Live Navigating Framing Patterns! (Qklh45xcSqI)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Qklh45xcSqI

🎶Music 🎶 All right. Here we are for another episode of Live Navigating Patterns. Because that’s what we do. We navigate patterns live. It’s our Friday night thing. And we’ve got our nice new thumbnail, which I hope everybody enjoyed. Looks like it’s pretty popular. Sally Jo, of course, my artist friend did that for me. And I didn’t notice. So the topic today is framing. That was on thumbnail. For those of you who are paying attention, for those of you who were not paying attention, it’s framing. So I’m going to I actually took notes. It’s been a busy week. Last week, we sort of talked about this path of discernment into judgment, into action. And so I wanted to talk more about discernment to judgment, to action today. That was that was part of what I wanted to what I wanted to cover. And I’m not taking credit for the lateness. I hit the broadcast button and the damn broadcast didn’t work. Web website evil confirmed. So. This discernment judgment and action and action is also discretion, by the way, we worked that out earlier today. In fact, an hour and a half ago. Thanks to Adam, our Irish friend. We have a loss of discernment, right, because we’ve been too busy being nonjudgmental towards everybody. So we’ve got this situation where we don’t know how to discern good from bad, right from left. We don’t we don’t know what’s wrong, what’s what’s correct. That that discernment is gone because we haven’t been judging. But we still take action in the world. And so people are taking action in the world. They’re applying judgments, using discernment and not admitting it to themselves, pretending they’re not being judgmental. This idea of not being judgmental, of being this middle ground is ridiculous. It’s absurd. It’s not entirely absurd. But for the most part, no, you can be a third party observer, but you can’t be neutral. That’s insane. This neutrality doctrine is nuts. It doesn’t work. And when you’re a solipsistic and that can happen many ways, right, you start referencing only what’s in your head, right. There’s there’s whole branches of philosophy about referencing only what’s in your head because you don’t have access to the real world. That’s all nonsense. It’s garbage. It’s complete trash. It’s unuseful for cooperation. If you want to cooperate with other people in the world, don’t be believing that the only reality is in your head. Because if that’s true, you cannot cooperate with other people. You can’t have a good faith conversation. You can talk to them. You can’t have a conversation. You can’t reasonably cooperate with them towards a goal. Right. Because your ability to communicate is broken. There’s all sorts of problems that arise when you’re stuck in your head or even if you’re just in your head too much. And so, you know, you can’t have a good faith conversation. You have to practice discernment. You have to practice judgment. You have to practice action or discretion. These things have to be practiced because otherwise the solipsism takes over. You won’t be able to tell good from bad. And then, you know, it is, you know, is what’s going to happen. And then you have to practice action or discretion. And so, you know, it is, you know, is what’s going on good or bad? Like a lot of people can’t tell anymore. They just can’t. They’re like, oh, yeah, so-and-so lied, but I don’t think that’s bad. It’s like, no, I mean, I’m pretty sure that’s bad all the time. But, you know, if that’s how you want to slice it, you know, that’s fine. You can slice it any way you want. So this is, you know, this is part of the danger is that when you end up in this situation, you’re no longer, you know, able to judge. You don’t have discernment. Your actions are not in alignment with principles. And you don’t see the difference. That’s a big, big problem. I think part of this lack of ability to judge is because of the postmodern framing. So everything in your head is equal and equally possible or equally fixable. So that’s where this equality thing come from. In my head, unicorns and horses are equal, so, you know, I can be equal with them. Right? But you don’t have a sense of framing in your head because everything in your head is kind of like equal. It doesn’t work. So a lot of this inability to frame things is actually wrapped up in this, what are we calling it? The triumvirate of evil and the three great evils of our time. I know this is going to make Ethan very happy. Porn, online, large, you know, large scale games like World of Warcraft, right? And anime. These things are just poison on society. And because of the neoplatonism, the many into one and the one into many, the reductionism, because many into one is a reduction by definition. So neoplatonism is all about reductionism or over reductionism. It demands that these three things be combined into the ultimate evil of anime while porn. So that’s what’s happening. I know Sally Jo is going to be thrilled about this too. The problem with video games is that you enter a video game, okay? You have accepted a framing. Now you can say, oh, yeah, but I know what that framing is. Yeah, maybe. But when you’re in the video game, does your brain understand that you’ve accepted a frame? Because once you get in the video game, you’re doing a bunch of stuff. And one of the things you’re doing is that in a video game you can win any quest. So there are basically no problems within the video game world that you cannot solve for yourself, by yourself, or on your own terms. So yeah, you know, I need to do some grinding. I probably need some help for that. I need at least a healer, but I can pick which healer I want. Right. And if I don’t like them, I can just band with them at any time. It’s very unconstrained. And the constraints that are there are very well known, but they’re all the constraints in a video game are all under the user’s control. Right. I mean, not all of them, because again, you’ve accepted some framing, but it looks to you once you’re in the game, once you’ve accepted the framing, as though everything’s under your control. And so any quest can be won. Like, oh, this quest is best won with a level 50 Paladin, not my level 50 Heavy. So I’m going to switch to my level 50 Paladin and go, well, Mark, you had to build up those characters. Yeah, you had to grind to get them, but it’s a procedure. Anybody can do it. It’s not that hard. All right. It’s just time. It’s just time. You can waste all the time you want in your video game. You can waste all the time you want with your porn, waste all the time you want with anime. Yeah, it’s just eating time. Mistakes have no consequence in video games because there’s a save feature. So you go back to make a mistake. You learn from it. You just, you know, you lost a little time. Big deal. Do it again. Do it again. Do it again. Until you get it the right way, the way you want it, the way it is in your head. Close enough. Fine. Real world doesn’t afford you any of this stuff. So it really is a dangerous illusion because you learn this. You lose the ability to discern. You lose your ability to judge. You lose your ability to take a discretionary action. Right. So there’s no limits. There’s cheats on the games. Right. And look, you can cheat in the material world. You can. And that’s a problem. That’s a big problem because you can’t cheat in the ethereal realm. And that’ll work. And I think what’s really happening here, too, is that you have no limits and you’re always able to grab a perspective from a video game that will solve a problem. Like I said, you go to do this quest quest won’t work with a paladin. You need your heavy. So you go get a heavy. You do the quest. You’re not dealing with trade offs. You’re not dealing correctly with discernment. You’re just like, oh, I have all these characters. I can swap in and out at any time. I have my save points. I don’t have to worry about my decisions up front. It’s not a big deal. It’s not a big deal. It’s a piece of cake. I get it. It’s also true, by the way. It’s just dangerous because we lose our ability to judge our actions with proper discernment. And once you lose the ability to judge your actions with proper discernment, you lose the ability to discern as such. And the next thing you know, you’re a Sam Harris. You don’t care how many children have to be sacrificed for you to be right about something retarded like Kobe or Trump or whatever. I don’t think that’s good. I think that loss of discernment is is going to is going to take us out as a society. It’s it’s it’s going to deculture us. Right. I have a video on navigating patterns on the culture war. Right. I think it’s not a war for between cultures fighting for dominance. It’s a war for culture or no culture, because the so-called culture war is a bunch of small Gnostic groups. That’s one way to think of them. Small Gnostic religions all fighting for power. That’s what they’re doing. They’re fighting for power and control. And even if one of them were to be in charge, none of them can hold the culture because they’re not full cultures. They’re cults. So it’s not a culture war. It’s a cult war against culture. It’s trying to destroy the thing larger than it so that it can try and take over even though there’s no chance that’s going to happen. There’s no chance. They’re not big enough to contain the world. And. Discernment is to notice a difference. Right. And then there has to be a judgment that’s based on hierarchy and values. And you need values in order to judge. Right. And then discretion is taking the action. And when you think of it that way, when you break it down that way, that gives you a way to interact that you don’t have otherwise. And I also think that. You know, with this lack of framing problem, one of the things that comes up is that we have no way. To. Interact in the world with principles because you take the principle, you change the frame, the end results of the principle change in the same way that words don’t have meaning. Right. It’s words plus it’s words is content plus context equals meaning. I have a video on that on navigating patterns. Right. So it’s important to understand these things because we don’t understand the frames we’re choosing to have. And therefore we don’t understand what to do about the problem of something like evil. And it’s a big problem. Like, I think it’s a huge, huge problem. So that’s what we have to be aware of. And that’s why I’m talking about this right now. So the big issue here is framing. Framing matters because. The way we frame things determines the outcome to some extent. You can frame things like porn as good. That’s not hard to do. It’s just wrong. And it leads to bad results in the world. And the frame you pick matters. So if you pick the frame framing of video games, and I’ll tell you right up front, I did play a while for a while on and off. The only reason I ever picked up while or any of these other online multiplayer games was not because they were cool. Technically or any of that, by the way, I have a video game architecture in my head that I’ve had there for like over 10 years. That’s way better than any of the games you’re playing today, incidentally. But the reason why I would play these games is not my interest in the architecture or the technology or any of that. It’s because my buddy wanted to play and we live just far enough apart that this is an easy way to do it. So that’s it. It was community for me all along. It was community for me all along. The frame was always I want to hang out with my friend. Right. I can’t hang out with my friend in person because he’s got a family, his wife, whatever. He’s far enough away. Right. Probably true to the matter. He didn’t want to go out. He didn’t want to hang out with me in person most of the time. For whatever reason. He was just a very like hermit like person. So whatever. Fair enough. But if I wanted to do stuff with him and others because we had a whole group of friends, obviously, that would get together on a regular basis, then I had to go play these games. And that was fine. And I was OK with that. And if that’s the talos, that’s the reasoning behind you playing the game, then play the game. Right. But if the if the frame of the game gets away from you and becomes an addiction, you’re screwed. And then once you’re in that frame, it’s hard to know what’s right and wrong. I was gaming with people. I was getting with a husband and wife couple for a while in wow. You could hear the kids in the background playing and they were arguing live in the game about who should go and take care of the kids for a little bit. So the other person could gain. This is not a healthy relationship with the game. That frame was missing for them. They were stuck in the frame of the game and not stuck in the frame of real life where they have three children and they need care because it turns out children. I don’t know. Maybe nobody told them this is years ago. This has been a problem. Granted, maybe an isolated problem. This has been a problem for a long time. And people don’t realize that they don’t understand how long this has actually been an issue. But our ability to discern allows us to discern good frames and bad frames, frames that are working versus frames that are not working. So if your frame is something like, well, look, I went to I went to the bank. Right. And there were a bunch of people who made me sit, stand in a line, go up to a desk and ask for assistance on something. OK, you can frame that very badly if you want. But actually, you engaged in the bank on your own, like your the ability for you to do something voluntarily matters because it puts some of the responsibility on you, not all the responsibility, but some. When you’re stuck in your head, everything just works and it works the way you want and it works perfectly for you. Just that you can’t impose your head on the outside world. That’s called tyranny. So this is the way in which somebody who, oh, I just I do my thing and they’re imposing a tyranny on the outside world. And it matters which frame you use. So I went over this before, but I’ll mention again the show Severance, which is a brilliant show, is on Apple TV. I don’t know if they’re continuing it or whatnot. I’d be interested to see. I know people who described where they were working as something like Severance. Severance is a horrific. I mean, it’s a it’s a brilliant show. I really enjoyed it, but terrific nightmare dystopia. They get in an elevator at work and when they get to the bottom of the elevator, their memory has been erased. And the only memory they have is memory being at work. And then when they leave for the day, their memory of what they did at work is erased. And the only memory they have is right. So it’s a bifurcation. I’ve heard people describe where they work as Severance. And there’s a lot of other things going on visually in Severance that are really clever. But some of these people worked at companies that I worked at. Some of these people worked at companies where I have a good friend at. And some of them worked in the same building and in the same department. And they don’t have the same description at all. No overlap. They’re working in physically the same place at almost the same job in some cases. And their descriptions of these experiences are so far apart that they don’t resemble one another. This is a problem. This is a problem of cooperation and communitas. You can’t get into community with people. You can’t cooperate with people if you’re not willing to acquiesce to things like common definitions. That’s why we have dictionaries. You can argue the dictionaries changed, sure. But I can go, all right, I’m only going to use dictionary definitions from before 2014 when everything went to hell. Which, by the way, I would argue is a good marker. Anything before 2014 is less corrupt than anything since 2014. And the rate of change before 2014 is relatively reasonable. I would probably argue for maybe 2005. Because that’s when, or maybe 2008 is when things went nuts. Right, really nuts. That would be my argument. This framing matters because framing determines how much cooperation you can have. What goals you can accomplish and how you can accomplish them. All of that is wrapped up in framing. And so I think that’s sort of important to realize. I hope that everybody does realize it. That’s why framing matters. That’s why discernment matters. And yeah, I mean, I think that I’m going to go ahead and invite people in and paste the link here. And if you want to jump in and talk about frames, framing, discernment, judgment, action, all of those things are sort of fair game. That’s what I opened with. If you want to talk about something else, we can talk about something else. Because it’s my livestream and I can talk about whatever I want. And I’m not going to guarantee you I’m going to talk about whatever you want. But you’re welcome to bring stuff up. Because this is a community. And that’s what it’s about. And to keep a good community, you have to keep the crazy people out. Because there are crazy people. And one person can destroy something built by many people very easily. And look at this. All right. We have one of our favorite people near him. He did not change his name. He said he was going to, so he wouldn’t confuse the lady with. Well, everybody’s calling me Boomy Shroomy now. And I’m like, I can’t change it now. I’ve got a name. Well, it doesn’t say Boomy Shroomy. So really, it’s a culture all the way down. Well, it is the name of my channel. So if people want to hear me ramble on about stuff, go to Boomshrimp. Oh, yeah, absolutely. No, your stuff is great. You’re a wonderful thinker. And you’re extremely well-grounded being from Appalachia and all. So yeah. Rebel Mountains. We’ve renamed them, I believe. Oh, really? Rebel Mountains. I love it. Rebel Mountains. That’s what we were talking about last week. Yeah, I remember now. I’m like, I like that. And I told my friends about it. And they’re like, let’s just start calling them the Rebel Mountains. Yes. Let’s do it. Let’s do it. So people understand. They got to understand. That is true. I think Josh wants to come in, but his camera’s not on. And I can’t trust the stream yard because you never know who you’re going to get. You could get some guy like that pastor troll, Vandertroll there, that crazy Sacramento pastor. You got to be careful who you let in, you know? Here’s Jesse. All right. Here’s Jesse. What’s up, Jesse? Josh, come on camera so I can verify that you’re not some troll who’s going to porn up my channel. How’s it going, Jesse? Pretty good. Pretty good. Didn’t sleep well last night, but you know. I’m sorry to hear that. That sucks. Have you tried those Olly melatonin gummies? I got the extra strength ones and I ate two of those things and when I got to go to sleep and get up for work and. I’m on natural stuff. I’m not on natural stuff. I think it’s more than just natural stuff. Yeah. I think I go through seasons of like hey, then you got to ride the wave. Warm milk, baby. Warm milk puts you right to sleep. True. True. A little TV. Eat a little before bed. Well, it’s 11 o’clock here. So in Australia. So in Sydney. So maybe coffee. It’s for me. I’m the one that’s going to need to sleep later. Not you. You’re fine. Oh, Ethan’s all upset because I didn’t mention that being is good, which yeah, Ethan’s right. I should have mentioned being. I should open every stream with remember being is good, right? And then not emergence. Emergence is not good. By the way, that’s what the board. The board says today is. Yeah. It’s really all about good at the top and emergence at the bottom and the neutral space in the middle. Yeah. The other thing he wants. People don’t have ideas. Ideas have people. You didn’t call it the neutral zone, Mark? Missed opportunity. It’s. What? Wait, what was missed opportunity? Boomy frumy? You should have called a neutral zone, man. Neutral. Yeah, the neutral zone. You’re right. I should have. You’ve been watching Star Trek, my friend. I do. I know. Anselman here. He’s he’s good, although he didn’t rally to my defense against Nate Hiles, slander and lies attack today. But that’s OK. That’s. Oh, I got to ask you, you know, I had to get out of here real fast. What did Manuel think about that Star Trek episode? Because I heard him. He was like, wow, what was that? When I had to go to lunch? What he said? He didn’t say much after that. I’m surprised he hasn’t seen classic Star Trek. This is the problem. If you don’t engage with modern philosophy, real modern philosophy, you’re not going to be a good philosopher. Real modern philosophy. I’m telling you, I’m not joking. It’s science fiction. It is. I’ve been saying that for a while. Classic Star Trek, DS 9, some next Jan. I mean, next gen is a good show. There you go. Blake seven. Blake seven. If you haven’t seen Blake seven, you’re just missing. Blake seven is great. And Andromeda. Andromeda is fantastic. All these things are absolutely fantastic for real philosophy. One of my favorites is the BBC’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy show. It was just one season. It was a miniseries. Yeah, yeah. Absolutely excellent. I love that. I saw that too. That was great. You’re right. Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the original BBC program that was split up, not the movie. Not only that, but the original. It was about seven or eight episodes or something. Yeah. And I loved it. I watch it every year with a towel around my neck without a towel. I love it. Yeah. Because I think there’s a lot of wisdom in that. And the concept of 42 being the answer. Yes. I loved it. Just the arbitrariness of it. What is never to be home without your towel? What is the wisdom in that? Oh, the wisdom in the towel? It’s like you never know when you’re going to need a towel, man. It’s a very, very useful, handy thing to have, like always. If you’re wet, if you’re cold, if you have to repel down something, if you need to use it as a zipline, you can use it as a towel. If you’re cold, if you have to repel down something, if you need to use it as a zipline, there’s all kinds of things you can do, man. If you need to fight a tiger, you can whip it. You can do all kinds of stuff with a towel. It’s a very versatile device that people don’t get enough credit. Now, you might think that’s crazy, but the more and more, I guess I watched it too much, but over time I’m like, they have a really good point. We should all have towels. Why don’t we? We’re very wet creatures. We cry. A towel, look, look. A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have for both practical and psychological reasons, right? Any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with. Yes. Clearly. Clearly. Yeah. But I love the ending of it. When they, when, what was his name, Ford and Arthur, when they walk off into the sunset, hey, what’s up, Josh? Hey, Josh. When they walk off into the sunset, I think that gives like a good definitive answer of what it’s all about, what the whole point is, because, you know, spoiler alert, you know, they blow up the earth and then this guy, Slarty Bartfast, he’s this planet scientist and he creates these worlds and he created another earth. And, long story short, they, they end up back on it and they’re walking down next to a creek talking about their adventures and then the credits roll. Yes. It’s like you have to get up and do stuff so that when you’re older and you can’t do things, you can laugh with your friends about all the cool stuff you do. Yeah. Well, then there’s all kinds of things in there, like the whole life, the answer to life, the universe and everything being 42, there’s the quantity, there’s the propositional, right? And it just exemplifies why math, quantity, proposition is all wrong. It doesn’t, you can’t, like, it’s just, it’s intentionally meant to be funny. And yet people didn’t get the message or we lost the message, more likely. I think a lot of this stuff really is stuck around. We had skills and then we lost those skills. We lost the skill of discernment. And so now we don’t have good judgment about what’s right and what’s wrong. You know, is transvestite storytime hour or whatever the hell it’s being called right or wrong? People don’t know. It’s weird, whatever it is. Because you spent too many years not judging. Okay. Judgment is a different matter. Like, you have to judge things to take action. Anytime you’re taking an action, you’ve made a judgment, whether you realize it or not. If you don’t realize that, you’re losing discernment. You’re ignoring discernment. You’re not paying attention to discernment. You’re not sharpening your discernment. It’s a real problem. And so you’re reading things like Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy in a frame of not being judgmental and going, oh, it’s just a funny book. No, it’s a philosophy book. It’s about philosophy. It’s not about religion. It’s about philosophy, practical ways of dealing with life, not what life is or what’s good and what’s bad. It’s practical. It’s pragmatic ways of dealing with life. Well, in the luxury of this world that we have, we have many spaces that we call, we use words like entertainment and we disassociate meaning from that. So I have a lot of my brothers in that. Like, a lot of times they’ll ask me like, oh, you know, I don’t know what movie to watch tonight. I’m like, watch Macbeth with Denzel. Watch something with a little bit of depth to it. And, you know, they’ll answer me back and be like, you know, too thinky or too this or that. I’m like, what are you guys really hoping to gain out of the three hours that you spend in front of a sitcom? Like, there’s, it’s literally sugar for the mind. It doesn’t do anything. It’s bad for you. Like, if any. You know, you need some, right? You need like zero wrong answer because you need downtime. Like sometimes I just need to watch a con. So when Father Eric was here, I was like, dude, have you ever seen Real Genius? And he’s like, no, I’m like, oh, you got to watch it. It’s brilliant. And it’s just sugar for the mind. But, you know, it’s really useful to give your mind some sugar so that it relaxes. Well, and yeah, like there’s a there. I was talking with a girl yesterday or I forget. I think it was in the Bridges of Meaning chat or something like that. And I was talking about the MBTI test. And I said, I’m not trying to like say that this test would be good for people to take so that we can understand how to understand them. I’m telling you that there are certain people that are going to be attracted to my girlfriend right now. She loves Big Bang Theory. Every time it’s on, I put a headphone in and I listen to something else because it dribbles. It’s it’s the same damn thing over and over with the lap track and everything like that. And your friends or anything like that, you know, friends, honestly, in my opinion, was a hair better. The tacit complicity of cuckery. It’s like the yeah. Yeah. And I understand a little bit what you were talking about earlier with framing and how we’ve lost, you know. But at the same time, I kind of I’m not going to try to disagree with it, but I’ll try to kind of I’m trying to, you know, catch on to your thread or catch on to your way of thinking a little bit. You were talking about video games. OK, so if I’m playing Red Dead, if I’m playing Red Dead, I’m going to be shocked if an alien shows up. So I’m obviously keeping the frame in at some level. Like if a predator, if literally the predator character shows up on the left side of the screen and starts firing lasers at me, I’m going to be like, this just broke the frame. Like there’s something wrong. But you’re not going to think it broke the frame because nobody thinks that way. You’re going to think something’s wrong. You’re not going to know what it is. And so here’s the danger, Josh. I’m going to shoot it. Here’s what’s been happening all week. Right. People are seeing an emotional response from somebody. OK. And then they’re associating that emotional response with somebody having done something wrong. Right. So, oh, like somebody’s crying. Right. Or somebody’s upset. So somebody must have done something wrong. OK. That’s incorrect. People can cry. Yeah, that’s because somebody crying is an emotional response. There’s a lot of things that can make somebody cry. They could have done their damn. Well, this is the important part. Those things don’t have to be external to you. They can be disconnected from everything going on outside of you. This should be obvious. Right. Like babies cry all the time. They don’t cry for external reasons. They cry for internal reasons. Like when you’re hungry, that’s not an externally. That’s not. Yeah. But even in your example, a child, a child as a baby, all of your inputs come from external, meaning you can’t get food for yourself. So it’s an external source that feeds into you. No, it’s not an external force. It’s an internal. Yeah. The hunger, but the satisfaction of it. Josh, hold on. Your ability to manipulate the world is not the world manipulating you. Those are fundamentally different ways of thinking about it. So in other words, I am responsible for my hunger. OK, you’re not responsible for my hunger. If you get hungry, you can’t blame me. You can’t blame the world. You can’t blame Bumi Trumi. You can’t even blame Elizabeth. Not that anybody should blame Elizabeth. You can blame Jesse, though, because he’s not here. So it’s his fault. So don’t blame the person who’s not able to fight back. That’s important. Yeah. I was just talking about the example that you gave of a child. Children can’t get things for themselves. Right. But their hunger is not the fault of the parent. OK. I got you. I got you. The appetite. The drive. That, for example, that could just be because he didn’t sleep well last night. It might have nothing to do with anybody here or the fact that he’s on a live stream. So and this is the problem with intent. Right. People are going, someone’s upset or someone’s had a break or someone’s crying. Therefore, somebody mean must have done something. It’s like, are you sure? Not necessarily. Yeah. And that’s why I was saying that the people should probably MBTI themselves a little bit just to give it. What does that mean? I’ve been meaning to ask. Myers-Briggs personality test. The only reason I bring that up. Now we’re abbreviating it. We’re this far into the culture where we’re abbreviating that. Yeah. It’s MBTI or whatever people call it. But the only reason I bring that up is because people interpret reality differently. Like, Mark is never going to be able to offend me. You know, boom shroom. You’re not going to be able to offend me because I have interacted with you enough to know like, yeah, I mean, you if you did try, I’d be like, OK, well, that’s kind of funny. You know, whatever. But what are you? Are you? Well, exactly. You interpreted my sentence as a challenge. Another personality would interpret it as, oh, he’s giving me a free invite to be my real self. But do you see how you interpret it as a challenge? So certain personalities, I’m honestly are going to be not toxic, but they’re going to be abrasive to other personalities. And if we OK, so Grizz and you had an interaction just the other day that that kind of got cut short. I think a few people saw that. So what you had there was a grip. I don’t know Grizz hardly ever very well at all. Like I don’t I’ve never interacted with him or anything like that. But in my short time and watching that little thing, he seems to have a protector mode. He seems to have a like I’m an older brother. I’m going to stick up like, you know, like when he when he responded to you, the fuck do you think? Like, you know what it’s fucking about. I was like, that’s aggressive as hell. Like if you had said that in real life, I probably would have squashed my shoulders a little bit. You know, like if you had said to me. But that’s a good example of framing, Josh, because here’s here’s actually what happened, because I found out later in DMS after after that interaction. Right. Because Graham, and he since admitted this in a quote apology video. Yeah, that was a bullshit apology. I love Graham and everything, but that was a bullshit. That was not an apology. No, I know. But here’s what happened. So apparently David, who was in the stream last week, has a name on YouTube, which I cannot remember because I’ve never known him by that name. He went on to Grimm’s video, one of Grimm’s videos three days before I did the stream with Graham or four days, something like that, and made a bunch of statements, most of which were complete fantasy and didn’t actually happen. And then and then unbeknownst to me. So let’s assume that I read any of that, which I did, because I don’t normally watch all of Grimm’s. I keep an eye on his channel. Sometimes I watch his videos. I can’t understand what the dude’s up to half the time. I’m like, I don’t even know what you’re talking about. I like him, but he’s weird. And he’s got some great videos like his interview with John was excellent. I mean, he really put the screws in. Yeah, yeah, it really was. But even if I had read that thread, I wasn’t mentioned in it. And and his real name wasn’t in that thread. So I have no way to know that that thread is aimed at me at all now. And how Grimm knew maybe he knows maybe he knows David in real life. Right. I don’t know. Right. And so Graham assumed honest, honest. I believe him. He assumed that I knew. I could not have known that there’s no way that my frame could have had that information. Oh, yeah. They’re important. Right. And Graham couldn’t discern that there was a frame where somebody didn’t know what he knew about that situation. He couldn’t discern that. And so he was unnecessarily aggressive. He ignored all of clarification questions. Grimm, I just need to know what you’re talking about. You know, right past all of them. I have no idea what you’re saying now. Because of his personality type, I would guess, which I haven’t typed him or anything like that. I’m just guessing because of his response, it was such an authentic real response. But at the same time, I was like, I was like, I’m watching two people who aren’t speaking the same language. And it was like, that’s exactly what I was witnessing. And I was like, that’s why I mentioned about the MBTI. It isn’t for balancing yourself out. It’s for knowing who you’re going to communicate with the best. Like, it’s for building team. Some people have to be the center of attention is all I was going to say. Well, I’ve been accused of that. I’m an ENTP and it’s often associated with what they call like the showman or the big the big tent. Like imagine like a big tent, like a circus announcer, you know, like, you know, like, you can work well with others like all of us here. We can work well with. Oh, yeah. No, you can’t see the limelight. Yeah, no. And that’s that’s what you call like there’s levels to your personality type. It’s like a knife. Everybody has a knife, but it has to be honed. Otherwise, it’s not sharp. And if it’s not sharp, it’s ineffectual. So there’s more important there’s more important issues here. Right. So the framing comes into into factor like this. Imagine I’m going to talk about community. OK. And the fact that I preserve the community by getting rid of a disruptive member is somehow makes me bad person. Or makes me not know about community. I mean, this is what Graham was indicated to me after after that whole blow up. Right. Because, you know, I mean, I just DM him to say, hey, you know, I’m sorry that didn’t go better. Right. But I actually got a lot on that stream, even if Grimm seemed to get nothing. You know, I know. Yeah. Grimm sees us or whatever. I like Grimm. I really do. But I did see that. I was like, something is going on here. Right. Well, and I didn’t, you know, and he said in his apology video that I should have known all along that was going to be a battle. And the problem for me is I just wouldn’t have done it or I would have dropped out the minute. Why should people assume conversations are going to be a battle? That’s kind of lame. He taught what he said in his apology video. There was this indication and this indication and this indication. And I’m like, dude, we planned this like a month and a half ago. I thought you were being sincere. And now because of an incident that happened three or four days before, you’ve decided to make this a grand royal battle out of a nothing issue that I didn’t have any framing for and couldn’t have had any for no way that I could have associated David with this comment or on his videos. There’s no way. I’m sitting there saying I got doxxed. He didn’t get doxxed. What is it? That’s insane. And then at one point, it sort of seemed like he was saying he doxxed himself. Well, you can’t doxx yourself. Like, that’s not a thing that you can do. So it was just it was just crazy. It was just crazy. And me preserving the community because this is, you know, you guys are part of my community from this interloper who is just not. Look, he’s having a bad day. Whatever. He’s drunk. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. But me preserving the community is a good thing. I mean, it’s the kind of thing that’s not going on and also giving him a strong signal that your behavior is not OK. The way you’re interacting and trying to cooperate is not OK. He’s really important. And that’s why if Grimm had made it clear that he wanted to battle with me, either I would have taken a different tactic conversation from the beginning or I would have bowed out. And so this is not OK. If you don’t have content, get somebody else to do it. Well, in its bad form, to walk up to somebody acting like you’re going to shake their hand, get within two feet of them and smack them in the face like it’s bad form. You know, you you you swung a white flag and then kind of switched up at the last minute. And in no, like I said, I got to say like, I mean, it just it didn’t come off smooth. It didn’t come off anything. It came off very like it just came off like, OK, you’re trying to do a call out all of a sudden. Like you’re trying to do like you had a like when you got started the stream and that like you had an idea or that. Yeah. Yeah. But then like it turned into an act. Right. I was there in good faith from the beginning. Grimm turned into a bad faith actor in the middle, which is fine. It’s his dream. He can do what he wants. Yeah. And a couple of different independent people who didn’t talk to each other beforehand actually said to me, oh, it looked like he was trying to ambush you. And then he arranged quit his stream. And I’m like, yeah, that’s pretty much what happened. He tried to ambush me. It wasn’t that it was interpreted by that by more than more other personalities besides myself. Oh, yeah. There were a bunch of people that I watch this thing. Everybody’s been talking about it. I got to watch this thing. I have no idea what you’re talking about. But it sounds totally lame. It sounds awful. It was definitely like it got real housewives, man. It got real. It got like a great segue. It’s kind of like if somebody invites you over to eat some pizza and they just go ahead and order a supreme pizza and don’t tell you about it. And they’re like, here, are you going to say thank you? No, I’m allergic to onions. That’s why. Why? You need to start pushing cheese pizzas. Cheese pizza is the pizza of ecumenism. That’s what the Christians need to realize. You need to be ecumenical in the world. And you need to follow up with your dessert, having an apple pie. You have to end. You have to end the pepperoni heresy and the supreme. We’ve got to decapitate the pepperoni ice. We’ve got to get them out of the pizza. It’s a great song. You need to order a cheese pizza. Come on, guys. You need to order. It’s great. It’s got to be now. Now, if Ethan was here, he could tell us all about that because he has recently come to the cheese pizza side. He’s been a convert to the to the cheese pizza charge. It’s brand new. She’s been a convert to the cheese pizza. Cheese pizza is simply like non-binary pizza. It doesn’t want meat. It doesn’t want vegetables. It just wants to float out in this little ethereal world of like non-combat. Yes. He just wants to be non-conferred. What kind of cheese do you have on your pizza, sir? It’s like it’s kind of pizza, but it’s kind of not. Basically, it’s just breadstick if it just has cheese. It’s emergence is good. It’s right there on the on the board. Yeah. The cheese pizza will emerge goodness magically. Absolutely. Oh, my God. These lines. So, Mark, get us back on track as far as framing. What do you think about? What do you think about? Like, do we forget that we’re living in a framing of the United States or there’s several others of us that are not in the United States? We’re not we’re not paying attention to framing at all. Like, this is part of the postmodern trick. The postmoderns get you to ignore framing. They say your gender interpret your interpretation of Moby Dick as a as a as a tale of gender binaries, you know, and their and their non-utility in the world is just as valid as my take on Moby Dick as as the probably the main ethos of Moby Dick. I would say is the danger of vengeance and getting caught in reciprocally narrowed in your own vengeance. I mean, it was a whale and our bones are getting in the way of us becoming jellyfish. You know, we have to get rid of our bones. Yeah. But you see, you see that the framing actually matters. But the postmoderns say no, no, no, no, no. That interpretation. What is an interpretation? In order to interpret something, it requires a frame. Right. That interpretation is equal to all other interpretations. No, it’s not. You need to discern better interpretations from worse interpretations. You have no otherwise you cannot judge and you cannot take right action in the world. You can do it. But you’re judging and discerning. And if you’re denying those two things, judgment or discernment, there’s a problem. And we spent too long not judging because postmodernism gives us the excuse not to judge. And who wants to judge? I don’t want to judge Josh. I don’t want to judge Bumi Shroomy for not loving pepperoni pizza and realizing it’s cheese heresy. I’d rather go along with this