he was able to go to school. He was able to interact with the kids. He was a little weird. But, you know, I had fun. I couldn’t hear what he was hearing. I had no idea. It’s like, oh, yeah, Romana’s talking to you, huh? What’d she say? Oh, OK, yeah, that makes sense. I can see why she would say that. And then, you know, he was talking to her. And I was happy to engage in that fantasy. But if you have a fantasy about that, you have a fantasy about being abducted by aliens, and you have a fantasy around, you know, being swept away and taken up into this world that you feel you must paint or whatever, yeah, I’m picking on Sally Jo. It is not useful. Now you get three fantasies. You get a fantasy about a man who’s been abducted by aliens. It is not useful. Now you get three fantasies. You don’t have a single thing to aspire to anymore. Now, artists navigate this rather nicely. That’s what they do. That’s what makes them artists. And it’s not a problem for some of them. For some of them, it’s a big problem. All right? They would be artistic, except they’re psychotic because it’s too much chaos. They have too many fantasies that don’t connect. And so they can’t enact them because we have limited time, energy, and attention. That’s what we have that’s limited. And that’s also my definition of power, by the way, which is another great video, which I don’t have a link to, but it’s on my channel. So to believe that humans are definable by you and are the way you think is a fantasy. That’s not to say you can’t know somebody really well or know some aspects of them better than they know themselves. Sure. Totally plausible. Absolutely happens. But how well? How far? Where are the limits of that? Where are the boundaries? Where are the constraints? People always surprise you because people change, it turns out. It’s like we’re not static. Change all the time. And that’s where our fantasies help manifest, is our change. We need to have something to aspire to. That happens in our imagination. It may be the result of a deep, imaginal event called a fantasy, where we’re just completely disconnected from reality. That happens. I’m glad you like it, Elizabeth. I just came up with it. Notes are great, but not everything’s in the notes. Look, when your fantasy sort of matches what you hear, big go. Enchantment becomes reality, but only in your head. So I have an interaction with Jessie. And I go, yeah, Jessie’s always late. That’s just who he is. That’s not real. Jessie’s not always late. Right? Somebody comes to me and says, yeah, those Aussies, man, they can’t keep time. It’s island time over there. It’s a big island, but it’s still island time. Yeah. And man, if you think island time isn’t real, hell, I got news for you. Island time is real. Oh my goodness. Go to Brazil. There’s island time in Brazil, too, even though, you know, not an island. Island time, definitely. So we have to be careful, because when we have this outside validation, this outside verification, we get confused, like, oh, that is reality. The reality and our fantasy are matching closely. Not necessarily. And I kind of covered that earlier, too, right? It’s important. And there’s a deep asymmetry between action, you know, outside of yourself, independently verified, and fantasy. Action towards goodness produces more good on average, but we make mistakes. Because we are creatures that make mistakes. That is, to be a person, to be a human person, is to be a creature that makes mistakes. Action towards evil produces lots of evil, but some goodness. But again, without the pointing, without the fantasy, without the imagination, without the perspective, no action takes place. If you ever see somebody, and you’re like, oh, they can sit down and they can just do this thing, and it would be great. And it’s like, yeah. And you talk to them, and you say, you know what, you could sit down, you could do that, it would be great. And they can’t see it. That’s a limitation of perspective. It’s a limitation of imagination. It’s a limitation of their ability to fantasize. And look! We’ll address this. We’ll address this. What criterion do you use to distinguish between fantasy, reality, inside and outside, etc.? Look, again, participation with yourself. There’s your fantasy, right? Whatever’s happening inside your head. Right? I don’t know. But then there’s your relationship to nature. Well, that’s a contrast point with what’s purely in your head. You can look outside, and if you go, oh, it’s not windy in here, because it’s not. But the trees are moving. The in here, not windy is fantasy from the perspective of somebody outside. Tricky. And then there’s your interaction with others. And that’s where the science cult comes in. People are like, oh, you did this experiment and got this result, I did this experiment and got this result, and we both came to the same conclusion about it. And that’s usually where the big error is. And therefore, it must be true. But now you have three things in relation to one another, because you’re still the pivot point for all those things. You have three things. Now you can orient. You can’t orient with two things. Direction doesn’t do it. Direction does not do it. You need the three things. So you have to find that line for yourself. Some people are really on the fantasy line. Look, I had somebody a month and a half ago, and we were telling them, look, you know, don’t go on Twitter. You don’t need to. We’ll post stuff on Twitter. You don’t need to go on Twitter. Literally, her go on Twitter, went, made a Twitter account right then and there. I’m like, what just happened? Two people just told you, don’t go on Twitter. Everything’s fine. We’ll take care of it. And you went on Twitter. Right? You need three signals. Because your ability to perceive is limited. And sometimes you just make a mistake. Even I made a mistake once, or perhaps not. Maybe I’m mistaken about that. And that’s the thing. It’s not just that there’s stuff inside of us. There’s stuff inside of us. There’s stuff that other people experience that’s outside of us. And there’s nature, which is outside of us. You still have three points to draw this discernment, to figure this stuff out. And there’s a big asymmetry because things that you do in the world last and fantasies, they don’t. You go, you take some shrooms, you have a profound experience, which I think is the right way to talk about it. And bang, nothing happens. You’re the same jerk you were before. And I shall try to address this. Can I clarify the difference between no objective reality and chaos? Sure. There’s no objective reality. There’s nothing to do with chaos. Chaos is a lack of order. Order doesn’t have to be objective. There’s no reason to believe that it is. All the evidence is that it isn’t. The observer problem in physics sort of indicates this. Even physics can’t find objective reality, objective material reality. That’s why I don’t think it exists. In the frame of objective material reality, objective material reality doesn’t work. Fertilizing complete material. Fantasy thrives when everything is moving quickly and you don’t have time to check in with other people, nature and yourself. That’s the danger of now speed. Yes, that’s a good observational. Yeah, that’s the look, John Brevicki, skeptical of mindfulness movement. Why? That’s why. If you’re stuck in the here and now all the time, you’re not checking in. You’re not checking in with nature. That’s why the wisest people I know work with their hands on farms or other equipment. They all work. Every single one of them. And they work hard. They’re all crazy. That’s probably because they work hard. Barf. Is another person’s quote inside outside of me? No, it’s not. Leave other people alone. You can’t know any of that. You have to draw boundaries. You have to say, oh, I’m learning what I can know about another person. Yes, you are. And that’s tough. Real tough. We want to be able to know everything we can. We can’t know most things. But look, if you are closer to the person you imagine yourself to be, you wouldn’t need quite so much imagination, so much fantasy. But how else could you move forward? Where else can inspiration come from, if not from your prediction that you can exemplify that which you either witness in the world or something you imagine or fantasize about from a story? You want to talk about the hero’s journey. That’s fine. We’ll talk about the hero’s journey. You get the hero’s journey and you go, I could be Han Solo. Because you identify with him. And maybe you’re not that person now. I could be Luke Skywalker. Yeah, maybe. But you have to have that exemplification. I could be Elon Musk. Maybe. But you’re not him now. What gives you the onus to go and do that? Your imagination. You have to not only create a model of Elon Musk, Han Solo, whatever, in your head, but you have to figure out how far away from that you are and what things you’re missing. You’re not going to get that, right? Because you’re a Muppet. I’m a Muppet. We’re all Muppets. But at least you have a target now. And if you’re smart, you know it’s not a direction. You know it’s an orientation. And it requires three points. And Peterson sort of goes into this, right? He sort of talks about the shining star and then you move and then you triangulate because the star moved because you moved, right? That is a triangulation. You know where you were, you know where you are, you know where that star is and you know where it was. Like, man, that’s triangulation. That’s orientation. That’s what you need. It’s not direction. It’s not, oh, you know what? I know how to do the good. I’ll move away from the bad or the evil. No. No, you won’t. That won’t work. Mathematically impossible. What is wrong with you? Or mathematically unlikely. You always get lucky. Do you want to rely on luck? Okay. You don’t need to be here. You don’t need answers for luck. You can just blindly go ahead and do stuff. The world is deeply asymmetrical. You can live in your head and be perfect or you can live in the real world and be imperfect. Up to you. But the stuff in the real world is actually going to impact others. Just saying. And maybe that could be for the good. Just saying. You have to imagine your future. You have to imagine your more capable self. You have to imagine a more capable self of other people. You just can’t get too carried away with it. If you think you’re Dr. Who because he’s more capable, you’re going to act that out. I’ve seen it. I met this kid. You’re going to act as if that’s true. But that’s a problem. You have to be careful. You have to put your imagination and things inside your head in the right place. And you can’t know the mind of another. You can’t know somebody else’s perspective. You can guess at it. Maybe you can guess 90% of it. I don’t know. I doubt it. But you can’t do it not well enough to make it useful. You can do it well enough to participate and learn more, but not well enough to actually understand. You’re not going to understand yourself and another person. That makes no sense. And you don’t need to. Bad news, you can’t do that. Good news, you don’t have to. We fail when we try to exemplify the fantasy instead of the manifestation. If you try to exemplify the fantasy, you’re going to fail. You’re going to fail. You’re going to fail. If you try to exemplify Icarus, you’ll fail. If you try to exemplify Zeus, you’ll fail. Those are contrasting shared fantasies, hopefully, common fantasies, common imaginings of archetypal stories. That allow us access to a level of participation in the future that we have the potential to become the type of creature that can embody. And this is the problem with reality. So I’ve been doing a lot of work with chat GPT. And I can tell you for sure as a professional with lots of years of experience, chat GPT cannot write code. It cannot debug code. Chat GPT is absolutely next level brilliant at scripting. I went to chat GPT and I said chat GPT, write me a script that would give me the following information off of my YouTube channel. And it gave me a script in like a minute that did title, description, tags. I modified it or I had it modify it to download thumbnails. I modified it for the subdirectory because I forgot to specify that. My dad. But it wrote it right away and it worked. It worked first try. And it told me, oh, also you need to go to Google Cloud and sign up for an account and get this API key and boom. And it worked. I was like, that’s freaking awesome. And now I put it in CSV format because yeah, now I have a spreadsheet with all the stuff that I was keeping track of manually, poorly, because my editor and I kind of stopped at one point. But now I have it all in one place. I don’t have the video links. I’m going to modify it for that. But brilliant, brilliant. I take a very simple piece of code and I tell it to write the code. The code doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. Is it code? If it doesn’t work, is it code? It’s a good question. I don’t know. Looks like source code. It could work. It could be made to work, but it doesn’t work as is. It doesn’t mean it’s not real, but it certainly means it doesn’t work. That’s a problem. It’s a problem. You could say it’s not a problem. It’s a problem. And where is that one? If you write code and it doesn’t work, is it code? I’m not here for answers. I’m here to make you think, to make you understand how complex the world really is. And to some extent to give up on trying to understand quite so much of it and just participate. I’m not seeing to live. I want to live comfortably. Well, I think he says happily, but I’m going to modify it to comfortably in a world I don’t understand. Yeah, I want to live contented in a world I don’t understand. And if happiness comes, double plus bonus. And there’s another problem with fantasy, with imagination, which is things don’t scale correctly there. It’s a place of infinite exploration. And again, you need that. That’s good. You need to explore a space where your ideas can go, and if they’re bad ideas, they die off quickly. You need that. It’s not optional. It’s a place of infinite exploration for your mind, a place of boundless experience. A place that doesn’t exist, that only you can participate in. That’s what fantasy is. That’s what your imagination provides. It’s not optional. You need that for things like inspiration. You need that for play. You want to learn? You need to fail. If you succeed, maybe you got lucky. And you can’t tell if you got lucky or if you succeeded on your own merit. It’s not possible. That’s why we need humility. But you can fail a lot in your imagination, nobody knows. It helps with embarrassment. But it’s better to fail in person where people can show you, A, their true selves. How they treat somebody who fails. Says a lot about them. And B, their brain and your brain make a better mind. On average. Not all the time, but almost all the time. It’s good enough. But in your fantasy land, things don’t scale. What works for two people, works for thousands of people. There’s no constraints there to show you the scaling points. And I have a video on scale, which I just did. I did not put the link for that one. I knew there was another video. It’s out there. It’s on the channel. It’s brand new. You’ll see. Wonderful video. So we have to be careful. Because look, boundless experience. That doesn’t push back on us. Is intoxicating. It’s already a drug. That’s why I was like, why do you want to do mushrooms or LSD? You’ve already got that facility in your head. Wouldn’t it be better if you knew how to activate it yourself? Is this old saying about, allegedly old? I guess it’s been modified for a while. It’s been a little bit old. It’s been a little bit old. It’s been a little bit old. I guess it’s been modified for modern times. Getting a profound experience from a drug is like taking a helicopter to the top of the mountain. Yeah, you get to the top of the mountain. But you can’t go whenever you want. You’re reliant on the helicopter and the pilot. You can’t necessarily go down whenever you want. You’re reliant on the helicopter and the pilot. And you needed the helicopter to get up and down. You didn’t earn it. You didn’t participate in it yourself. That’s not good. That’s not good at all. You’re missing all the information about the struggle to get up to the top of the mountain. Personally, I want to see the Himalayas. Do I want to climb any Himalayas? No. I mean, I’d go up as far as I could. Which probably wouldn’t be very far. Given my numerous illnesses. But yeah. And it’s so funny. I’m driving home today. And I had a 38 Special on. Because why wouldn’t you? The sun had finally come out. It’s been raining here for days. It’s been miserable. The sun was out. The top was down on the car. Buzzing down the highway. Just having a grand old time. This is a 38 Special. Great stuff. Good top-down music in general. And Fantasy Girl comes on. I was like, haha! It’s a sign! Anybody who wants to be my Fantasy Girl, comments. Let me check. That’s the thing. This idea of fantasy is absolutely everywhere in the culture. And yeah. AI’s word for it is hallucination. Because they’re trying to sneak in psychedelics being good. They’re trying to sneak in the concept of God. Hallucination is an unscientific word. It’s not well defined. It’s also used in medicine. It’s not a compute word. And what are you really saying? That people have experiences in their head that other people can’t validate? And you need a special word for that? That happens all the time in all kinds of ways that most people wouldn’t consider hallucination. So what are we saying at that point? What are we actually saying at that point? It’s a good question. So what are we saying at that point? What are we actually saying at that point? It’s a good question. So where is this line of imagination? Of fantasy, right? Of hallucination. Hallucination is involuntary. Fantasy is at least partly voluntary. Imagination is something you’re always engaged in. Whether you’re conscious of it or not is not relevant. And I have a video on that. I’m going to put it up on my channel. I’m going to put it up on my channel. It’s not relevant. And I have a video on conscious versus unconscious. I’ll probably have to do more on that topic. But videos out there on navigating patterns. The contrast of the participation tells you why you can’t be Elon Musk. It’s not his knowledge that makes him good. It may help. It may not help. Sometimes it seems to hurt him. But it’s not his experience for that. It’s his experience, his participation in failing a business that makes him good at business. Because that’s how things work in the world. That’s how things work in the world. There’s no substitute for good participation. There’s no substitute for it. And that’s why this monologue is over. And we’re going to participate together for anybody who wants to. But first, drop a link to my Buy Me Coffee. Because I could use some coffee. Well, not really. I don’t drink coffee. But the point is the same. I need some Sam Powell because, my goodness, I’m going to be able to do this. I’m going to be able to do this. I’m going to be able to do this. I’m going to be able to do this. I’m going to be able to do this. It has been a burner of a day. There is your participation link for anybody who cares to participate and wants to come on camera. We try to keep the trolls down by making people come on camera. Popcorn is good. Marathon tea is good. We’re going to need that. These are always a marathon. It’s not a sprint. It’s the perfect temperature. I’ve got to remember that. How far in are we? Oh, yeah, 49 minutes. Bang. You should run them at 49 minutes all the time so the tea is just at the right temperature. Sounds like a viable way to go. So, in my imagination, I’m thinking I can pull that off. I can end these right around 40 minutes and that’s not going to happen. But it gives me an aspiration. What does Vectorman say? The Catholic mystics adhere to something like this as opposed to charismatic sex who are far less tethered. Well, I don’t know. I’ve got to cover charisma at some point. There’s a lot of pieces to charisma. People don’t understand any of it. I’m going to have to do that in a probably not a live stream. Maybe I’ll do a live stream after. But, yeah, I was thinking about that today. Charisma is a real problem because people are trying to deny it. And it ain’t going away. So, bad strategy. And just saying, oh, everybody with charisma