Jordan Peterson, Wave 3 Dialogos! (J1PR4iGt77g)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=J1PR4iGt77g

Not understanding that Peterson’s reaching multiple audiences, because there’s different ways of relating to the world, different ways that people are relating to the world, is the myth of progress. Just seeing him as wave one, wave two, wave three, it’s a myth. It’s not what’s happening. He hasn’t fundamentally changed his message. He hasn’t changed his hooks. He hasn’t changed his method of capture and he hasn’t changed the transformations he’s doing in people. I still think, though, you’re right, Manuel, you need to address the historical grounding and the end result. And I think we can frame a relationship as such to audiences differently. We can look at the hook, which are effectively mean. They’re like a cool breeze, right? It’s like, ooh, it’s like waking you up a little bit. Contrast. Yeah, it’s contrast. Yeah. And it’s bringing the contrast to awareness as well. But that doesn’t do anything. That doesn’t provide any good in the world in and of itself. But if that is your main way of reaching people, right, like you might have many, many viewers, right, like Qtpie or whatever. But like, are you providing value or are you providing people a distraction from manifesting the good? Yeah, that is entertainment. All right. I’m back again with my favorite interlocutor, Manuel Post. And we’re going to talk a little bit about Peterson in a larger frame. We’re going to try to frame this a little bit differently because we’ve noticed people having problems. I mean, I have an earlier video, obviously, that I did on Peterson, right, and go into the Daily Wire. And so we wanted to sort of put all sort of three phases of the Peterson experience in a different context and maybe add some nuance, maybe maybe re-enchant the idea of Peterson for people so that they’re not quite so cynical. What do you think, Manuel? Yeah, so that’s definitely been the lead up, right, like the cynicism. Like, I think we’re both really appreciative of Peterson and what he’s brought to the world. I have full faith that he’s going to keep on bringing within his capacity. Yeah, so we’re trying to look at it in a way where it’s like, what is he bringing, right? Like, why is he bringing it, maybe, or at least functionally, why is he bringing it? And what does that say about the service that he provides in some sense to people, right? And where’s the need that he’s fulfilling and capturing people? Yeah, well said. So, yeah, I mean, I think the way we sort of outlined this was to start talking about how we view his various projects, because it’s not one project. I would say there’s various projects going on here and various ways of interacting. And, you know, I think people view it as like a single mission or something, and I don’t think that’s actually what’s going on. I mean, much like with Breveke having multiple projects, Peterson also has sort of multiple projects, and because I’ve talked about Breveke and his little overview of his projects before, it wasn’t complete or anything, and I don’t think we’ll get complete with Peterson and look, we’re not Jordan Peterson. So you may have different conception of what his projects are. And, you know, this is more about adding nuance to the conversation about what Peterson did, what he is and what he continues to do. So, yeah, I mean, it looks to me like one of the things he’s trying to do is connect psychology to phenomenology, right, to your actual experience, telling you why psychology is relevant, because that’s his field of study, right? That’s where he gets his credit from. His credentials are all around his psychological work because he’s a top notch and was before he got famous, a top notch published scientist in the field, right? Yeah, so, yeah, so like that project, right, of connecting it is trying to make it real, right? Because there’s an element where all of this psychology is abstract. It’s like, OK, but what does that mean? Right? Like, how do I relate to it? Right. So and that’s that’s where his pragmatism shines through. Like there’s always this aspect where he’s he’s trying to make it useful in a way that you can improve your life and improve your action. So then then he’s trying to drag other things into that project. Right. And I think he’s he’s putting it all together in his Maps of Meaning series. Right. And the other things that he’s trying to drag in is evolution. Right. Or you could say that’s biology. Right. So there’s there’s these biological limitations and they create psychology, but they also create phenomenology in a profound way. And so he’s using evolution specifically as sort of a justification. Right. And then he’s trying to link the evolution to to the middle. Right. Like, so there’s there’s this this layer that that well, we’ve been talking a lot about in this realms of the Internet. Right. Like that there’s there’s this social cultural layer that that detaches itself from the natural layer. And now in in that layer, there’s a new new law. Right. Like there’s a new system that governs. Right. And that’s trying to be captured in mythology. And so so a lot of part of that project that he’s doing is is is figuring out what is captured and how to make that relevant again. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And I think I think, too, you know, when you when you talk about evolutionary framework and tying in these other components and then you talk about mythology, he very much without using these terms, talks about mythology in terms of distributed cognition. Right. The job of a key favorite term. And I go over that my own review of John Ravigi’s work right where this idea of distributed cognition. But this is true time captured in these religious traditions in these books, whether it be the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or whatever. Right. And the survivability. So he’s appealing to, you know, look, these books have survived and therefore they are elements that have been shaped by the same sorts of factors that are talked about in evolution in terms of. Creatures and humans. And so he again he’s linking that whole thing just by doing that one move. He’s linking that whole evolutionary idea into mythology. And mythology is about phenomenology. Why does it rain? Right. What makes the thunder? Why is fire bad? Right. These are all elements of mythological storytelling that are in those stories. And he’s linking that all together. And in doing so, he’s reviving mythology as such. Taking mythology and say, you know, mythology isn’t something you just throw away. It’s not unimportant. It’s not not linked to your life. It actually is linked to your life in a fundamental way, because these are abstractions of patterns that you experience. And as abstractions, they teach you where the boundaries are to your point on the biology. And I think that is super important. And, you know, he by by doing that connection, that revivification of of the mythology as such, he frames all of this with respect to the pragmatic approach of problems. Right. There are problems in the world. And this is how psychology relates to those problems. This is how mythology relates to those problems. This is how phenomenology relates to those problems. This is how evolution relates to those problems. He’s giving you a pragmatic grounding to to sort of address these things. He’s laying the groundwork, you know, through various methods for talking about all this stuff. Yeah. And then he puts it together in in a framework of symbolism. Right. So that’s that’s what he says. Right. Like there’s all of these symbols and these symbols, they’re representative of something. And if you if you use a symbolic structure to to the world, right. And that’s what a mythology is. Right. It’s a network of symbols that have interrelationship. Then you can gain an intelligibility, a way of of of relating to the world that. That is true in a pragmatic way. And you can go back to his conversation with Sam Harris, right, where they’re talking about truth and where Sam Harris is trying to go for facts as truth. And Peterson is going for something that allows you to to do the thing that you need to do. Right. Like, so there’s a functional pragmatic element, which is is necessarily grounded in evolution. Right. Because evolution is effectively the consequence. Or that’s the test of pragmatism. Right. Like either it works or not. And then you get a filtering of. Of of of what is what is true and what is not true. And then all of that leads him to to Christianity. Right. Like he he he has the sense that that all of these aspects, they they come together in Christianity and and and. Get get placed there in in a profound way. And and he hasn’t really walked that road fully. Right. But he’s he’s intuiting that that the answer or at least part of the answer that he’s looking is is is hidden there. And and that’s where his current current interests are. And yeah, so that’s that’s where a lot of people place hope on on Peters. Right. Like, OK, he’s he’s coming from all of these other areas. Right. Like the psychology, evolution, mythology, pragmatism. And how do we connect that back to Christianity? And and I think. People expect him to to provide on that front. Right. Like they’re just seeing him as as a as as a person who who can move the the ball and they’re dependent upon. Yeah. Well, then he did. And he did move the ball. I think that’s part of the problem. But, you know, part of that is, you know, as you brought out, I like that reference. Right. In the first of the four Sam Harris debates that he did, they’re the original ones. They’re talking about truth. And Peterson’s very much if you listen carefully, getting to the idea that Bret Weinstein talks about mythological versus literal truth, which I have a video on. Right. And so that’s really important. Like, oh, this is something that that he talks about. It’s like, yep, he talks about that. So these these issues are floating around. He also, you know, aside from reviving mythology and symbology as symbolism, as such, he’s also talking about anti authoritarianism. And so he’s relating it directly to the hopes and fears of modern day people. Like they see these things. Right. And you can get into arguments about where the authoritarianism is and what anti authoritarianism means in different contexts. But you can’t get around the fact that people are talking about. Right. That’s a concern. And so, you know, if you were dividing the world up into politics, which is a bad framing. Right. It’s just a low resolution picture. And I’m sort of I’m always disappointed when Peterson does it because he talks about low low resolution pictures. There’s nothing lower resolution than left and right. That’s a binary picture. It’s to say, you know, it’s basically a single pixel picture. Right. You’re either on or off. You’re on the left or right. Rather conservative or liberal. Bad, bad way to think about the world. Just too low resolution to be useful. And I’m going to do a video on that. Another video on that. Done videos, similar videos before. But everybody’s still talking about it. Right. It’s talked about by everybody, this authoritarianism. And then the other issue is responsibility as such. And then Peterson sort of brings it to the side of personal responsibility and. You know, because who is responsible is the government, because then I’m not responsible. Right. Or is it me? Because then I am responsible. It’s like, oh, where is it? Everybody who’s not the government, but also not me, who’s doing these things? Are they responsible? Right. And then it’s a very nuanced way of looking at responsibility. And so he brings back the idea of personal responsibility, because the person is where you have the most control as a person. Like you have the most control over yourself. Everything else you have less control over, whether it be the government, whether it be other people, whether it be your family, whether it be the church, whether it be the body, whether it be the religion, whether it be technology. It doesn’t matter. You have the least control over those things relative to the thing you have most control over, which is yourself, your own your own personal interactions in the world. And I think that’s super important. And that’s how I think he talks about Christianity as a solution to those things. And then, yeah, the expectation is set up. But, you know, they’re not looking at he’s talking about authoritarianism. He’s talking about responsibility and flipping, flipping the script on responsibility and authoritarianism in some sense. Right. And I think he’s doing that because he’s coming from a specific frame. And a lot of people sort of snuff this off or ignore it or maybe they don’t notice it. Right. Where he says, you know, that he is a classical