cheese heresy. But you can see the consequences. What I heard from that, Mark, was that bone in wings are ecumenical and boneless is heresy. That’s what I got from that. Well, have you ever seen a chicken without bones? It falls down. It’s dead meat on the carpet, man. But hey, so let’s bring it home a little bit. I don’t know how many people saw Paul’s thing about the Ashbury, but let’s use our judgment, our discernment. I was in the comments quite a bit. I forget what it was, but one of the things he said was pretty damn funny. But let’s bring it back to this little corner, like re-invigorate this conversation just a hair, if you don’t mind. Because I watched the short clips. I watched a couple of the longer clips. There was everything from a woman getting relieved of demon possession to people holding their hands up for hours on end and everything like that. I was raising a Christian church, so I was no stranger to the word revival or to the word, you know, like, we’re going to have a revival. But the best that I could tell was they got basically like a Woodstock thing going on. It’s organic, but it’s literally Woodstock. It was people of the same spirit that got in the same area started singing music, which is a like Paul pointed out, a psychotechnology. And it hasn’t run out of energy yet because people keep inserting energy into it. Like, I mean, yeah, it’s basically a bank account of emotion. Yeah. Do you think a Christian exorcism would work on a Buddhist? Well, depends on what the Buddhist is afflicted with. Is he actually is he afflicted with a Buddhist like a Hindu Buddhist demon or is he afflicted with mental illness? It depends on what he believes in. I guess they’re both the same, man. They’re both different. Oh, and they’re spiritual. OK, if we’re calling mental illness, spiritual illness, then that means we’re equating your mental with your spiritual. Now, if those two aren’t the same, then Young was right. You know, you know, saying they’re not the same. The point of the mind is where they overlap. And this is what I would agree with. I would agree with that. Yeah, right. But at the same time, right, they want things to be discrete and separate. But we are the thing in the middle between emanation and emergence. Agreed. However, however, schizophrenia can be helped with therapies and medicine, whereas demon possession doesn’t seem to actually respond to those. And I agree, but I don’t think we know. I mean, that all depends. The classification, the judgment has already occurred. Right. And this is one of the problems I have with, say, the Catholic Church. It says, well, before we were going to do an exorcism on you, we’re going to send you to a shrink. It’s like, why do the exorcism and shrink at the same time? Very few people I would I would say, like when you get to the level of I mean, you have to have a level of openness and a level of engrossing your things, engrossing yourself in things that take advantage of openness to become. I would I would assume I’ve never been demon possessed. I’ve never met a demon. I’ve never met a demon possessed person. But I would assume that you need a level of openness and you need a level of openness to. How do you know you haven’t been demon possessed? OK, well, in the traditional sense of the word, meaning that like, yes, I could eat. OK, like I have a hard time putting down alcohol. I’m just trying to get I’m trying to get you to be clearer because you’re making you’re making a fair few assertions. So in the traditional sense, what do you mean by that? Well, OK, so when we look at the traditional sense, what I mean is in Americana, if you will, we have YouTube and we can go on there when we type in demon possession. The first five hundred that’s going to be a modernism. That’s crazy. Well, yeah, I agree. However, they get that way over time in the past 70 years, people with alcoholism would get exercise to get the alcohol demon out of them like that. Yeah, I can tell you something that I’ve seen in person in real life. I have seen people that do believe in the in, you know, the Christian God and the devil, and I have seen them act out. Being possessed by a demon and whether riding around on the floor, they’re flipping. I have never been possessed by alcoholism like that. Yeah, good. It hasn’t been very many people I’ve seen in my life, but it’s been a few for me to be like, whoa, demons are real. Like, but what are they really? I’m not sure. Yeah, it doesn’t matter to some extent, right? What they are. This is where people get caught up. Like, well, what is it? I don’t know, but there it is. It is scary to fight it. But to get back to the framing problem, right? Well, that’s all right. The framing problem is really simple in this case. When you’re talking about Asperry and whatever it is is going on there, and I know absolutely nothing about it because the first time I heard about it was on Paul’s livestream. And I went on to the livestream and I said in the live text, what on God’s green earth are you actually talking about? Because VanderKlay and I love Pastor Paul did not begin what he was talking about. And somebody said, oh, there’s a revival going on. And then my follow up to that was, can we please define revival? And my reasoning for that, and this came up later in his stream, was that he thinks Peterson is a slow revival. And I think while there’s an aspect of revivalism or something like it due to Peterson addressing people in a crisis of faith and bringing them back into the faith, right? There is also an aspect of what Peterson is doing that has nothing to do with revival because people in a meaning crisis resonate with them. Revival is a boomer frame though. No, no, it’s older than that. That concept of revival is a boomer frame. It’s of itself. No, no, no. To say that this one particular thing looks like a revival that happens in this pattern. This is what a crusade is. But we’ve witnessed before. These are all the old mystic frames of earlier activities. It’s way earlier than that. Yeah, for sure. Like way back to the 20s and they had, you know, in the country, right? Yeah, I would think so. Way back. Yeah. Do we ever see a revival of a non-Christian sense? Because then I think we’re going to be able to interpret it. So Christian revival is a thing. No, I don’t. But this is the problem, right? Paul Van der Kley has a Christian frame. So when you look at Peterson, what are the options in Christian language for what Peterson’s doing? Revival. You have to interpret it through that because his framing doesn’t have another explanation. Joel Peterson is doing an exploration. It’s not exactly revival. It’s an exploration. It’s an open discussion. We know where it’s going. I don’t know. Do we know where it’s going? It’s not like the Ashbury thing is going to last more than… What’s the Ashbury thing? Ashbury is a university in Kentucky where I think approximately two weeks ago a sermon happened and there was an altar call to confession. The people started coming forward and started confessing their sins on the steps of the… And this is not a traditional cathedral or anything like that. So they’re just on the steps of the pulpit. The actual area of the sanctuary, as far as I know in a lot of Protestant churches, has not actually been sanctified. Has not been… I don’t know. Has not actually been sanctified. Has not been… Oh, not sacramented. Sacrificed? It hasn’t by tradition been made holy or something like that. So if you go to the altar in any Catholic church or any Buddhist area or something like that, consecrate it. It hasn’t been consecrated in any sort of way other than prayer. It doesn’t have a physical thing from a prior saint, a prior… Anything of ancestry that ties that specific building to a… I got an answer for that. The consecration was the Revolutionary War. That’s what people think. Of America? Or what? Yeah. Just the whole land we think is consecrated. That is bunk if ever there was some bunk. I’m just saying that’s… Yeah, no, I can see that. That’s fine. Yeah, no, I could definitely see that. But that’s what Ashbury is going on right now. For about the past two weeks, people have not stopped coming to this church at the Ashbury University. As far as I know, somebody could correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s been an ongoing thing. And singing, singing, singing. And it’s very emotional. I don’t know that there’s any preaching going on because I think they have a fear of ruining it. Like if somebody starts talking, so they’re clearly… They read the Bible. Firstly, hi everyone. Hey, Tayo. Hey, Tayo. What’s up, man? Good to see you, Josh. Good to see you again, brother. Good to see you, brother. Mark, good to see you. And thank you and sorry, but I think I’ll probably message you privately to talk about other things. As far as the Ashbury revival is concerned, I actually watched a sermon that sort of incited this revival in full. Because I saw it on Twitter and then I thought, okay, let me do some investigation. And I found this sermon and it’s… I don’t know if I agree with you, Josh, that it’s not going to last. I think that’s a big statement to make. I get the reason that you gave the consecration of the altar. These are important things. But I think that talking about framing, the evangelical frame for revival allows for the Ashbury event to be called a revival. Is it a genuine revival? That was Vanderclay and a bunch of other people that said, no, it’s definitely genuine and here’s how we know. And like, fair enough. And I don’t have a problem with that. The problem that I have, and this is what I was saying in the live stream, what I was typing in in the text was define revival. So, yeah, we need a frame. And what you’re talking about and we’re going to have to Peterson because that really is the issue. Like, what is the difference between a revival in the Christian frame and Peterson who doesn’t fit in the Christian frame or political frame or an economic frame? Like, it just doesn’t, it’s not going to work. So you need a different frame. And that’s where the confusion is, is what is a revival in terms of pattern? Say a pattern that you can navigate in relation to non-Christian framing because that’s important to understand. That’s what I’m saying is I think it’s a woodstock. I think it’s a place where people have found a spark and they are feeding emotionally off of each other under. And granted, good will come out of this. Good. I mean, I don’t have no doubt that people are being spiritually enriched and there is growth going on. But calling it something more than what it is. Woodstock was a revival of romanticism. Yeah. OK. Or veganism. So revival is a group community spirit. There you go. That’s how I would define. I would agree with you. I think it’s a spirit of community and community coming together and they raise up group preferences. But I don’t think anybody’s ever blended together psychology and religion. Who has a YouTube channel on me or who is that? Jesse. Jesse. Jesse is the one echoing. I’m fairly sure. Jesse is the one echoing. Yes. Sorry. We never know. It’s like a whack-a-mole. Back to your framing. Mark, would you say that a event without framing is like the chicken with no bones? It’s literally going to fall over into a second. It’s a wacky waving arm plaitable tube man. No, no, no. It’s easy. Boomy shwoomy is right. No. It’s easier than that. Right. It’s emergent. Right. And if you don’t have a container for the emergence, the emergence can do anything. The odds that the emergence will do good are very, very small. That’s why goodness is very small at the top on my board because it’s very tiny goodness in the world. Right. And then the bottom of the board is bad. Right. And so there’s lots of bad going on in these emergencies. Emergence is not good. That is not good. Can the good manifest from an emergence? Yes. You need emergence to manifest the good. But that’s not to make all emergence equal, which is what people are doing by calling emergence as good. They’re making an equality statement. This is where the equality doctrine is so dangerous. They’re saying, look, this emerged in this building, and therefore we can get a spirit to emerge outside of a building, say, in a field in upstate New York. Right. And then what will emerge will be good. Well, a lot of bad things happen at Woodstock, my friend. Is the right process? OK, I’m going to use the idea of batter or dough. So in cupcakes, when you have batter emergence, you pour it into a mold. And with cookies, when you have dough, you pour them out and then you cookie cut them. So do we cut the unnecessary things on after or do we pour? Do we allow the emergence to come into a mold to begin so that we know where we are? OK, look, look, the bottom line is you can’t do it with emergence alone. That’s really the only message. So you need a discernment for whether or not the emergence can become good because most emergencies can never be good ever. Impossible. And this is what people are missing. They’re like, no, no, all emergence is good because it’s new and newness is good. It’s like, whoa, that’s a bad. Yeah, that’s a bad. Like this, I’m saying that that’s what that’s what they act like. Right. And so they’re just saying, like, look, here’s a crazy person. Let’s let them into the community because it’ll be good. And I’m like, no, I’m going to kick them out of the community because they’re upsetting my friends, you know, in particular, or because I don’t want them. I don’t want that spirit introduced to the community. Well, hold on. Let me finish answering here. So what that means is that you need the emanation in order to orient towards the good. And then once you have the orientation towards the good, you can look at the emergence, compare it with the emanation and figure out if that emergence can be put towards the good, can be contained in a way that merges it with the good. And most emergencies can’t be pointed towards the good at all. And some can be contained and pointed towards the good. That means there’s a bunch of strategies. And one of them is if you have a church and you do the ritual and you wait for an emergence, you might get a revival. Sure. Absolutely. And that will mostly be for the good. Right. And so that that’s how I would answer your question. I hope that that’s like a garden. You’re describing a garden, man. You got to build the borders. You got to you got to make sure that you pull the weeds out and you got to watch out for, you know, the rabbits eating the carrots. Yeah, you let the rabbits wear glasses. But there’s more than that, right? Because there’s a way in which in order to plant a garden, you have to cultivate, you have to cultivate the soil, you have to plant the seeds, then you have to cultivate the seeds as they grow. And part of cultivation is pulling the weeds. Right. And part of cultivation is watering the plants. So how do we get religion to do that? Well, well, well, but this is nothing to do with religion. This is more fundamental. It is, though. Well, no, no, no. The parallels are automatically there. We don’t need to draw them. Right. This is how this stuff works in secularity. And that’s the reason why religion exists, because these patterns work everywhere. They’re not patterns that are apart from the world in which we live. They are patterns that are embedded in the world in which we live. This is these are the patterns that end up being religious patterns that we play out whether we like to or not, whether we know it or not. Right. And so it’s important to understand that. Oh, there are these patterns. They emerge in this particular way. And that’s important to understand because they’re not avoidable. Right. Right. So need to have these containers, otherwise someone will come around with a container. And if that person is a bad person, you will get a bad thing. Don’t want very easy to get bad things. Yeah. Yeah. There’s a, you know, my hands look like trees in my hand. So, yeah, the patterns were all pattern. We’re doing the pattern thing. Can’t avoid it. Yeah. But the framing thing is extremely important. So, I think that’s the way you described it at the beginning, Mark. Okay. Let’s go back to. Sorry. Go ahead. Go. Sorry. So if you go back to Woodstock, no one knew what Woodstock was. We didn’t have a frame for Woodstock. But they felt it. After it got reframed and reframed and reframed and solidified every time it’s reframed before it was just a music festival. It was a bigger deal. It was a town event. And then it became an international event. Then it became a cultural event. Then it became a global event. Then it becomes a cultural event. And then it becomes a dead event. Becomes something idolized. The Woodstock. Yeah. The Birdman. Well, it started forming a body and then it had all these parasites that latched on to it. I hate to tell all you guys though it was a really cool time. Sorry. What’s that? I said I hate to tell you guys but it was a really cool time. It was. Participating in chaos is I’m sure amazing. It wasn’t chaos. There was a lot of beauty to it. There was a lot of beauty happening too. Right. But it was all aimed. I mean what it started like he just, Jesse just said is that it didn’t have a frame until it could become anything. So therefore it was chaos. It did have a frame. It was wilderness. But the frame got them so far and now we got to build a new frame. A more sturdy frame. A frame for them I think and you know correct me if I’m wrong Tower was World War II sucked. We don’t want to be like those people. Let’s be more constructive. And they went out and they tried to construct things and learned a lot. And then they went and created Apple computers and all that other stuff. That’s what those people did. And we’re living in the hippie paradigm in fact. Yeah. This is a continuation from the end of the 60s in my opinion. And I think it was World War II. Then it was the Stepford wives right. It was life in suburbia man and everything went off in the 50s and early 60s. Rebellion. Like we were lost. Like people didn’t understand this. It wasn’t good enough. Everybody was super traumatized. Nobody was seeing clearly. And so you’ve got this crazy you know the Doris Dayrock Hudson suburbia thing. And then out of that emerged the hippies. And the goodness like in my opinion because I’m high on trade openness really. And it was a wonderful time in that way because everybody was open. So there was a possibility of having these kind of discussions. You know what this live stream thing is definitely a continuation. Of what was happening in the 60s. That’s what I think. Yeah. Well and also look what happened in the 50s. We went off the gold. We went off gold standard. We went off of we topped out standards and just started going. We topped out any frame. We talked like what is currency without frame? What is currency without a backing? It’s literally just funny money. It’s monopoly money. I mean and so if you don’t have a like I agree with Mark to this to his point. Is that frame really matters so that you know what you’re looking at. And that’s why it was things like the Ashbury thing. You have certain personalities that disregard frame and accept results as are. Or you know like oh well it’s good because people are doing good. People are praying so it’s obviously good. Well yeah at this point that it hasn’t matured yet. Right. Well and that was Jesse’s point. Right. Jesse’s point was you know we had an event. And that event had an impact. You couldn’t understand the impact before at all. You didn’t even know it would have an impact. And then as it unfolds over time the impact becomes more clear. We reframe and reframe and reframe. The question is though what is the right frame? So you know Elizabeth you must watch Burn Power right. And his how we got here. He was at Lebrie at the same time as I was. What’s the chance? Yeah. Oh wow. I didn’t know. We made that connection. I couldn’t believe. I know things on him. He doesn’t know anything on me. Well his series of how we got here is great because that is part of his thesis. Is that we’re basically trying to get over the trauma of World War I and World War II. I don’t think it was World War II but that’s a different argument. Well they never really ended. We’re still fighting them. What I don’t think they did was they scattered. They went in and found things. A lot of it was not good. And then they came back and did constructive things like computers and programming. Some of them. But were those constructive? Like I mean honestly like they. Because they saw it didn’t work. You know like the communes and multiple wives and husbands. They tried that and it didn’t work man. And then they came back and it became a little more sensible. They discovered things and changed. Right. And that’s part of it right. Because if you frame things at the wrong scale right. You can go oh communism works because I have a family and it’s a communist enterprise. That is actually functionally correct. It’s an accurate frame. The problem is that that frame doesn’t work outside of a family. Right. So if you try to apply the principles that work in the frame of family to a larger frame. They fail. This is the