is no good. You’d be surprised how many people you wouldn’t be listening to. That’s a Nazi problem. Hitler and Stalin were charismatic and therefore charisma is bad. It’s like nice dogma. Not true. Provingly so, but people believe it. You know, they act as if. And a good way, again, to know fantasy, imagination, and criminality is participation. Click the damn link. Come in and chat. Oh, I forgot to pin that link. Where is my magical pin the link thing? If I can only pin it on navigating patterns, but it’s the best that I can do. It’ll still be in the chat on randos. United. Interestingly, I don’t think the randos are united on anything, but other than calling themselves randos, I got into a Twitter fact about commonality, or common sense, and I said whoever has to have common sense, we have to have things in common. Everyone’s like, oh, brilliant insight. I’m like, boy, I hope not, but thank you. It’s a problem. People don’t like commonality. They want to be different. Everyone gets into an argument about no, we’re all the same because we’re all individuals. And I’m like, no, that definitely doesn’t work. Stop breaking language. Anselment. Christian mysticism counsels the need for purification of intellect and imagination, not giving yourself too erroneous phantasms. Oh, I like that word. Surprised I didn’t use the word phantasms. It’s definitely a favorite word of mine. Phantasms is good. All right. Welcome, Richard. How’s it going? Yeah, you know, I’m hanging in. I’m a little flustered, busy day. How are you? I have no idea what’s going on here. Okay, well. I don’t know why you are on Randos United, a channel which I just found. I’ve heard your name drop. Uh, what is, is it the French Canadian guy or the other guy? Who, Jonathan Bichard? Yeah. Yeah, I’ve talked about him. I’ve talked about Good Peterson. I’ve talked about John Verbecky. I’ve talked about all kinds of people. Okay, so the only connection that I have here or the real connection is I got drawn in via Paul VanderKlay’s channel. Oh, I’m sorry. We’ll heal you up here. No, I love Paul. Paul’s a good friend of mine. Okay, so I’m still trying to figure out who are you? That’s a very French last name. Yes, my family on my father’s side is extremely French Canadian, except for apparently a little bit of Irish that I just found out about, like literally a few weeks ago. I was like, wait. All right, and I lived in Montreal for six years while attending McGill University. You mean Montreal? That’s how they pronounce it, right? Montreal. Yes, so I grew up in Ontario and I took the Ontario French language courses. Never really learned how to speak the language myself. And when you live on the island, you don’t have to interact with anybody in French because the French people get very upset if you try to butcher their language. So they will quickly speak over to, or move over to English to help you out. That is exactly backwards of what I know of French Canadians. French Canadians will pretend that they do not know any English, even though every single one of those little bastards does, just to avoid talking to you. I remember them doing that when I was in Ottawa and I was like, yeah, you don’t know I’m French Canadian. You have no idea how well I know my people. You guys are faking. So how far do your people go back? Are you like, Fidois? I have no idea. I think we traced everything back to Southern France. And the last name means Smith or blacksmith, right? The maker, the fabricator or something. Yeah, well, I think it literally, literally your first year blacksmith, which was one of the most prestigious jobs in the village. In fact, villages formed around blacksmiths because they were so important. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. Okay, so where does your intellectual curiosity come from? You said you had class? I hope I have no intellectual curiosity. I deny intellectualism as a thing. I think it’s a fantasy. There’s the law. As a sort of practical endeavor. I mean, you’re online, you’re talking about ideas. Taking out ideas? Or am I trying to point to reality and orientation? Okay, all right, so are you a teacher? I hope so. Okay, what do you do in your day job? Right now, my day job is in a small startup, which if you’d like to invest in, let me know, because we need investment money. And what does the startup do? I am the chief operating officer. So probably this weekend when we get some code updates, I will be rewriting a bunch of code, packaging it, and getting it ready to ship out for our first product. Okay, and are you allowed to say what that is? It’s a device protection piece of software. It just runs in the background and protects your Linux machine. For the moment, we’re trying to get Windows and all that other stuff going, right? Okay. All right, so you’re very interested and concerned about developments in AI. No, AI is garbage. I’m not concerned. I’m interested because everyone’s like, AI is a god. So you see this pattern, right? Yeah. So you’ve got it up. You see this pattern where everyone’s like, and I have another channel, it’s just my name, where I go over this. There’s this pattern of all these really smart people who know computers really, really well, for sure, right? And they have above average capability of interacting with logic, reason, and rationality. And the first thing they do is, yes, we’ve created a god. And then half of them go, now we must destroy it immediately. People are talking about literal strikes on data centers. And I’m like, you know, guys, that went from we’re saving the world to we must destroy the data centers awfully fast. But you can see that pattern of, you know, these are the least religious people on the planet. Suddenly talking about a god and AI, we write a Bible and all kinds of crazy. It’s crazy. Okay, so I’m not willing to go quite as far in mocking them as you. The example of the atomic bomb, when the lead scientist quotes the Gita saying, I am become death destroyer worlds. Like he peered into something and he worried what could happen when human hands or when human minds put this to practical ends. Could- Yeah, but what else was he doing? What else was he doing? And those practical ends, I mean, I would never define the destruction of the world as practical. I would define that as the opposite. Well, okay, I guess I’m using it as any worldly endeavor. Practical in contrast to intellectual. That’s not how it works. Practicality implies a telos. Yeah, if I want to destroy the world, that is an end that I seek. Just because it’s destructive doesn’t mean that it’s an end in the world that I seek. So let’s back up through this. Okay. Oh, you’re Catholic, right? No. Oh, you’re not. Nope. Okay. So let’s back through this. Here’s a guy, Oppenheimer, who runs a project. And at the end of the project, when the work is already done, he declares himself powerful enough to be the destroyer of worlds. Yeah. That’s not how I read that quote. No, no, no, no, no. I’m just talking about what actually happened in sequential time, because this is where the line of reality is, right? So I can go, way before he was involved in the project, he foresaw, right? This would be prophetic. He foresaw that he would become the destroyer of worlds. That’s a prophetic story. That’s a fantasy. No, it’s an imagination. Now, whether or not that actually happened, as far as I know, it didn’t, right? After the fact, he has a realization of what he’s unleashed on the world. Those two conditions are as far apart as you can get. And so you have to ask yourself, let’s suppose for a moment that you did feel that way. Why would you tell anybody that? Like, why would you mention that to anybody? Because all you’re doing at that point is gathering clout and playing God. Okay, so let’s back up here for a second. Oppenheimer says, I am become death destroyer of worlds after a test in 1945. Right, after the work is done. Yes, and I don’t think they anticipated just what it would look like. They saw the theoretical potential on paper for the actual realization or encounter with this. Nope. You know anything about the Manhattan Project? Because we can go into a little history. I love history. Okay, please. Okay, so part of the issue with the Manhattan Project was considered so important that they put this, I forget the name, the general, they put this guy in charge. And this guy is a complete insane maniac like me. And he goes, all right, we have, I think it’s five. It might be seven. I don’t remember the details, but it’s way more than three, right? Like we have these different methods for refining uranium. We don’t know which one works best. We’re going to do them all. So we’re just gonna set up manufacturing labs all around the country, right? Tennessee’s got a famous one, right? They’ve got one down here in South Carolina, right? There’s a bunch. Yep. Right, to try and refine uranium for this project. Yeah. Okay, that gives you the magnitude of the importance, right? Their goal, their T-loss was to build a bomb, a single bomb that could destroy a huge city. So to say that they didn’t anticipate that outcome is crazy talk. They absolutely did. That was the outcome they were going for. That’s what they were aiming for. Oh yeah, I have read it in slightly different ways. I guess, I read Oppenheimer to say, like he encountered the sort of megalomania in himself and he was shocked by it, right? Like I think that the story of worlds is a lament for having reached into the heavens and tried to become God. Yeah, but it’s also a statement that you have done that. Yeah, it’s both. Right, well that’s the problem. It’s both. Yeah, well that’s kind of the human dilemma though. You find yourself, you think yourself, like in any endeavor that you set out to do, let’s say you have grandiose ideas about what you’re capable of. At the end of it, you realize, oh shoot, I overshot or oh shoot, that really didn’t turn out as well. That happens to everybody all the time. But again, then you run into an additional problem, which is, all right, look, let’s try this. When my mother was alive, she was talking about, oh my doctor wants me to take wellbutrin and I don’t like it. And I said, mom, why don’t you like wellbutrin? And she said, well, because sometimes it makes me feel manic in the way that I think I could run the world. And I was like, well, I don’t know, sounds pretty good to me. Sign me up, you know what, get the prescription and give me some, that sounds great. And she’s like looking at me and I’m like, mom, you can’t do it, what difference does it make? And she’s like, yeah, you’re right. She still didn’t take the wellbutrin, but I was like, yeah, you know, you feel like you rule the world. You’re driving down, like with me, I drive down the street, I get the top down, it’s 85 degrees, sun’s beating down, I’m absolutely loving everything. And I’m like, I could rule the world right now, I can’t. So it’s just fun, it’s just fun at that point, it’s not a big deal, right? But, but, but there’s a difference when I go on YouTube and I go, you know what I did the other day? I imagined it, I ruled the world. Now you’re doing something different, right? Now you’re in a different scope, in a different scale, right? You’re at a different scale. So now the things you’re involved in become different. Mm-hmm. Oh, no freaking way. Pastor Paul, welcome, my friend. I tried to malign you earlier, but I couldn’t bring myself to it because- So, but this is back to my original question about the criterion about how you distinguish between fantasy and reality. As soon as you said, I don’t, this is a new person. As soon as you said, I’m not ruling the world. In fact, I’m imagining that I’m ruling the world. You have this, you’ve already made an allowance that you’re not doing it in reality. You’re doing it in your fantasy. So I am, I’m trying to understand- That observation never happens. Where, well, not to the madman. No, but I’m saying, so what you’re doing right now is you’re casting something in your imagination that you think is possible. And I’m saying, no, it can’t work that way. Like flat out. Okay, I’m not following at all. Okay, here, you’re imagining what’s going on in someone else’s head. And I’m saying, nah, that’s not what’s going on in their head. And the reason why you’re imagining it that way is because that’s a, what we do with our fantasy world, right? And we have a tendency to prefer our view of the world. And when we prefer our view of the world to the exclusion of our observation, we run into a problem. When we take our observation and we go, oh, Oppenheimer said this. Again, what Oppenheimer said is that he had become something godlike. That’s basically what he said. He didn’t say, I’m imagining myself becoming, he didn’t say that. Now you can say that’s what he thought, but you can’t know that. And that’s where the problem comes in. It’s like, you can imagine all these scenarios of how he was thinking about it in the moment, but they’re all false. Because you’re not here. So all I hear you saying though, is that in conversation or trying to think about what is in someone else’s head, you’re doing what every person has to do, which is reach across this material divide, this external reality and pick up cues from what they’ve said, from like anything, right? In Oppenheimer’s case, you can’t meet him personally. So you have to read books. You have to go to experts and figure out what might Oppenheimer have meant. And then you’re gonna come to some sort of like idea of what Oppenheimer’s intention was. But you can’t imagine the problem. No, no, well, so this is where I lose you because if you can’t, you might as well not even try. No, that’s not true. No, no, you just need to recognize the limits of what you can and can’t know in the world, right? And so look, here’s the problem. You can talk to somebody and say, what did you intend? And to Jordan Peterson’s excellent point, you don’t know what the hell you’re up to. You have no idea what you’re up to. I am saying, I don’t know why I’m talking to you if what you’re saying is true. I don’t know why you’re talking to me or trying to communicate to anybody. Because you’re trying to understand too much. And I would point out that it is not the material that separates us. It’s actually the ethereal that separates us. The thing that brings us together is the fact that we’re all on the same planet at approximately the same time, maybe in different stages of development, different experiences, but we’re able to commune in physicality, in materiality. We’re not able to commune in our fantasy. Oh, you know what? Okay, so I am more or less with you on that. Okay, well, because you said the opposite. Yeah, like my head, my subjective reality, you have not lived it. Like I look at you and I say, I see a body sitting in a chair who has a head who’s talking intelligible words, but based on, I can reflect on my own mental state and I know that I have a memory that stretches back into the distant past. All kinds of experiences there that you can’t imagine based on just what you see here and now. I would have to like do the hard work of telling you my life story in order for you to even begin to get a glimpse of what’s all up here. That’s- But I don’t need to know that to go fishing with you. I don’t even need to talk to you. Okay, I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but- Yeah, you can participate in the world without language and it works just great. Point you’re trying to make is confusing. Why? Well, you would need to know that there’s something in a person’s head that they’ve, if not memories, they’ve learned- No, I don’t need to know that. No, I don’t. No, you actually don’t. So- Hey, Sally. Hi. So have you read Frederick Nietzsche’s uses- Good Lord, no. Why would anybody read such garbage? Well, so because you’re sounding a lot like me, at this point, where he says, look at those animals. They have no memory. They have no mind. They’re just happy. They’re just- Yeah, Nietzsche’s wrong about all that, by the way. That’s just- Flopping here and there. No, no, no, but the point is you don’t need to know that another person is sentient, right? Like- No, no, you need to know that they’re sentient. No, no, no, you’re conflating. You’re conflating understanding somebody completely with sentience. All I need to know is that they’re sentient. I don’t need to know anything past that. Okay, so I’m still not following you. What do you mean by explaining somebody completely? Look, you’re assuming you need to know all these things about a person in order to cooperate with them in physical reality, including communicating with them. And I’m telling you, you don’t. And people that doubt this are people that think that language is thought or something, because a lot of people think that. All right, all right. Don’t understand the Helen Keller story, just move on. Do you drive a car? Do you drive a car? Yeah. Okay, so you drive on the road, right? And you trust that other people are not gonna just arbitrarily blow through stop signs. No, I don’t. Change lanes. No, I don’t, because they do it all the time. Okay, but within reason, like we are- No, no, it’s not, no, no, it’s not within reason. That’s the whole thing. It is unreasonable for somebody to blow a stop sign because they could kill themselves. There’s no reason behind that. And it could be a mistake. But you can anticipate deviations within a certain framework, right? We’re not driving in the middle of New Delhi here. There are actually sort of restraints that we all work with and operate with. We predict what other drivers are doing. But they’re irrelevant, because sometimes that doesn’t work because people make mistakes. Oh yeah, people make mistakes. So the fact that their constraints are huge, it doesn’t solve a problem. I’m not suggesting that there’s a perfect world out there that everybody can perfectly anticipate what everybody else is doing. My point is- You don’t have to. Like when I go onto the road, I assume that other drivers are gonna behave in roughly a way because they’ve been driving like I’ve been driving. Like I assume a whole lot about them. Right, but you don’t need to, to drive. You can just observe and figure out what the rules are, for example. You don’t need any of those models in your head. You just don’t need them. So this is where I lose you because my interaction with the world is based on like a number of sort of habituated practices, which I’ve learned over periods of time. And I trust other people also have a repertoire of habituated practices. Maybe not. Maybe other people don’t work like you work. Like that’s a bad assumption already. Maybe other people have totally different ways of viewing the world. So I’ve noticed that you come on here every Friday, I think, to have like a three hour- Every Friday. Yes, I do. All right, that’s a habituated practice. Hi, Paul. No, it’s not. It’s a participation in a community. Yeah, that’s what community is. I wouldn’t call it habituated practice. It’s literally what it is. It’s not my habit. It’s not a practice. So Paul is a pastor. He will tell you that people do not like it when the service order is changed. Yeah, yeah, I’m not denying that people who are used to a procedure get upset when that procedure’s not there. Pastor Paul, please, please join us. So let me just do my dyspnea. I think neurojectivism is enough. Pastor Paul, please, please. Anyways, so I will step back now. I bet that it was a pleasure to meet another French Canadian. I can only- Always a pleasure. Paul. I get an exclaim to be one by adoption. That’s fine. That’s good enough. Pastor Paul, I didn’t know you would even ever watch one of my livestreams. I know you haven’t watched my videos. I’m a famous YouTuber. I have a thousand subscribers now. Come on. You got a thousand now? That’s because Joe tweeted me out and bang, I got a thousand subscribers in two weeks. You’re in the hierarchy. You’re off a zero. You’re off a zero. Yeah. I do check in on your livestreams on Friday afternoons. It’s just that what I really need to do now is make a video for Monday, which I don’t have one for Monday. Don’t do it. But I also have to go home. But I saw Richard on here and I thought, oh, this is gonna be interesting. So Paul has been trying to get me to interact in some way. And I chose you as my on-ramp. I think it’s a perfect on-ramp for you, Richard. No, it’s good. We’re happy to have you here. We’re rejecting this little corner moniker entirely, but