liberal. Well, what is it? Classical liberal. Well, it’s worth exploring that. What is the starting point for which the grounding for which he’s making these claims? Well, it’s all based in the classics, as in the classic Greek and Roman texts, the classic texts of Western canon. Right. Shakespeare, you know, Canterbury Tales, right. All of this classic literature. And so the liberalism is couched in that classicism, that classic tradition. And so you’re already talking about the legacy of Plato and Aristotle built into the idea of liberalism. Right. It’s not liberalism first and form second. Right. It’s forms first and liberalism within that. Right. So you’re recognizing the constraints that were recognized by the ancients, by the classic traditions, whether that be enlightenment, which is informed by the revivification of the Greek and Latin classics. I’ve loved to talk with Adam from the VOM Discord about that. Right. I’ll link that here. There’s a difference between Greek and Rome, but there are differences there. And those legacies were revivified over time. And reintroduced into the culture or into specific cultures. And that makes a difference because that’s how he’s grounded his liberalism. It’s not liberalism like freedom, like I can do whatever I want, whatever I want, however I want, whatever I want with no constraints. That’s liberalism. Like if you just say liberalism, that’s what you mean, whether you intend to mean that or not. But he’s very much grounded in that. And then it’s probably worth talking about from here, the messaging that he’s using and the procedures that he’s using to get across this Christian revivification, which is one part, like one of these things that he’s doing. Yeah, I want to reframe what you said a little bit, right, because the authoritarian stuff and the responsibility stuff, they’re intimately connected with social issues. Right. And I think that that’s part of the appeal that he’s he’s having. It’s like he’s providing at least a way towards. Personally relating to those issues, not so much resolving them as such, but but having a personal relationship to these social issues. And and I think in his in his latest development, right, like he starts doing interviews, right. He’s he’s also taking an avenue, right? Like, OK, like there’s all of these social issues like there’s problems with science, there’s problems with religions. Right. Like and he he goes over all of these areas and he’s he’s trying to. To make them go here and inform his perspective. Right. And so I think I think that’s also like like like a project that he’s in. Right. He’s trying to have a unified view of the world. Like a perspective that that has a universal element in it. Right. And I think there’s there’s also a real attraction in the universalities. Like, oh, you mean like I don’t just get the views of this newspaper and this newspaper. Like I can have both newspapers and still have my my my integrity intact. So, yeah, like I think that’s where the appeals are. And then, yeah, like. I think I think we. When you’re looking at this project, right, like and I think the motivation for his interviews is also because of his illness, right, and and and this this new place where he’s he’s needing to come to to acceptance, right. So he he is is recognizing the limitations of of his view and and that he needs to to get something from the outside so that he he can make a step that he he doesn’t see yet. Right. No, I like that. Yeah. He’s putting you back in the picture. He’s not divorcing you from from the government. He’s not reversing, you know, divorcing you from the politics. He’s not divorcing you from other people. Right. And he’s not resolving it, but he’s giving you tools to put yourself back in that picture, back back with the with what’s going on in the world. And I think, you know, in terms of messaging, he’s got the hooks. And I see three main hooks for Peterson. There’s the Kathy Newman interview. That was for me. Right. I saw that. And I went, oh, I do that. I know how to do that. Never seen anybody else do it. Right. So like, oh, wow. No one else has ever, you know, been able to back back those leading questions in that way because it just never seen a performance or some people do it. I used to do it all the time. And then I was like, oh, that’s kind of cool. You know, he’s he’s really good at that. And then I slowly realized, oh, no, no, no, he’s really good at that. And then I was like, oh, I couldn’t do that. I couldn’t do that as well as he did. And I kind of like that’s a skill that I have. So I was kind of like, it could teach me master teach me like he’s way out there. Right. And and, you know, you can see it’s very personal. Like he’s being he as an individual sitting in a chair has been dragged out into these controversies. He has nothing to do with he has no control over. Right. You know, part of the government, he has nothing, you know, but but but he is involved because they affect him. The stuff she’s talking about affects him not only in the moment, but in the long term. Right. This is part of cancel culture. And, oh, you say the wrong thing. You know, you can lose your jobs or thing. And he has a very good sense of that in the moment and defends against it sort of brilliantly, in my opinion, in the Captain Newman interview. And that got people interested because they see somebody being candid leading questions, not taking the bait and being able to maintain his own individuality. If you want to if you want to couch it that way, in spite of the onslaught of. The culture, right. Those are cultural issues that she’s bringing up. She’s trying to represent the cultural zeitgeist, right. She’s dropping into the spirit of the attacking culture of the harmful culture. And I think that’s a super important aspect of the hawk. It’s like people see him being persecuted, for lack of a better term, by these issues. And they see him succeeding in spite of the persecution. Right. Oh, you’re just a man. What do you know? You know, you very much get that flavor from the Captain Newman interview. And then the Bill C-16 is much the same. Here’s a government. In this case, not the culture. Here’s the government imposing something. And he sees down the road, he sees the implications of this. He says this is going to lead to X, Y and Z. And of course, he was right on all fronts, by the way. We know that now. We didn’t know that at the time. Some of us knew right away what was going on. And that’s a hawk. People are like, oh, here’s a guy who sees a government thing that’s going to impinge upon him. And he’s fighting the fight. He’s defending against it. He’s standing up and saying no. The same way you did with Kathy Newman. He refused to be framed by Kathy Newman in the way that you want to frame him. And then here’s him saying, I’m not going to do this government. You can do what you want because I can’t stop you. But I’m not going to change my behavior as a result of your law. And that’s very powerful. He’s re-empowering the individual. Putting back personal responsibility. I’m taking responsibility for going to jail. But I’m not going to do what the government wants. I’m not doing it. He’s very clear about that. And so you see somebody, in one sense, executing the will to power. And in another sense, breaking down the postmodern power from above narrative because the government is the ultimate power for above. And you say, no. It’s just the postmodern misreading most of Nietzsche in some sense, not understanding the power exists in the individual, not the government. It’s granted to the government, but it can be taken away. That’s what revolution is. So he exemplifies that. And then I think he goes on Joe Rogan and gets a whole new audience and he sounds smart. And Joe Rogan, people like people who sound smart and have good coherent stories. And that’s one of the advantages of Peterson. I watched a video recently, last night in fact, on this guy talking. And a very good sounding story. There’s a lot of truth. But they were disconnected pieces. And Peterson doesn’t do disconnected pieces. So it’s very attractive because he gives you that golden thread of intelligibility if we want to pull out a Petersonism that you can follow. And it’s right. It’s not wrong. It’s actually right. When he ties together evolution and anti-authoritarianism and personal responsibility in with mythology and psychology, when he ties all that together, it’s correct. And you know it’s correct. Maybe you can’t understand the reasons why it’s correct or defend it as correct, but you feel that it’s correct. And that’s that I think is very much sort of the hook or three of his big hooks. When you talk to people how they found him, it’s usually Captain Yeoman C-16 or Joe Rogan. What do you think, Emmanuel, about the hooks? Yeah. And that brings up another hook, right? Like how he’s answering questions. Right. So when he’s answering questions, he’s putting out a framework and he’s giving you ways of relating to the problem in a way that you probably couldn’t before. It’s not that you were incapable, but you didn’t have the access, right? The tools and the configuration of the constellations in the right way so that you could connect them, right? But you had all the prerequisites and then he puts them in alignment and you’re like, oh, right? So today all of these things are, in my opinion, a way for him to establish a credibility, right? Like in Joe Rogan, I think it’s also important that he received a bunch of respect from Joe Rogan, right? Who is a respected individual, right? So the fact that that happens, right? Like that invites you to have a specific relationship. And like when you’re standing up to the zeitgeist embodied in media or in the law, then that also demands respect, right? Because he’s standing apart, right? Like he is highlighting a characteristic that is requiring courage and skill, right? Like they’re not easy things to do, right? Like he had a well-reasoned thing and he could defend his position, right? Like so it wasn’t foolish. And yeah, so all of this is like, oh, there’s more there. Like this man has something to say and he has a place where he can say it from, right? And like I want to connect that to, well, like how do you get to such a place, right? Like where you’re speaking from authority? Well, like there’s a connection between your experience and the framework that you use to relate to the world. And they allow you to guide people, right? Like people can follow you in the way that you’re speaking. And they also allow you to talk with an authority from a place inside of yourself that people can resonate with naturally. And yeah, I think that’s something that’s getting lost nowadays because I think most people, most specialists, they don’t have the capacity to take back what their specialization in an embodied way because it’s too abstract for them to make sense. And I saw this actually in a Peterson interview where Peterson was talking about with some biologists and the biologist said, I can’t answer this how my work relates to the social issues because I don’t know enough about it. And I was completely confused because it’s like, why are you doing this research if you’re not making it valid for yourself in some way, right? Like for me, that’s just maybe now, but it’s a natural thing to do, right? Okay, like there’s this thing, what’s the implications of the thing? But he never did it, right? Like he played the game within the rules of science and never stepped outside. Yeah, no, that’s a good point. Peterson, what we use another bravado term, exacts, right? His stuff and then ties it together. He says, okay, well, how does evolution and anti authoritarianism, like how are those two things linked? How do they talk to each other, right? How does psychology talk to mythology, right? What are these connections? And he makes those connections and that’s part of how he gets his authority for sure. So yeah, I agree with that. And then I think, you know, those are hooks though, right? But then what really captures people because it’s easy to hook people. Like you just show a cat falling off a shelf and people like, oh, can’t pull me off a shelf, right? But then they got to come back, right? They got to come back and, you know, less so with Joe Rogan, because to your point, he gives these really good stories. Joe Rogan’s used to long form, right? You can get a sense for not only the authority, but the depth, right? The depth of what he’s talking about really comes out in the Joe Rogan, some of his long form one-on-one conversations in some of the interviews that people do with him. So there’s definitely a good depth there, but Kathy Newman and C-16, it’s not quite so clear, right? They’re just hooks. It’s like, well, somebody’s got to then watch something else, right? They’re interested enough to watch something else