problem with scaling where people don’t understand go you know what. I became more self reflective. Did you. Did you really. And therefore the solution is for everybody else to become more self reflective. OK. The method that you use to become more self reflective. Even if I believe that happened and I probably don’t by the way. So don’t try to tell me that it ain’t going to work. That doesn’t mean it’ll work for anybody else. Anybody else. It might be you. Who knows. I think it’s important to highlight that people have got to find things out for themselves. We’ve got to forgive people. We’ve got to forgive the hippies. Everybody gives them shit all the time. But we forget like I said that’s why we’re on the computer. No. No. Yeah. Yeah. Because they did a thing. They figured it out. Not all of them. Right. But a lot of them and then contributed something to the greater culture. To take. The thing that we’re talking about computers. They they merely abstracted their own mind like they became so open that they started projecting their own mind without even realizing it. Yeah. Well I think it was all the acid. People push back on that a lot. I think psychedelics were a big deal. Yeah. Yeah. We’ll just we’ll just allow psychedelics. Well I mean OK. So like I mean I’ve had limited experience with psychedelics but when I was on psychedelics my little afternoon walk trip through the park like I it was very clear to me even under the influence that what I was projecting under the world was coming out of me. I don’t think that I like I may have better understood something like when I was walking past some plants and I felt like that a story to tell me like I didn’t I didn’t think that those plants were being audibly audibly vocal or that they were being mentally or spiritually vocal or anything like that. I simply knew that I was open enough to finally recognize that if you pay attention things have a way to tell you a story that they have a way to say what you didn’t need enough acid Josh. Exactly. That was really the problem is there wasn’t enough tabs of acid. But you see that’s the fundamental issue right. This is why the Gnostics love drugs because they say look at psychedelics break your frame and what we need is frame. Listen to Verveki the nine dot problem. What is it you’re thinking outside of the box. What does that mean you’re breaking the frame. It’s like well yeah maybe to some extent breaking your frame is good but also a lot of people but a lot of people break their frame and jump out a window like that’s not an unusual outcome. The real problem is on average taking psychedelics is bad for people. It’s bad for you. On average most people are going to have a problem or they’re going to have a neutral experience and get angry and resentful that they didn’t have a profound experience. And even if they have a profound experience the odds that that’ll go well are you know not good. And even if it goes well and I look this is all direct experience with people who’ve done drugs. I’ve been there. But just real quick who’s all taking psychedelics in this group. Just as a just as a random shrooms acid marijuana anything like that. OK. That’s important. That’s important because this is one of those things that’s really hard to actually like a lot of people like Vander Klay and several other people they have this in a lot of ways a bit of a misunderstood understanding or misunderstood understanding. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I think they’re sending the right message. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. They’re sending the right message. We just shouldn’t try to stop people from doing it if they want. They want to do it. It’s dangerous. This you could die. But I believe in free will. That’s just metal climbing and rock climbing are dangerous. But you definitely rock climbing is very dangerous. But we were all inspired when we saw that. I don’t know if you guys ever saw the video of the guy that climbed El Capitan. That was spiritual. That was laughing. We still arrest people for doing that though. And there’s nothing like arresting people for free climbing. And that is the issue. Not everybody can do it. Not everybody should do it. And there should be consequences because the framing matters. Why should there be consequences? You know what? I’ve had a good experience on drugs. But I’ve had a good experience on drugs. I’ve had a good experience on drugs. You know what? I’ve had a good experience on drugs. Now most of the people I know who had good experience on drugs. Here’s what happened. They took the drugs. They had a profound experience. It was usually a crazy sort of a thing. One of my buddies found the zero one, the solution to all math. Completely impractical by the way. Also not wrong. Maybe just on time. Hold on. So you’ve got this impractical, can’t be applied, profound solution. The problem is when these people come off of their profound experience, they’re not transformed. No. It’s great that you, not all of them, every once in a while, but it’s extremely rare somebody has a profound experience and they transform. My argument is that the people that transform have a frame to do so with it. And when you listen to Peterson talk about his clinical experience, he said, guys got PTSD or women’s got PTSD. They did something. It’s in the realm of good and evil. Once I give them a frame that they can understand, discern good and evil, their whole life changes. And so like the one that I really think actually is the woman who said she was sexually abused by her brother. And then it turns out they were like four years old or something. Completely retarded. And then it doesn’t make any sense to frame that as sex. Because four year olds don’t have sexuality. And then once you get better to that point, everything changed in her life and her life got better because framing matters. It matters. Well, yeah, of course it does. Absolutely, of course it does. But there’s also like PTSD. I got some brothers that were literal brothers, family members that were in the military and suffered from forms of PTSD and that. But it seemed to me to be like an emotional autism. You did a thing that you didn’t have a frame for and therefore you’re eternally. It’s like a number of CDs and compact disc. When they would skip, it was just like that thing playing in your mind all the time. That’s exactly what Peterson says. He says you give them a frame that makes sense of what happened and the dysregulation goes away. So part of this is bad framing causes sanity to break down. So it causes forms of insanity. And that means that you can misread things. So one of the things that gets me read all the time, and you’ll see this in Grimm’s video or you’ll see it in the live stream from last week, somebody interrupting somebody else and swearing with the claim that they were not allowed to finish their sentence. Now, clearly the opposite of that is happening. They’re interrupting somebody else who’s talking. They weren’t interrupted at all. And they’re claiming that they’re the oppressed, even though they’re the oppressing in the way that they’re accusing somebody. That’s psychological projection is classic psychological projection. Everybody wants these complicated, no offense, Josh, psychological methods. Well, you know, he’s a Myers-Briggs blah. And you’re my it’s just psychological projection, guys. It’s a really simple way to understand what’s going on. And that’s all the tools you need. In some cases, you don’t need to get sophisticated about it. And so why is that happening? And I say it’s bad framing. Yeah, no, I agree with you that this whole this whole sphere, everything that’s going on right now can probably be interpreted, like you said, as bad framing that you don’t understand the frame. You don’t have a frame of reference for what you’re encountering. And as you talked about this when we encounter the fringe, if you don’t know what you’re looking at, you’re going to if you don’t recognize a fairy as a possible gin, then you’re going to expect you could possibly follow it and realize, well, this thing actually doesn’t have my best interest at heart. And I hear you do need to build a frame. You’re absolutely right. And it took me a long time. I don’t know about everybody here, but I’m going to claim that I have done the most psychedelics out of anybody in this room. Before I did, it took me a long time to build a frame to be like, why am I doing this? What do I have to accomplish? What is going on? Why do I really feel like I need to do this? But then again, you’re also breaking Terrence McKenna, the explorer psychedelics. You’re breaking a little bit of his idea. I said, fuck you, Terry. I understand what you’re saying. Give in. And I’m not fucking doing that. I’m not giving in. I fought very hard to keep focus and order during my psychedelic trips. And it was very successful. It was not bad. I did not have a blah, blah, blah. All this bad stuff. But even the bad trips are in a lot of ways successful. Because they showed me something. It showed me. Yeah. Even the trips where I was just like crying, like waterfalls coming out of my eyes. There was a point and I had that discernment in myself of like, hey, this is important. I need to process this. This is fucking bothering me. I need to remove this. And it was a process of burning off the dead wood as Peterson says. I resonated a lot with what Peterson started saying because I experienced those things in intense psychedelic trips because I was setting out to psychologically orient myself in a positive, focused manner with a good attitude. I was sick of it. I had that goal. I didn’t want to be sad. This was probably like 15 years ago when I set out to do all of this stuff. And I hear a lot of people are totally right. I’ve seen many people and even my best friend lose her mind on psychedelics. And I warn people about it all the time. But I will not in the same breath say that it didn’t help me a lot and other people that I know in a very positive way. So that’s why I say if people want to try to climb Everest, don’t stop them. But be like, look, this is fucking dangerous. But you see people reach these high summits. Like I’ll use Steve Jobs example. He credited his acid trips with helping him see all of his company and all this stuff he wanted to do. And I believe that. And I think there’s a lot of other instances of that, not only just with psychedelics, with all kinds of other things. That’s my argument is that you don’t need psychedelics to do any of that. And that’s all literally every wisdom book I’ve ever read. And I’ve read most of them says that explicitly. The chemicals and they’re unnecessary and the experience without them is better. Every single book, every single one. I don’t think that’s a coincidence that every single one says that. I don’t think they’re there. It depends on what you want to do. I’ve described it as a rocket fuel. And if you don’t have a good navigational computer, you’ll crash on a planet with facehuggers. You’ll get you. You know, you got to know where you’re going. The rocket. The Indian gurus. And I forget which one talks about this. Right. He said the problem with drugs is that now you can take a helicopter to the top of the mountain. But now you need a helicopter to get off the top of mountain and to go back. You’re dependent on that. If you learn to climb the mountain yourself without the drug, then you’re not dependent upon the helicopter anymore. And the experience is deeper. I took the helicopter up and then back down and I memorized the path to take. That’s what I did. I knew you’re going to say that. Not justifying your evil drug trip. All right. But what? Interesting. First and then talk. Sorry. The story of the turtle in the hair of the rabbit with the turtles going at the slow speed and learns all the lessons and knows how to navigate the pathway rather than report tiring itself out. Doesn’t learn any lessons and eventually sleeps in the job and never crosses the line with the turtle and his wisdom just goes straight. Does what he needs to go. So we’re talking about two different modes. Right. And what’s the best? And my argument is I’m a rabbit. We need an accelerant to get through the atmosphere. You can’t use regular car fuel to get through the if you can go to space, you need better fuel. Or anti-magnet. Also, a car is a frame. If we want to get back to the metaphor last week, a car is a frame. So it is maybe maybe cars, the wrong thing to be building there. Maybe we should be building trucks. Well, I was on the Starship Enterprise on all those mushrooms. That’s what I was on. It’ll happen. I wanted to ask Elizabeth, I put it in the private chat about the post getting back to this idea of community tasks about her experiences post Woodstock. Because as far as I’ve been able to track the Jungian frame was discredited and disowned for about 30 years. It was kind of in the cultural peak of Star Wars, but around the 90s when it got re-released that the Jungian frame kind of re-came back in. It was re-appropriated. But since the 60s, it was basically Freudianism and Stoicism. But everyone was you watch all the movies from the 60s to the late 70s. They’re all stoic. They’re all Freudian in some sense. And they’re all pushing a certain type of archetype. And not until Star Wars goes global do you have the Jungian. Oh, interesting. Wow, that’s cool. Thank you. Thank you. I don’t know what to say. But yeah, I agree with what you’re saying for sure. Like you could see it. Like it was like, I don’t know when it happened. Sort of maybe early 70s. It was like that was it, right? That was it for this whole Woodstock thing. And then I don’t know what happened. And it was like it went underground. Disco and roller skates. And then this emergence later on sort of in the 90s. But I don’t know. Yeah, I would agree with you. I mean, I wouldn’t say it any differently. Young and Freud in a lot of ways were though they weren’t obviously Christian. They were prophets in a lot of ways. So therefore they’re there. Whatever they spoke about is going to manifest over it because they I’m using the word prophet because they’re before whatever they’re talking about is actually going to play out in the future. And it did like you like you just said that Freudianism. And just like Freud rejected young, greatism was adopted because we could actually latch onto whatever young was on about was you couldn’t understand until you got almost kind of you almost couldn’t really understand until you got through Freud in some ways. I’m going back to the problems of today. If we are actually seeing things through a union frame, how hopeful is it? It’s only helpful to a small number of people who are willing to do these rabbit like challenges of hyper static. It’s a small frame. Well, you know, the frames in the frame. It’s a frame within a frame within a frame. Sorry. But is that a is that a is that a is that a constriction like you were talking about earlier, Mark? Is that a choking it down to find the center to find the meat to find the heart of the issue? But that’s the problem. Like that’s the scientific project. Okay. And look, let me be abundantly clear. I actually like science, but only real science. And most of the science that we have now is not real science, not scientific method. There’s no bearing on the scientific method. It’s not a real science. Sorry. Climate cannot be a science because we do not have two climates to compare and experiment with. I’m sorry. You can apply the scientific method. It’s not hard. Can apply scientific with not a science. Okay. So when we talk about the project of science, we’re talking about and this is why I think guys like Reveki like Neoplatonism, even though I don’t think Neoplatonism even exists. It’s a ridiculous concept. They want everything to be one. They want to take the many and put it into the ones that they can control it so they can have it. Neoplatonism is a fundamental having mode problem of philosophy. And it is a problem of philosophy. It is created by philosophy. It is created by our egoic will to control. Okay. It’s a bad frame for understanding anything at all. Because the fact that any object can be broken down into parts is not helpful for you to understand anything in the world. What is helpful is to understand and discern the proper frame. And when that frame needs to change, that’s all discernment in order to do something towards the telos that you’re aimed at. That telos can change. The frame can change irrespective of the telos because maybe you’re not going to be able to do that. Or you’re not moving towards whatever your aim is in the moment. I don’t know. Discerning, oh, I did a live stream. It didn’t go well for me because I rage quit and everybody told me I looked bad would be really important. Right? I do a live stream. One person tells me I did a horrible thing to somebody in my live stream. They didn’t watch the live stream. Right? This is not a good thing. This is, oh, I need to discern that my frame about what happened in the live stream I didn’t watch was a bad frame. Yeah, it was a bad frame. Listening to random comments on the Internet is not likely to get too close enough to reality to be useful for you in your life. There are some notable exceptions. I would argue that almost every comment on all my videos on navigating patterns, which you should check out, you should watch all the damn videos. They’re awesome. Right? I think that comments on my live stream are really helpful for me getting better, if nothing else. And for me, that means by extension, and I could be wrong about this, but for me, that means by extension that it will improve my ability to communicate to a larger audience at the same time. I think that is good. I think that was my disappointment. I was sent a clip of your conversation with Grizz in my Instagram group chat. They said the guy basically skipped to the last ten minutes because most of it isn’t worth watching. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. I think that’s good. If you are still engaged, it would have been helpful. What he said was, again, I don’t watch the eight hour livestream that you did and I don’t have the right frame from this. I’m framing this in the context of that ten minute section that I watched. What he said was, it’s not that someone, I’m not saying that, Mark, you abused someone, It’s not, he wasn’t, he’s saying, I’m not saying that Mark, you abused someone, but I’m saying that you’re smart enough to recognize why a lot of people are saying that this person was abused or why this person said they feel abused. And I was like, if that was the frame that, if that was the spirit that he entered the conversation with, the conversation would have been different because he came in there like he admitted for a battle, which is very not useful, especially in this little corner. But, Tael, I wasn’t told what he was talking about. And when I asked him several times, what are you talking about? There’s not one live stream. The only live stream he referenced before that was the one with Jacob that he jumped in on. He said, I jumped in on a live stream, right? When you jumped in a live stream with Jacob. So I thought initially he was talking about that live stream because that was the only live stream he had previously mentioned. So assuming I knew that he switched frames is absurd. How would I know that? And then when you switch frames, you say, oh, I’m not talking about Jacob’s live streams. Okay, I’ve been on like at least 12 Vanderklae live streams. I’ve been on a bunch of live streams. I have a bunch of live streams. Which freaking live stream are you actually talking about? How have I spent the night? I said in my estuary that watching that conversation of like watching a lot of Christian YouTube because that’s what most of it is, especially when it devotes into your argument about doctrines and whatnot. It’s two people who are, in my opinion, good intent talking past each other because they’re not recognizing the good intent in the other. And it was, you’re very like, it’s anyone that speaks to you for more than five minutes will recognize that you’re very anxious about bad intent people infiltrating your space, which I think it’s a good thing. Obviously you don’t want bad people infiltrating your space. And whereas Grizz was seemingly just fighting for the rights of everyone to be included. Yeah, he got in protective mode. He dropped into like big brother mode or something like that. And it was like, yeah, yeah. Well, not, yeah, white night protector or something like that because you could see it. It was a total shift in his demeanor and the words he used. I mean, anybody replays that you can see it right away. Like even got closer to the camera. He got like, a sense of pride in that. You should know the things that I’m thinking of in my brain, despite me not saying this. And there was even an underlying threat. Like if that conversation had taken place face to face, the way that he said that there would have, like Jordan talks about with the men, there’s an underlying threat of violence. That conversation definitely had that tone. Like if I had heard