that’s a different story. I’m calling it the cornered network now, but Mark doesn’t mind. That’s good. Well, it’s good because the people who feel cornered are all rebels and they’ll get all upset and leave. I didn’t wear my tinfoil hat. Am I gonna be subject to mind control? I am just participating because Mark said he was doing a stream on fantasy. So I thought I’d bring some of mine. She’s bringing the fantasy. She’s an artist. She’s super creative. And she might be the person who we told not to go on Twitter, who immediately went on Twitter and we both went, what the hell are you doing? We actually told you not to do that because we were gonna post all your stuff for you. Not clear. Oh, not clear. It was a good idea. We said it four times each. It couldn’t have been more clear. A neon sign wouldn’t have made a better impression, Sally. Come on. Loudly. Fantasy. I’m gonna delete it anyway because I had another account that I forgot about. No, keep it. I like that you put the notepad guts on there, especially the AI one, for example. It’ll be fine. Well, I’m not planning on staying because I’m not gonna make a video. I’m gonna go home and have dinner with my wife. Go home and have dinner with your wife. And instead of making your crazy videos, some of which are very good, by the way, why don’t you chop up some of my stuff and comment on that? Because I have some great material. Your comments would be very useful. All right, well, let me go over to navigating patterns. I know the channel name. Make a playlist of places I’m sure Mark is wrong. That would be good. He needs it. Sure, that would be great. Mark is never wrong. Oh, Mark is wrong about all kinds of things all the time. I got some feedback on Discord today and he said, well, you should have given some examples in this video. And I was like, oh, shoot, that’s a good feedback. I totally screwed that up. So next time I’ll try to give good examples for critical thinking where it goes horribly wrong. I was like, yeah, I didn’t do that. I should have done that. You’ve got some engaging thumbnails and titles. I’ll say that Mark. Excellent job. Thank you. Thank you, Sally Jo. Thank you. I do most of the thumbnails, but like I have a lot of help, Paul. It’s just not the same as doing my work. I don’t edit most of my videos. I don’t like the animation. The boat is a picture of my boat, but Sally Jo turned it into this thing. I didn’t do obviously the music and the opening animation. I built the animation. It was so terrible. Sally Jo had to redo it. Yeah, I have a lot of help. Wow. That’s fun that it’s a joint effort. I like that. Yeah, I really agree. I really agree, Paul Venderclay. I’m talking to you actually. I think Mark is a very important voice in this little corner. And I regret the fact that there isn’t, that he isn’t more exposed quite frankly, because I think he’s got his finger on the pulse of some things that nobody else is saying. I think he does too. Yeah. I often, when I talk to Mark and when I listen to him, I often come away with some really helpful insights. Yeah. Thank you for saying that, Paul. Yeah, I like that you put excellent feedback or something on one of the last comments I made on your videos. I was like, oh, okay. Your comments are so voluminous, which is good. They’re very meaty. That was a short one, damn it. That wasn’t even a two post one. That was a short one. Well, I screenshot a comment from Manuel recently too, because it was an outstanding comment. I don’t- Oh, he’s gotten really good. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we’re all together getting better. That’s how it works. We’re better together. That’s true. I say that in many of my videos. We’re better together. That’s true. And I do like the pirate captain outfit. I really do. Do you? Oh, okay, good. Well, that’s good to know. It’s just, Friday afternoon is not an easy time for most people. A lot of people in this little corner watch during their work day. And so Friday afternoon, it’s like turning off the YouTube. I’m going home. I’m out of here. So it’s a tough slot. I don’t know if Jacob assigned you this slot or what. No, no, no, no, no, no. I assigned it to myself and then Jacob was like, oh, it was very clever of you to pick the Sabbath because I, you know, and I was like, I didn’t pick it for that reason. I didn’t even think of that. Like, why would that occur to me? But that’s perspective. That’s his like imagination of my thinking. And it bears no resemblance to how I made this decision whatsoever. The whole reason why I’m here is Jesse’s fault. Jesse’s the one who said, hey, this is the time I can participate. And I was like, okay, I love your feedback. I’d love to actually participate more with you because Jesse is super valuable member of the community, knew that though he may be in relative terms. And so I was like, this is why I wanna do this. Cause I wanna talk more to Jesse because he’s in Australia. The Asia, Australia, that’s a tough time zone for this little corner. It really is. Island time. We’re in island time. Yes, yes. You are now. Mark’s like be here at nine. I’m like, I’ll be here at 10, 10, 20 maybe. It’s, yeah, he’s, Jesse’s great. But I’m always plugging in audio cables and mucking around with things. Yeah, I noticed that. Poor Jesse, I thought he was ready. That’s why I brought him up. I gave him some time and everything. And I’m like, all right, he must be ready by now. No, but he brings the art. So Richard has been in CRC Voices. Richard’s voluminous. He writes a lot. So, and he’s very smart. He’s got a good education. I spent a month away in the Philippines. So you might’ve noticed that. Yeah, I did. We all got a chance to catch our breath. Oh, shots fired. So if you look at the number of posts per month on CRC Voices, when I joined, it like doubled or tripled. Yeah, he came in like a hurricane. Excellent. Well, I’m glad he’s here. I like the participation. That makes me happy. So very exciting. I came here to ask you about the correspondence theory of truth. And I came to ask you, are you just a critic of materialism or do you actually have a well-articulated correspondence theory of truth? No, correspondence theory of truth is garbage. Okay, please, please help me understand whether we’re on the same page. And then we can understand whether, why, why it’s garbage. I’m gonna dip out God’s blessings to all of you. Pastor Paul, thank you so much. Great to see you. Good to see you, my friend. So why is it garbage? Sorry, what is it so that we’re on the same page and then why is it garbage? Because the true is always moving because entropy. And therefore there can’t be a preexisting thing to correspond to. Okay. And so the correspondence, such as it may be, has to be instead of to something preexisting, it has to be to the ideas, the ethereal, the fantasy, the imaginal aspirations that cause us to co-manifest reality. Okay, that sounds like a lot of nonsense to me, but I’m like, I kind of feel where you’re coming from. Yeah, that’s fair, Richard. I wanna ask Tim, if Tim found that nonsensical or not? I didn’t find that nonsensical. So are you a process theorist, like an Alfred Norris Whitehead? Richard, take every idea in the last, say, I don’t know, 2,000 years and throw it out. I don’t, anything past Plato and Aristotle is complete garbage. So you’re a Hermitian. No, not at all. Well, he’s before Plato and Aristotle. Yeah, I didn’t say I took everything before Plato and Aristotle. I said everything after that I reject. Outright, bad framing, all of it. Okay, so this is how I use correspondence theory, right? Let’s say we’re in the same room, we’re looking out the window and I say, look at that tree. And I have an idea of the tree that I perceive in the world and you say, oh, you mean that tree. And I say, yes. And we both have our different perceptions of what this tree is doing, but we’re looking at the same thing and we can, if we need to come to a clear conception of what this tree is, right? Through conversation, we’re not gonna get to the essence of it. I’m not getting to the form or the substance of it. I am wrestling with the appearances and trying to reconcile the idea that I have in my head with the tree that’s in front of me such that I can make it intelligible to you, such that you can kind of get the idea in my head, right? And I would suggest that in any conversation we have, including this one, we’re constantly straining at a mutual understanding through conversation. Now, there is something that we’re trying to get at and we name it differently. And I say, oh, that sounds wild and crazy because I have no idea where you’re trying to direct my attention. Then I listen to you and like I say provocative things and then I draw you out to try to get a better framing of the idea in your head so that there’s this whatever that we’re talking about that I can get a better idea of it in my head. So I have this, I am trying to, like there’s something that we’re talking about that I want the ideas in my head to correspond to. And I think you’re doing the same thing. I’m definitely not doing any of that. See, this is the problem. Is it you or are you thinking that I think like you and I’m telling you, there’s no freaking way any of that is an accurate description. So then I don’t understand why you’re talking. Is Richard, was Richard’s description of correspondence theory, is that what you, how you see it, Mark? No, look, look, there are lots of descriptions of the world that work, right? I can say the only reason to talk to somebody is to get power over them. That is not a bad description of the world. It’s useless, right? But it’s not inaccurate or imprecise. This is why the postmoderns have a point because you can map any number of descriptions on hindsight and have them work. Descriptive theories are easy. Any idiot can do them. Literally three-year-olds do them all the time, right? And this is why fantasy and reality are important because when you have a descriptive capability about the world, especially in hindsight, you come up with all kinds of things that are irrefutably correct. Unfortunately, many of them conflict. And so now you’re like, well, wait a minute, that description works and that description works and that description works and that, and they can’t all be accurate and precise even though by themselves they are, right? And so now it’s like, well, what does that mean? That means that all models are wrong and some models are useful still, right? But to cast what I’m doing in that light is just totally wrong because first of all, honestly, Richard, and this isn’t personal, I don’t care if anybody understands what I’m saying. I am not trying to reach an accord with any single human being on this planet. And people find this interesting and they wanna discuss it. I’m happy to try and do that, but that’s not my goal at all. So you’re not even trying to make yourself intelligible to anybody else. Nope. This is purely grandstanding and like, No, it’s not grandstanding. Pleasure in your ego. It’s not grandstanding. You’re stuck in these binaries, like, well, if it’s not this, it must be, no. There are lots of options and that’s the problem, right? So one thing you could say is that sometimes people act out or speak out or whatever to be heard, right? So why does the crazy woman go in the middle of the city and just scream like with the meat? Why does she do that? She doesn’t do that to communicate information to other people. She does that to be heard. She’s communicating. There is communication going on, but that’s not the telos of it. The telos of it is to basically get attention to a plight, which she hasn’t communicated, right? It’s a personal. Which she hasn’t communicated at all. So, yeah, no, no, no. Like, I’m still missing you because you’re trying to talk about something. Presumably, it isn’t all in your head. You’re trying to talk about something. I am talking about something. Your words are gonna correspond to something. No, I don’t know if my words correspond to anything and I don’t particularly care. And artists are probably fuming right now because- They don’t operate on that even a little bit. No, no, so what I see you doing is having abandoned communication. Like the very idea of communication as such. No, no, no. Quite the opposite. I’m denying the primacy of communication. No, no, Richard, Richard. I’m denying the primacy of communication in the participation that I’m engaged in. That is not denying communication. There are lots of options that aren’t that absolute. I’m not saying I don’t communicate. That’s absurd. I’m not a postmodernist. Oh, you’re just not a- Why do you need to label? Yeah, put me in another bucket that won’t fit, please. This’ll be fun. Because I can do this all day. I find that, Mark, I haven’t listened to you like a whole lot, but my feeling about when I do listen to you is that you’re talking about super high patterns that can’t find ground in me, oftentimes. That’s okay. And I feel like actually just now was probably the best, your answer about the correspondence theory was like the best, it clicked with me the best of anything you said so far. But I wanted to ask Richard, so I just looked up a definition of correspondence theory. I mean, I’ve heard Paul talk about it. I’m not like an educated guy on the stuff, but it’s what I understand. When I heard you giving your description of it, it sounded very much like what Mark was saying. It didn’t sound like what I understood correspondence theory to be. So the technical definition of correspondence theory is the adequatio of the intellect to the race, to the thing. So there has to be, you have an idea in your head and it’s gotta correspond to something in reality, the Latin term. I understood that correspondence theory had to do with whether or not something is true. In order to be true, well, I just looked it up. It says in order to be true, it has to correspond with an actuality or the… Yeah, I think. Right? The pre-existing material reality argument. And objective material reality does not exist. Hold on, hold on, Sally. Keep it there for a sec. What? Okay, so. There we go. Like what version of objective material reality are you talking about? All possible interpretations of the term objective material reality. How’s that? Is that better? Is that clear? So your body doesn’t exist. No, I didn’t say that. Do you agree that was… I think that the body is objective. Like the body is not me. In what way is the body objective? Cause every cell in my body is changing over all the time. How is that objective? No, no, no, but you confused… Okay, so two things are going on here. One is I’m talking about objectivity in terms of perception. You seem to be talking about objectivity in terms of… There’s no… There’s not perception in the objectivity. No, no, no. You seem to be talking about objectivity in terms of like a eternal self-saneness, which is like genuinely confusing. No, no, no, no. That’s more objectivity. No, no, it’s way worse than that, Richard. Okay. Like I don’t make that mistake at all. The mistake I make is that in order to positive objective material reality, you have to have that stance and that stance is obviously wrong. What? What? Yeah. No, no, no. So I don’t… So like the basis is I don’t see you as even attempting to make yourself intelligible, right? But you keep saying that’s not true, but that’s what you keep saying. I don’t know what you’re saying. Well, but like the intelligibility presupposes some sort of common participation. No, you’re assuming a T-loss that fits your worldview and then trying to stick me in that box and it’s not working. What is a worldview? So in my mind, there rises a freight train just screeching down and there’s no tracks and it’s just kind of ripping the world apart and it’s ranting that there’s no tracks here while it just drives really, really quickly. I like that image. And I mean it’s fantasy, but that’s what arises in my concept. Well, the natural correspondence to the participation. Richard, define communication. How does communication happen? You have to communicate a message. That message is full of words. Those words are full of meanings. Those meanings are full of spirits or tones or implications. I mean, this is communication. But we have to hear that the correspondence is that the response to the communication. Like you can communicate basically by… Yeah, of course. You can just do it musically. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, you can… You’re talking to a musician. Like I could say more to you in two minutes of music than I could in like 10,000 words. But you could write… Or as the saying goes, a picture is a thousand words. You couldn’t make… You couldn’t write Plato’s Republic in a picture. Yes, you could. No, you couldn’t. I don’t believe that’s true. Plato’s Republic is more like a song than it’s like facts. So like if you think that you can compose No, I’m talking about the correspondence. I could give you a message that would be a representation of Plato’s theory. Okay. That’s how you use language. Use language to communicate a message. And then in that communication, the message is a response. That response is the correspondence. Co-respondence. So we’re like, we are having a conversation here. So we’re like trying to get at something, right? We’re trying to get at something that we’re talking about. No, I’m communicating to you based upon the information you’re giving to me. Yeah. So the information is the thing that we’re talking about. The thing is the thing we’re talking about. The what? It’s only intelligible if it has meaning. If we could continue to throw words at each other, which is what we call a word salad for the next hour, and nothing intelligible has happened, which is wasted everyone’s time. But if it’s good correspondence, it has a meaning to it. Are you sitting in front of a microphone? Like there are… We gotta get down this train again. It doesn’t matter where I am. Communicate about. No, it doesn’t matter where he is. This is the point. Like these details, these niggly implementation details are not relevant to the communication. It can be done a number of different ways. And so the thing can’t be the implementation. All right, so we are communicating. We are trying to make sense of what we are doing. No, I am not trying to make sense of what I am doing. Then I don’t know why you’re doing that. No, no, that’s the way you think other people think. And other people are saying that’s absolutely not the way I think. You’re rejecting that because it’s the interview with the worldview. You’re trying to make sense of things. Like don’t… I’m not trying to make sense of anything, dude. I’m trying to share my sense of things. You’re reacting to me. But I’m not trying to make sense of the main… You’re saying you don’t understand me. So you’re trying to communicate that. So like I’m still convinced that this is nonsense, right? Because you’re not beginning with the concession that you are communicating. This is something you’re trying to communicate. I’ve already said like three times I’m communicating, but that isn’t a T-loss. The fact that you’re trying to make yourself eligible. With or without intent, with or without knowledge, and with or without understanding. Communication happens by your existence alone. Oh, that’s fine. Oh, okay. I agree. Oh, good. Then communication isn’t the primary thing. Cause I said that before. You went back there again. It’s the relationship between two things. That’s what you call the correspondence. Dialogos. Dialog. I know I’m stretching, but I’m trying to contrast a point, which is the connection between two things. Now that connection could be severed. It could be bad. That’s what’s called abstract art, right? The connection between two things, right? Is disconnected, but you can still find a meaning in there. It’s just disconnected from, it’s an abstract of that communication, but we can still see it. We can still have an idea of what it’s trying to say, but we don’t have an intelligibility. Like your T-loss that you’re trying to keep framing here is that things have to be intelligible, but we’ve already discussed, well, I’ve already suggested that words, meanings, pictures, sounds are not always intelligible. I don’t know if what I’m going to communicate to you makes sense. I don’t know if we ask talking for the next hour is going to matter, but the meaning is in the response. Are you guys fighting against like a perfect intelligibility? Like you don’t want… I’ve just rejected intelligibility as a frame. What’s that? I’ve just rejected intelligibility as a frame. That’s unintelligible. I’m sorry. No, the frame. No, that is completely unintelligible. Okay, I make a piece of music. You cannot communicate anything unless you assume that somebody else can understand. No, you communicate again. You communicate whether you intend to communicate or not. It is a function of being on the planet. Somebody else can understand. I don’t care if anybody else understands, dude. That’s a different issue. Some people communicate that way, that they’ve got a message and they want to get it out to people, right? But that is not the project here. The project here is around participation, not around communication. What the project is here without intending to? Yeah, a lot of things are happening without intent. That is true because people point things out to me all the time and they go, you did that. And I was like, I did? Well, how the hell did that? I don’t even know how that happened. But I’m glad it happened to you because that’s great participation. And that happens with all kinds of things because your intent is not the world. Like this is the fantasy in your head that doesn’t translate to our experience at all. What are we talking about? We’re talking about the topic of imagination and fantasy and hallucination and the fact that this is a great exemplification of exactly what the monologue was on about. I’m still stuck at, I was talking about fantasy and communication. So we have things that we’re talking about and you’re trying to make them interrogable to me. Are you intending to be mean and look like you’re trying to take over somebody else’s thing because it’s different than what you like? Because I guess you’re not intending to, but it seems that way. Very good, exactly. Okay, so you’re- Yeah, there is an intent to believe in. No, like you gave you intent and then you rejected intent. Okay. Look, when I communicate an artistic message to you, the best thing I can hope for is that you have an insight. Right? Yeah. So I can say communication to you with a message, right? How you receive and respond to that is ultimately not up to my control. I can propose a message to you, you can receive it, but that could be completely different than my intent. But if you have an insight, it’s valuable to you. Which is to say that there isn’t like a universal mind. We each have to bring our own series of- No, we cooperate. We cooperate. What’s that? We cooperate. Yeah, absolutely. That makes perfect sense. So, but the cooperation like presupposes a common frame of reference. Well, you’re alive, are you not? Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. So you have to assume something in order to communicate to the other person. Exactly. So there’s- The world is full of assumptions. Welcome to the muppet crisis. Yeah, no, this is like genuinely confusing. This is- Exactly. It is genuinely confusing because you want to communicate to someone, but you can’t control how they receive it, how they respond. So you just have to communicate your message with a T loss behind it, with the meaning. Uh-huh. So it’s like, I guess I’m still kind of dumbfounded here because you guys are intending to communicate something to me. No. No, no, I’m responding to you. You keep prescribing an intent in intent when Sally asked you if you had a particular intent that manifested, you said no, but you want to ascribe intent to us, even though you rejected. Like I’m trying to reach across that material divide here to try to understand- No material divide. That doesn’t exist. The divide is in theory. Yep, Chad, welcome. Hi. Give us your wisdom, Chad. Give us your wisdom. What are you guys talking about? That’s a great question. Break streams. Oh, correspondence theory. Herb. I think Rich wants to know what’s Mark’s intent with this stream, and he’s saying it in an obscure way. Oh. The fact that you’re here means that Mark has got your attention, and that you find what Mark is saying valuable. Me? We’re going to hunt the lizard people down, and we’re going to make a pay for their crimes. That’s why you’re here, Richard. Now you’re- Also true. A lot. Richard, are you the Richard that I recently was chatting within some comment sections or? I don’t think so. Okay. I’ve seen you on a couple of the randos conversations. That’s the same black hat. Yeah. Chad the alcoholic. Or a firming Chad I saw. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, what are you guys talking about? Fantasy. This whole chat was supposed to be about fantasy and hallucination. And hallucination. And Richard’s giving us an example of how he’s fantasizing about other people’s intent, because it must be true. So, I mean, if you draw a line between fantasy and reality, you’ve already committed yourself to like something that you’re trying to make intelligible to other people. Like you can’t just pretend. Well, okay. So let me just ask the question this way. Do you think the entire world is your own hallucination? Obviously not. Or I wouldn’t distinguish between hallucination, fantasy, imagination and reality. So that’s apparently not the case. Fantasy in what way are we using fantasy? Is it like story form or are you talking about delusion or are we talking about? Sorting them out actually. Chad, how do you know if it’s a magic trick? A magic trick is an illusion played on you and you’re willing to go along with it. But I’m not talking about, I’m trying to discern what kind of fantasy are you talking about? Good question. The concept of fantasy. As opposed to not fantasy or reality. Like in a story? Well, it could be a story. It might not be, it might be a delusion. The way fantasies are used or the inspiration and fantasy, are those the same? Are they different? Some people think you need drugs to get hallucinations and I don’t need to. Not for being imaginative. I can just think stuff up. But it turns into danger time, right? Because periods of not talking to people, sorting out what I thought was happening and what I was imagining happening, gets harder and harder and harder. It’s much better when you have other people to balance it off of more and more. In really nuanced ways. Not like big ways. Not like is that big foot. In like, do all my coworkers hate me? Kind of ways. That one. That’s fantasy to have to be convinced. It’s like, everybody who hates me, it’s obvious. And then you talk to people and like, maybe they were just late, because they were late. It’s not because they hate you, they just, bad. That happens. That happens. I’ve always been bothered by, when I would hear people describe, oh dude, you can’t really understand Pink Floyd unless you’re on drugs or whatever. I think that’s stupid. It’s like, I wanna be on drugs and I don’t wanna feel bad about it. So if more people are on drugs, then I’ll feel bad. So, the idea that you’re talking about is, do these people hate me? I don’t know if that’s fantasy, but. So, what I’m getting out of, when you guys talk about fantasy, obviously my mind is gonna go towards story. And then I think of the kind of information that can sit inside of a story that can’t be conveyed just with linear ideas or straightforward something or other. So that’s what I’m thinking about. I’m gonna have to get going here pretty shortly, but yeah. What do you think about that, about information inside of stories that can’t be laid out like as facts or whatever? Yeah, I would just put that under the poetic information category, Chad. That’s what I would do with it. Because poems have that feature too. It’s like you can’t, like poems are an attempt to graph something ethereal that can’t be put in the propositions correctly or in an accurate and precise way, right? And they open you up into Sally’s point. Look, if you watch something like the wall and you take drugs, and let’s suppose you do that with four people like if you don’t take drugs, because I don’t take drugs, right? And then you ask them what it was about or what they saw in it. The variance gets increased, not decreased, right? The correspondence goes down because of the hallucinations. Effectively what’s happening. As they’re more into the fantasy land with psychedelics, they get less on the same page about what’s happening in the world. That happens, like that’s real. And so when you’re in that state, that’s fantasy. And you don’t wanna concentrate on it too much because you’ll get paranoid to Sally’s or a good point. Like, did somebody do that because they don’t like me? Or did somebody do that because there was a rainstorm and they were late? I don’t know. Or because their kid threw up on the way out the door, right? Or like there’s any, right? And it’s that paranoia. It’s the thing that Paul Vanderveld talks about all the time, right? Where we outsource our sanity. We need each other to be sane. If you put somebody in solitary confinement, they go mad because they have only their fantasy and they can’t draw that line anymore between where their internals begin and end, right? And then where nature begins and ends and where other people begin and end. Because you need those lines and you can’t just say reality and fantasy because then you’re stuck with direction and direction doesn’t serve you. You still need three points. You need to orient in the world, not merely go in a direction in the world. So like, Bernice is all about like eliminating narrative, right? Yeah, he’s a postmodern. Right, and getting rid, and in that way you can get rid of fantasy because, but on the other hand- Right, because nomological order is magic. Because objective material reality and he’s wrong about all that. Right, and then, but then on the other hand, like we believe, I believe that there are meanings, there are reasons for things happening. And you can have fantasies about what the reasons are for what’s happening. But when you’re in a community participating, then you fantasize together about what the reasons are for what’s happening. Or you realize those reasons don’t matter and you can just participate without any of this nonsense. Right. And you figure out where that line is. What are the things I have to reason about and understand? And what are the things that I don’t have to reason about and understand? Like for example, if you grow plants, and I have grown plants, right? If you grow plants or you raise chickens or whatever, there’s any number of participations you can have, the reason why things didn’t go well is really not relevant because it already happened. And you can try to understand it if you want. And there is something you have to understand about it. But at a certain point, maybe it’s just happened and there was no, nothing you could have done. There was no action you could have taken. And maybe there’s no way to understand that fact ever. An example on an interpersonal level, also like I was talking with a monk one time and he was describing what a monastic life is like. And there’s strange things that they do. For example, two monks walking along a path, they pass by each other, they’re gonna go do separate jobs. They don’t look at each other. They don’t smile. They’ll say good morning. Add these extra things because these extra things create exclusive relationships between people and they’re supposed to be a brotherhood. And so exclusive relationships are not just discouraged, but the whole point is to not have exclusive relationships with people. Wow. Well, and that’s interesting, right? Because in other areas, that’s exactly wrong. And that’s okay. Like, there aren’t clear, bright, universal lines. Right, yeah. And Richard brought that up earlier when I was off camera. Right, he brought up the idea of universality. But the thing is, I don’t need to have a universality with you, Tim, to cooperate with you. Maybe we can just sit and fish together. Or maybe you can just come over here and then just I make food and we never talk. Yeah, you have to come out here because you’re landlocked. Ha ha. Also true. Okay. That’s really interesting what that monk said though about not making anything exclusive. So there’s something incredibly profound about that that I think could be talked about because it reminds me, Mark and I were talking about this last week, but it reminds me of people who are deeply wise. They have this way of not really saying much in a sense to somebody they pass by. It’s almost like it’s a form of musicality kind of, I don’t know, Jesse, but it’s almost like, it’s almost as if wisdom creates musicality somehow amongst people. It’s participation in a way. It’s bodily participation that I think we’ve lost so much of because look at us here. When you’re, there’s much more going on in reality between bodies than we realize. I think that’s the point I’m making. I think that’s what the monk was saying. I’d love to know what the rest of you see with what that person was saying because there’s something that really resonates deeply with me about how things are. And also just speaking from my experience, being married 16 years now, things have a way of kind of, certain things that were important, ways you communicate when you’re starting out kind of dissipate in the sense that you can start to just have silence or you don’t have to just constantly reassure one another. And those extra things you add on to being explicit about what the relationship is can cause problems. You’re just participating in the relationship. You’re not explicitly saying, oh, we’re still together and this is all, everything is a hundred percent okay. So in the context of monastery, they have like, you’re connected to the brotherhood. You’re not connected to the individual people, right? But you are bodily. Talk about participation, right? You’re living together. You’re eating together. You’re profoundly connected. You’re not tying the propositions and the procedures to individuals. Right, right. You’re tying them to the higher thing of the community, which is a liturgy, roughly speaking, right? And then what that means is that the proper participation from person to person is poetic. See the knowledge engine model? I linked it earlier, right? It’s all in there, right? It contains so much. Like we’re constantly finding, oh yeah, that fits right into this model, right? And that model was a result of a hell of a lot of work from a hell of a lot of great people, as I mentioned in the monologue. So yeah, you can see that the proper mode of participation is not procedural and it’s not explainable in propositions. Proper mode of participation is in the poetic interaction of the people participating or nature, right? Or the participation with yourself, which is something that, look, meditation, I still say it’s not an action. See my livestream on action. Riverlin gets all upset. Like I still insist that that is not an action, which is not to say that it’s bad or anything like that, or that it’s even optional, right? Because it does enhance your way of interacting with the world when done correctly. It’s just hard to know when you’re doing it correctly. And on that note, I wanted to, I do have to get going, but I wanted to direct you guys’ attention to the video that was kind of the thing I came in here with, to a video that came out with Dr. Timothy Patizas. And he had just a very short clip and I shared it on Twitter and stuff. Where he, I’d like to learn more about what he says about it, but he sounded a bit like Verbeke. I think he might be listening to Verbeke. But he says that, he said that, he was talking about cities and how a city is a liturgy. And- Was. It still is. Was. It’s directed, yeah, well. So it’s, a city is, as much as a city exists, it’s a liturgy. And how it’s also a city is a, yeah, it’s a liturgy. And he said that all complex self-organizing, systems are liturgies. And that because of that, though, we are living in a cosmic liturgy. So anyway, I didn’t fully process it, but it struck me and I just wanted to direct your guys’ attention to it, because I think- No, that’s great, Tim. I can’t find you on Twitter. So find me on Twitter and tweet to me so that I can follow you, because I wanna see that video. And I will, once I follow you, I’ll go look it up. But thank you, that’s really good. I think that, I think he’s probably got causality backwards. The idea of intelligibility means liturgy. Like the two are not separable. But I deeply get the point, and I do appreciate that. One distinction for fantasy versus reality might be the level of intelligibility with intelligibility representing something like order. So we can move Peterson back in with the chaos versus order thing and say, chaos is obviously not that it’s not real, right? But it is that it is a place of pure fantasy because it’s limitless and boundaryless and anything can happen. Do you remember the tangent that we were on about light being order? Yes. So I think that correlates, fantasy happens in the dimly lit, whether that’s in mind or physically. Because, yeah, I think it does. No, it’s at the extremes of things. Is it the extremes of things? Well, maybe, I don’t- You can be flash light, you can be flash light constantly, right? They can shock you into hallucination. Maybe, I don’t know, but it is the association with the amount of light and how much fantasy or not fantasy and the amount of order and how much fantasy or not fantasy. There’s something about that, that just, I don’t know. It was a fun thought that I had earlier today. So through it- You also daydream too, which is something I wanted to get us back to. Well, yeah. Hallucinations. So there’s- I will- I don’t wanna confuse hallucination with disassociation either. I think that’s a misstep. That’s a good point, Jesse. Before we get to that, I wanna thank Vectorman for A, his earlier comment and B, this one. I am glad to hear this. This is part of the point. I hope you can come on and participate at some point. But yeah, I think that daydreaming is properly predicting a pattern and trying to follow it through, as opposed to say pure fantasy. And not that the two can’t cross over. They can, absolutely, right? But as opposed to pure fantasy, which is now you’re deep into being away from the order. You’re in total exploration mode. You’re in that mode of infinite where the purple unicorn can talk to you and you can call back to it. Yeah, yeah. I like the term that’s used in the Bible. The one thing that struck me profoundly 50 years ago was the term vain imagination. And I think that nails it. Do not be vain in your imagination. I’m trying to remember where it was, but when I heard that, I went, that’s it. Don’t be vain in your imagination. Don’t, and we know, right? I think you can sense it. I think your body, Peterson would be able to tell us how this all works with our bodies and perception, et cetera. But I think your body knows. When you’re crossing into vain imagination, you can feel it. You can feel that you’re going past that line somehow. I don’t know. That’s just my thought. And you know me, Mark, I love Dr. Miguel Christen. He’s kind of clear on fantasy. Fantasy for him is, it’s a no-go zone. Just, that’s it. And he’s not talking about fantasies, the kind books and that kind of categorization. He’s talking about what I think what I mean and what the Bible means by vain imagination. Like just, it’s a dangerous thing, right? It’s a very- If you add the modifier, yeah, if you add the modifier, I agree. Without the modifier, I disagree. Like you need- Absolutely, well, absolutely. But I think it’s an important discussion to try to really, especially for people who are more artistic and high-entrade openness, right? Do you think that like when you ruminate on how things should have went differently and if things would have just went differently, it could have been this way and this way and this way. Do you think that’s pretty smack in the category of vain imagination? Absolutely. Yeah. It can be. It’s hard. I think it’s not fantasy necessarily, right? But it can turn into that if you try to live there or if you try to participate with it. If you’re playing out the entire scenario up into the present and into the next 50 years, it- If you’re doing that, Sally, and I would never accuse you of doing such a thing because there’s no need. You already know you’re guilty. But if you were doing that, yeah, and it only becomes unhealthy if you do that more than you participate or if you do that in order to avoid participation, the problem