because they see something unusual in both of those. There’s unusual behavior, right? Standing up for himself, defending himself against culture, defending himself against government, and doing it really well, right? And you’re like, oh, wow, you can do that? That’s a thing that you could, that’s a game you can play to the point of my video that I’ll be releasing today, actually. So yeah, that’s a game that you can play. There’s things that you can do there that will actually work. And then the capture is more than maps and meaning lectures. And it’s hard to understand how capturing those lectures are. It’s really hard. So I’ve seen three times now, right? I watched the original, what was the last one? It was the 2017, I think, and the 2016. I watched them both, which, you know, like I don’t do things like that ever. Like, oh, this is the same course, and I’m not going to watch it again, right? And I watched the personality course, which normally I would be like, ah, personality psychology is boring. I don’t like psychology, I hate it. So I hate the whole discipline. I think it’s dumb. It’s obvious to me. So it’s like, why are people bothering with psychology stuff? But I was interested enough in Peterson and his framing, and I found actually not only maps and meaning, it was enormously helpful, even though I didn’t learn a super huge amount from it, we’ll say, because a lot of it’s covered by the lab. And so the stuff I already knew from, you know, a lot of psychology, right? A lot of it’s mythology that I was already well aware of, because I’m a big mythology nut anyway, right? I like the ancient Sumerians, so I’m familiar with Marduk and all of those stories. I was familiar with Egyptian stuff. I was in the occult for a long time, so I’m pretty familiar with all of that stuff. But, you know, you did, there were a few nuggets in there, and I could see the ties that he was making and his ability to go off on these tangents and then go, oh, I’m stuck. You know, you can see it. And then he brings it back or ties it back together. And you’re like, oh, wow, that’s really good. And I do that. So I’m like, oh, this is cool. It’s cool to watch somebody else doing this stuff. That’s neat. And I think also, you know, another capture is the biblical series. A lot of people get captured. Oh, cool. You know, but those are appeals to different types of people, different audiences, if you will. Right. And I think that’s what makes somebody big is the ability to appeal to different audiences. So Joe Rogan has different appeals to different audiences. I don’t watch all of Joe Rogan’s stuff. Most of his stuff is about MMA, right? That’s what most of his videos are about. The long form talks are not most of his content. And it might be most by hours, but they’re not most by number of videos, or at least they weren’t when I looked last, which granted was a year and a half or so ago. But I’m not interested in MMA at all. I think I couldn’t possibly be less interested in anything in the world, even though I’m a martial artist. I just don’t care about that stuff. It’s totally boring to me. So he’s got at least two audiences, the people interested in the long form and the people interested in MMA. You could argue there’s a lot of crossover, but I don’t think there is. I’d be real surprised if there’s a lot of crossover. And then I don’t watch all the Rogan stuff at all, all his long form stuff. Some of the people he has on, like Lazard, very interested in Lazard because he talks about UFOs. And he’s one of the more credible UFO people to ever talk about the subject. So I like him. I listened to his talk with the mushroom guy because I thought that was cool, damn it. I thought that was awesome, right? I’m into healing and mushroom and that sort of stuff. So I pick up on stuff and say, I listen to his Peterson stuff because I was already a Peterson fan. But I’m picky about which of the Joe Rogan things I listen to. And I think a lot of his audiences, and if you have a YouTube audience, like I do thankfully, and it gets large enough, which it has, it’s getting pretty large, I’m over 300 subs now. You sort of see the number of views, the number of likes and the number of subscribers have very little correlation. And you can look on YouTube channel, all over YouTube and see this, right? There’s a definite ratio between those three numbers and they don’t seem to correlate very well. And there’s sometimes, there’s like a low end video viewing for your videos, is a mid range video viewing for your business, is a high one, right? And the high ones, if you take somebody like Andrew with the banks, highly recommend, I’d chat with her about intimacy crisis. Love her channel. I don’t watch all of her stuff. You can see when she has a celebrity on from another channel, her views are through the roof, right? There are a thousand plus. But then when she has a normal video with some nobody like me, she might not get more than 300 views. The video I did with her has like over 800. So I’m very grateful for that. So you can see the way in which these things divide out. So there’s different audiences and sometimes the guest brings her audience with them. And I don’t know in Peterson’s case, how many people like myself watch Joe Rogan because Peterson was on and how many people watch Peterson as a result of seeing him on Joe Rogan because they watch Joe Rogan all the time and what subset of his audience that is. I’m saying no access to that information, but the people that were interested in the biblical series are almost certainly different set of people. And in order to be interested in the biblical series, there are some prerequisites there, right? Like you have to have already understood the importance of the Bible. And then my argument is going to be when you get captured by maps of meaning, you can now become interested in the Bible when you weren’t before, because he sets that groundwork. He revivifies the idea of mythos and the importance of distributed cognition through these ancient texts, right? To use some more of revikisms, right? And then he accepts that psychological, evolutionary, and mythological framing out into the culture, right? Out into phenomenology, out into your participation in the world, which is roughly your personal responsibility, right? So he brings all this stuff together, right? In that maps of meaning series, and that makes the Bible interesting to you. Well, what is really up with this text? Why it’s been around so long? Why is it the most widely read book in the world? It’s like being hard to remember because it’s just one name and no author and it’s crazy, right? So there’s no marketing reason why the Bible should be popular. That’s for sure. If you try to put it in materialistic or economic frames, it doesn’t make any sense why anybody’s reading it, much less why it’s the most popular book, the most widely read book, right? And why it’s not merely mythological, right? Because our idea of mythology is broken. We think any fairy tale is mythological. Anybody can make up a fairy tale because they’re just nonsensical stories, but none of that is true. But if you already were into the Bible, a Christian, whatever, right? You had a sense of wisdom texts as such, Vagabag Gita or some other text. It doesn’t really matter the Quran. It doesn’t matter, right? Then you can sort of not engage with map to meaning, but engage with the biblical lecture series, right? And so there’s a different entry point for the same message from Peterson, because it’s very much the same set of messages. He just ties it together differently in there. And then I think also the other captures one-on-one explorations where he’s exploring ideas. I think that’s huge. The Fallia Sophia, if you want to again go to Ravicki, Charapesci, Ravicki words, right? The idea, the love of philosophy, the love of discussing ideas as such and exploring them and finding new framing and new ways of interrelated. And I think all of those are different forms of capture for different types of people or different audiences. And so that’s how you get big is you don’t focus on the little guys so much, you focus on the bigger picture. So what do you think about capture there, Manuel? Well, yeah, I would argue especially in the maps of meaning, right? Because he’s coming from all of these different perspectives and he’s trying to relate it back to your personal experience over and over and over and over again, right? That the size of the audience that’s able to receive his message severely increases, right? Because what he’s doing is he’s drawing lines to the same place, the same form, right? And from different realms, right? From things in which you might have some expertise, right? Like some resonance with him, right? And then in some sense, you can fill up the other aspects as a consequence of your already present knowledge, right? So he’s providing this disconnected structure with multiple paths in. And then there’s this question, right? Because you’re making this distinction between the maps of meaning, which is a course in a university, right? Trying to, well, I guess prepare people for life, but also to have right relationships to their profession in the future and to study, right? So in a sense, that’s an opening up process, while the biblical series was a targeted thing, right? So that was an intentional exploration to have the relationship between psychology and the Bible and then some of his experience and stories that he’s building around that. And so I think in order to be appreciative of the biblical series, either you have to be appreciative of the Bible, like Mark was talking about, right? So that’s your in. It’s like, oh, I have this story and I have this relationship to this story and there’s all of this history for me there. Or you go into it through Peterson, effectively as a person, right? Like, oh, I know how he’s presenting things. I know his method. I know why these things are valuable, right? And now I have a way to interface with the Bible where I can place what is being extracted into myself, into my relationship. I think it’s important to realize that’s kind of what we’re trying to get at in this conversation here, right? Like, we’re trying to get at, like, okay, how does this resonance work, right? Like, what is it resonating with and why do we care about the resonance, right? Because we were talking about hooks, right? Like, oh, hooks are really salient things in the world and they capture us, right? Like, and yes, a falling cat can do that because cats are cool sometimes. But the capturing isn’t a value, right? Like, it’s just an intense signal, right? And this content, right? Like, we were trying to highlight what is the value? Well, the value is the connections that Peterson is making, right? And the connections making to your personal life, right? But also to this more complicated areas like psychology or religion and all of that. And why do we care about those connections, right? Like, what is the value that’s being provided by laying this connection, right? You could say, well, for a Christian, the biblical series has value because now I have a way of talking about the most important thing that I didn’t have before, right? Like, so that’s really obvious. But the other way, that’s way more difficult because now we’re going to have to talk about what is the audience, right? Like, what is the need of the audience that’s going to be fulfilled by making these connections? And those connections are going to be personal, right? Like, what do you get out of the story of Cain and Abel? Well, like, that depends on who you are and what needs you have. And so if we’re going to look at Peterson and say, well, like, he was doing this specific thing for this specific person, I think we’re in the wrong frame of analysis. I think we’re not realizing what is happening, right? Like, he’s not making the connection. He’s allowing the person to make their own connection. And that is a magical trick that he’s doing. And that magical trick has value because that’s how you get people, that’s how you get to enchant the world for people, right? Like, that’s how you get people to open up and to see value in the world. And so if we want to learn anything from Peterson, that’s where we want to draw our lesson. Okay, like, he has the capacity to give meaningful connections to large groups of people. And he’s able to provide with his talks to multiple audiences at the same time. So there’s multiple ways to relate to his message that is actually meaningful for different reasons. And yeah, that is where the magic lies. Right. And I like that you said that. Yeah. I mean, there’s a way in which, oh, Peterson did this for me. He must be doing this for other people. It’s like, oh, no, no, no, no, not at all. And I think, you know, we can bring in another fancy vervecki word affordance, right? And