somebody say that, like I said, I would have squared my shoulders a little bit because I’m like, is this guy about ready to punch me? Like it definitely felt. I think that’s why the frame that we’re speaking for literally this call is very important because recognizing that the way you come across online is different to the way you come across in person will umber you a little bit. But okay, this like, let me treat this person as a person rather than view the image on my screen. You know, sometimes our society is so, well, we’re horrible up here in Canada. We’re so horribly nice. I literally can barely breathe up here. It’s just horribly nice, everybody. And no, there’s a place for exclusion. I mean, I’m going back to Labrie community when I was there with Burn Power. When was that now? So it was like in sort of late seventies. Anyway, and you know what? They practiced exclusion. Like they were serious. When people came there, well, their prayer was, it was really cool. And they didn’t, I think I told you already. I can’t remember because I tell everybody because I think it’s so cool, but they practiced exclusion. They prayed that the right people would come to Labrie and that the people who are not meant to come would not come. And then they would always tell us, you know, it’s not because we think this is the way to, this is a pattern for everyone, but this is the way we choose to run our community. Because we took people very seriously. And they figured if you got all the way up the mountain there in Labrie, it was really, these places are always hard to find, right? They’re hard to get to. They figured if you managed to get up the hill to Labrie, you know, with the funny little bus and this, we were meant to be there. And they weren’t fooling around. They weren’t fooling around. Like they were strict. There’s a bunch of rules. So someone I know who’s on my Discord server, actually, Mark, a Wisdom Discord server, she was saying, I’m upset that I could never be at Labrie because I have a child and that just doesn’t work for them. Like they’re not, they can’t let children in because you have to contribute to the community to be there and there’s no room for a child. There’s no childcare. She’s already excluded. So she talked about that. She said, on the one hand, she’s upset. And on the other hand, she totally understands and believes that’s the right answer. Even though she was excluded, she’s willing to say, I had a kid. I was therefore excluded from being able to do this Labrie thing. And I have to live with that because keeping Labrie Labrie is more important than my needs. That’s what’s missing. People don’t want to accept that. There are trade-offs. There are things we can take. This is serious. That’s heartbreaking. This is serious. No, but this is serious business. Like we’re talking about people’s lives. It’s not just, we need to, we need, like Peterson, I think that was one of his main drawing pieces was that he takes this very seriously. There’s no fooling around with Peterson. There’s not a lot of silly joking or laugh. I mean, it’s fine, but there’s, he restrains. I mean, he’d be like, he’d be like boomy shroomy, actually in real life, I think. He’s got a real wit at the beginning of the biblical lectures. You could see he was really tempted to get in these lines. But the point was that when people come to a place, there’s like, you’re there for a reason. It’s like the Thunder Bay Conference, right, Mark? Like you could tell it was hard to get there. It was hard to find the money to get to the hotel. Like it wasn’t an easy place to get to. And I think it’s important that people see there’s a framework. If you don’t put a frame on it, I didn’t think the whole thing went perfectly well last week, but the bottom line is you do need a frame. It has to be there. And so- It preserves the community. And that’s what we need. Otherwise- And that’s the frame. The frame is a filter. Like everybody’s talking about it. The frame is a filter. It does other things too, right? It allows you to let people in and then test them out and see if they fit. And if they don’t, then you can kick them out. Are there some personalities that are good for upholding the frame and reinforcing the filter and maintaining the filter and maintaining the frame? Are there certain personalities that are gonna be more accustomed to that and other personalities that are gonna be absolutely gonna crap at it? I wouldn’t talk about personalities. Like I really like- People have a disposition. It just depends. It’s kind of like we’re constructing a tongue and we’re tasting it. And if we don’t like it, we spit it out. It’s a filter. It’s important. But look, that’s why we need to eat cheese pizza. Disposition is not important. Disposition is actually not important. It’s a determining factor. It’s a helpful thing to understand. The important part is let’s suppose I’m disagreeable because everybody knows I’m disagreeable. I’m so disagreeable that I can’t take the big five because if I did, it would break the test. Let’s just keep that in the true. Think slightly, Eric. Absolutely no problem working with other people, especially in a professional environment. Why? Because I can see my disposition is disagreeable and I need to control that to be in a community. So when I’m in a community, I’m not only disagreeable. I sacrifice part of my disposition. I put time, energy and attention at, oh, there’s a problem. There’s a problem with you and community because you’re disagreeable. You need to use that disagreeableness wisely. I can’t just be disagreeable randomly like I can here because this is my stream and screw all y’all. But I can’t do that when I’m working, otherwise I won’t have to. I don’t think you’d enjoy that very much. I do. But the other point is this isn’t about personalities either. We’re talking about what binds us all together, what gathers us into being able to see the world. That’s what we’re talking about. So you’re gonna have all sorts of varieties. And guess what David last week was trying to do? Guess what David last week was trying to do? Sorry to say it guys, he was trying to break the spirit that gathers us all together. Yeah, he’s trying to break the round table. He took a big old crap right in the middle of our round table, man. He’s like, look at my turn. Like, no, get out of here, dude. Right. What are you talking about? Well said. Right, and that’s the thing. Some people, in fact, most people don’t like success and Peterson goes over this. Why? Because they don’t wanna be judged. Why? Because they’re not living up to their own standards. And they certainly don’t wanna live up to your standards because you’re being successful and they feel they should be able to be successful. And so they want to be equal. So the only way to make things equal in most cases is to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator. So they want your community to be no better, no bigger on any front, on any way of qualia, any kind of decision, any kind of quality. So if they- Hammer down the tallest nails. Well, if they see you with a bunch of people getting along and doing cool things, right? Then they’re like, oh, well, we don’t want that. So David comes in and he goes, well, I’m part of this Grimm community and it’s the way I want it. But this other community, which looks better to me in some fashion, right? Maybe it isn’t, but whatever, it looks better to him. I’m gonna grab it. We’re having a good time. We’re really cool. We are cool. We have a great time. We’re the cool kids at the club. And that’s part of it is they don’t like success because success points out to them how they’re failing. And like, fair enough. But all this is leading back. We need to sacrifice our own problems to burn off the dead wood in order to get better. And the only way we’re gonna do that is by focusing on our attention in anger and resentment on ourselves and not projecting it onto everybody else. Well, they can take their scut muggy, semi-sami-sails over the hill. I’m over it. We don’t need any of that. But does your disposition determine a bit of your framing? That’s a good question. That’s a good question. It can, but that’s not important. What’s important is- I’m saying, Mark, are you universal? Are you a universal communicator and are there some people that are gonna be allergic to your personality and allergic to your way of communicating and thus making you- No, there’s no such thing as a universal communicator. Those are people who aren’t communicating. That’s the problem. Those are narcissists. You’re a psychopath. You’re a psychopath. You’re a psychopath. No? I’m still not sold that disposition is not important to your framing. Can you expand on that? Because it’s the way you orientate your compass. Disposition is not important, period. Ability to sacrifice. That’s what’s important. You have to be able to say, I’m disagreeable. I need to be able to control my disagreeability in order to be with other people. Look- That takes a level of consciousness. Not everybody is that. No, no. To sacrifice. No, you don’t. You just need to say, you know what? I’m a muppet. And because I’m a muppet, and this person’s telling me if I want to get along with them, I have to do this, then I’ll do this. That’s all you need. You need humility. You don’t need knowledge. Some people don’t even recognize that they’re a muppet, though, Mark. Well, that was- You tell them they’re a muppet. That’s how they recognize it. Well, I’m just saying that a lot of what we’re talking about is there are certain people that we, I run into the people that I cannot interact with. Because I wait my- It’s the wheat from the chaff. We have to make bread and make a pizza eventually. Yeah, exactly. Well, agreed. That sounds good. But I’m just saying that your entire method of framing is not gonna be acceptable to all types. And like I said, I’m on this thing recently about getting the MBTI involved in this little corner because I think that it will, I’m not trying to make certain people, I’m not trying to make groups or anything like that, but in a lot of ways, I guess I am. No, but why is this important? Because my argument is the following. Yeah, you can’t be part of all groups. Oh, well. For the efficiency of communication. Does everyone have a place? Do you think everybody has a place? I think they could if the efficiency of communication was- No, no, communication- What if instead of everybody? Not everybody. What? It can’t be everybody. Communication causes problems. This is a mathematical certainty. I’m not joking, you can actually do the math. This is very easy. Yeah, tell us about it. The more we talk, the more problems we’ll find between us. I guarantee you that’s always true. The question is, do you have a frame so that that doesn’t matter? So if, for example, I drive up to West Virginia to the Rebel Mountains, is that the thing I’m called, and I go fishing with Boomy Shroomy here, right, with Nia, I go fishing with him. Boomy Shroomy’s hilarious. We have a way of interacting so that when we get into an argument about whether or not his ridiculous rebellion and I wanna do drugs nonsense framing as any relevant in the world. And cheese pizza. And the cheese pizza heresy, right? It’s not a problem. Why isn’t it a problem? It’s not a problem because the experience in participating in fishing together is more binding than communication can ever be. And that’s why when people stress communication, they’re stuck in what John Verbecky rightly calls a propositional tyranny. They’re smelling their own farts and laughing about it. Right, well, and it’s a big problem, right? Because then you can look at this group and go, well, we know what Mark’s upset about when Neeram talks. We know that that always sets, and it does, it always sets me on edge, right? But we also see that the communication works. The communication doesn’t work randomly. Neeram doesn’t jump in. The first time I met him, we had quite the lagerheads. It was great. And everything was stacked against us because unbeknownst to me, he was warned, like watch out for this Mark guy. You’re not gonna get along with him, right? But of course we get along great. So, right, but the best way to do that is not online. It’s the only way available to me for most situations. So whatever, the best way to do that though is actually in person, in participating, in breaking bread together, in fishing, in building a house together, right? Any communication to cooperate, even building a house, you can do this without talking. And the fact that that extreme exists tells me that the communication is not important and it should be subordinate, subordinated, submitted to the activity, the participation. That is what the focus should be. I made this case with Father Eric. We did a video last Saturday, actually, right? It’s called, what the church must do now, right? To save itself or something. It’s pretty funny. And I’ll post a link to that so that you guys can watch it if you want. So is this keeping the main thing the main thing? Keeping the activity, like you use the example of building a house. So your activity is the main thing. Keep the main thing the main thing and don’t worry about the communication? I think the Tower of Babel story contradicts that. Say again? I think the Tower of Babel story contradicts that communication being important for building because they stopped building when they couldn’t communicate. Oh yeah, yeah, you’re right. There’s also communication that essentially brought down the walls of Jericho, if you want to read it that way. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You have to communicate, you have to bring it down. Bring it down. But what does that say? That says communication is neutral. It’s not a force for good in and of itself. And it’s limited, right? And this is my point. Everybody thinks communication like theology. Theology is all propositional communication. That’s not gonna save the world, guys. It’s not gonna. It’s too exclusionary. Not everybody can do theology. Not everybody wants to do theology. Not everybody can engage in theology equally. So all you’re doing is setting up some elitist sort of way of dealing with things. Yeah, yeah. So what we can do though is talk. Paintball for Jesus, yes. That’s what we need to settle this. Paintball for Jesus, mocking Grim Grizz captains. I played paintball for Jesus. Grim Grizz didn’t like that one. He said the church didn’t sanction it. But now the one that he’s involved in is suddenly paintball for Jesus. What’s paintball for Christ? Is that something awesome? Oh, is that what happened, Mark? Is that what happened? Is what would happen? What did you just say that you know it’s sanctioned but before what happened? Oh, the one in Chino is sanctioned and he’s calling it paintball for Jesus. And when I said, when I told him earlier, we had paintball for Jesus in Thunder Bay, he said no, because it wasn’t sanctioned by the church. And I was like. By the church. I was like, why would you call it paintball for Jesus, Grim? But whatever, you know. You gotta be in your special robes with your special words. Mark, what’s the difference between community and a tribe? Because we’ve actually been talking about tribal politics, but we’ve never used. In a tribe, people will kill you. In a community, they’ll excommunicate you. Actually, that’s wrong, Boomshrim. A tribe is where they have to take you in. As defined by Sebastian Junger in his book, Tribe. Yeah, let me deal with Ethan’s comment here, right? The best experience I’ve had with people during manual labor is actually directly correlated with how much I didn’t communicate with them verbally. I agree. I think that that’s actually really important. The verbal communication can ruin a good experience in the moment, okay? Not only that, you’re incorrect action. So look, I went to Croatia a couple of years ago during COVID, which was great. I recommend. The only part of the pandemic for me that was great was I could finally travel, because I hate lines and I hate tourism and all that nonsense. And traveling around the world when there was nobody else around was fantastic. I wish I could have done more of it. So I’m in Croatia. We’re watching this freaking sunset over the Adriatic Sea. It’s just stunningly beautiful. It’s a lovely place, right? We’re on the largest island right across from Split. Lovely, I don’t know how to pronounce it, so I’m not gonna try. So I’m sitting there taking pictures. I’ve got my phone camera, I’ve got my Nikon, I’m taking all these beautiful sunset pictures. And the person I’m with goes, basically, what are you doing? And I was like, oh, and I put everything down and just sat with her and enjoyed the sunset. And it was a beautiful experience because of that. And I was gonna ruin it through my action. And through her speech, it got fixed. But more speech wouldn’t have made it better. And that’s part of the problem, is that these things are difficult. These things are difficult because communication can help, but it doesn’t always help. Sometimes it makes things worse, especially if you’re coming in with a combative attitude. Or especially if you’re angry and resentful and don’t realize it. Or if you’ve got a chip on your shoulder and you wanna knock somebody down because you wanna be higher. And that’s one way to be higher, is to knock everybody else down. And people don’t recognize that they’re engaged in that activity, but they are. Not everybody, not all the time, but there are people that are like that. It takes very few people to take down the Twin Towers. It takes a lot more people to build them. This principle’s everywhere. And we’re not recognizing that we need to exclude some of these people who are nothing but destructive. If all you’re gonna do is interrupt somebody, make ridiculous accusations, and swear you can’t be part of our community. So this goes back to the question of tribe. What about this tribe? You can look at the world as tribal. That is a frame that is available to you. I don’t recommend that frame. And the reason why I don’t recommend that frame is because it’s a terrible frame. Nobody is only tribal. It’s just too small a frame because that means it’s you against every other tribe. And you have to identify your tribe and you can only be in one tribe because the tribal frame works that way by design. And it’s not to say never use a tribal frame to understand anything. In the same way you could say never use- But that’s what we came out of. We used to be tribal. It’s literally part of our psychological makeup. No, no, I deny all of that. I think that’s a load of garbage. You don’t think that the Hopi people were not tribal. I don’t think they were tribal at all. I think that’s the problem. I think tribalism is best applied to groups of, groups of social animals that aren’t very sophisticated. Tribalism is materialistic. It’s also materialistic frame. Well, yeah, of course it is. It’s an earlier way of, I mean- We’re not materialistic beings. That’s the problem. We are not material primary beings. The primary being is ethereal, not material. Being is a primary concept. Can you have family members that you’re not related to? Of course you can. What I’m saying is- Is that what people think a tribe is? I’m just trying to see where you’re coming at. What a tribe is, is what it, at least, okay. So Sebastian Junger did a book called Tribe. And the only reason I’m drawing on that is because it’s the best book I ever came across that was about what it actually means to be in a tribe. Tribe is usually a group of people that come under a suffering together and have to band together and they become, they actually become quite happy. He used the people of the Balkans, I think it was, and how they talked about during their time of war, they were actually happier than they were in their time of peace because it had a purpose. The purpose was to survive. And in doing that, they banded together and they made family out of family members that were not family. It was like literally the women cooked, the men fought, the children did the best they could to help the adults. It was this really, it became like this. But Josh, that’s one way to understand that. Another way to understand that is to say that they extended the family archetype to a larger group, right? Yeah, that’s kind of what I was trying to say. Right, yeah. This is what Nurim was getting at, this is what your definition of tribe. Now, what I would say is there’s a much better frame to understand that and it’s not tribal because it’s not, you can put a group of people like that in a tribe, that’s fine, that’s fine framing, right? But there’s only one tribe in that story and therefore it’s not a tribal frame because if you tried to apply it outside of that group of people, you wouldn’t find tribes anymore. This, there’s a question I was gonna ask earlier but this brings it back. What do you make of the claim that the story of Christ is a frame big enough to fit in all other frames? Right, right, so well, that’s the claim by the crazy Christians and they’re all crazy. But they might be right, like it’s certainly possible, right? I think that what’s missing from him a lot is