with participation is we’re fine failing in our head. We’re fine talking to the talking unicorn. It’s fine, right? Because nobody sees it. But if we have to go out and do something in the real world, and people see us fail, well, that’s a whole different thing. Now we’re talking about a different thing. The failure in your head is not the same as the failure out in the world because now people can criticize it. Yeah, but you have to contextualize everything. And at least that’s how I always look at things. You look at the greater world, and we are living in a vain imagination world if ever you had one. But it’s not one world because the vain imagination causes many worlds. And that’s why I did a tweet recently on, how can we have this, I’m gonna paraphrase, how can we have common sense if we don’t have common anything else? We’ve got nothing in common. Where’s this common sense? And everyone was like, wow, that’s really brilliant. And then a couple of people went, ooh, individualism is good. And I went, no, individualism is a problem because now you all have your own conception of the world, and that means your own models are how other people think. And those models are clearly wrong. And when they’re wrong, you get upset instead of adjusting to the world and going, oh, my model’s stupid, and I’m a Muppet because we’re all Muppets. And so instead of that, I think I’ll figure out why I’m wrong instead of trying to be upset at the world or change the world or sacrifice 200,000 cows to Gaia so that she’ll right the climate or whatever they did in Ireland there. Yeah, it’s crazy. But then, you know, Peugeot’s concept of the margins, right? And the fringe at the edge of the clothing. I don’t know, I would love to hear people’s thinking on this because I think it’s a really pivotal issue now because we live in this world that’s, well, the upside down clown world that everybody’s seeing. And so the question is, how did we get here? And how, I don’t know, to me, it’s pretty insidious. One of the major things that Peugeot helped me with because I really do have some, like, I can 3D form, whatever. I’m like, I like sculpture and I like grotesques. Like, I like to make monsters. I think there’s just something about putting a raw emotion into a form that’s a creature that makes sense. And I like doing it, it’s fun. But I can see how it can negatively affect people. And so I’ve had reserve about it because I’m like, I know this has its presence and it’s like, oh, what do I do about that? And Peugeot really fixed that for me because outside the church, the grotesque is appropriate. Outside the altar, the grotesque is appropriate. Like, there are places for that. So if you go from like the perimeter of the church grounds, grotesque facing outward, all the way to the inner sanctum, yeah, the inner sanctum, it’s not appropriate there. So having that order to the relationship, and even in my home, like the grotesques, don’t go in the bedroom. Like, I have my dragons with the water in the bathroom. And it makes this kind of sense because that’s not a holy place. That’s where you get rid of the filth and you have chaos. And there’s this order to it. And those type of things don’t go with the family portrait, which we don’t really have mantles in America, but given we had a mantle, that’s the place that is established for that norm. And that ordering, which we threw out when we got rid of the hierarchies of art is really detrimental actually. There is different skill levels. There are different honors to the, and I’m losing the word for it, confound it, to the value of the material. Oh, well, but there’s a difference between watercolor and oil. And there’s a difference between silversmithing and macaroni sculptures. And it’s just like, it’s not like there’s no place for macaroni sculptures, but probably not the inner sanctum. So, and that goes for subject and the material that things are made out of. Like it does, it actually does. And as soon as you have that clarity of like, oh, there’s the up and down, then you can appreciate all the things again. Yeah, exactly. It’s very freeing. It opens reality, right? And that’s the point. That’s the point of the gargoyles on the outside of the cathedral is vector mantras, right? And then what is clown world is bringing the gargoyles inside the sanctum. That’s what it is. So why do you need a margin? You need a margin because reality is permeable, but you don’t want it rushing at you because that’s a flood. Well, and so you need a margin to buffer that. Just, I mean, you see this in nature all the time. What is a marsh? If you wipe out the marsh, what happens? Everybody drowned. Why? Because the marsh takes up a lot of the wave and wind action into itself so that that gets dissipated so it doesn’t hit shore at full speed. And there are just thousands of examples in nature that probably get no, a fraction of them, but there are tons of them everywhere. But when you say, no, no, you know what? Everything’s equal. You do the equality doctrine thing. Now you have a problem. And the problem is you can’t discern the margin from the center. And now you can’t orient in the world because there’s no points. There is zero. Zero point. That’s the problem with equality. You need that boundary, that fringe in order to know where the edges of the container are because you don’t know where the edges of the container are, you can’t orient in the world. And now you’ve got all loss of meaning, huh? Yeah, I bet. I think the essential that Joe gave me was, and so my freeing me up to do my humorous work more seriously because I knew it existed and I knew it didn’t have, like I had always visualized myself as like a very serious oil painter. And I wanted to do surrealist paintings and I wanted to do them in a certain way. And I wanted to show that I could portray things at this high level and I can, but it doesn’t always like, and so I wouldn’t put forward the marginalia type stuff, the cartoony type stuff, that stuff, because I didn’t understand its placement. And I thought if I put it forward, it would be definitive. And it’s been such a gift to see that, oh no, it’s a place and it has its function. And yeah, no, I’m really grateful to Peugeot, but now I am at the end of my available time. So have a great evening. Good to see you Sally. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. That was interesting. Nice to see you Sally. Tin foil hats. Sally, your camera’s still on. Oh, well. There we go, full remover. What are you gonna do? Relationships have to exist in a particularity. You cannot have a relationship outside of a particularity. Thank you, Jessie. That’s so important. It’s so important and lovely. But the relationship isn’t dependent on that particularity. That’s the part where people get confused. Right. We can be friends without ever meeting in person. And there’s a limit to that if we’re not in person, but we can still be friends. And people don’t like that ambiguity. They wanna flatten the world and bring everything, compress it. They wanna bring it down. They wanna drag everything down. So they go, oh, well, friends are always the people who meet together in person once a week or something crazy. Right. That’s one implementation of friendship. But that is not the representation of the whole of friendship because Jessie and I are friends. And someday I’m gonna get to freaking Australia for sure. Well, I’m gonna get to America. Well, yeah, I mean, no, no. If you come here, that’s great. But I’m also going there. Yeah. But I think- I’m gonna try to make that happen someday. This is so important though, too, what Sally Jo was saying, because basically this whole idea, I’m really fascinated with this idea of opening to possibility. I was talking to you, Ian McGillchrist had a really interesting conversation with Patrick Curry about enchantment. It was brilliant. And I asked them about the strange and the wild actually, which is tying in with what Sally Jo was just saying and the importance of the strange and the wild and the opening to possibility. And so it’s really tricky for me to even, I don’t have a very clear picture of how that works with imagination in a way. I don’t know that we understand imagination very well. No, I agree, we don’t. No. That’s why Vervecky is very popular when he says, imaginal. Ooh, imaginal, imaginal, wow, wow. Yeah, because whatever, right? Right, but also he’s making the movie he says we can’t make, which is true world mythology. Like, oh, there’s an imaginal realm and there’s a scientific realm, John. Right, right. That sounds like you to me, buddy. Good point, good point, Mark. Thank you. Yeah. So then when you distinguish between fantasy and reality, is that not the same thing? Not even close. What do you mean, Richard? What are you saying? What are you asking? Well, there’s, I mean, the distinction between fantasy and reality is going to, I don’t know, presuppose like a mind-body distinction. There’s a… Nope. So, I was wondering where you ground the distinction. You sometimes can’t. How do you know when you’re dreaming? Right? More than often when you realize that you’re in a dream, you wake up, more than often. So, I have had the experience in the last year and a bit of spending three or four months in a state of heightened anxiety. And at the end of those three or four months, I had a complete break, right? And that memory is pretty fresh. And I remember being unable to process the world around me. Stimulus around me. I was there, I was processing it, but everything was skewed and very narrowed. And I wildly drew connections that perhaps I didn’t. And I was unable to, as it were, in my head to game out or explore different interpretive possibilities. Everyone going on in my head forced me to focus in on one thing. And so then I had the break, my brain stuttered, I saw it, I said, oh shit, this is actually physiological. This isn’t just something like a moral or personal failing that I should be able to will myself past. I need to go to a doctor and I got on SSRIs and very gradually, my ability to interpret the world around me came into a clearer focus. That’s great. And one of the sort of the criterion that I use to figure out whether I’m in touch with reality or not is by bouncing things off other people, what do they think? Right? How do these outsource? And then bouncing things off animals, pets, what do they think? How are they reacting against me, right? And so I look at it and say, yeah, there has to be some criterion that’s guiding me in this process, which I’ve gone through over a number of, like the last year and a half, to being more grounded than I was. And it is not necessarily an intelligible T-Lost. It is what I am trying to make intelligible. Like my head, I’m trying to understand what it is that I am participating. But intelligibility requires T-Lost. Like because again, so I’ll go back to the example I mentioned when Paul was here, right? So to Jacob, when I was on his channel, which I’m not doing anymore, right? He said, oh, I know exactly what you did. You realized that I, you know, keep the Sabbath and therefore the time slot open. And you very cleverly went in and took that time slot. And if that didn’t happen at all, I never even thought about it for a billionth of a second. Because hey, I didn’t even know that Jacob kept the stupid Sabbath. He didn’t even, my, the thing that, so to him, that’s his intelligibility that explains my behavior. To me, it was Jesse. It was literally only Jesse. So there’s two intelligibilities there. And one of them matches sort of what happened because I’m the agent and the other one is a fantasy. And Jacob’s is a fantasy. And I’m not, like, I’m not denigrating that. I’m saying he had a fantasy about why I chose Friday night for this because he didn’t bother to gather any information. He did it all and he didn’t talk to me about it ever at any point, right? And there’s nothing wrong with this. I love Jacob. Right, right, right. It’s funny. It’s just funny. It’s hysterical. So his intelligibility of what happened is totally different from mine, except I’m the agent. So I’m gonna prefer mine anyway, but everybody else should too because I’m the one that did the action. But there’s that disconnection again, though, Mark, that I was talking about. Like, Richard, we’re moving so quickly right now. I posted a comment, like, we are moving so quickly. It’s really hard. Like, you guys were disconnected men. You didn’t know that he kept this, for example. Like, that’s what I’m talking about. And so people are jumping, like there’s this jumping to conclusions, right? Way too quickly about everything. And I think that’s the point of participation. It slows you down. You try to grow a plant, man. It does something to your body. And it keeps you grounded because your expectations aren’t matched by the thing that isn’t you. And then you’re like, oh, well, that’s what grounding is. It’s like, how do I know that I’m floating off? Well, the question is, does the world correspond or are you just getting angry and resentful or upset and sad or depressed? Like, there’s a number of things. I don’t wanna limit it to anger and resentment, right? Cause nihilism is real too, right? Or are you able to adjust yourself and say, no, no, no, no, part of this problem is me. Or maybe you’re just not close enough to the ground and you’re not spending enough time in nature, quite frankly. Like I’ve seen amazing changes in people just by being in nature, by being like literally close to the ground. Like close to the ground because, yeah. And I don’t know, Richard, one thing that really helped me that Dr. Peterson said was, and I think it’s true, people can disagree with me, that, you know, kick back, but he said you always have to look at the largest picture possible. So don’t go immediately to self because we’re so individualistic, right? We always look at self, self, self. He said, look at the huge picture. They have this responsibility pie that somebody’s invented, right? And how much really is about this little single individual? It’s like enlarge your vision. And then you start to see, because we’re just so self-conscious and so self-examining. I don’t even agree with Dr. Peterson about all this resentment and blah, blah, blah. I say forget about yourself and go out and find the starving person on the street and make a loaf of bread together. So you know what? That’s the contrast. We always have our self view. And the contrast is, these are the frames outside of ourselves. And that’s, again, contrast is how we see it. And those frames are critically important. Like we’ve lost them. We don’t understand. We’re so lost. I think that’s the other point. We’re told we don’t need them. We’re told flat out, because you can do anything you wanna do. I know. But we’re profoundly lost. Like, I’m sorry. Even the speed at which everybody moves in this life, there’s no way you can even do what people used to do 50 years ago, which is read numbers and do it accurately. I don’t know if you people have noticed this, but people aren’t even reading numbers from a page, like four numbers, let alone recalling them. People are constantly making mistakes because we are moving so quickly now that I think our perceptual, well, it’s obvious, the perceptual apparatus is unable to cope. It’s broken. It’s a flood. It’s totally broken. We’re in a flood of information. Absolutely. So Catherine Brodsky, I follow, I like Catherine, she’s great. She’s a journalist, journalisty type person, right? But she put, she tweeted the other day because I follow her on Twitter. She was like, yeah, I don’t want an algorithm between me and the Twitter feed. And I’m like, no, no, you don’t understand. The amount of data, the amount of information, well, it’s actually data, the amount of data coming out of Twitter, so exceeds your total lifetime capacity. So let’s say the amount of data that comes out of Twitter in a minute, exceeds your lifetime capacity for processing, actually. Like you need some filter. You can’t get the world unfiltered. And you wouldn’t want it. Like you don’t even want a tenth of a billionth of the world unfiltered. It wouldn’t work for you. And we don’t realize that. And that’s the issue. And then I do want to address this. SpectreMan, is responsibility dependent on agency? Yes. Thinking of agency as capacity. No, agency is not capacity. You can have capacity without agency, you can have agency without capacity. Agency is related to your ability to take an action in the world. Is an agency just being existing? No. No. Okay, I wanted to ask Richard this. You said that you found ways to ground yourself in that time of depression or crisis, however you want to metaphorically describe it. What in particular grounded you? That’s the question. What I would say is, I didn’t find ways to ground myself or I didn’t find ways. For me, it wasn’t a willpower thing. It was, I realized, I had a kind of moment of realization that what was happening to me was not a personal failure that I had to will myself over. What was happening to me was a neurological issue that needed to be addressed by a doctor. And after getting on SSRIs, I was able to climb out of my head. But I needed that grounding, the pill that gave me traction in my own head. So there’s the material stuff, the outside, the pill, which allowed me to gain control of my subjective space for lack of a better term. Because I did not have control of my subjective space. And my way out was that moment of realization where I said, it’s neurological. And I kind of, that’s where I realized, oh, what I’m thinking, I’ve got a handhold now. I’ve got a handhold on external reality and it’s this pill. And that pill gave me, like just started pulling myself out. But it gave me the foundation that I needed. But the other thing is, I don’t know if this is helpful at all. And I don’t know how to articulate it very well. But I know when I, 50 years ago, when I was trying to, I asked people at Libri about this objective objective and never really could get an answer. It’s a bad dichotomy. You do not want to get in that reality when there’s a subjective objective. There’s no such thing. It’s a made up false categorization. And it really can screw with your brain. Because I think that’s what Mark was getting at when he was talking to you, Richard, is that that world doesn’t, that doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing. And so even you want it, that subjective objective, Mark, can you articulate what it does to you psychologically? It really puts you in a weird space. Right, well, yeah, it’s a false dichotomy and it’s a binary, it’s a false binary. I think all binaries are false. I’m open to being wrong about that, but so far, it is pretty good, right? So what happens is you get into this mode where like I have to choose A or B and then everything is directional because not A is always B in that world. We don’t live in a world that flat, that compressed, that simple. Like the world is complex and it’s so complex, it’s overwhelming. Yeah, exactly. And so when you reduce the world to a binary, on any front, there’s lots of binaries, right? You can say left and right, you say conservative and liberal, there’s all these crazy binaries, all of which are false dichotomies. And then you get stuck. But Richard, look, another way to tell the story about what happened to you is the priest in the white coat gave you a liturgy that grounded you. And I’m not saying you should adopt that attitude or anything, I’m just saying that’s how somebody else might. I think the confusion, because I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from or what the problem is that you are trying to address. I’m not trying to address any problem at all. Yeah, well, that’s not- You’re presuming that that’s the problem and I keep telling you that is absolutely- No, no, no, no, no, no. Like you’re obviously reacting to something in me that I’m not saying because you obviously have thoughts and those thoughts have led you somewhere to a position you’re not trying to take. There are things that you’re not saying, Richard. So- To do the dialectic thing and to agree with you. No, no, come on, I’ve listened to you. I’ve listened to you. I’ve asked you questions you avoided though. I wanted to make one. I wanted to make one. Okay, okay, okay, fine, fine. So my way of making sense of the dichotomy that you’re rejecting is to say that I already find myself on both sides of the dichotomy. I have a subjective experience of the world and I also find myself in an objective world. So the typical sort of modernist way of thinking about things is I am the disembodied mind that surveys the whole and comes to a very exact scientific pronouncements about things and you kind of forget that you’re also in the world and that I think is a problem. Yeah, because none of that is the way it’s happening because yeah, you’re not a disembodied objective. There’s no such thing as objective material reality. So you and I are on the same page if we’re gonna reject the subject object distinction. Good, good. I haven’t done that. I was just curious where you go from there. Well, look, and let me address Phyllis first. Aren’t you just doing definitions, Mark? No, not at all. I’m actually talking about meaning, right? And I’m trying to participate in the re-enchantment of intimacy for individuals. The world’s not disenchanted, but people are. So that’s my brother. And it’s not neutral at all, Phyllis. So you’ll get there, buddy, don’t worry. So to address my, let me address your concerns. This is really easy. Get rid of the binaries, the two thinking, right? And go to triangles. And then all of a sudden a bunch of stuff becomes at one time less understandable because there’s more moving parts, but at the other time easier to participate with. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Go with your intuition. Go with your intuition. You’re caught in this left brain self-conscious, left hemisphere self-conscious stuff too abstract, right? It’s all abstract and it doesn’t connect. It doesn’t connect with embodied reality. I think lots of us have been there, right? I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve been in that place that Richard’s describing. So I get what you’re talking about. Okay, thank you. Triangles. So I’m curious, why did you say triangles? Because there’s a point. There’s a directionality. Things come to a point. Look, one thing I wanna get across to you, with every story, and it can be in your life, there are micro stories and they can go on for years. They can go on for weeks. They can go on for a day, right? Under each, every story is a question. You’ll find that the best stories that you participate in have really, really good questions. What is the matrix? Okay, can we go back to the future? Who are the men in black, right? Who are the legends of the fall, right? I’m just giving you really, really, you know, core basic foundational things. You can play them out through whatever stories you participate in, you know. In that story of your breakdown, let’s say like that, that’s a pretty neutral term, right? There was probably underlying questions that you maybe not have found yet or identified yet, because you identify with things. You don’t have an identity. First, say you have many identities. You have a character. You’re a character in your own story, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Do I have one more? More than likely, in this story that you participated in of your own life, of your own breakdown, there was a question. You probably haven’t found that question out yet, or you were asking yourself the wrong questions. The answer is 42. I reject that. That’s the, yeah, that’s the canonical non-answer answer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I reject that. Yeah, yeah, funny, yeah. Never leave home without your towel. But that’s, yeah, that’s actually the point of that story, actually, by the way. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Ironic, you can get it worse. Yeah, ironically. I’m not sure if I’m able to get this across to you or if you want to hear this, but it wasn’t all just in your head. I don’t really, I mean, yes, of course, but like- But you haven’t accepted that as a principle is a part of my communications to you. What do you mean, Jesse? Can you explain what you mean? Cause I don’t know what you’re getting at. How else can I explain it better, Mark? Are you talking about embodiment, like it’s in your body and not in your head? I mean, that’s true. Yes, and it’s worse because it’s not just either in your head or in your body. There’s also the stuff that comes to you like hunger, like the need for sleep, the need to wake up. So there’s also the thing outside of yourself that is not in your head and it is not in your body. Three things, I did want to highlight this, Vector Man, beautiful, Plato had a trinity, Thagoras had a trinity. Yeah, not a coincidence, I’m sure. Okay, so can we return to the point about the triangles? Do you mean like the, it’s not simple dichotomies, it’s kind of like, it’s a synthesis. It’s a synthesis of two parts. Absolutely not, cannot be. Hegel’s just stupid and no one says. He just made that up because he had to do something. So I wasn’t quoting Hegel. No, no, but that’s the Hegelian dialect. Like, all kinds of people fall into Rousseau and Hegel and Nietzsche and they’ve never read it. And I totally understand that. That’s the Gnosticism that James Lindsay talks about. So, okay, so, but let’s just back up. When I said synthesis, I was thinking about Kierkegaard. Yeah, he’s using the Hegelian dialectic. Yes, he’s using the Hegelian dialectic, but he doesn’t have an absolute spirit in mind, right? He has the end of the scale. But it’s not relevant. He’s compressing the world down to one from two. So he’s using a false binary or false dichotomy and then saying, we can transcend the false dichotomy by smashing it together and coming up with one particle again. It’s like, well, no, you can’t. Who are you talking about? Any of those guys. They are all doing the same thing. They’re all doing the same thing. How about everybody after Plato still? Or everybody after Plato. So, like, you’re actually making a concrete claim about the interpretation of Kierkegaard at this point. And I’m sure you’re wrong. You should listen to James Lindsay. James Lindsay really can explain this stuff clearly. Yeah, James Lindsay did a really good job. Like, his conversation with Peterson and also his presentation at the United Nations. If you want to really understand this, because he can articulate it better than anybody, better than Peterson by far. I’ve got it for you, Richard. I’ve got it for you, Richard. This channel is called Navigating Patterns. Yeah. Right? The way you get through a map where you orientate in the world is you use a compass. What is the symbol of a compass? An arrow. It’s more or less a triangle. You triangulate where you are on the map or in the story. Okay. And then you proceed forward. You can only proceed forward. That’s my claim. You might not like it, but you think you’re going back, really just going in another direction, right? You can’t go back to the future. And you need three points to orient. It requires three points. You can’t say, oh, there’s two points, but then there’s a third point. No, no, there are three points always. You can’t simplify it beyond that. That is the mistake of the Hegelian dialectic or the misunderstanding of the Socratic dialectic or however you want to frame it because that’s what Hegel did. He just said, oh, I’m smarter than Plato. I’ll just, you know, pull shit, you know? But it can do things with your head too. Like these concepts are dangerous and powerful. It can really screw you up. This is your point, Elizabeth, right? That’s what James Lindsay is actually showing. He says, it all comes down to Gnosticism and dissolves into occultism. No matter which other way you go, you could go anywhere. You could do this, this line of thinking or this line of thinking. And these guys who never read each other, never experienced each other, and they all seem to end up at the same place. It’s almost like there’s a pattern playing out that they get trapped in as the result of their bad thinking. And so they all end up at, you know, Rousseau’s stupidity or Kierkegaard’s stupidity or Hegel’s stupidity or maybe those, you know, or the postmodern stupidity, which isn’t even new or interesting, or they weren’t even the first, second, third, fourth people to come up with it, right? You always end up in these patterns. It’s like, well, that’s awfully coincidental. What the hell’s going on there? So that’s why you need to navigate the patterns. First, you need to recognize that they’re there, and then you need three points. Yeah, for sure. But you know, this whole idea to a breakdown, I don’t know if it’s a breakdown or a breakthrough. Like, you’re realizing you’re not aligned with the patterns. Whoa, no wonder you feel like you’re lost, right? No wonder you feel like you’ve had a breakdown because you are so disconnected from reality. There’s another really good Richard, Hans Ruckmacher, who was a professor at the Free University of Amsterdam, had an amazing speech called What is Reality? And so many people have spoken about it and said it transformed their lives. It’s very simple. He’s basically saying what Mark’s been saying. It’s just beautifully articulated. What is reality, sorry? It’s only a natural mistrack. Yeah, yeah. So, okay, so- Richard, I really highly recommend it to you. It can change your life. It’s an hour. We’ll give you insight, at least. I’ll say that. Can we try to pin something down? That’s good. We can try. I mean, it’s probably not gonna work, but go ahead. You’ve distinguished between fantasy and reality. I’ve not. But you’re not willing to- I’ve rejected that. Well, there’s no distinction. Because you don’t know when you’re dreaming and when you’re not. You, that’s what’s called hallucination, which is the topic of this stream. Do you know the Chinese philosopher Mencius? Like, he made this point that- No, I’ve not written any philosophy. I’ve not read any, I don’t need to read philosophy. I participate in stories. Mencius made the point that I don’t know if I’m a man dreaming a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming a man. It’s a very famous lie. Even if- How does it help you? Even if that- Yeah, yeah. You can’t participate with it, but it’s a very famous lie. Well, that’s the, therein lies the knot. That’s why it’s not real. It’s not a real question. Because- Oh, yeah. It’s not going anywhere. And it’s actually perceptually concretizing parts of your brain that you really don’t wanna concretize, in my opinion. Like you gotta, man, yeah. So- It’s not healthy, right? Like I’m just trying to figure out here. So there is no distinction between fantasy and reality. No, I made the distinction in the monologue, dude. Like- I’m saying I’m continuing Mark’s thought is that you won’t be able to at times, you will hallucinate. So how do I distinguish between the times I can and the times I can’t? That’s a good question. Well, the question is, does it matter? You need other people. Does it really matter if you’re busy gardening? I don’t know. Look, He-Man, is He-Man the hero of the story? Good question. I don’t know, he has a team. But what’s your point, Jesse? The story’s not just about him. The story’s not just about him. Right, right. But I wanna pursue your idea, Jesse, about the dreaming. Tell me, can you articulate it a little bit further? Like, so what do you mean exactly about we can’t, we can’t know when we’re dreaming? Or are we dreaming all the time or does it matter? I’m just kind of interested. That’s what Jung implied, actually. He said that often, he said that we are actually more dreaming than we realize. The boundary between the two is porous. Right. Yeah, so did Jack Kerouac. Which is the argument I’ve tried to make. Right, right. Oh, Jack Kerouac, let’s talk about Jack Kerouac. I’m from Lowell. No, no, no, no. Richard wants to get somewhere. I think he’s close to something. Okay, go Richard, go Richard, sorry. Okay, Richard, sorry. Sorry. No, like I might be close to the realization that you guys want both to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality and refuse to ground that distinction anywhere, which leaves me wondering, is there a distinction? No, I told you how to distinguish it. It’s not in grounding. Grounding is part of the answer, right. And that’s, you’re just flipping this over. That’s the problem. So the other thought that I had was you’ve rejected sort of finding reality subjectively in ideas and you’ve rejected finding it purely. I asked you about the questions. I asked you about particularly, and I asked you what granted you and you couldn’t accept that. Yeah, cause we don’t have a shared vocabulary at this point. So I can’t really- And that’s fine, Richard, but look, I didn’t reject any of the things you listed at all at any point. So I don’t know why you think I did cause that didn’t happen. No, but yeah. I mean, do you think we’re the same person? Like, are we both? No, of course not. Like I know where I end and other things begin, including other people. Okay, so- Very clear, bright line on that. Let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about how do you make that distinction? How do I make the distinction? I just see it, it’s bright like the sun. It’s the rest of you that are in trouble, not me. That’s part of the problem. And in my first conversation with VanderKlaai, I talked about this. I said, part of the problem is I was homeless. I was living in my car in the winter in New England, not recommended, do not do this, right. And you experience a lot of philosophy in the fact that you’re starving literally, right. And you’re cold and you’re suicidal, right. And you have headaches and you can’t sleep, right. And all these things- So philosophy is not merely an academic exercise for you. It’s actually- It wasn’t even remotely an academic exercise. In the middle of the academic Mecca, arguably of the world, I’m in Boston, 30 colleges and universities in a 10 mile radius, okay. I am in academia as you can get without actually being an academic, okay. I’m soaked in this. I’m soaked in this. Have been my whole life, right. So then what happens is I’m like, okay, obviously at some point I resolved whatever, the meaning crisis, meaning crisis very seriously. I think John Brevicki is pretty close, not dead on on his description of meaning crisis. I think all that is correct, right. That’s kind of how I got here. I got here through, not through Peterson per se, although Peterson to Brevicki and then here, right. And then that, hold on, hold on. Let me finish my point, right. So then Brevicki starts talking about a meaning crisis. And I go, how is anybody possibly in a meaning crisis? That doesn’t make any sense to me. How can these muppets, and I’m still a muppet, we’re all muppets, how can these muppets not see meaning everywhere? What is wrong with these people, right. And I, you know, you see the rise of Peterson and you go, well, clearly something’s wrong. Clearly there’s maps of meaning that they’re missing or something, fair enough, right. But then you get Brevicki’s work. And again, I go over this in my first talk with Paul, right. And I discovered, oh, Brevicki’s building a science of meaning, which is a shared vocabulary and a shared framework so that we can talk about meaning as such, because I couldn’t even do that. I was just, look at people like, how the hell are you nihilistic? And what the hell is wrong with you? So where are those lines? I can’t even describe them, because to me, you guys are so blind, it’s like, I don’t know what to tell you about the sun, but it’s up there. Like, how do you describe the brightness of the sun to a blind person? And that’s basically what you’re asking me to do. And I’m telling you, I can’t quite do that. The propositions aren’t gonna be sufficient. Furthermore, all stories are basically man in whole. Gonna get to the best, actually. There’s a problem. We need to solve the problem. Right, and it doesn’t necessarily start out that way, right? You could have a perfectly normal life at a company, right? And then all of a sudden, you get a knock on the door and that thing that you’ve been curious about, never engaged in, right? You’ve been searching, you’ve been running, finally the search finds you, right? And yeah, I don’t wanna go too far down the matrix rabbit hole, because we still gotta do that video. Jesse, it’s gonna be epic. Oh gosh. Like, I wonder, sometimes it’s just timing too, right? I’m a big believer in timing. I just think it’s huge. Thinking is huge, but you have to be open to it, right? And what opens you to the possibility is the liturgy. That’s what the crazy religious people would argue. And I think that’s also just understanding. I remember, oh my gosh, you don’t wanna hear my Italian tales all the time, but two times this past visit, someone said to me, patience. You never hear people saying that over here. Patience, somebody said to me twice and I thought, yes, yes, that goes back to my point about everything’s going too quickly. We need to just realize we have everything. We’re like mosquitoes, I’m not kidding. We’re all like mosquitoes. Right, we’re all super anxious, right? Everybody’s crazy, like everybody’s crazy. Contextualized. And you’re removing people’s ability to learn, we’ll use Breveki’s terminology, because I still like it even though I think it’s wrong, participatory knowledge. You can’t learn participatory, so I’m working at the startup. We’ve got some volunteer workers, which is fantastic, because we’re not funded. Again, funding, call me. We need a couple million. If you’ve got a line around, let me know. So there’s a kid there and he wants to learn stuff. That’s why he’s volunteering his time, energy, and attention to us to learn stuff. Now, I could go in and take the source code and just fix the problem in about four hours. There’s no question about that. I’ve got tons of experience, this isn’t a problem for me. But then he doesn’t learn how to fix source code. He doesn’t learn how to package things. He doesn’t learn any of that. So for me, it’s like, and I get a report to the boss man, and I gotta be like, well, I think we’ll be done, and we weren’t. I think we’ll be done on Friday for sure. There’s no way it’s gonna go past Friday. And of course, it did. Last minute too, like, oh wait, this is a problem I couldn’t even anticipate, because really? Because that happened. But we’re spending a whole week, I could have done that in four hours. There’s no question, I could have done it all in four hours. But then he doesn’t get the learning and experience that he needs. So I have to be patient. And he has to be patient with himself, and he was really good with his kids. This kid’s amazing. Like, man, if we get funding, I’m gonna hire him so fast and make sure he doesn’t go anywhere, because he’s amazing. Because he’ll just stick with something until he gets stuck, and then he’ll come and get me. And it’s like, well, you can’t ask for a better student. You know? And the other guy we got is the same way. I’d hire both of them tomorrow, because they’re excellent workers and they’re excellent learners. Now, I have to be patient, my boss has to be patient, because the only way they can cooperate is if they feel like they’re getting something out of it. Because if they’re not learning, they can go off and do something else in their money, or do something else and learn somewhere else. They can go to school. They can go to school for free in South Carolina. It’s not that hard. Not that hard to get free training of some kind in any state you’re in in the United States. So they could just leave and get that kind of training, or maybe some education somewhere else. But they’re with us, and that means we have to delay the thing that we wanna do the quickest, effectively. Right? There’s a negotiation there, right? And discerning all of that is difficult because people wanna get things done yesterday. And it’s like, well, but yesterday’s already passed, and now you’re just creating anxiety for yourself. And I’ve had to be very patient and say, no, we’re gonna make this goal, but the goal is not to get the software ready and packaged and out alone. The most important part is to keep the free help, right? And give them what they want because my boss and I are both committed to we’re not getting something out of this unless you’re also getting something out of this. If you’re not getting something out of this, we don’t want you there for lots of reasons. Chief among them is, if we don’t feel like we’re giving back, we don’t feel like we’re doing it. Like- Well, you’re not. No, no, we could make millions and millions of dollars. That doesn’t mean you’re doing