so, and look, I mean, I’m bringing in the exaptation and affordance and distributed cognition for a reason, right? I made the claim on Paul Vanderlees’ channel. And if you haven’t seen it, I’ll link it up here, that Peterson does something and vervecki’s framework of meaning allows you to understand it. And then I stated that Peterson takes people in a rough area and brings them to a place. And I think, you know, that was, that was me oversimplifying, over-reducing. Peterson brings people from a bunch of different areas, but maybe not as many as we’d like, and brings them all to roughly the same place. And I think that part of the problem of Peterson is that if you don’t understand the difference between the hook and the capture and why the hooks lead to the capture, right? Because it’s not a cat falling off a table, right? Or a shelf or jumping and missing, right? It’s not that. The hook is him doing something in the world and taking responsibility. When he says, I don’t care if you put me in jail, I’ll hunger strike or whatever, I’m not doing this C-16 thing, he’s taking personal responsibility for defying the government, right? So he’s revivifying the idea that he has power and that personal responsibility is important and that that leads you to wonder what other connections he can make in the world, right? Not just with the Bible, but with Maps of Meaning, with, right, with, with the personality series, with this one-on-one conversations, when he’s exploring ideas, how’s he going to explore this idea and make those connections that he made that relate to personal responsibility? And, you know, there’s been a shift in the message for sure, because he’s not dealing with things that merely affect him or even things that maybe don’t directly affect him at all, right? And so he’s lost some of the personal responsibility message to some extent, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But the idea that he wasn’t angry before, of course he was, like he was bullshit. In the C-16 video, he got angry in the Kathy Newman talk. This isn’t new, right? But the real key to all of this is the, you know, the real part of the message is the transformation, right, which he grabs in through Carl Jung, right, and alchemy, right, so he’s tying the materialism, alchemy is materialism, back to Carl Jung, right, and through the psychology, because Carl Jung is a psychologist, right, and, you know, he, he, he links that to the mythology as a way of expressing transformation in others, again, exacting it throughout time, right, and then he’s, he’s using that to talk about his own personal experience. I stopped lying and the world changed, right, I, I made this, this other change, right, I realized that if you clean your room, then you’re taking care of something important, you’re taking personal responsibility for something, again, you’re the most control over yourself, you don’t have any control of the government, you get a lot of control over yourself, and you get a lot of control over your room, your room looks the way it looks, because you make it look that way, whether you want to take responsibility for that or not is irrelevant, it’s still true, and so he, he, you know, he ties that together in a pragmatic approach, and then he ties all of that into the Christian ethos, he says, look, there’s the Christian ethos over here, and it has all of these elements in it, right, and in that way he revivifies Christianity. Now, if you’re already a Christian, revivifying Christianity is great, but if you weren’t a Christian, you can’t start by revivifying Christianity, because why am I interested in Christianity, you know, why do I care about the Bible, if I’ve never read the Bible, if the Bible never had any significance to me, the biblical lectures, it doesn’t mean anything, you’re not going to watch it, if you do start watching it, you’re going to get bored pretty quick, right, it’s not going to resonate with you, right, and it’s all about resonance when you’re talking about capture, and if you don’t get, you need the hook, you need the capture, right, which is the resonance, roughly speaking, and you need the transformation, and there are three different components, if you don’t get the first two, you can’t have the third, right, and so you have to recognize where the hook is coming from, why it works for the people that it works for, you need to recognize where the capture is coming from, why it works for the people it works for, and then you need to realize that different people come in at different areas, right, and that leads to the transformation, why, because he’s connecting things, and as you follow the connections, you’re transforming, like as a result of the journey, the intellectual journey, in this case, the propositional journey, if you want to use more fancy vervecki words, right, the propositions drag you out of your head, right, drag you out of your victim mentality, because you saw him not being a victim in the hook, and enable you through the mythos to engage with the world differently, all right, and it’s like, oh, I can engage, engaging the world differently is a transformation, that’s you changing, and that’s super important, whether it’s through Carl Jung, or through, you know, revivifying the Christian ethos, the Bible as such, right, or through pointing out the importance of mythology, right, and making those connections for people, or through the practical things you can do, like stop lying, right, knowing people that’s worked for, clean your room, lots of people that works for, right, started cleaning my room, and then now all of a sudden everything’s better, it’s like, yeah, well, there’s your internal, your internal systems, right, your internal frame is reflected in your outside frame, right, because it’s still you with yourself, you with nature, and you with others, and that’s all reflective, it’s all connected, it’s all linked, and so that’s how he affords the transformation, is first by telling you, or really showing you, this is a different way to relate to the world, I can tell the government to go screw, and if they want to do something about it, they can, and I’ll take responsibility for that, it’s like, I can take responsibility in the world, yeah, well, that’s why it appeals to young men right there, right, oh, I can defend myself against the attack of the culture by a Kathy Newman or any other puppet, yeah, you can, you can do that, oh, I can, you know, use my articulation, which Peterson talks about, maps of meaning, to be interesting, important, and deadly, yeah, you can, and he shows that on Joe Rogan, and then he captures you with this maps of meaning, with the Biblical lectures, with the one-on-one explorations of ideas, he keeps you interested, and that causes the transformation, right, because that resonance leads you to a new way to look at the world, to your point, like he’s giving you different perspectives, so he’s giving the audience five, six perspectives on everything, and links, right, one way to think of it is this, another way to think of it is this, another way to think, you can look at it from an evolutionary perspective, look at it from a psychological perspective, look at it from a mythological perspective, so the, but the people who don’t have the mythological perspective aren’t drawn in by that, that’s not what they resonate with, they resonate with the psychological first, maybe, right, or they resonate with some other perspective first, maybe the pragmatic perspective, oh, there’s a way in which I can interact with the world, oh, and here’s how it links to the mythological, well, maybe mythology is interesting, now you transform into the type of person that would engage with the biblical lectures to begin with, because you weren’t there, you weren’t there, right, and that’s what people aren’t appreciating, because they only see their own perspective, oh, I already knew the Bible was important, but I didn’t realize all the super connections that you can make, you know, if you go through this exploration of the biblical series, as you watch Peterson do it, and I like watching people think, right, that’s why I watch Joe Rogan, I watch people think and present ideas, and there it is in the biblical lecture series, but if you don’t, if you don’t care about mythology, it’s not going to work, people aren’t going to be interested, and so that’s the transformation, it’s not just the framing, it’s not just the perspectives, it’s also the lines that he’s drawing, the connections that he’s making to the pragmatic things, and how that affects everything else, right. Yeah, and I would add a couple things to the transformative aspects, right, because what are you effectively talking about when you’re saying what you’re saying, right, like you have these multiple perspectives, right, and like he’s not only going into the multiple perspectives, like he’s literally explaining, I can have multiple perspectives to this key here, right, like he’s literally going to the perspectives that you’re in in the moment when you’re having a relationship to the key, or when you’re having a relationship to yourself, like oh, something goes wrong in the world, was it me as a person who failed, or was it me as a man who failed, or was it me, right, like and he goes through the whole stack of identities that I can assume, so what does he do? He makes you recognize that you have these stacked layers of identity that you’re participating in, and you can navigate through, and what does that do? Well, it opens up a new way of being in the world, right, like it doesn’t say, well, now you’re going to assume these identities, but like that’s not what it does, but it does give you the capacity, as like, oh, I am in a problem, and it’s like, oh, I’m assuming this identity, maybe I should assume a different one, right, and now your agency has increased, right, like now your capacity to resolve things has drastically increased, right, and that’s the transformation, right, and then there’s this level, like, okay, you can become aware of that, right, like that just happened, right, like I, the way that I am in the world has changed as a consequence of the way that I view the world, and when you’re there, right, like now religion makes sense, right, like now you have a frame, like, oh, okay, like that’s what they’re on about, right, like, and before you have that experience, before you have that realization, right, you might have an intellectual interest in it or whatever, right, but it’s not going to provide that transformation, right, and I think when we’re thinking about why is Peterson valuable, well, he’s not valuable because he gave you a hook, right, because that’s Instagram and all of these other nonsense things, we got plenty of that, right, so we’re not interested in Peterson because of that, are we interested because he has, like, these big works that, of connections, these networks of connections that, that’s like, you can compare it to watching a series, but it’s way more difficult and way more complex, so, like, are we trying to be entertained that way or are we actually trying to make a difference in the world and have people become better and more capable persons and contribute to society, right, and so, so now we’re back to, to where it was, and Mark has been mentioning pragmatism, right, and I want to mention pragmatism on a different level, right, like, I think Peterson is exemplary of embodying the pragmatic ethos, right, so when you see someone capable of, of embodying the pragmatic ethos, right, so that’s effectively grounding you back into your experience, right, and your results of your actions, right, like valuing the here and now over some ideal, whatever, right, like, that you never are gonna reach, getting back into that modality is also a positive transformation, right, because, because, like, yeah, you’re gonna be tested by, by the actions that you’re making and the results, right, like, that’s the only, the only rule that we have in the end, so, so I think if we’re looking at these transformative aspects, right, like, and we also should mention his, his course that he has, right, like, the, the future authoring past and current authoring, like, I kind of started trying to do that, but, there was a lot of typing for me, but, but, but the way that he describes it, right, like, he, he thinks it allows people to place themselves into their own lives, right, and change their relationship to, to what they’re doing in, in a way that’s productive for them, right, and, and, and so that, that, that is another way, way of transformation, right, and I, I think all of these things are profoundly valuable, like, these, these break people out, out of their shell and, and allow them to re-engage with the world, but what does it not provide? Well, it, it doesn’t provide you a place to, to rest, right, like, a place to, to end up and you’re like, okay, like, now I, I, I, I realize what is important, I, I realize what I need in order to transform, I, I realize that I need to, to have habits that, that will reinforce these, these good aspects and, and allow me to, to have a revivification of this transformation, right, like, like, he, he, he doesn’t even come close to providing an answer for that, and so that’s, that’s where people need to end up, right, and like, like, how you provide that to people, right, like, like, what’s the message that, that, that these people need to hear to, to, to come from, from the framing, right, and, and the transformations that, that they can relate to, to, to a culture where, where these things are provided to for them. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I don’t know, so I wanted to drag in some more, some more verveci, fancy verveci words, right, so one of the things I think that we’re really talking about is enchantment, right, so Peterson’s enchanting the world for people, right, and, you know, look, we can nitpick over whether or not the, the world is already enchanted, right, that’s sort of irrelevant to the point, he’s enchanting the world for that person, right, the world’s already enchanted, but they can’t see it, given the new perspective, now they can see the enchantment, the world’s re-enchanted from their perspective, and I think actually that’s an important way to phrase it, because if you don’t talk about it that way, you run into different problems, and so he’s re-enchanting the world, and when you do that, you allow people more areas to engage, so that has a couple of effects, one is it allows you a flexibility that you did not have before, because you’re just closed worldview, right, it’s limited worldview, it’s very low resolution picture of the world, and now you have high resolution available to you, now you can do relevance realization, to bring in some verveci, fancy verveci terms, right, where you’re like, well what is important and why, right, you can ask those questions, you can’t ask those questions if the government just determines everything and you’re a puppet, like, you know, there’s no will to power, right, there’s no, there’s no reason, there’s no purpose to engaging, because you can’t, the postmodern power narrative, there’s nothing for you to do, except suffer, and then Peterson says, nope, nope, that’s not true, right, and then the other thing is, now you have a space for reciprocal opening, right, or reciprocal broadening, depending on which term you want to use, right, so there’s more fancy verveci words, but like they’re right there in Peterson, like the relevance realization is there in Peterson, he talks about, there’s an infinite number of things you can pay attention to, like the floor tiles, the color of the walls, the red, he goes into all that, that’s relevance realization, that’s what he’s talking about, right, and all of this re-enchantment leads to the idea that there’s different ways to engage, it leads to the idea that there’s different things that you can do, it leads to the idea that, oh, my engagement matters, right, it leads to the idea that, oh, there’s a way in which I can change my relationship to the world and go through this transformation, and it’s pragmatic, like in other words, you can do it, right, and that causes you to do that transformation, so it’s the re-enchantment leads to the relevance, real is the ability to relevance realize the world, right, the capability to even do it, the realization that it’s an option to you, right, and that reciprocal opening, like, oh, I can engage with the world in different ways, that have different perspectives, right, all of that is there, but to your point, he’s missing two important factors, right, the end goal, right, and the starting state, which I would call historical grounding, he doesn’t talk all that much about the personal historical grounding and how to find it, right, and what it means to be beholden to your ancestors, right, whether that’s your immediate parents and grandparents and great grandparents, or it’s all the way back, right, and the problem with evolutionary framing is it makes it too abstract, like, oh, there were these hominids and therefore, it’s like, what, you know, and oh, they came from dinosaurs, so, you know, or they wouldn’t have emerged without the dinosaurs being wiped out by the magical comet, maybe you should worship that, I don’t know, right, like, he doesn’t really put you in the historical grounding correctly, so you really, you know, don’t have that solid ground to stand on, as you mentioned, right, and you don’t have necessarily the right, the right aim and result, T-Lost goal, at the end, right, until he doesn’t give you those things, and that’s, I think that’s fine, like, I think that’s okay, I think that’s also what the Christians are seeing, oh, he’s not giving you these two things, right, the grounding of creation, we’ll say, which is very much something Christians sort of take for granted, it’s axiomatic, it’s obvious, I don’t disagree, that doesn’t mean it’s obvious to everybody equally, some people are just denying the idea of creation as such, or resisting it at every turn, you can see that with Jordan Hall, talking about Ed Gregor’s with Peugeot and Vervet, you can watch him resist the idea of creation, he does it right in that talk, and if you’re careful, you’ll see it, he’ll be like, that’s a weird move, and it is a weird move, and you can see Vervet just avoiding it, like, I don’t think there’s a telos in evolution, fair enough, is there a telos in whatever evolution is discovering, because it kind of has to be, like, in order for there to be something discovered by evolution, right, by the process of evolution, there has to be something there, and you see how they’re dodging that, and I don’t think that people really appreciate how far away from transformation people are starting, right, they need to be captured, they need a hook, right, they need that, that captured to resonate, that resonance needs to lead into transformation, if you don’t hook them, it’s not going to happen except by accident, and maybe by accident is good enough for you, it’s not good enough for me, right, if they’re not captured, they’re not going to stay, right, they’re not going to stay for the transformation, because transformation is hard and it sucks, done it many times, it sucks, terrible, don’t do it, not recommended, right, but you have to, right, you get no choice, so you need a reason to be captured for the transformation, and then you need the tools of transformation, and Peterson gives you all those pieces, the historical grounding, the starting point, the little week on, the ending point, the very week on, but you need all of that, and I think the Peterson phenomena exemplifies all of these pieces that you need, and their role and their importance and how they’re tied together, and the importance of tying things together as such, you can’t just say something like, well, mythology is a real expression of an exaptation or an abstraction that you need to survive, and therefore, like you cannot do that, and you can’t make it more specific, you can’t say, well, Jesus died for your sins, and therefore, like you can’t do that, that’s not connected enough, it’s not a close enough starting point to where the other person’s starting for them to come here to that message, whether it’s true or not, it’s not relevant, right, what’s relevant is whether or not you can see that truth, and if you’re too far away, you can’t see that truth, and so I think Peterson really is the phenomenon that is Peterson, whether you’re looking at wave one, wave two, or wave three, the phenomena is he’s exemplifying the needs to capture different audiences or a variety of people from the audience, right, he’s exemplifying the need to get people not only, you know, hooked in and captured, but to engage in a pragmatic way of transformation, right, and then he’s giving you various ways to do this, right, it’s not a one-off thing, and he’s also putting you back in the story, right, you’re in this story, you’re in the government, you’re affected by the people around you, you’re affected by your own psychology, and you’re affected by the psychology of others, there’s no way around any of that, and I think that he does that through the re-enchantment of the world, right, I think that’s really what he’s doing, he’s showing us those pieces, and we’re not seeing it, or at least some of us aren’t, right, are missing all of those pieces, and they’re saying, oh, really it ends here, and therefore we’ll start at the end, it’s like you can’t start at the end, right, you can’t do the middle out thinking thing that the post-moderns do, right, you can’t do any of that, that’s, I have a video on middle out thinking, you can’t do it because it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, because it’s an incomplete story, it doesn’t make any sense, right, when you start in the middle, it doesn’t, the Lord of the Rings doesn’t make any sense if you start in the middle, if you start with Frodo carrying a ring in in Timordor, it’s not that you can’t make a good story out of that, it’s that you’re not understanding how Frodo came to do that, and why it’s important, right, you’re not understanding the backstory, you could introduce that later, sure, but starting in the middle is not good, people start at the end, that’s an epic, right, but starting at the beginning is important, and I don’t know where everyone’s beginning, but I do know a lot of people aren’t beginning anywhere near the Bible or creation. And that actually brings me to my experiences with some movies and series where they’re like starting at somewhat the end, and I always feel cheated, I’m like, because it’s a storytelling trick, and I was like, no, like, I don’t want to have this experience, right, like I feel like you’re intentionally messing with me, and I’m going to discredit you just as a consequence of that, right, like it doesn’t matter what you say, just the fact that you’re doing that to me means that like you’re not having a good fate relationship with me, because that’s not where I’m at, that’s not what I want, like that’s not why I’m in the conversation, and so you have to realize, like, what are you providing to the person that you’re talking to, right, and to connect us back to couple things that Mark said, right, like he was talking about these different ways of looking at things, right, and then getting the sense of the transformation, right, and what is he talking about? Well, it’s talking about the emergence of the participation in an ethical framework, right, because that’s what the consequence of all of this potential is, right, like, okay, now I need to navigate the potential, and how do I do that? Well, now I have to be an ethical being, and now we’re in this realm, right, it’s like, oh, that sucks, right, like how do I decide whether I want to go to jail for this or not? Like, really think about it, right, like how do you make that decision? And so, yeah, you can say, well, there’s this grounding, right, and there’s this talos, and it’s like, well, okay, but like, how committed am I to either of those, right, like, and how do I live out my commitment? But I think that’s all pointing at, like, what is the authority that I accept, right, like, what are the principles upon which I can base my decisions, right, and in some sense, this is an existential problem, like, you get thrown into this place where you’re like, holy cow, like, I’m completely lost, because, like, I have no clue how to resolve these problems, and I’m going to tell you, you can’t, so clap, clap, clap, right, so that’s why you go to authority, right, since you can’t do it yourself, and a lot of people still are trying, but whatever, like, I’ll let them do that, you’re going to have to take it from somewhere, right, like, Peterson makes a decent case where it’s like, well, like, these people had this insight, and this insight allows you to do this, but then the question is, well, like, why do I want to do that, and how do I do that in the right way, right, and I was like, well, I can’t say that, because that’s contextually dependent, which is the correct answer, but that doesn’t help you, right, so, and we get a lot of people talking to us, it’s like, but how does it help me, and it’s like, it doesn’t, like, it gives you a frame to make your decision, and you’re still going to have to make that decision, and nobody’s going to relieve you of that responsibility, right, but authority is literally the outsourcing of the responsibility for decisions, right, so, if you’re in an authoritarian state, right, like, you say, well, I’ll shoot this person, because it’s not up to me to decide whether the person lives or not, so I’m just