him coming back in Revelation with a sword and an army. I don’t hear anybody talking about that Jesus. Okay, the possibility came back in 70 AD, that’s called preterism, so just saying, it is a theory that’s out there. Well, you know, there’s an image, there’s this beautiful picture of him up in heaven with a sword and an army of angels coming down here to kick ass and nobody talks about that Jesus. Well, that doesn’t, they don’t talk about Jesus. The world can wait for that Jesus, that may have took place in 70 AD. Yeah, yeah, but don’t worry about that, that’s irrelevant. The story. I don’t know anybody who’s talking about that. I wanna see it. He’s not talking about what happened and what didn’t happen, he’s talking about the story, right? So the story could happen, it might still happen. We don’t know, it might have already happened. Doesn’t matter, stories aren’t placed in time in that way. Stories are placed in time in the way that the specific instance of the story happens at a particular point in time. But a good story is timeless. If it’s not timeless, it’s not a good story. There are other factors too, but that’s one of them. So the question is, is there a frame that allows you to understand all the smaller frames that you might need to understand all the things in the world? I think there must be, I think that’s what religion is, is the search for a frame big enough that everybody can participate. This is why I don’t like theology, because in theology, everybody cannot participate, okay? And everybody shouldn’t try to participate either. A frame that is based on actions and not based on knowledge, which would be Gnostic incidentally. So this is theologians, I hate to break it to you. Almost all of you are Gnostic cesspool. That’s what you are, okay? And you’re creating a Gnostic cesspool in your elitism. And I want you to stop, because it is exclusive to other people who can’t play that game. In the same way that Sam Harris got reamed out by Jordan Peterson at the end of the fourth debate, where he said, Sam, this is all well and good for you, but you’re accused like 130, what about all the other people? And you can hear, if you listen closely, the laughter in the crowd, because they were delighted about this fact. And I would say, if your religion is exclusive, or if your method of implementing religion is exclusive, or if your method of understanding religion is exclusive, it’s not a religion, you have a cult, you’re excluding people. Does that answer your question? It’s good to exclude people, I thought we just established that it’s important to exclude some people. From a community? Yeah, it’s important to read Bibles and translate them into all languages. Because we’re stuck in time and space, right? We’re stuck in time and space right now, we’re stuck in context. And so that’s how it works. We need some acid. We mustn’t get all… Yeah, yeah, probably. What frame allows me… What frame allows me… Like, Grim and Mark together are fine, if they don’t get along, isn’t that cool? We need radical acceptance. Mark’s Mark, Grim’s Grim, and never the twain shall meet, probably, and there’s all these other little funny stuff going on. There’s a bit of weird stuff happening, like who gets pushed forward. But let’s look at it from a framing perspective. The frame of Christianity, that story, allows us to live in different communities. It’s not a universalist religion. I’m sorry, it’s not. It’s not in the way that materialists mean universalism. It’s not everybody gets every… That’s Marxism. Marxism is evil. He’s an evil Gnostic wizard. It just is what it is. Well, that’s my point. That’s my point. It’s universal. It’s big enough to have a Mark and a Grim. Just think about it. But it’s universal in that everybody can find a place. Exactly, that’s what I just said. Even you, Mark. Everybody can use the tools. Everybody can use the tools for discernment for where that place is and where that place isn’t and what their role is in that place all at the same time. It doesn’t say, oh, we’re all just going to automatically be priced like in the same way at the same time all at once. It doesn’t say anything like that. It in fact kind of indicates that that’s not possible and you shouldn’t strive for it. And this is where people get confused. What’s not possible? Everybody being priced like in the same way at the same time and therefore emerging whatever. With all that said, Mark, do you think the Terminator is a Christian story? Yeah, it is. Yeah, because he always is. I’ll be back. I’ll be back. Maybe not number one, but number two definitely was. Yeah. I was just thinking. Number two is not Christian. No, number two is not. How is it not Christian? Well, he does this. He does the thumbs up and he goes down. No, no, number two is not. Number two is not. Jesse is correct. There was a recognition of self. There was a recognition of a task to be completed and he sacrificed himself at the end. For a child. Okay. Yeah. So if we want to go down Terminator two? Let’s go. Let’s go. We’re going into it. I’ve got the skull out like Hamlet and everything. Yeah. Yeah, come on. Let’s get real with this. Enough with the framing. Let’s do Terminator. Just kidding, Mark. Frankenstein rises again. That’s what you need to think of Terminator two. It’s Frankenstein rises again. Well, yeah. Oh yeah. Frankenstein was the Garden of Eden, bro. And then it is like the Old Testament and then Terminator two is like the New Testament. I need you to expand on that. Frankenstein was the Garden of Eden. Was that what you said? Yeah, because it’s this person that wakes up and has no idea what it is and it goes ape crazy like right off the bat. And they get cast away from the maker. Does it not? There’s this whole, most of Frankenstein, Frankenstein and who created Frankenstein? What was his name? Mary Shelley. Mary Shelley. That was the character in the book. The guy who- Victor Frankenstein. Frankenstein is not the name of the monster, it’s the name of the doctor. Yeah, sorry, sorry, sorry. So Victor creates the monster. The monster wakes up and flips out and has to be cast out of the creator’s presence because he’s obviously dangerous. And so he goes off into the wilderness. He ends up in like Antarctica or something like that all over the freaking world. And then- That’s a story. Yeah. How’s it related to Terminator two? Because that’s just- Be cut. You brought up Frankenstein. I’m simply explaining Frankenstein as a horror story to Terminator. So I’m trying to bring up a concept of Gnosticism. 18th century, Molly Shelley, Gnosticism, feminist by the way, important to Terminator two because Terminator two is not a masculine message. Terminator one is a masculine message. Masculine, I’m not using male, I’m using female, feminine, all right? Okay? Okay. So no one’s gonna tell me about that. So the monster rises again. That’s what happened in Terminator two. It’s embodied by a principle, not of itself, of someone else. It’s under the will of someone else. It’s not under its own will. It does not serve its own will. The monster that rises again does not serve its own will. It’s possessed by something other than itself. So is Jesus. But in Terminator one, the monster is possessed by its own image. Think of it, the monster, Arnold Schwarzenegger is possessed by Skynet. Right, yeah. And number two is possessed by the spirit of John Connor sending monsters back in time to try and protect itself. Which could be said to be the original intention of the robots because they have a skull and a face and eyes. So that might be the original intention of the Terminator to have a human spirit programming it. Praise the machine of spirits. Or whatever. Yeah, but I mean, the Terminator kind of broke his programming, like, I don’t know, like right around the molten metal scene. Yeah, like, I mean, there’s this whole breakdown of like his programming and everything like that. And then he recognizes like the value of humanity and everything like that. So it really was an arc and a redemption. Or it probably was a redemption of Frankenstein. Let’s be honest. Or he loved his creator, which was John Connor. He loved God. Right, this God. Ooh, ooh, boom-troom. I don’t know where that came from. It just came from. Psychedelic education is kicking in. Oh, I was also gonna say, the liquid bad guy in Terminator 2, he had no framing in the structure. And he fought the Terminator with the framing and the structure, and which one won? The liquid metal. He was, yeah, he was this weird, like, you know, funky. Yeah, he’s a jelly metal man, you know. Quite the devil, quite the devil. Doesn’t, can become anything. He was a slippery son of a bitch. They couldn’t kill him till the very end. Go figure. That guy was like, he was like a turd that wouldn’t flush, man. That guy would not go away. And that’s the, that’s why it’s not a Christian story. It could be. You can look at the elements of these stories. With enough psychedelics, anything could be a Christian story. Well, yeah, that’s true. That’s true. This is terrible, Greg. It’s terrible, Greg. Yeah, watch Blade Runner and Prometheus on five tabs of acid. There you go. Do not, do not do that. That’s when you lose your turn. That’s exactly when you lose your turn. That’s exactly when you lose your mind. You’re actually losing the ability to exclude. And that’s a problem because you can’t include everything. It’s not possible. You’re right. That’s what you’re gonna need to do. But it’s fun to try sometimes on a Saturday night. It’s damn fun to try sometimes. Break all the rules. All right, I’ll stop, I’ll stop. Yeah. Yeah, I gotta get out of here. I was hoping to leave on a laugh anyways. I love you guys. You guys have a great night. Enjoy the conversation. Thank you, Josh. Take it easy. Thank you, Mark, for inviting me in. You guys have a good one. Adios. I wanna contend with the idea that the arc of redemption is something that you can quickly smash on the sticker of Christianity. I don’t think it’s useful. It has a redemption story. Therefore, Christian. It’s like what is being redeemed? Why? Where? To what? Tell us, does it? And that’s, you know, I remember reading a book about the matrix of Gnosticism very, very early on. People were pointing at, hey, second, you, because I was in the evangelical community, you evangelicals jumping onto the matrix being like, great, he embodies the spirit. He overcomes the material reality. Therefore, it’s Neo’s crack. And I was like, okay. Yeah. It’s like, Simba is crassed, and the Lion King too, by the way. Harry Potter is crassed. It’s like, okay, well, you’re trying to whack them all the goodness out of things rather than saying what has the goodness. Well, I think that’s the problem with the, you know, people wanna want a single solution. And here I can snipe it at my good friend, Jonathan Pigeot, and say, he seems to think that beauty is gonna solve the problem. And it’s like, no, because beauty alone is not, you need the true, the good, and the beautiful. It’s just, you need all three. You can’t reduce past that. It doesn’t work. And that’s the problem, is that people are not taking this seriously enough. They’re not really understanding that your options are not the true, the good, or the beautiful, and anyone will get you the other two. Their options are, you need to go after all three, or you’re going to have an actual problem in the actual world. Yeah, and it’s like the quest for the unified field theory. You know, are they ever gonna do it? Right. Is it ever worth doing? They think it’s required, and I think it’s bullshit, and it’s not required, and who cares? It’s just not important. And the more they look, the harder it is for them to find out where quantum ends and Newtonian begins. But it definitely does, because they don’t mix all the way up the stack. There’s an overlap, and they just, science has a hard time with overlap, because it wants discreteness. It wants to draw a sharp, clear line so that it can do its thing. Because science doesn’t work with fuzzy lines. It just doesn’t work. There are other things that work, but they’re not science. Well, science is kind of drifted from communal knowledge to tribal knowledge, if you want to know it. Probably since the 70s, since the breakdown of the universities, science was a communal, people overlapped in disciplines, they could talk across with one another. Now we have tribal, physics, science, and biology. Right. For sure. Well, because it wasn’t unified anymore. Like, a lot of people don’t understand. In the, when Einstein was alive, and they used to do these polls, 80% of the people in the general population were Christians and identified as Christian, and identified as God fearing, basically. Okay. You know how many physicists identified as God fearing? 80%. It’s the same ratio. That ratio changed at some point, probably in the 60s or 70s, to your point, Jesse. And then all of a sudden, this endeavor of science is no longer unified in a larger frame. That you need that larger frame. That larger frame, the frame is universal. And things in the frame are not universal. The fact that the frame’s universal means, again, you can discern your proper place within that frame, and then whether or not you belong there, and then what your role is once you’re there. Right. Because, and maybe your role can change over time, and maybe you’re part of more than one frame, or more than one community within the larger frame. All of that is possible. But what’s not possible is to just pick random frames at random times and see how it all works out. Because we have a limited amount of time on earth, and we have to be able to do that. And so, you have to be able to do that. And you have to be able to do that. And you have to submit to something. And you’re always submitting to something to get something done outside of yourself. Otherwise, go live in a cave, okay? Then I won’t have to listen to you, and you’ll be happy living out the life you think you’re supposed to live out. At the risk of getting very, or sounding very evangelical, I’ll go back to the question of why it is the story of Christ. Why is the simplicity, I think, why is the Ashbury, let’s say, why is revival not a good thing? Because in your frame, Mark, from understanding, you’re saying Paul is misreading Jordan by tacking on the revival thing to him. Well, it’s not that revival’s not a good thing, okay? I’m not stating that revival’s not a good thing. What I’m stating is that what Peterson’s doing is not a revival. Now, there’s a caveat to that, because there’s an overlap. This is where people get crazy. The overlap is that the meaning crisis people and the crisis of faith people have an overlap, because some crisis of faith people fall into the meaning crisis, right? But the meaning crisis people never rise high enough up the well to be faith crisis people, because these crisis of faith people have had church, they have symbolism. So you can add beauty to the life of a crisis of faith person, and that could be enough to lift them out, because they can interface with beauty. The people that I talk to, every person that was in trouble on the awakening server back in the day could not appreciate poetry, would not read poetry. That is a significant thing in our model, and if you need the model, there’s a model on the Navigating Patterns channel, the Knowledge Engine model, that’s very important to understanding this, and maybe I do a poor job of explaining it, so please leave comments and tell me if you don’t get it. But every single person didn’t understand poetry or wouldn’t read it. Not that they hadn’t ever, because there was a time when they read poetry. They just stopped at some point, and then they lost the skill of relating to poetry. And to be fair to John Gravicki, it was his work and his framing that got them back into that whole participation, mode of participation. And so that was really important. Can I push this a little bit more? So the 18th century printing press comes out. With the printing press, you have the rise of theology. Yes. At the same time in the 18th century, you have the decline of the romantics, AKA poetry. So you have the increase of knowledge, and the enlightenment, and the lack of poetry. So poetry is a way of interpreting a story, the poetics, romantic. It’s not romance, it’s romantic. That’s why people equate the notebook as being romantic, rather than saying something like, Dr. Zivago, that’s a romantic story. One’s romance, one’s romantic. And that sort of materialistic definition they don’t have, because they, essentially in the theology, empiricism would have to define the propositions in order to get to the theological outcome, rather than the communal embodied outcome. Because before the 19th century, if you said you were Christian, you didn’t have to know how to embody the Christian principles. And therefore, once we’ve gone more and more into the written text, more and more into, you have to know how to have all your ducks in a row in order to be a Christian, and you have to have the decline of poetry as well. Because you could read a poem and half get it, but you only need to half get it in order to kind of enjoy it, appreciate it. Same thing with Christianity. You only need to appreciate part of it to get it. You don’t need to know all the theology behind it, because maybe some of it’s made up. Maybe most of it’s made up, who knows? Calvinism, instead of poetics, it just doesn’t make sense to some people. Maybe that just voids its purpose, symbolic and bodied enough. How fruitful is it, maybe, if we want to continue to play the Christian whack-a-mole? Christianese. I don’t want to jump into my critique of poetry, but poetry is missing. People look for poetry in things that aren’t poetic. Tinder is not poetic. Right. Right. Yeah. And it’s not romantic. It’s the same thing, really. And there’s no romance. Yeah, of course there’s no romance. Right. It’s the materialist trying to solve a discreet problem of not having somebody to make with. It’s like, really? That’s the problem? Oh, I had no idea that was the problem. It’s all embodiment, but it’s false embodiment. Like, I don’t know, probably me and Theo are probably more like, okay, the incarnational model is probably higher up on our preference set. Like, you have to embody the spirits that you believe in. But you could, that’s just the thing, where it gets, as Tomas pointed out, narcissism and Christianity, it’s like, well, what principles are you trying to embody? Maybe the false ones. And you kind of have to discern which frame, which principles, which standards you want to embody to, in order to be poetic in the world. Like, you can’t, good art is poetic. Good art is not empirical. Like, that’s why AI, that’s why I’m kind of dismissive of this AI problem. It’s like, it’s all by the numbers. Nothing’s going to shock you. I think Scott Adams has brought that point this week. Yeah. You can see a thousand AI images, and then he’s like, okay, someone brought up William Blake. Oh, Mark, you’re the class of. Yeah, try and make sense of William Blake at Change. That’s, that’ll take you a week. It’s not an AI one minute viewing thing. I’m saying a lot, so someone jump in. No, it’s important. It’s absolutely important. That’s what the impetus was behind Dante’s writing at the Commedia. He was determined, he was to prove that he could articulate what Tomas Aquinas was trying to do with theology. That was the major impetus. And it’s just unbelievably beautiful poetry. And there it is. And, you know, just to balance out, you know, John Vervecky, I mean, Dante didn’t know John Vervecky, but at the end he’s in paradise, which is incredibly beautiful and full of music. He stops in the dogma, right? He’s always moving around. This is how, this is what Ethan’s point was, right? It includes all of us. So he’s always moving around. So he criticizes the church, he criticizes the corruption, and then he dedicates, canty after canty, to the great scholars, right, of the Catholic church at the end, right, in paradise. Like it’s shocking. You’re just going like, what? It’s kind of like the Grim Grizz in the March thing. Like, it’s just like, whoa. And then, no, no, we can bring it all in. We can incorporate it all because everybody’s doing something here. Just magnificent. And the poetry in Italian, that’s why I decided to learn Italian. The poetry in Italian, you can’t even imagine the beauty. It’s a romantic language, isn’t it? It’s a romantic language. I used to speak French, but once I discovered Italian, that was that, because it’s just, whoa. No, but it’s, there’s something about the musicality of that language that’s just exquisite. Like if you read the poetry out loud, which people don’t do much anymore, right? But if you read Dante’s poetry out loud, it’s just astounding. It takes you places. Like it’s more like music, right? I think poetry is actually like music. And I actually think the gospels are. I’ve been reading the gospels over and over again, and I’m seeing more and more that Jesus is actually like, I don’t even know how to put this, but he’s more like Dante to me. He’s somehow this, there’s something very alive poetically about Christ. And just like