something. Right, right. But ultimately, and everybody else in their mind would see the external result and go, oh, you made a lot of money. So we must’ve been doing something. And it’s like, from my perspective, no, I did nothing if I didn’t help train these people. Like this is where the rubber meets the road. This is the level of participation that is required to add the value in the world because it’s not about the value of the money. I have videos on money, see navigating patterns, right? I’ve got video on economy, two on money. The two on money are short, right? And then once you understand that abstraction of value and the implications of it, I’ll get two videos that talk about Elon Musk, one of them is the money video, the other one’s the Elon Musk Twitter video, right? Once you understand that abstraction and that money represents value in the future or potential value, right? And actually, Peugeot said that like a week ago within the past week or something, right? Once you understand that, now you can deal with how to put actual value into the world, right? And make the world bigger and better and move towards the good. Yeah, that idea of value is super important, absolutely. This is really cool because Italo Calvino, who wrote incredible stories. I mean, speak about, hmm, I don’t even wanna go there, but he has this little story, it’s amazing about a Chinese person. And there was this character, I’m not gonna say his name properly, Zang Tzu, and his many virtues was his talent for drawing. The king asked him to draw a crab. Zang Tzu said he would need five years and a villa with 12 servants. After five years, he had not yet begun the drawing. I need another five years, he said. The king agreed. When the 10th year was up, Zang Tzu took his brush and in an instant with a single flourish drew a crab, the most perfect crab anyone had ever seen. There you go, that’s what I’m talking about. Yeah, like we need to remember that. Because that’s what Matthew Peugeot’s talking about, rumination, right? We need to take the time. He said he’s learned more by baking bread than anything. And once again, it’s that whole, because reality, participation in reality will slow you down to the way reality is. We’re all very, we’re speed, we’re all on speed is what we are. So I don’t know. What do you think, Richard? Apparently I don’t. I’d never be able to make myself intelligible, so why bother to try? Ah, well there you go. Why do you keep using intelligible as your axiomatic belief type? It’s just a general catch-all term. Yeah, because that’s the world in which we’ve been brought up, right? The world brainwashed us. It hasn’t helped you. You want to understand. It seems like you want to understand. And if you don’t, well. No, I don’t. Knowledge is the highest value. Knowledge is not my highest value. Well, but like, what do you mean by, if you just mean sort of abstractions, if knowledge for you is just abstractions from something called reality. No, knowledge is an abstraction, right? Reality consists of abstraction and non-abstraction, and it is knitted together because it doesn’t pre-exist, by our participation, right? Our co-manifestation and other things, not just us, right? Okay, so that’s a more or less statement. I would rather be wise and have knowledge. I would far rather be wise and have knowledge. Yeah. So there’s another distinction that I like. You guys having sort of cast aside the ability to make distinctions intelligible. Not at all. I just did. I literally just did. I literally just did. No, you just- I just made a distinction between knowledge and wisdom. You asserted something, but, and you use words. Did I say that? The things that they refer to. I’m like, okay. What things do you think he did or didn’t refer to? Well, so- I used the words. When he uses the word wisdom, right? I mean, I have a vague notion of wisdom of what it is based on my reading, my experience, where I’ve heard it and seen it applied, based on a kind of- I understand the abstraction and the trapped in your own perspective. We deal with that constantly, right? Granted, all of that is granted, but that wasn’t the question. Are you saying he didn’t make a distinction between wisdom and knowledge? Because he actually used- He deferred it. He described things differently. What I said was he asserted a distinction and- How’s that not making a distinction? As I- no, no, no. He asserted a distinction and I was like, and I’m asking or wondering, what is the ground by which you assert distinctions? Any distinction whatsoever. And every time I come up to that line, you’re like, I don’t know. When have I done the I don’t know thing? When have I done the I don’t know thing? More Mark is taking the lead. No, I tell people exactly what’s going on. You’re not hearing the thing you’re looking for, but you haven’t stated what you’re looking for. And that’s really the problem, is that you don’t understand your own kilos, right? I think Vectorman made that clear earlier. In a comment that he made, right? And so that’s- I’ve been far nicer on that point too. You’re casting some projection onto us as far as what we’re projecting here. So I think you’re projecting here. I think the most likely thing that’s happening is we have different vocabularies and the interface between them right now is really difficult. Because if you think your vocabulary is closer to reality, I have many historical texts to show you where- Do you want me to solve this for you, Richard? Yeah. Richard, do you want me to solve this for you? Yeah. Stop being an academic. There you go. Stop being an academic. Stop being recognized. So what is it that an academic does? And what is it that you would want me to do? When in this conversation have I used academic terms? What’s that? Sorry. Go ahead, Jesse. You actually solved it better than I could. We were talking about patience too. So we were talking about embodying virtues and values and principles. And I was- I love the language- About an hour ago, I inserted to you a principle about story and problems. Okay. And that it’s not just all material matter. Often the material matters, the top of the iceberg, if we want to use a metaphor. And I believe there’s a whole bunch of other things that are probably adding up to the top principle. Again, triangles. Icebergs are triangles. And I also said I would fatherize- My microphone’s going- It’s always- Mark, can we just- That was your internet. Your microphone’s going- Oh, yeah, that’s right. That’s right, it’s the internet. We’ll just blame the- So we’ll just blame the demonic scene. And the wallaby package. Exactly the wallaby. So it seems to me you’re asking me to reject kind of living in my head and thinking about that question. I bet what I’ve done is I’ve asked you- Okay, I’m listening. I’m asking- Okay, here, I’m asking you a question. Sure. Do you understand the story that you’re living in right now? You understand the questions you’re asking yourself? So I would think of myself as constantly trying to understand my life. And this being an ongoing process. And it has a beginning and it has an ending where I’m not sure. Sounds like a no. Okay, yeah. So I’m curious because what I hear you saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that you do understand your own lives. I understand the story that I’m living in at the moment. I’m going through a season of life at the moment. I think how I’m maintaining sanity, because that’s actually the thing that you’ve been asking for this entire question. We’ve actually, if you want to rewatch this whole thing, you’d find out we’ve all, be like, this is how you have sanity. This is how you serve patients. It’s just participation, community, dialogue. We keep pointing out, sanity’s external. So these are all, you know, so like I’m, the one thing where I’ve said, oh, I get what they’re talking about is where, is it Sally? Yeah. She keeps on referring back to embodiment. I get that. That is a concrete thing that she is pointing to that I can make sense of. And she says, walk in nature. I get that. I understand what she’s saying. Whereas, whereas- Do you not think that you embody a question? That you go through a season, go through a summer period, a winter period, that each story has a question behind it, has a meaning, has a problem that needs to be solved. Do you not see yourself participating in stories, having questions that you need to resolve? I would think of myself as a- No, I didn’t ask how you think of yourself. Okay. Well, but you’re asking me to think about myself. No, no, I think we’re going to imagination now, right? We’re going into imagination. We’ve never left imagination. That’s the funny part. Imagination is a form of thought. No, no, no, no. It’s imagination. Imagination is- Imagination is experience, actually, technically. Imagination is seeing the world in an analogical way, which is what it is. And so that’s what it is. It’s about seeing reality. It’s- You can have logical imaginations. Yeah. Sorry? People think they’re having logical imaginations all the time. You can have illogical and illogical imaginations. When they make predictions about the world, those are logical imaginations. So- Okay, okay. So, nothing else. Okay, so I think of imagination as a kind of a synthetic faculty where I’m synthesizing stuff in my head and stuff I’m experiencing. I’m trying to make sense of this. Like, for example, I’m trying to make sense of this experience I’m currently having, and I am searching through my memory bank for analogies to make sense of this. And my imagination is working. And what’s Jesse telling you? Jesse is saying, no, you’re participating in a story, and why can’t you just point at that? That’s basically what Jesse is saying. Okay, so what- No, no, no. So, okay. A story? Whose story? Your story. Your story’s cool already. I already started telling your story, actually. You could just keep telling it. It’s quite, it’s interesting. You know? Your story’s very interesting. Like, I don’t really think there’s a problem per se. Yeah, no, so- You’re just like, seriously, you, I mean, basic things. My only difficulty here, and I apologize because like I will get my back up when I think I’m not being understood or when I think I’m being talked down to, but I think the fundamental problem here is a difference of vocabulary, right? I don’t see that to be really- No, no, no. Because I come from a different community, and I have, we have our own vocabulary, and it doesn’t necessarily mesh perfectly with the language of this community here, even though we all talk English. Okay, so I grant you that. I grant you that. Now what? No, I’ll just do the same trick that we had this, like a couple, we had, literally had this sort of conversation a couple months ago, Mark, with someone else. So I grant you the principle that you’ve just pointed forward, now what? So you have a question to ask yourself, right? Ooh, is my internet cutting out? Okay, so I grant you that principle that we’re talking in two different vocabularies, right? And you’re not able to participate here. So what are you doing here now? So we are- You’re coming, you’ve come to this community to learn, to participate, to find value. So by agreeing with your principle, I’ve also canceled your principle and say, you either have, you’re either here, trying to engage with us, Okay. Or you’re not here. Because something is here- You’re either in this story- Oh, no, no, no, no, no. So I’m here and we’re doing the hard work of becoming intelligible to each other. No, no, no, no, no. We’re trying- I’m communicating a meaning to you. I’m communicating a meaning to you. The meaning that I just granted is- Yeah, I think we’re talking about the same thing, but I think you guys are getting, like we have different, slightly different vocabularies to talk about this stuff. And you guys are hung up- It doesn’t matter if we have different vocabularies. That I can’t quite make sense of yours. No, no, look, look, when you get to concepts, vocabulary actually falls away and doesn’t become a factor anymore. That’s how I was ever able to talk to Sally Jo. Sally Jo, when I met Sally Jo, she just could not communicate using propositions in any fashion that was understandable, not just by me, by a bunch of people. She’ll cop to this all day long, right? And now- Sally Jo is the only one I understand here. I don’t doubt that, except you missed a bunch of what she said. And that’s the interesting part is, yeah, you understood some of what she said, but you actually didn’t understand her point or what she was actually saying. You only understood the material portion of it. And the reason why, in my opinion, is because she’s an artist and she’s very poetic and she doesn’t do propositions well, although she’s much better now, right? She was able to hone in on that. I could enter into her stories. I could enter into the visual images that she was making. And I might’ve shortened my summary of what she was doing, but I thought she opens her mouth and starts talking. I say, oh, that makes sense to me. But wasn’t what she intended to communicate, because she was communicating a lot of stuff and you seem to have reduced it down to all the materials. With Sally, I feel like we could have a conversation and actually make some headway. You don’t think you’ve made headway here? Is that what you’re saying? Well, there’s this kind of refusal on your part to- It’s a simple question, Richard. Do you think we’re making headway here? Okay. It was just a yes or a no thing, really. It really was. It was a designation or a description. I just need like literally a yes, I think we’re making progress or we’ve made progress or no, I don’t. Yeah, but the progress we’re making is more acrimonious. Whereas I think with Sally, I can have a very nice conversation. Why do you think it’s acrimonious? I don’t understand. I’m not sure. Okay, so that’s internal to you. That’s important to know. Yeah. It’s like- He’s a great principle. No, seriously, he’s a great principle. Don’t waste my time. Okay. Right. What do you mean? What do you mean, Jesse? Mike just approached on a boundary before I submitted a boundary. I said, either you’re participating here, right? And we get rid of this terminology argument or you leave. I do not, like that’s, the either agree with me or don’t is kind of- No, I didn’t phrase it like that. Nobody asked for your agreement. Nobody asked for your agreement. That didn’t happen. See, this is the thing, Richard. You keep making statements about what we’ve said that don’t resemble any of the words we’re using at all to anybody. Yeah, and you keep assuming that I haven’t understood you and object to you. You keep misphrasing what we’re saying. And so that means that you didn’t understand what we were saying. Nobody asked for your agreement at any point. Okay, all right. Right, but you cast it as though we did. And I’m telling you, that’s a good indication that you didn’t understand it. I’m trying to ask. Yeah, yeah, so actually communicating with people and trying to understand them, that’s hard work. And if you refuse, well, that’s kind of- It’s not hard work for me. It’s not hard work for me, and it’s not work that I’m doing, so I’m not sure about it. That also makes it easier. Works with that concept too. If your tell-off isn’t, oh, I gotta communicate something to somebody, and sometimes it has to be, so I’m not like that’s not universal by any means, right? But if your tell-off isn’t, oh, I have to communicate something to somebody, then you’re less likely to get all upset if the conversation doesn’t do that, because that isn’t your goal. Well, that means that problem never appears in the world. And I can’t control all problems, so it might be a problem for somebody else, but it’s a problem for me, so it’s kind of like, well, I’m good with it. It’s fine, right? And we’ve had these sorts of interactions before with people. I forget how many months ago that was now, Jesse, but yeah, and the thing is, they get frustrated, and we’re like, yeah, we’re not really frustrated. I mean, it’s kind of too bad, but also, yeah, we’re participating, so it’s all good. I think Jesse is frustrated. Jesse is definitely frustrated. Oh, and Jesse’s allowed to be frustrated, because you keep mischaracterizing his words, and it’s like he’s not saying those things, and you keep ascribing to him all kinds of motivations and wording that he’s, the motivation he doesn’t have and words he’s not using. And yeah, that’s frustrating to be put in a box like that and told, you just told me to do X when you didn’t know such thing, right? And that’s where people get caught up, right? Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That can frustrate anybody. I mean, we are both putting each other in boxes, right? Like I am not the sole offender here. This is like collective. Nobody’s put you in any kind of box, Richard. What are you talking about? You just put me in a box. What box did I put you in? Please describe it. You put me in a negative box, the box that nobody has put me in. No, I didn’t. I just stated neutrally what you did to Jesse. Richard, Richard, hold on. I stated neutrally what you did to Jesse and why that might be frustrating. I didn’t state anything about you beyond what you did to Jesse. That’s not putting you in a box. That’s just a description of a bunch of actions that took place. It’s a choice about how to characterize something. Why did you choose that as your- Why is that description wrong? What part of that description is wrong? It’s not, but like the- Okay, well, I chose it because it represents the true. Okay. There’s a bright, clear reality line for you if you need one. That was the true. That happened. You were doing that and Jesse was frustrated. All of that is true. Okay. It’s not true anymore. It’s a true fact. I was right at this moment, but I wasn’t talking in the present. I was describing something you had done in the past. And yeah, that remains true because it actually happened. And we have a kind of a common memory of it and we can both, we can all- Irrespective of our common memory, it still happened. So who’s the observer that sees that now? Why does there have to be one observer? Going back to this academic thing. Yeah, it’s very academic. Okay, okay. It’s very materialistic. Like he’s stuck in materialism. So this is interesting. If Jesse could describe what he means by academic. Because I’m not an academic, right? No, but you’re being academic. Okay, so what does that mean? It’s a pejorative and you’ve labeled it. No, it’s not a pejorative. It’s a reality. There are academics. Nobody’s making it a pejorative. So what is an academic? You’re talking in academic language. I’ve not actually heard you, if we wanna use academic language, I’ll throw out a term. First principles. Okay, so what about them? I’ve not heard you talk from the position of first principles. And all I’ve done in this conversation with you is talk from first principles. I don’t like to use academic words and terms because I’m worried about misinterpreted. I’m also dyslexic, so I’m also slow. So I’m also not gonna just, and I’m not gonna cram my cons. I’m not trying to get you what I’m saying. I’m communicating a message to you. I’ve actually been very therapeutic in some aspects and tried to draw you out. And then about 20 minutes ago, Mark asked if this conversation is helping you. And you said no. And then I asked you, okay, so why are you still participating here? And that’s not helping you because, and then I propose a principle to you, which I said, these are all first principle things. Don’t waste my time. It’s a pretty good principle. Like I’m here. Oh, that, okay. So that’s not a first principle. I don’t know, I’m here. I’m here to participate with Mark. I enjoy this. And I’ve enjoyed the conversation with you because it’s taught me a lot about my own communication style. It’s also taught me a lot about you and what you’re struggling with because you can’t even see that in the past, I was going through a story that had a question or problem with it. You can’t even say, yes, I went through a season and an epoch. Well, so, but that’s- It’s like, we have to agree on something to have a dialogue. Oh, yes, yes. There you go. There’s a principle. There has to be a common, like accepted intelligibility. No, no, no, no, that’s not intelligible. No, that’s not intelligible. That’s an observation. Right? Right, like if- It’s an observation about correspondence, you