going to follow the order, right, so, that’s an ethical decision, right, like, a major ethical decision that gets outsourced to a system, right, and it’s like, well, you could do that, or you could not do that, and, like, how do you navigate that, and, like, where do you grant yourself if you’re not going to grant yourself in the system, and I’m just going to tell you, don’t grant yourself in the system, because that’s going to make hell happen on earth, so, if you’re not grinding yourself on the system, right, like, now, you need to grab on to something that allows you to say no, and even maybe to a place where you have to give up your life for that, right, and, yeah, like, that’s a big question, and people need help resolving that issue for themselves. Yeah, and that goes back to morals and ethics, another video that we have, long talk, and, you know, there’s a way in which people are missing the authenticity translating to authority, right, because Peterson has an authenticity about him, right, you can tell that what he’s talking about is stuff that involves him, always, always, even now, even with the daily wire changeover, you know, he’s got skin in the game, it doesn’t seem that way at first, but he does, like, he cares about the world, and he cares about the people in it, and that gives him skin in the game, and I think he’s authentic when he’s, you know, trying to fix these problems, and, or at least, you know, trying to bring them to light as problems, like, say, oh, these are problems, not that you can’t do anything, but that anything you do has a downside, because that goes back to trade offs again, right, and it’s worth considering that you just can’t do things without consequences, like, whatever you do is going to have a consequence an hour later, and you’re not going to see it coming necessarily, because you’re probably not watching that direction, and then it’s worth understanding that, I saw a Twitter poll recently, you know, the Twitter poll is part of a small community, they think they’re a big community, they’re not, right, part of a small community of mostly Christians, and it was, which, which Peterson series did you like the best? Of course, I answered correctly, which is not some meaning, that’s the best work, right, and all the Christians overwhelmingly answer biblical electricity, it’s like, well, you misunderstand the draw of Peterson for the most important people, right, I don’t think the most important people are the traumatized Christians, I think they’re the people who have no involvement with the Bible, never, right, the NONESs, or what I call the clueless, right, people who don’t know anything about religion, just religion bad caused all wars or something, right, which is not true, it’s bad framing, it’s ridiculous, but that’s what they believe, because that’s what they were told, and they never looked into it, or they didn’t look into it deeply enough, or, you know, oh, it’s a book of fairy tales, that Bible, right, and to some extent it is a book of fairy tales, that is correct, it’s not just a book of fairy tales, and fairy tales are important, right, so why are fairy tales important? Well, Peterson, Peterson gives you why, so you can see that the traumatized Christians, like the biblical lecture series, right, or the Christians who aren’t necessarily traumatized, or weren’t traumatized, but want more cred from the scientific community, right, they want a psychological breakdown of the Bible, so they can take that to the people who don’t believe it, go, ha, I wrote psychology to throw at you from the Bible, now you must take it seriously, it’s like, that’s not gonna work, that’s not gonna work, sorry, I mean, it may work for like, tiny number of individuals or whatever, but it’s a bad strategy, but the atheists, for example, like psychology, because they’re into science, and psychology is, you know, nominally a science, kind of, right, although, you know, Peterson actually did real science and psychology, unlike most psychologists, right, so, and then, you know, a bunch of people, occultists, right, people who are into the occult or whatever, who sort of take the mythology seriously, really like the Carl Jung stuff, and tie together with all that, so you can see the way, and there’s three major audiences there, or ways of capturing audience there, right, and they hope you can hook them in, you can keep them captured, right, and that’s important, but assuming that his best work is biblical series, which I can tell you, absolutely not, by any measure, is crazy, right, and you kind of miss the point of the power of Peterson, and why he has so many followers, because they’re not all of the same type, and that’s super important to understand, whether you’re talking about wave one, wave two, or wave three, I’m skeptical as to the framing, you know, is he getting bigger audiences, is that what you’re calling the waves, or are you expecting a progression, and I have a video about the myth of progress, roughly speaking, right, this progressionism idea that’s very postmodern, and therefore fundamentally flawed, and possibly, or almost certainly evil, because it’s parasitic, right, you don’t want to think about it in terms of progress, if he’s getting a larger audience, that’s good, because his message is good, so if a good person increases their audience, or changes their audience, once they’ve reached the previous audience, that’s good, because it’s goodness, goodness is what matters, not the audience, the goodness, right, and spreading goodness matters, so more audience, or different audience, is good, it’s more good, like I like increasing goodness, I think that’s a great thing, right, and that’s what we’re missing, is that, you know, better, better is better, stop whining about better, right, stop assuming that thing that you thought was better is the only thing that’s better, because there might be lots of better, that’s how you get a big audience, that’s how you, you know, that’s how you continue to reach people that need reaching, is by growing the number of people that you hook, the number of people that you capture, and the number of people that you transform, you don’t do it by giving out the same old message, you, you know, you don’t do it by doing the same old things, like that, you have to change, and the world has changed, and the world degraded to a large extent, right, like people, the progress narrative is wrong, you look at technology, and there’s a great talk by Jonathan Blow, maybe, maybe I’ll link that here, who’s a famous game designer, and he starts his talk, I mean, he’s talking about software engineering, obviously, at the end, he starts his talk talking about lost technology, and after he talks about lost technology, he talks about all the broken stuff, so I decided to start looking at the electronic devices I have to see how many bugs I could find, and he starts listing them, you think your cell phone works pretty well, my cell phone, six years ago, worked far better than this, in terms of number of bugs, sorry, doesn’t do anything different, by the way, it may do things a little quicker, doesn’t do it, the camera’s much better, sure, the display is much better, functionality, not any different, not any different at all, in fact, I have an old cell phone that has a keyboard on it, I really like, I wish they’d go back to that, instead of these stupid screen keyboards are annoying, the technology is not getting better, it’s actually getting worse, by any measure you care to try, the problem is people aren’t measuring, they’re not, they’re ignoring everything, they’re not paying attention to the decay, and the decay is all around us, and so they don’t understand that looking at things in terms of progress is counterproductive, change needs to happen, but sometimes you need to go back, not forward, like sometimes the forward move you made was a bad move, and you need to unmake it, oh, I moved into this cult, and they gave me enlightenment, yeah, maybe, I totally believe that, but cults are bad, you need to move out of the cult, right, you need to undo that, you can go back, people go back all the time, it happens all the time, everybody, that’s the progressive mantra, we can’t go back, no, we can, we can, you look at the Amish, all right, they never went forward, we could go back to where they’re at, it works, we know it works, it worked in the past, I don’t know why you assume it won’t work, now and in the future, right, life without electricity is more sustainable than life with electricity, because sustaining electricity is hard, it’s just, it’s simple, right, it’s a simple formula, the more complexity you have, the harder it is to maintain, and therefore, it’s not a given, and I know that’s an extreme example, but it’s a relevant example, and there’s lots of examples that you can do without cell phones, you can do without computers, you can do without laptops, you can do with just desktops, right, you can do without all of these things, and that’s a trade-off, but I think not understanding that Peterson’s reaching multiple audiences, because there’s different ways of relating to the world, different ways that people are relating to the world, is the myth of progress, right, just seeing him as wave one, wave two, wave three, it’s a myth, that’s not what’s happening, he hasn’t fundamentally changed his message, he hasn’t changed his hooks, he hasn’t changed his method of capture, and he hasn’t changed the transformations he’s doing in people, I still think though, you’re right, Manuel, you need to address the historical grounding and the end result. And yeah, like, I think we can frame his relationship, or relationship as such to audience differently, right, so we can look at the hooks, right, which are effectively memes, right, like they’re like a cool breeze, right, it’s like, oh, right, but it’s like waking you up a little bit, right, like it’s… Contrast. Yeah, it’s contrast, yeah, and it’s bringing the contrast to awareness as well, right, like, but that doesn’t do anything, right, like that doesn’t provide any good in the world in and of itself, right, but if that is your main way of reaching people, right, like you might have many, many viewers, right, like Qtpie or whatever, right, but like, are you providing value, or are you providing people a distraction from manifesting the good, right? Entertainment. Sorry? Entertainment. Yeah, that is entertainment, right, like, and so there’s a problem there, right, and so, and what, it’s not necessarily the message, right, like, because what Mark got out of the Katie Newman interview is probably not what other people got out of it, because they didn’t have his interest and his grounding, right, and his ability to relate in a specific way, but other people saw something cool, right, like something exciting or whatever, right, like, and that was their relationship to it, and so I’m pointing at that the message doesn’t define what people get out of it, but the audience that you’re, is relating to your message has to be receptive to it in a fruitful way, right, like, because Qtpie’s audience is receptive to Qtpie, but not in a transformative way, and so, if we go to these lecture series, right, it’s like, yes, right, like, call yoga is in there, like, the biblical stuff, right, like, all of the stuff from mythology, right, but can you use that, right, can you use that to affect changes in your life? I was like, no, some people need to clean up their room, right, some people need to start there, and other people can use that, right, so, there’s a couple aspects there, right, it’s like, again, it’s the audience and what can it get out of the message, but it’s also like, what can you provide to the audience, and I think that was the magic of Peterson, he could provide a lot to a lot of different audiences, and they could come together, right, so, when we look at what do we want from Peterson in the future, right, like, it’s like, well, how can he expand his repertoire in a way that is valuable, right, like, that’s what we should look at, right, like, because in some sense, the audience will come by itself, right, like, he has to be able to develop in a way where he can present new ideas in a relatable way, right, and the more that he can bind together for people, right, like, the more historical grounding he can provide to them from where they can take their own path, right, so, I think the steps that he’s making, and I think we should explore that a little bit, right, like, so, he’s been having interviews with people, right, like, so, he’s trying to expand the perspectives that are present in the conversation, right, so, he’s reaching out to Islam, to Judaism, to Christianity, he’s reaching out to different fields within the scientific world, right, like, so, he’s trying to get all of these external perspectives, and he’s trying