he’s so, there’s so much drama. The drama is not the right word, but there’s so much of whatever that is in Christ. Like it’s just wild. Well, I was gonna say another thing is you’re getting back to another problem of the 18th century where essentially Latin-ness starts to decline, Latin being another poetic language, right? But also you have this, for people outside of Christianity, if you think of Christianity, it’s just the group preference of the day. It’s something that combined everyone together, right? So the Christian church moved away from Latin, a romantic language and removed away from, again, I have my contention arguments, all this is happening in the 18th century, but it moves away from scripture happening out loud, spoken out loud to individually read because of the printed press. And that’s where you have another disembodiment of the community. I agree. I think I was thinking that the other day because I’m really into my, I just love reading the gospels now. Don’t ask me, but they’re just Christ. I don’t even know how to describe it. There’s no words. Anyway, I’ve been reading the gospels like crazy. And you know what I thought to your point, Jesse? I thought maybe I’m on the wrong track. Maybe I should be reading this with other people all the time. Like I had that same sense. It’s not embodied enough. That’s pietism, right, Mark? Me reading my gospels, I’m sorry, everybody says, you know, but that’s what you’re supposed to do. But then I thought, no, Elizabeth, that’s the wrong frame. You should be doing this. You should be singing this with other people or doing, whatever, I think it’s dangerous. So then I said to myself, okay, keep discipline on that. That is a luxury and it might be a dangerous luxury to be reading the Bible by myself. I’m serious. I think there’s a real problem with it. But solipsism, anytime you do anything by yourself, it tends to reciprocally narrow it to solipsism. And then you lose other people’s perspectives and you also cut yourself off deliberately and in a bad way from distributed cognition. Absolutely. You can’t understand the world. You’re a muppet. I’m a muppet. We’re all muppets. We can’t understand the world. We can’t even understand a small part of the world. Like you have no idea how little you understand about everything. The thing you’re the most expert in, almost nothing about. And that’s true for everybody. Like people just don’t know anything. It’s impossible. Most of the stuff we’re acting out in the world is not from our own rationalities, not from our own knowledge, not from our own brain. It’s from the survivorship bias of thousands of years of evolution, right? Thousands of years of humans communing together. That’s how we know. That’s why we do things like bow or shake hands. It doesn’t really matter which you do, but it matters that you do something like that. It doesn’t have to be bowing. It doesn’t have to be shaking hands. It’s gotta be something like that. Why? Because these are the rituals that bind us together in participation in the physical world. And that’s a big deal because we need to participate. You know what we don’t need to do? We don’t need to talk. We don’t need to communicate. We can commune in silence. And that actually works much better. It doesn’t mean we should never talk, but it does mean that the solution isn’t more talk. That’s not the solution. The solution is more bringing. I now see your point you were making earlier about communication. It’s, yeah, I see what you were saying. But to kind of double back on that, the way you communicate that can be better, which means communication is still important because it took me, I just understood it. And also I’m a muppet, a slow one at that. So I take on accountability. A slow muppet? Yeah. We have to take a community poll to see if we can allow slow muppets in the community or do we boot them? Like, you know, and that’s… But you see, that’s the sort of craziness you get into as you get into the democratization of decisions and stuff because you’re like, ooh, no, no, no, no, you need a head to just make a choice. And then just make a choice. And that choice could be wrong. And you have to submit to the fact that because somebody has to make a choice, some of those choices are gonna be wrong and that’s gonna suck for you. And you just have to give it up because maybe they’re wrong and maybe you’re wrong. And maybe even if they’re wrong, it’s better to make a choice than not to make one. Yeah, but yeah, I really think I’m gonna say something really heretical probably, but I wonder if reading your Bible, I hate to say, I really hate to say it’s my father would have my head, but I wonder if reading your Bible alone is materialism. I’m serious. I think it’s way off. It is, but… Way off. Like, we’ve been going to matins, Jonathan Pesce was talking. It’s more fun to talk about it together. Yeah, for sure. I think it’s a purpose in church instead of one guy talking. I agree there needs to be a leader, but it needs to be a little more fun. I agree. I hate listening to some guy going on and on in church. It drives me nuts. But think about this, Elizabeth, right? The easiest way to think about this. I’m thinking, Mark, go. If you’re a Protestant, you’re a solo scriptura person, right? And so your access to God is through a book. A book is materialistic. You’re already on the wrong track. I’m not saying that there aren’t plenty of good Protestants because I’ve met one or two. Solo scriptura. I have my doubts about most of them, by the way, but I wonder if you were okay, right? And that’s the issue. The issue is that it is fundamentally a materialist individualist project. Fundamentally, Protestantism is materialistic and individualistic by design. And that is not something that is easy to overcome because you fall into the objectivism. You fall into the solitism. You fall into the idea of elitism because you have your own view. Do you think the DNR office is guilty of that? The what? Material, the DNR. I don’t know what DNR is. Do tell me. The Fish and Wildlife Police. Oh. Yeah. Oh. Also, look, they’re guilty of legalism sometimes, but also you can’t do nothing. Right. People don’t understand, for example, the influence that having something available affords. So for example, knowing that there are sheriffs or police or whatever in your area automatically reduces crime, even if they never bust a criminal ever. Yeah. Automatically happens. But just in the term, like the Department of Natural Resources, it’s all about the material. Right? Right, but it’s not a bad thing. I like materialism. That being a materialist. It sounds like a bad word now. No, no, being a materialist is bad. It’s like Mark. It’s like Mark. It’s just the same principle. Like you need that, right? You need that. You need something defined. You can’t ignore the material. Nobody’s saying you would- Mark the Muppet, yeah. We’re all Muppets here. But that’s the- I’m a Muppetess. I’m for sure a Muppet. And I’m a royal Muppetess too. Royal Muppetess. My Muppet has long hair. But you know what? I have a theory about all of this though, because I was listening, who was like, oh, Bishop Maximus. He’s so interesting talking with John Vervaike. So he’s really helped me understand. But it’s really interesting because he’s talking about how the Eastern Orthodox Church worked with neoplatonism and how the Western Church, scholasticism, Thomas Aquinas worked with it. And because Francis Schaeffer wrote about this 60 years ago, and I’ve been following this historical line, I’m fascinated always. And I wonder if, because he was saying actually, he made a very bold statement in the second conversation, Bishop Maximus. He said that he felt that the Greek, the Greek neoplatonism, this is a strong statement, was closer in a way, bound itself more closely in its ideas and perspective to the Eastern Orthodox Church than Western Catholicism from scholasticism. And that just blew my mind. And then I thought, Mark, I really believe, because I was brought up in a very strongly Protestant home, but my father lived it. Like he literally embodied it. And so he was kind of Catholic at the same time. But I thought with the Protestantism, I think, and Francis Schaeffer, this was his thesis that it was a reaction against Thomas Aquinas and the scholastic mistake. That they separated, they did this separation between heaven and earth. They didn’t mean, like Thomas Aquinas did not mean to, but he got stuck in the propositional, right? And so what we’re dealing with over the last 700 years is trying to correct that little tiny mistake that opened us up into where we are today. I don’t disagree. But in the problem of Protestantism, and Verveki actually points to this, is that it immediately got hijacked. And that’s the issue, is not the, the initial ideas weren’t bad, right? Like nothing Luther said was wrong. Luther was completely accurate, right? It’s just that when you open the door to, oh, you can do your own interpretation of the Bible, you end up with all these other problems. And that’s what was going on. And so now all of a sudden you have a different set of problems, and then all the bad people rush into that different set of problems. And then you’ve got the misinterpretation of Luther, to whatever extent that actually existed isn’t even relevant at that point. In the same way people misinterpreted what Descartes was saying, in the same way that everybody, and I make this case in a talk I did with my buddy Adam from Ireland there, Napoleon misunderstood the enlightenment, the same way all Europeans misunderstand the enlightenment in modern times. The way they misunderstand it is they believe that you can take the enlightenment philosophy, right? And remove it from the religious beliefs of the philosophers that came up with it. And the problem is that if you do that, you don’t get the United States, you get Napoleon, and you get his empire, and it’s broken. And we go over why the empire is broken. It’s very clearly not following the previous pattern, and it’s also not following the pattern it purports to copy, because the French Revolution was copying the pattern of the American Revolution. The American Revolution wasn’t a revolution, it was a rebellion, right? And that’s the difference. It did not seek to overturn the order at all. It sought to replace the order with a different order. The French Revolution sought to destroy order as such. It had no telos, it had no reason. And then into that breach rushes Napoleon, and says, I will bring the order. Yeah, he will. But then he doesn’t copy the pattern of the United States, because of course that’s already off the table, because again, they thought the revolution was a revolution, but it wasn’t, it was a rebellion in our case. And then they had no telos. They had no plan for what to replace the king with. That never happened. The people who could have made that decision actually abdicated the responsibility and caused the radicals to take over. And of course radicals don’t have a plan, they just want to destroy everything. And so what actually ends up happening is, Napoleon comes in and says, forget all the complicated multi-titles, I’m just gonna be the new Holy Roman Emperor, period, to everybody. And of course you can’t do that, because you’re creating a universal frame. And the universal frame doesn’t work. The Holy Roman Emperor had something like 120 or something titles. Everywhere he went, he had different titles. Those titles related to the groups that he was sovereign over. That actually matters, because then you get a personal connection with the ruler, even though it’s not your ruler per se, right? He’s the ruler in Rome. England still followed that model. What’s Queen Elizabeth in Scotland? It’s not the same. She has an additional title, multiple titles. Oh, see you, Theo. He buzzed out pretty quick. And that’s a difference, is that this idea of multiple titles actually matters, because it affects how the people interact, it affects the framing. It affects how the people interact with the leader. When Napoleon does it, he breaks everything, because he just makes himself the emperor of everything. And he forces the bishop to put the crown on his head, which is totally backwards from how it was always done. There’s so many problems, and I’ll link to that Napoleon video, it’s quite good. Adam’s very good. He really understands this stuff. I wanted you to do a part two. I wanted you to do a part two. I was trying to push you to do a part two. Because there’s more that you didn’t cover, particularly that moment where the church, the Catholic church, remember the French Catholic Church is essentially where all the Catholics are meeting, and they’re all agreeing on, that is the main embodied principle. It’s not in Italy anymore, it’s actually in France. And you’ll find historians that will disagree with that, but you don’t see how that French Catholic Church breaks down, and all its network affects in that time, how much that influences other countries, Canada in particular, America in particular, even England, you could say, once the French church disintegrates, it leads to all these other problems. The other problem too is just Napoleon was greedy. You should never debate Russia, but that’s a different topic for a different day. You can’t stretch your race. Nobody should, nobody should. You think you’re about to aim at something, and Napoleon had the same problem happened again, 60 years later with another emperor type person, stretched too thin, you’ve got to have a locus of control, and you’ve abandoned these locus of control, and you’ve both exercised a different, you can’t, you have to, what’s the axiom? Big trucks turn slowly. You can’t turn a whole empire over nigh, over 20 years, so nigh in empire scale, into from the Enlightenment, from the Catholic Church into the Enlightenment. They tried to put it in. Crazy, it’s crazy talk. Happening again right now too. I remember seeing this painting of a man running, and then he was on a horse, and then he was on a chariot with two horses, and then he was on some kind of car, and then he was in a race car, and then he was in a plane, and then he was in a rocket, and I think that’s what we’re doing, like philosophically, religiously, that goes in line with the frames that you’re talking about too. We’re running from frame to frame. It’s not that people don’t still ride horses. It’s not that people still don’t pull things with horses. It’s not that people still don’t drive cars, and it’s not that people still don’t use airplanes or rocket ships. They’re all for some different tier. It’s like a pyramid or something. I don’t know, is that crazy? No, no, no, you’re right, and that is the problem. The problem is that we’re running away, and we’re spreading out along the bottom of the triangle, along the bad actually, or the evil. That’s what Gnosticism is. It fractures and breaks apart. It just fractures and breaks apart, and then it fractures and breaks apart, and then when it’s done fracturing and breaking apart, it fractures, it breaks apart, that’s all it can do. It doesn’t have a choice because it’s not a uniting principle. That’s why when people talk about ecumenism, I say, look, the Christians have all these things in common, and they never talk about it, and if they just talk about what they had in common, instead of arguing theology, they could do good in the world very easily, right? But it’s this constant theological discussion that just theology can only lead to division. It cannot lead to being united because it’s all about all of these ancillary misinterpretations and reinterpretations of things that don’t matter in terms of communing together to get stuff done, in terms of having a meal together, going fishing together, whatever it is, hiking in the woods together, enjoying the sunset together. These are things you can do in the Christian framework if you just talk about the parts of the Christian framework that you have in common, and then this solves a bunch of problems. Why does it solve problems, Mark? Because most problems are just created, and if you don’t create them, they don’t exist. Theology is one of those sets of problems. What was your point, Bhumish Rumi? What was your point with all of this? What were you seeing? It’s all okay, and we’re figuring it out. It seems like we’re not figuring it out. Everybody’s flipping out about the hippies in the 60s, but then they make computers in the internet and stuff, and I think we’re gonna see the same thing. It seems scary. I don’t know, it’s hopeless, but that’s when people really have to figure it out for themselves. What is truth? Boom, boom, boom, boom. What is really going on? What are we supposed to be doing with ourselves? As I’ve said before, nobody trusts anybody. What we’re doing here is the beginning of trust with each other. And if more people do that, maybe we can all start to come together in bigger clumps. I don’t know yet, this is just the beginning, and I think there’s some people that wanna hurry up, hurry up. You can’t do that, this takes time. It takes time. Well, and also I think that the real thing you have to discern is what you’re going to submit to. And what you’re not gonna submit to. And you can’t pretend as though you can switch that around or submit one day and not submit the next, or submit to these four things one day and these six things the next. You can’t do that, that doesn’t work very well. How much time went between us running to figuring out horses and buggies? And how much time went between horses and buggies and cars? And then cars and airplanes. It’s like it accelerates in a way, but it’s also way more dangerous. Like rockets, like whatever rocket blows up, like everybody below has to watch out. It’s a very dangerous, crazy thing. Now we’re full of antimatter and fusion, and fusion doesn’t blow up, but the antimatter stuff’s kinda scary. But we’re doing it, we’re doing these things. Yeah, but that’s why this is happening, right? Because we’re very aware of the dangers right now because there are very real dangers. So that’s why this is emerging, right? This little corner, Peterson-Pageau-Verbecky. It’s, we’ve all seen, we’ve all seen that. We wanna go. That there’s things to do. There’s things to do. There’s things to do. Yeah, man. We wanna go to space, but we don’t know why. What for? Exactly. We’re figuring it out now. Exactly. Well, and I think some people have a plan, but it’s a dumb plan, right? Yeah, it’s a dumb plan. And they don’t realize that. But Jesse, what do you wanna say? Well, video games are a dumb plan. Like we can’t even agree which version of Battlefield we should all be playing. Like this whole idea of game theory, I’ve been chatting to a few friends of mine and they think that they can just game theory everything down to the local level. It doesn’t work because eventually the game gets boring. It needs updates. Those updates create other problems. It can’t include everyone. Not everyone can play at the same skill level. You can’t distribute that. So it’s, there’s another problem here with community framing, which is video games aren’t going to solve the world either, which the local people think they can because at least everyone agrees to play a few games and talk to each other about it. Right, but they’re missing that initial discernment, right? This is part of my opening. You don’t realize you’ve already submitted to the frame of the game that you’re in, but there’s more than one game. And so it’s not a universalist project anymore. And by the way, while you’re busy playing, someone’s gotta keep those servers up and running. Someone’s gotta keep the network going. Someone’s gotta keep the electricity. What about those people, right? So it’s fundamentally an elitist project. And not that I’m necessarily against elitist projects, but we need to be honest about the elitist project because otherwise to your point, Elizabeth, what we get trapped in is this sense that we’re enslaving people. And if you’re using Uber Eats, for example, you’re enslaving somebody. They’re driving around in a car so you don’t have to. That’s a form of slavery. It’s not chattel slavery, right? Like we think of in the US, but chattel slavery is rare and unique and only happens at times. But that sounds like a nice job though, you know? Too. Well, for some people it does. And that’s the problem with this framing, right? You can’t, look, some people, the only thing that they’re gonna be able to do physically and mentally is to direct traffic. That’s the best they can do in life. They need a job though. You can, right, you can argue that it’s a small number of people, but they still need a job. And if that’s the job, right, or the people at the grocery store, where the grocery stores hire people who, all they can do is bad groceries. That’s all they can do. What is, or all they can do is grab carts. What is wrong with that? This is good work. And I think too, I’ll make another sort of outrageous statement, because it is an outrageous statement. Part of the reason why we have so much freaking anxiety is because we won’t do boring work. Boring work, tons of boring work. We won’t bloom where we’re planted. It