came in this whole thing about correspondence theory. You framed this whole hallucination three hours of live stream about correspondence theory. And I said, for us, I observed, for us to be in a dialogue, Yeah. we have to agree on some things. Sure, okay. And then previously, if you listen to my whole rant back again, I said, it got to a point where Mark very kindly asked you, are you participating here? Has this been helpful to you or not? And you quietly said, no. So I’ve said, and I propose a principle to you, don’t waste my time. Yeah, so- So if we’re not in agreement, My principles is different than- Is this the, like, I’m putting up another boundary again. If we’re not in agreement, how do you want me to, what do you want to agree with me on? I’m, so, I guess the way that I see it is that there’s a difficulty in making yourself intelligible to another person. And the way to get past that is actually to spend some time figuring out a common lexicon, right? And that takes time to simply assume that somebody’s gonna, that you are going to be able to communicate perfectly from day one or from moment one is- You’ve never asked actually in this entire three hour conversation, what we agree on. You’ve actually not done that trick. Okay, so- It’s a trick. It is a trick. It’s a tactic that you play. You say, do we agree on X? Then we proceed forward. Do we agree on X? Do we proceed forward? But you just keep stating propositions. Anyway, I’ve gotta go. Night everybody. You do that from first. Good night Elizabeth, thank you. Really nice to see you Elizabeth. Thanks for coming back. Yeah, nice to see you. Yeah, it’s really nice to see you. I don’t know how to get out of this. We should talk some art sometime. Yeah, yeah, I’d love to. I’m stuck, good night. You’re stuck, nice to see you. By the way, yeah, this is- What do we got, Jesse? We probably should wrap this up in about 10 minutes. We should probably wrap this up in about 10 minutes. Okay, we can, Herb was frustrated. See how it just says Herb was frustrated. Yeah, we should. I gotta run through some comment. So, neutrino, no need for principles and the objective is rationally shifting. No, that’s exactly why you need principles because they don’t shift. That’s how you square that circle. So, can I just add one thing? I was, and this might help you understand, I guess a bit where I was coming from. When you said first principles, I said, oh, okay, we’re gonna talk about like, what you think about the nature of being and or knowing. And you made, your first principle was actually just a practical principle about like, how you were gonna conduct yourself in the world. And my mind went to, oh, the nature of my participation in the world, like questions about being and knowing, and you went to just presupposing all of that background that I’m trying to like excavate, and went to a very particular criterion for proceeding in the current conversation that we’re having. And so, my mind was on a very different wavelength than yours was. Oh, we know that, that’s been true throughout. Like this is not news. But I am gonna take some more of these. So, oh, Philatino, a big barrier for me understanding Mark is not having in a box yet. Yes, well, you’re not gonna get one. So contextualizing where he’s coming from. Yeah, that’s cause you’re looking too hard for where I’m coming from, instead of observing the world. I need to go back to your Randos combo. I’ve never had a Randos combo ever. Paul and I met on the Discord server, and I never scheduled a Randos slot because I never had to. You can make of that what you will. So. Well, here, let’s do one that defends your position. Phlebas, I agree though, Jesse isn’t making any sense. He’s just being antagonistic, I agree. He’s mad and attacks everything that is said. No, he’s not being antagonistic in that way. He’s being antagonistic in the way of effectively, when attacked, he’s defending his position, which is in my mind appropriate. You will look at that as antagonistic. The antagonist is the guy who threw the first punch. The problem is, if you didn’t see who threw the first punch, and you only saw the second punch that was thrown, you don’t know who the antagonist is at that point. And that’s the problem. And look, Sally’s pointing out that Herb was frustrated. So Herb, inner straight white male, which is how she talks about Herb, was frustrated. Which is probably a good proxy for a part of Herb being frustrated by her conversation with you, which you think went well. And I’ve seen this many times. Manuel and I have been through this with people. We actually had a person actually tell us in the moment, well, we thought this was a good conversation. I said, I thought this conversation was pretty sad. And I was like, what accounts for this discrepancy? And he admitted in the moment, well, I was talking to a model of you in my head. And I was like, yeah, but we’re talking in person now, not in physical person, but live on a Discord server in real time. Why are you talking to an image that you have or a model that you have of me in your head? And how is that even possible? Because you don’t even have a model of you in your head, by definition, it was bigger than you. And so how are you gonna make a model of something that is at least as big as you, at least in theory, to have a conversation with? And then, yeah, he’s having a wonderful conversation. And I’m sad if you end the conversation and there’s just this break. It was long conversation, it was an hour and a half at least, right? And so that’s part of the problem, is that when you’re not talking to the people who are actually speaking, you end up saying, well, you want me to do this, or you told me that, or you put me in this box, when none of that happened. And that’s the break that Jesse’s referring to. He’s like, look, if you’re not getting something out of the conversation, then why are you engaged in it? Now, that is antagonistic in some sense, because he’s trying to elicit an admission, either an admission that you’re getting something out of it or an admission that your framework about conversation is wrong, because if you have to enter a conversation and say, intelligibility makes a conversation, then you can’t have an unintelligible conversation. But people do that all the time. Like you can just observe the world and see two people get together and have unintelligible conversations. That happened. You can look at a good example, right? You can say, all right, there was a conversation, I forget how many months ago it was, between Verbeke and Peterson, it was the first one they had had in like four or five years or something, right? And it was this conversation so psychedelic, blah, blah, blah. The conversation is so intense, it might as well be psychedelic. Now, if you watch that conversation, there’s a couple of things I can be pretty certain of. Not 100%, because there are people that can understand that conversation, but I can be pretty sure that almost nobody actually understood that conversation. And that almost nobody even understood tiny parts of that conversation. Which is not to say they got nothing out of it, certainly a lot of people got a little bit of things out of it, there were a lot of good one-liners in there, there were a lot of good concepts that people glommed onto, but did you actually follow the thread of the conversation? And I can back this up. Go to the Meaning Code channel, and you can look at my conversation about that conversation with Karen Wong. And she does the Peterson stuff because she’s better about him, and obviously I’m the Breveke expert in that conversation, for better or for worse. And you can see all the things that I saw and that she saw, and all the things that we both missed, that we learned by talking to each other, right? Because a lot of that conversation was unintelligible to her, and some of that conversation was unintelligible to me, although probably much less. Sorry, Karen, I think she’ll forgive me. She asked her, she’s Christian. And that’s fine. And most people couldn’t understand any of what they were saying. And that’s also fine, right? So this idea that intelligibility is somehow the most important thing is a problem because that’s not what’s happening in the world. Like observably, that’s not what’s happening in the world. And that’s the thing. And all right, Phil Otomo, do you think it’s important to Paul and Sisson talking about bio before getting into the thinking, talking stuff? Well, look, yeah, my conversation, my first conversation with him was two hours. The first hour was bio, and the second hour was about the early version of what we now call the knowledge engine model, right? Or our modified four Ps. It’s quite good. We don’t call it the poetic, we call it the parabolic. It’s the same stupid thing, but Manuel is right. The better word is poetic, right? And so, yes, I think it’s important. I think that’s exactly what Jessie’s been pointing out this whole conversation. That’s what Jessie’s pointing at. Jessie’s saying, look, get out of academic mode and into narrative mode or story mode. It’s probably a better way to say it. Okay, no, no, no. Get out of that and into story mode. I still don’t know what academic mode is. It’s the non-story mode. When you’re not telling a story, when you’re talking about facts and you’re using, you know, context and other references that are allowed to you. I assure you. I assure you, that is nonsense. When in this conversation have you asked me about my own narrative? If you wanted to establish a terminology, a personal connection, a dialogue, you’ve never asked me a single personal question. Now I’m being directly antagonistic, but I’m proving a point about the narrative and about story and how it’s told. And if you wanted to be intelligible, you would actually ask me, like, okay, I don’t know too much about you, Jessie. So like, where are you coming from? Are you a Christian? Like, what terms do we share? And so I was trying to get that out of you because I was being a leader or responsible for my part of the conversation. I’m trying to… My instinct was that you didn’t want to participate. No, no, look, look. No, no, I did that after boundary lines were crossed. Yeah, but I mean, you didn’t say where the boundary lines were, so there’s kind of… I actually did. I said, Mark, we’re coming up to a boundary line. And then I said, we’re coming up to another one. And then I said, we’re coming up to another one. And now we’re at another one. And then I just said, hey, Mark, maybe in 10 minutes we should end. So I’ve actually kept redefining boundary line. All right, all right. So like… Right, but the problem here is that when you try to understand where a person is coming from, it actually takes a lot of work and it’s awkward. And sometimes you go down paths where you butt heads, right? So… That can happen. That doesn’t happen all the time. And I’m not trying to be… I’m not trying to be… I’m not trying to go on the offense here, but my… Yeah, neither am I, actually. No, no, we don’t think you are, Richard. That’s not the issue. I wondered if Jesse was… Some of his comments or interjections into the conversation were passive aggressive, right? But I didn’t articulate that. I was like, that strikes me as passive aggressive, but I’m not… I don’t think I know enough to make the judgment. So I’m not gonna say anything. Right, and Jesse’s point is you didn’t try to make that discernment. And I have live streams on discernment, judgment, and action. And then look, I wanna point out what Sally says because this is important. This is your girl, right? This is the person you’re at. I feel utterly ineffective at communication because I was deeply annoyed that Richard was forcing the conversation to his will and asserting that navigating patterns is vindictively malice to be morally dominant, right? What is NP? Navigating patterns. She’s referring to the group. Oh, okay. Can you show that again? Her comment, sure. I can show her comment. Absolutely. And we didn’t bring up lizard people to be serious. And now she feels it’s a waste of a tinfoil hat. I’m sorry, Sally. I didn’t respect your tinfoil hat story. I didn’t get to talk about my whole frame of mind. Hallucination thing either. Yeah, so I apologize to Sally for driving her out of the conversation. You didn’t do that. She had to go. I already knew she had to go when she had to go. You didn’t drive her out of the conversation. Don’t worry about that. All right. To be clear, I’ve got no ill will towards you. I don’t have ill will towards you. I can get frustrated at a conversation. We could be friends. In fact, if we’re all dudes, this is kind of the normal part of the pattern is we contend with each other. We throw some arguments around. And then if we wanna be good people, whatever good people is, we go, okay, cool. That was a conversation. See you next time. Yeah, here’s a couple bucks for the beers. Thanks, man. Cool. Like this is what happens in dialogues. Like not every conversation actually has to go well in order to be valuable, right? But there’s a framework there, which is we’re doing this in good faith. And I believe it’s in good faith, which is why I’ve stayed on. I don’t believe I actually went on the assault. I just thought I just like, well, I’ve said some things, I’ve been misinterpreted, so I’m just gonna stay on my ground because I’m a guy and I’ve got a spine. But if you wanna come again, I guess, Richard, you’re welcome to come again. Absolutely. It’s good to have different people on and get different views. And this is not scripted, so you guys have a problem. We will see. Is this like a Friday night thing? It is a Friday night thing. At the beginning of Sabbath? So Jacob doesn’t show up? I know he’s, has he jumped in? He might’ve jumped in. I haven’t seen Jacob in here either. He did once with these magic, the gathering cards behind him, which freaked me out. Yeah. It was the stream where I had spilled coffee all over my floor. And I was like, all the people I don’t wanna talk to and got coffee. Yeah. That was fun. Just as a common point of reference, Sally made use of the terminology embodiment, right? And do you guys vibe with that? Yeah, we talk about embodiment a lot, right? And Sally Jo here. Well, not a waste because the display of high levels of cope is always useful. Sally likes contrast. She likes to see other people, other people will say stock or struggling or however you wanna frame it in a way that she can understand. And of course she knows me pretty well. I’ve actually been to her house and stayed there, right? Met her in person and everything, right? And encouraged her to do this awesome book, which she has on her YouTube channel, Read By Me, right? So it’s good contrast for her to see an anchor like me she knows pretty well versus these other people. We know Jesse less well, although we’re pretty clear on Jesse. Jesse is so uncomplicated. It’s lovely, right? Which is good, it’s good. He’s very transparent, right? And so seeing that is important because that provides her contrast. And so it’s useful to have these interactions, even if let’s assume for a second that I was trying to make a point or give you a message or tell you what to do or any of that. Like fine, right? Obviously didn’t work, right? But there’s value here. And I think that Sally Jo was expressing that. There’s still a value. Like even if that were the T-Lost, which it most certainly was not, the value still happens even though the T-Lost doesn’t manifest, which is a mysterious thing if you think about it. But I would argue that’s partly but not entirely because that isn’t the T-Lost. It’s very easy for me to manifest value for someone. It looks like Elizabeth got a lot out of it too, right? And Sally says, the best part of the convo was Richard’s story. Was the only part that was a story and the monk story. Yes, the monk story was very good. I hope Tim comes on more often too, because I liked him. He’s quiet and then someday I wanna get Ted on here too, but we’ll have to do a stream another time to get Ted because Ted’s also very good with framing and frames and perspective and he and I vibe pretty well on stuff. All right, should we wrap up? I think we should. Richard, closing thoughts on anything really. I mean, I try to, I sort of try to stick to hallucination fantasy right versus reality, but you can go literally wherever you want, just some closing thoughts before we kill the stream and then welcome to come back anytime. So my concluding thought is that I think we made good concrete steps towards mutual intelligibility in my terms, right? I don’t know what, I’m still trying to discern what you don’t like about the term intelligibility, but in my terms, we made good steps towards, if not perfect knowledge of what the other person is saying, finding ways to interact with each other, finding ways to talk to each other, finding ways to circle around an issue in such a way that we feel like we’re going somewhere. I’m gonna have to reflect a little bit more on how I might more precisely convey that, but I felt at the end, we managed to plane without damaging the wings. Or plane without damaging the wings. That’s all we can ever hope for. Jesse, Jesse, closing thoughts. Hallucination. So I’m conscious of, this is me trying to talk outside of this last two hours of stream. You can believe that there’s a picture inside of that frame, but there’s not, but you can believe that, right? So how you frame things matters. How others frame things for you matters. Don’t hallucinate, this is just a frame. This is just a frame. How do you get out the hallucination? Well, how do you know you’re hallucinating? Look at the frame first. You don’t look at the picture. The picture tells the story. The frame holds the values, the meanings, the virtues of the story. How you frame things matters. Oh, I like that, Jesse. I figured you were going there. That was also why I put you up. I’m like, oh, he’s doing something with the empty frame thing. And I’m glad you got to it. And that was a good summary. And I gotta say, I bet you would have gotten to that summary if we talked about it earlier. We don’t know, we’ll never know. Who knows? Right? Well, look, look, this whole live stream is all about participation, unlike the rest of my channel, which is less about, which is still about participation. And so comments, always welcome. Getting some engagement, right? Telling people about the channel, all that stuff is good, right? Getting the watch hours up. So watch all my videos, especially the Knowledge Engine one. And possibly I’ve done a number of talks about the Knowledge Engine, just because I’m the voice of the Knowledge Engine, not the progenitor of it by any means. And so we’re piggybacking over Vicky’s work and we’re adding a bunch to it. And Andre is the one with the big breakthrough, right? Even though he’s Australian, see good things can come out of Australia, right? And then Emanuel, of course, is like, Emanuel is just the rock upon which everything either breaks or survives, invaluable, right? And so many other people, again, too many to name. But yeah, and I wanna echo what Sally’s saying here. Yes, come again, Richard, right? So now let’s wrap up this thing. Basically, Jan醫, good week, and the tactics he’s telling us, we’re laughing a revolutionary joke about how these keeps escalating. Why now are creator encased in likes? That’s a thumbs up. All right, we’re having some Market Wisdom, you can subscribe here to Market Wisdom House channel. It’s a free袖 as well,imminggrock for sure. Absolutely, those are the alerts my viewers are waiting for. or whatever’s going on in DC at the end of July here, which Elizabeth told me about, but I validated this is actually happening from an independent source. So I guess there is an event with Spencer Clavin and Paul VanderKlay. And yeah, I mean, story is the most important thing. That’s the thing that provides us the level of intimacy to avoid the meaning crisis, right? Because it holds these interactions that are in conflict or in competition in a way so that they don’t damage to Richard’s point the wings of the plane. And then that means we can fly again some other day. So thank you everybody. I really appreciate it. I know I’m a Muppet. I know we’re all Muppets. It’s okay. And we’re gonna Muppet our way through this and orient so that we can navigate the patterns that we see in the world. Thank you very much. Have a lovely day.