to see whether he’s missing something, right, and what he’s also doing is all of these people that he’s talking to have an audience, right, so, he’s also providing ins for these audiences to his content, right, like, so, that’s amazing from my perspective, like, I don’t see anything wrong with that, so, and then secondly, he’s trying to do a new sort of biblical series, right, but this time seriously, right, like, he, like, I think the bad part about his biblical series is I don’t think he had enough discussion with actually religious interpretations and how to integrate those religious interpretations within his personal interpretation, right, so, I think he was floating too much on his personal perspective and wasn’t integrated in the tradition enough, and so, I think he’s now changing that by involving himself with Prager Wright and with Peugeot and with our favorite Jew, I always forget his name, no, whatever, I’ll pick it up later, so, he’s taking the Christian perspective and a Jewish perspective because he’s doing the Old Testament, and he’s probably going to talk to some scholars as well, right, so, that is amazing, and then he had this other project that he wants to go to Israel, right, and talk to people there and maybe travel Eastern Europe, right, like, so, that’s also connecting at least his mostly Western audience to, well, ways of being, right, like, because these people live in a different world in some real way, and trying to connect these levels, so, I think all of these things are good for Peterson as a person, for the message that he can bring, and for, yeah, like, whatever wave you want to talk about, and so, all the other stuff, right, like, where does he point people to, well, like, I don’t see it as much as pointing to a place, right, like, I still see the role of Peterson as an opening up, right, like, it’s affording people to engage differently, and then the question is, well, yeah, like, then what, right, but that is a, I think, not a Peterson problem, right, like, I think he should be involved with it, and I think he is, right, because he has done outreach to the Jewish community, to the Christian community, and to the Islamic community, saying, well, like, there’s things that you need to do, right, like, there’s audiences that require you, and you should connect to them, right, and I think, like, maybe not connecting up with Peterson as a person, but, like, with the infrastructure around him, right, like, that would be really valuable, and also, right, like, he knows it, right, like, he knows what he’s doing best, like, we’re talking a lot about what he’s doing, right, but we don’t know what access he has, right, like, what connections he can make, right, like, so just let him be the authority that he is, right, like, and participate in the good, and, like, if there’s a part that you don’t agree with, like, does that interfere with your participation in the good, because, like, I don’t think so, and if it does, then, well, you can take a step back, but I don’t get why you would bring any negativity in this framing, especially not if you want to capture the audience, right, like, and in a certain sense, that’s fans, right, like, people who hold him in high esteem, like, devaluing what he’s doing and criticizing it isn’t going to help you win them over to any cause that you’re proposing. Yeah, that’s a good point, and I think that is part of the point, is that when you’re criticizing Peterson, why are you doing that? Like, what is causing you to lash out? Is it his success? Because, you know, he’s successful, and whether you measure that monetarily, he’s successful monetarily, or you measure that by audience size, he’s getting an ever-increasing audience, right, or you measure that by the number of people he was able to transform, like, he’s successful, and are you upset that he’s successful? Because I think he’s enacting the good, so, you know, is that jealousy? I don’t know what that is. It sounds like jealousy to me. That would be my first candidate, but, you know, why are you, you know, why do you think that you’re in a position to preach to him and tell him what he’s doing wrong, especially before it’s panned out, right? Why do you think you’re the authority on these waves, one, two, and three? Like, what, you know, and again, it’s not necessarily bad framing, but how are you defining these waves? Like, what, are you just saying, like, oh, he had a break because he got sick, and now he’s back, and now he’s changed venues, or, you know, and hopefully, what he’s doing is changing his messaging and making it simpler, so he can reach more people, and not just the thinky-talky YouTube folks, right, because at a certain point, he’s reached all of them, and that was a long time ago, I would argue. He’s not getting new audience, so he’s got to reach out to other outlets, other ways of reaching people, right? Give them the hooks, and hopefully new hooks, too, because the old hooks, you know, are the old hooks, and, you know, maybe they don’t work anymore, or maybe they don’t work on the new audience, like, I don’t know, and then he’s got to get them captured and engaged with the work, and hopefully, that’ll lead to a transformation, which people desperately need, but, yeah, it’s always worth asking, like, why are you upset at his success? Like, he seems to be doing good things in the world, and I like good things in the world, so where’s the complaint, and is it a real complaint? Should I take this complaint seriously, or is it something that I should be skeptical of? Because I feel like I should be skeptical of people’s complaining about Peterson. Like, I don’t know why they’re doing that. He hasn’t misstepped yet, in my opinion, and he hasn’t really changed, except, you know, you can make the skin-in-the-game argument as change. Well, yeah, his personal responsibility message is de-emphasized, and maybe that’s a good thing, because maybe the people who don’t have a sense of personal responsibility can’t listen to that message. I don’t know. I suspect that might be the case, though, right, and so there’s a way in which his change in engagement and engaging in a different layer of reality, right, or a layer of analysis, is important, and I welcome it. I think it’s good. I think him reaching out to whoever’s listening on daily wire is good. I think that him changing his message and being explicit about why he’s upset is good stuff. Like, I think all of this is important. Yeah, and I think having this personal responsibility message, like, I like it. I think it’s important, but it’s getting close to a perspective of individualism, right? Like, there is this band where it’s all you have, right, and I want to reference back to what Peugeot said to him, right, like, fans aren’t community, right? And, like, if you’re living in a world of fans, like, they’re not going to be there for you in a way that can let you escape your individualism, right? So there is a gap there in his message where, like, what does it mean to have right community? I think he talks a little bit about marriage, right, like, so that’s one thing, but there is an element where your identity is as a consequence of being with other people, and, like, he talks about it in the sense that, well, if you clean up your room, some people might start to hate you, right? Like, that’s the negative aspect, right? Like, it’s like, oh, but there could also be people who help you clean your room and make it beautiful for you, right? Like, those people exist, and maybe you should have those in your life, and then when you’re there, maybe what it means to take responsibility changes, like, what it means to be responsible for your room when you’re sick, someone else cleans it for you, for example, right? Like, that’s completely different than when you’re totally relying upon yourself, especially if you’re in this low depressed state, right, where you literally can’t clean your room because, like, that’s a big deal, right? And so, and I assume this is based upon his psychological practice, right, and having all of these people who don’t have that environment to support them, and that’s why they’re in the bad state that they’re at, that they need to go to him, but, yeah, right, like, if we’re starting from there, like, I feel in some sense we’re already lost, right, like, that’s, yeah, you have to preach the ideal, like, you have to come with the ideal, and then it’s like, okay, you’re not there, so what does that mean, right, like, how do you get closer to it? And so, when you’re not preaching from the ideal, like, yeah, you might have a skewed message. Anyway, so that was a hazard around the individualist aspect of it, but again, right, like, I just made a point, right, like, here’s a gap, right, like, here’s a thing that Peterson audience is yearning for, although it doesn’t know it, because it doesn’t have that connection, right, so you can provide that connection, and even more important, like, provide a way to manifest that connection in their lives, and, like, people are going to cohere together, I’m not going to say how many or whatever, but that’s not important, and so, yeah, like, why criticize Peterson, right, well, criticizing like I just did, right, like, give a solution, right, give a path out, like, if you don’t have the path, then you’re effectively complaining, like, why are you complaining about another individual in the world, like, why, like, who, what is, what is the specialness about Peterson that is worth complaining about, and, like, why aren’t you complaining about Joe Rogan or whatever, right, like, and this is, like, I wrote down in one of my comments, the Christians are treating Peterson as a pack horse, right, or maybe you could even say, like, a mule, right, and it’s like, oh, this stubborn mule is not moving in the direction that I want it to, and, like, I literally feel that that is what the response is to Peterson, and it’s like, no, he’s not your mule, like, don’t, don’t go and say how he should walk or what he should do, but instead be grateful that he is doing what he’s doing and cohere to it in a way that that’s bringing good into the world. I like that you brought up the individualism. I think that’s sort of key to understanding the issue, really, is you think about cults, what happens is the fans in the cult overemphasize the individual and the individual starts to believe the story that they’re told, that they’re holding up this cult, and it corrupts because it becomes all about them and their needs and their wants and their desires, overriding the desires, needs and wants of the group that they’re leading, and that’s where leadership goes wrong, right, that’s where authority goes astray, not in the taking of it, not in the adopting of it, not in adopting responsibility for it, but in the fans, in the individualism, the individualism is what corrupts things to that extent, and I think that’s sort of worth thinking about, right, that’s where the real issue is, and yeah, I mean, if you’re going to treat Peterson like a pack horse, to your point, I like that analogy, you’re going to be disappointed because he may be a dog-headed man, but he can’t be in the church, like, maybe he can’t be in the church and do what he does, maybe if he gets in the church he can’t do what he does, that would strongly be my suspicion, and there might be very good reasons for that, and so you have to be grateful that he’s out there doing the good work that he’s doing, because he’s doing good work, and you have to conform to whatever work he’s doing if you want to benefit from it, you can’t say, I’m not going to benefit from your work if you don’t do it my way, that’s not going to, that’s the individualism again, that’s like, my way is more important than your, no, no, we have to cooperate, we have to participate with one another, we can’t be persnickety about how the other person is doing good things, we have to see the goodness in them and magnify it, exemplify it, increase it, not complain about it, not bitch that it’s not the good in the way I wanted it, like, that’s individualism creeping back in, what the hell do you know, right, and it’s a distributed cognition of the fact of participation that makes it better, not your way, your way is going to make it worse because it’s yours, there’s, you’re denying distributed cognition, right, you’re denying that there can be good there, you know, within what the other person’s doing, because it’s not the good you want, the good you want, the good the way you want, you’re denying all that, and that’s no, that’s no good, that’s bad, it’s not a, it’s not a way to interact that is positive, and yeah, we need to be careful of that, we need to be careful of our criticisms, because there are valid criticisms of Peterson that I think he’s not getting, right, and so it’s like, oh well, he’s not getting these valid criticisms, where the starting point, the historical grounding, and the ending point need to be more carefully stated, and, and better contrasted, so that people have an idea, you don’t have to tell people what to do or where to go, but you do have to give them, you know, some orientation in the world on the basis of these things, and he does that to some extent, I’m not saying he doesn’t do any of it, but he needs to do more, and, and make it that clear, and dumb down the language, right, because some of it’s just too whitty-toity for people, and that’s why I think Vervecki has a very cultish aspect to him, and he does, like if you’re on the Vervecki server, you’ll see it, and, and it’s not one cult, there’s a bunch of little breakout groups, right, that don’t talk to each other, because they run into problems, because they have different conceptions of the same work, and in many cases the work’s not unclear, but they are, right, what’s unclear, is it me or the person, it’s always a perennial problem that you have, is it your misunderstanding, or is it them not being clear, because it’s hard to know, and, and, and that’s part of the problem with criticizing people like Peterson, he’s doing good in the world, you need to conform to the good that he’s doing, and turn it into the thing that you think you should, like that’s a valid way to interact, but criticizing him, and not giving a solution, is, is not going to work, and misunderstanding, mis-framing him as, as political, or his actions as political, or, or his waves as progress or something, I think is just going to leave you as frank, it’s, it’s part of this postmodern power narrative, and it’s not going to work. Yeah, I like how you brought it back to, to the grounding, and, and, and the telos, right, because, because I think when, when you’re looking from the question frame at Peterson, like you, you, you’re taking a bunch of things for granted, right, and, and, and Peterson is, like, that’s where he’s valuable, right, like he’s looking at the world, and he’s exploring all the nooks and crannies of, of a place that you don’t see, you don’t live as a Christian, because you’ve resolved these issues for yourself, but, but that’s the problem, right, like, if other people would have resolved them, they’re already Christians, so, so your target audience, right, like, and, and, and it, like, at that point, Peterson loses his value, right, so, so the value in Peterson is, is, is that he’s playing a game, right, that a lot of other people are playing, and he, he has walked to the edges, like many of the edges of the play, and, and he, he has a way to hold them all into a coherent whole, right, like, I, I, I think that’s his appeal, right, and so the fact that, that he’s, he’s playing within these limitations means that he, he, he can draw conclusions based upon those limitations, and if, if you’re a Christian, and you, you’re not aware of, of the things that you take for granted, because that’s what taking for granted means, right, then, then you, you have a, you, you just have a tough time of seeing what the value is that’s being added by Peterson, right, and so, so the reason that we invoke dog-headed man in this conversation is there, there’s this, this, this idea that people outside of the church can provide a really valuable service to the church, and, and that would be inaccessible for people inside the church, right, and Mark said that, right, like, because if, if he’s from the church, right, like, if he’s speaking from that place, his authority or the relationship that people have to his authority is going to shift, right, like he already has a problem with his reputation in, in, in the academic circles, because he’s stepping out of, out of their parent, right, like, so, like, one of the things that you hear a lot, right, like Carl Jung gets slotted in with Freud, and, and, like, and even Freud has, has some valid things to say, right, so, but, but the fact that Carl Jung gets slotted in, and Peterson is taking Carl Jung, like, like, really, really seriously, right, like, not half seriously, like, that, that’s probably one of his biggest influences, so, so that means that, that he’s, he’s already stepping out of, out of the paradigm that the people you want to reach as Christians, right, like, are in, right, like, so, so, so, Peterson is already one step out, or, or, I would say more than one step out, but, so, so, the, the further that he gets removed from that, the, the less resonance he’s going to have with, with that audience, like, the less ways in that they’re going to be for that audience, and, and you’re going to end up with a different problem, right, like, so, you, you, you could say that this, this structure, right, where you have the monsters, and then you have, I guess, this is the barbarians, right, like, the barbarians are, like, the things that, that, that still have culture, but they’re, they’re not following the right culture, right, and, and so, so, there, there’s this dynamic, and it’s always going to manifest, and it’s like, well, are you going to war the barbarian tribes, or are you going to let the barbarian tribes fight the monsters, right, like, that’s the question, and find your answer. Right, yeah, I like that, I like that, yeah, and I think, I think, you know, we’re running on two hours here, so, I think just to wrap it up, I think it’s worth taking this stuff seriously, where your framing of Peterson might be wrong, or assumptions of the world might be unique to you, or unique to your group, right, and it’s worth taking all of that seriously, that maybe you think you know how Peterson is doing what he’s doing, or why he’s doing what he’s doing, or how it’s playing out for people, but you certainly don’t, I mean, to your point, almost nobody saw the Kathy Newman interview the way I did, because almost nobody can do that, and almost nobody’s ever seen that done, except I used to do it all the time, like, literally all the time to people, they get the framing, because they have this stupid worldview, and I would just not acquiesce to their framing, and they’d get very frustrated, but it was for their own good, so, and when you see somebody else do that, you know, it’s interesting to you, but almost nobody else has that attitude about it, right, I’m sure there’s a few people out there, but the vast majority audience, different, and I don’t know how many differences they saw, right, but I know that they had a sense for, oh, here’s the spirit, right, or the specter, right, or the demon in Kathy Newman of culture and cultural framing coming for Peterson, and there he is fighting the good, fighting, resisting, right, or you see him beat Bill C-16, here’s the spirit, or the specter, or the demon of the government coming after one man, right, because it comes for everybody that’s in that government, and here he is fighting it, fighting back, right, and winning, right, and it’s like, ah, okay, and those are mythological patterns, right, those are mythological patterns, and that’s what’s important, it’s not, you can’t look at it and go, oh, all these messages in the Bible, and therefore, it’s like, I’m not interested in the Bible, now what, hey, you’re telling me they’re in the Bible and therefore, it doesn’t happen, for the bag of Agita, because they’re there too, now what, right, or Confucianism, now what, like, telling me that they’re there doesn’t get me hooked, and it doesn’t keep me captioned, and it doesn’t cause a transformation, right, and the Christians very much come from creation, right, there’s something in creation, we were born into creation, we’re subject to creation, and being is good, and I don’t think most people have idled those concepts down at all, conceptually, not implementation, I’m not talking about the nature of creation, I’m talking about the fact of creation, the fact that you were born into something, I know it sounds absurd, but if you listen to people like Vervicki close enough, you’ll realize that is where they’re at, they don’t want to acquiesce to these things, Jordan Hall doesn’t want to acquiesce to these concepts, right, Donald Hoffman doesn’t want to acquiesce to these concepts of creation, being born subject to things, born submitted, you know, they don’t want to, they want to have their cake and eat it too, they don’t want sacrifice to be a thing, right, and their postmodern ethos says that’s true, it says everything’s arbitrary, even though that’s obviously false, and a lot of the Christians fall into the postmodernism framing too, power from above and all that nonsense, it’s all wrong, right, and they’re irresponsible as a result, and who are they to criticize Peterson, so what do you want to say for closing words there, Manuel? Well, yeah, that brought up this thing that I asked Vervicki about religion that’s not a religion, I wanted to have his elevator pitch, right, because I was trying to figure out like, okay, how are you going to get people to be interested in a religion that’s not a religion, and his answer was like, well, it’s going to provide a space where you can do personal transformation, like something more, and I was like, how’s that an elevator pitch, like who’s going to go here to that message, like I’m really curious, right, because I don’t think anybody’s going to resonate with that framing, right, because it implies that they know a bunch of stuff, and they have a bunch of values that are pretty high level, right, like they effectively would have to have seen maps of meaning or something, like that’s the requirement, right, so I like what Mark was doing with these spirits that are clashing, right, like, and how do you relate to people, right, like that’s the level that people can relate to from most background, right, because what are they relating to, well, they’re relating to the universal aspect within that relationship, and then the details and the story that they tell about it is going to be completely different, right, but the universal aspects are the things that are going to resonate, and I think that’s important, right, like so what is Peterson doing? Well, he’s giving that universal aspect, right, like he’s bringing you back to there over and over and over and over again, and I think I want to conclude on that, right, like that’s where the magic lies, he’s giving you ways of seeing, right, like he’s giving you eyes to see, and I think that is one of the most difficult things in the world to provide people eyes to see, and we should cherish that. Well said, and reasons to see, reasons to look, right, you’re gonna have eyes to see all day long, but if you don’t have a reason to look, the Bible’s not interesting to you because you think it’s just a bunch of stupid stories, you’re never going to look at it mythologically, so you have to be convinced that there’s something they are worth looking at, and you need the eyes to see, you need them both, and the motivation is always missing in these things, the motivation to your point, Breveke’s religion, it’s not a religion, it’s not transformation, we need transformation, I’m not the problem, it’s the government that’s the problem, it’s the culture that’s the problem, it’s the war, it’s the past that’s the problem, that’s why I need reparations, right, and transformation’s hard, like nobody wants to do that, like no, no, I don’t want to transform, I’m already perfect. And who am I, right, like, because if I need to transform, like am I not me anymore, so like, why are you messing with me? Yeah, breaking out of the single identity problem, he doesn’t does all that, to your point, earlier point, he breaks you out of the single identity problem, you’re not a single identity, it’s dumb, it’s just stupid, the dumb way to think about the world, it’s not possible, it’s obviously not true, and you’re not going to be the same person, you know, in a week, or in a year, or in 10 years, right, and Breveke does make some of those points, but not in the way Peterson does, and yeah, I think that’s great, I think it’s good, good stuff, I think we had a good productive conversation, and thanks Manuel. Yeah, I think that there was a lot there, I think it was brought together in a good way, so I’m satisfied with this. Yeah, me too, and then, you know, if you want to hear more stuff that we can maybe enlighten, put it in the comments, right, participate with us, we’re happy to participate, and you know, if you have any anything that we’re missing, or stuff you want to say, again, put in the comments, I’ve got other videos, I’m going to link a bunch to this one, and you know, we’re just trying to make things more clear, and help people out, and I think that people have gone astray, especially some of the Christians that really like Peterson, and I want to encourage them to engage differently, engage with the eyes to see, and a reason to look.