calms your freaking nervous system. I have a tactic called Zen sweeping, where what you do is, if you have an anxiety attack, you go sweeping. Literally, you sweep something. Why? And you can do it with doing the dishes. You can do it with sewing. There’s tons of things that you can do. The reason why it works, and we know why it works. We know this, I knew this years ago. I saw this for myself when I was a child, basically. When I was like 15. But the reason why it works, because your brain and your body are somewhat separate, right, or your mind and your body. And then what happens is, when you’re doing something that involves a lot of muscle memory, your body is sending regular calming signals up to your brain. And so your brain, it’s racing around going, blah, blah, I want to solve this, and I want to do that, I’m worried about this. And Jesse’s a jerk, and Boojoo won’t shut up, and Elizabeth’s just annoying, right? Your body’s going, calm down, dude. And your brain calms down, because it’s sympathetic with your body. We keep thinking our mind rules over our body. Yeah, try thinking about your breathing. Let me know how that works, buddy. Try thinking about your digestion. Let me know how that works. No, no, no, that body has way more say over what your mind’s doing than you can possibly imagine. And that’s the problem. We are not doing boring work to calm ourselves down, so we’re staying in an elevated, anxious state more often. And that only gets worse. And then we burn out, and then we have a crash, and yeah, it’s not good. There’s a great picture of this. I did that podcast about that video game, Scorn, but there’s a great picture where the people are trying to mutate into these HR Giger things. And their heads mutate to where they had their own independent organs of the body, and it detaches from the body and floats around, and the body like shakes and dies. And they think this is the best thing since sliced bread, but the brains float around and forget to make food, and they all starve and die. Right. And I think that’s a great illustration of that. Wow. Yeah. Well, they want to live in their heads. Yeah. They want to transcend. That was the whole, like, transcendence. We’re going beyond into the nether realms. And you know, that’s full of, like, visit, but come back, bro, like. That’s the nostrism. You want to break out of the constraints of the bad God, which are basically material constraints. You want to break out of that to get to the good God who has no material constraints, right? Which constraints are bad, right? And that’s the nostrism. Right. That’s the split. Yeah, that’s the split. That’s why it’s the knowledge. It’s not the capitation of your soul. Yeah, like that. Like, that’s a perfect example of the split that’s happened in our culture in the last, I disagree. I go way back to, I’m with Jonathan Pesce. We’ve talked about it way back to the end of the medieval. It definitely was starting with Dante’s time, maybe. Yeah, Thomas Aquinas, Dante’s time. And it’s just slowly, we are slowly detaching like that so that we’re all just heads, right? Yeah. That’s what the neural link is. It’s all the escape, escape the flesh, escape the body. We can crisp ourselves, fairy wings, and fly around in the forest. Yeah, all the multi massively multiplayer online, they’re all the same. Yeah, it’s all the same. It’s all the same. You made a really strong statement that when you were at the beginning, when you were talking about framing and you mentioned the word evil, and I thought that was astounding, right? Because people don’t use that word very much. And I wonder why that was, that you were being quite clear about that. That’s what we’re talking about in fact. Well, because nobody’s clear about this, right? They keep saying, look, listen to Sam Harris, right? What did he used to say? I don’t know what he says anymore because he’s pretty much blown up because he fell into evil, which I said was inevitable years and decades now. I knew this was gonna happen to Sam. I’ve been telling everybody for decades this is gonna happen, right? Because he’s not capable of being a moral agent. Why doesn’t he keep on being a moral agent? He doesn’t have an ethical system. He just says he does. He doesn’t actually have one. Says he does. And he always said he does. So what he says is, he says, we can know the worst possible thing. It’s like, well, A, that’s an absurd statement that is obviously false. Like you can, I’ll play that game with you if you want. I will win. You will die of exhaustion long before you run out of ways that I can make whatever you think is the worst possible thing worse. That’s easy. It’s an easy game for me to win. Don’t play it. It’s a terrible game. But like realize that the thing he states axiomatically as true is not true. It is provably, observably false. And then he says, all we have to do is move away from that and we’re gonna be at the good because he lives in a binary world in his head because he’s about three years old, roughly speaking intellectually, he’s not that bright. I don’t care what your IQ is. If you can’t think of a better system then move away from the worst possible bad. He’s not defining evil. Yeah. We don’t define evil. I like the archery term. So I imagine it like this. We’re all beside each other shooting at targets, right? And some of us miss the mark. That’s a sin. But then you have one of these motherfuckers, he turns his bow and arrow and starts shooting them at us. That dude is evil. He’s wicked. And that’s how I describe it. Well, and that’s the problem. Wow. Is that we don’t explain to people that there is evil in the world and Peterson talks about that. And when you don’t explain to people, you don’t know what evil is because evil is so deep that you can’t define it. When you don’t do that, you do the Sam Harris trick. Oh no, we can understand the worst possible thing. It’s like, no, you can’t understand the worst possible thing. No, you can’t. No imagination, no collective intelligence. You can kill it though. But that’s, but you need, what I’m doing is I’m calling attention to the fact that A, there is evil and B, you can’t possibly understand it. And C, you can shoot it. And you can shoot evil. But in that way, I’m calling attention to it. And because you’re calling attention to it, people start thinking, wait, do I actually know anything about evil? Is evil really just Hitler and that’s it? No, it’s not. Right. And that’s why I do that. It’s called calling out evil and doing it poorly. This is Chris Peckhouse’s lovely project. If you haven’t seen Chris Peckhouse’s channel, go to his channel. He’s got some of this calling out evil and doing it poorly. Why? It matters so much that it doesn’t make a difference if you do it wrong, but you have to try. You have to try. Right. It doesn’t matter if you can’t embody Jesus, you have to be Christ-like. Like it doesn’t matter that you can’t be perfect, but you have to do it. Like it’s the same. It’s the other side of the register. You have to call out evil and do it poorly because you have to call out evil. It’s vitally important that we do that. Yeah. But that archery image, Bumi Shrumy, that was brilliant. Absolutely a brilliant picture for me of what evil, just the preciseness of it, right? The preciseness of the aim, like deliberate, right? It’s deliberate. Yes. It’s maliciousness. Yeah, Peter’s been talking about that. Yeah, and what would happen if somebody turned their arrows on us while we’re all trying to get better and help each other? It’s like that thing that happened with David last week. He was shooting arrows at us when we’re all like, dude, the target’s down range, man. No, no, no, no. You, but you, but what is true, man? It’s like, dude, if you shoot over there, then maybe we can help each other aim better and spot for each other. Yeah, at that point, you’re not shooting at truth, not truth, you’re shooting at person. And the only way you’re gonna solve the truth, not truth issue is with persons. So you’re killing your own distributed cognition rather than being in community. And that’s why the community had to protect itself, right? Community isn’t everybody gets to come in and do what they want, community is common aim. And if you don’t have a common aim and that aim isn’t down range of the target, then you can’t be with us because you’ll kill the group. So yeah, the analogy as always is great. We all have to agree on what direction to shoot in. Exactly. Where is the shooting range? Right, that’s the issue. Right, and that’s why even though Boomy Shroomy is from the Rebel Mountains, we allow him in our group because he still has that down range most of the time aim. And that’s good enough. I’m not saying he’s perfect, right? He’s got this cheese pizza heresy thing going on, but you know, we’ll allow it. But I also have a bazooka and I don’t shoot it at people unless they deserve it. I also said to him, I don’t have to fully agree to your terms in order to have a conversation with you, which he didn’t like. Yeah. It’s like, well, you have to, and I reminded him later on, which is what broke him, because it said you have to make compromises in order to have a conversation, in order to agree with people, in order to get to where everything is, how big is the compromise? That’s the question. And one thing I wanted to bring up was this notion that we were talking about earlier of limitation. I think there’s another side of evil, which is imposed limitation where they shouldn’t be. You’re making compromises that are wrong, sitting in the wrong way in some sense as well. Like you can be missing the target deliberately, like you’re trying to get better. You’re trying to aim at something and you’re like, it’s like, there’s like the idea that you’re aiming and your aim is wrong, but if you just corrected it, you’d get on target. So you’re just sitting, but you’re so close to the truth. And then there’s the other idea that you’re completely off the map. Like your imposed limitations are evil now. Like you’re limiting yourself down, you’re diminishing yourself. And I wanted to bring that in, because I think there’s a lot of that going on now, particularly, I like to point out my own millennial generation. We’re just, we have imposed limitations on ourselves where we shouldn’t. Like we just need to get over ourselves with two swords in some sense. Yeah, imagine if we’re all on a playground and we’re all playing with, we got sticks and we’re acting like they’re swords. And then this other guy comes in and said, these aren’t swords, these are guns. Why are you playing them with swords? Like we can’t play with that guy. Maybe we can say, well, maybe you can be a gun sword. No, they’re either guns or they’re swords. Like, dude, we’re just playing here. We’re just trying to like, yeah, that’s the rat story. It’s the rat story. If the rats don’t, you know, if the big rat doesn’t play the 40% of the time with the little rats in an appropriate way, then that’s the little rat’s gonna scuttle off. But I do think one point that I don’t know, to me though, he was, David was stuck in propositional tyranny. He was stuck in his head totally. He literally, I think that’s why it seems so cruel because he was so, he was so like your character there. He was totally up here. And when you’re up there, it’s actually as a painful, if you’ve ever been up there, you’ve only had a head. It’s not a fun place to be actually. You’re disembodied, right? Like he was totally disembodied. That was the bad part about it. But it was also an emotional only response, right? He couldn’t take it back to his argument. Right, because all you have is emotions. Well, you’ve only got head emotions. You don’t even have your gut emotions. You don’t have your body emotions, right? You can’t kind of, you know, dance. But I would say that what gives you limitation and an understanding for constraint is your body. Like that’s what gives you the understanding of constraint as such. And without an understanding of constraint as such, without embodiment, you can’t be an ethical actor in the world. Like I think that’s actually the problem. You can’t understand good and evil because there’s no good and evil in your head because everything’s perfect in your head. And that’s part of the problem. Yeah, it’s a Gnostic nightmare, man. I don’t know, have you guys ever been in a Gnostic nightmare? It’s not a fun place to be. I read all these- I just think everybody else in one. Well, I would. I’ve watched Fantasia. I’ve seen the Gnostic nightmare. Ha ha ha, yes, can confirm. Yeah, I read the French existentialist when I was in university studying French and it just ruined my brain and my being. It created a real crisis, right? It wasn’t going anywhere. That postmodern stuff is extremely dangerous. You can understand why these people turn out to be so weird. They do become mentally unhealthy for sure. Just from the- Ha ha ha. Like I was- If you’re not in your body, you’re in trouble, man. We were talking about the Greek paradoxes at some point as a tool to demonstrate the limits of human consciousness. It’s kind of like we’re on a plateau and the paradoxes demonstrate where the cliff is. And I think a lot of this kind of Gnosticism or whatever is they’re trying to build a scaffold out into that and convince everybody to build a city out there. And a lot of people have. Yes. It’s not a good idea. It’s not- We’re not quite sure what this plateau is we’re on of consciousness, but we know it’s solid. It’s pure insight, but it’s also, it’s purely parasitic upon the breadth of what’s been built. Please help us, our scaffold is falling. Give us more material. No, dude. You went out there on your own. Good luck. If you find something, that’s cool. I bring it back, I guess. But more importantly, you’ve got to look at the world today. So I’m on Grim Grizz’s stream and I’m on his YouTube channel looking for this stream where he apologizes. And I noticed it says zero comments. It says zero comments. There’s comments under the video. And I’m like, does anybody understand at Google that YouTube doesn’t work? It’s actually fundamentally broken right now. And it’s been that way for a while. In the meantime, I’m on my channel. I get a comment from somebody. I forget how I saw it. Oh no, it came up in the notifications. I go to click on it. I can’t get to the comment. So I go to the dashboard to try to get to the comment. I can’t get to the comment. It’s invisible. But it came up. The software is not working, guys. It’s not functioning correctly. It’s been broken for a while. This thing, forget about it. For like a month, I had a reasonable number of updates. Two days, 14 updates. 14. I’m like, what are you guys doing? You can’t do that. I changed it. It’s funny. The number, these people who alleged to know math, don’t understand. If you increase the number of times you release software, you increase the number of bugs. It’s inevitable. You’re not getting around that problem. It’s just a math issue at that point. And they insist on releasing more stuff. Way more stuff over and over again. So what’s going on? Well, that’s a good question. Well, I think that Josh’s question, what’s your definition of Gnosticism? Look, Gnosticism is a simple thing. And I agree with how James Lindsay sort of divides this up. Gnosticism is the belief that the God that we’ll say the Christians talk about is an evil God who is constraining you. And that constraint, roughly speaking, is materialism or physicalism. And that if you had the forbidden knowledge in your head, you could break free of the bad God and get to the good God who loves you or something. That’s an available option to you. So if you can live strictly in your head without the constraints of your body, you’d be fine. Now, the way that plays out is that, and here’s how I think about it. People in the world, no matter how low their IQ is, roughly speaking, can come to the understanding that Karl Marx or Hegel or anybody had all by themselves. It’s not that hard. All they need to do is to be comfortable enough to be able to direct their cognition to we’ll say deep, deep questions like this. Okay? And that’s the problem is that anybody can come to the Hegelian conclusions. And I do mean literally everything Hegel thought up, a three-year-old. Read it and think about a three-year-old and tell me what the difference is. Three-year-olds, I talked to Karen Wong recently. That talk’s gonna come out on the TV. She said, oh yeah, my three-year-old said, why can’t everything just cost a penny? That’s Marxism. Yes, it is. Three-year-olds are Marxists, all of them. Karl Marx wasn’t that bright. He was as smart as a three-year-old. Hegel, not that bright, as smart as a three-year-old. I’m sorry, okay? I get that you want him to be smarter, but he actually wasn’t. And so you, by yourself, could come to the conclusion. You could start down the path of Gnosticism, right? Which is just this idea that you’re going to be able to understand something about the world and that’s gonna free you from constraint. In other words, knowledge is so powerful that you can get around whatever constraints you feel are constraints and do without them. And that path, the beginning of that path is the thing that leads into full-blown hermeticism or something, right, as Gnostics. You will get there on your own by yourself. Along the way, and this is where James Lindsay gets it wrong, in my opinion, along the way, you may discover Hegel. And you may go, oh, Hegel, everybody knows who Hegel is and he’s really smart, which I just told you, he’s really not smart. I’m sorry, he just isn’t, right? And you go, oh, I came to this all by myself without even reading Hegel. I must be really smart. You know what? I’m probably smarter than Hegel because I didn’t even have to read Hegel to come up with who he came up with and all these guys think he’s smart. I must be super smart. I’m on the path. I’m gonna get there. That’s what happens. I see it all the time. That’s what happens to people. They think, and this is why, you know, I have this argument all the time with Sam Glenn over in the UK. I used to talk to him quite a bit on bridges of meaning. He would bring up some philosopher and he’s a philosophy major, so fair enough. And I would go, yeah, he’s an idiot. Throw all that stuff up. He goes, you can’t do that. You can’t just throw out, you know, whoever. You can’t throw out Immanuel Kant. I’m like, no, actually you can. Your life will be better. There was a time before Immanuel Kant, everybody was fine. Like nothing bad happened, I promise you. They had a fine life. Immanuel Kant, you can treat any positive things to your standard of living at all. Don’t worry about it. Doing without him and his foolery and his garbage and his nonsense and his ridiculousness is not going to harm you in the least. You can always argue, oh, Mark, he had a good point. Three-year-olds have good points too. But we also don’t take our philosophical direction from them unless we name them Karl Marx and say they were older than three. Different thoughts. You know, I think Mike Judge makes a pretty powerful commentary on that with Cornholeo. Yes, yes he does. Well, and that’s part of the problem is that we don’t really realize some of these people were very articulate like Sam Harris, who’s an idiot. Sam Harris is an idiot, an articulate idiot. That’s the archetype. They sound smart and so you say, oh, I don’t understand what he’s saying but a lot of people are listening. So it must be me and he must be smart. But actually he’s not. He’s a midwit. He’s a midwit. Oh, I don’t even think he’s a midwit. I think you’re giving way too much credit. Way too much. No, he’s a semi-Sami. That’s what he is. Yeah, he’s a semi-Sami. Yeah, we were talking with Adam earlier on the Discord server just before the stream started about these insults and different, Scott. Scott was another Irish insult that we really liked. So the problem is that you’re on the path to Gnosticism at that point. And you’re listening to these people going, oh, they sound really smart. I don’t quite understand them. They must be smart. And you can always make the argument that they made a good point. A broken clock is right twice a day. However, I still throw out the clock. I give up the clock being right twice a day for a better clock that’s not only right twice a day, but right the whole time. And you can do that. You can throw out Emanuel Cahn. You can throw out Hegel. You can throw out Karl Marx. Everything will be fine in your life. I guarantee you, your life will improve instantaneously. You don’t have to worry about it. What was the Hegelian name, though? The Hegelian name was to deplace Western morality, displace ethics. It’s to replace aesthetics as well. He’s all aesthetic arguments if you start to read or try to understand it. They’re all aesthetic arguments about what our priorities should be and what happened after we adopted Hegelianism to what was. Right. Right. And Kika, guys, we’re going all wrong. Like, look, Kika didn’t have the answer. He was just basically a reactionary and what I particularly like. But at least he pointed out the problems of his day, which is another problem we’re having right now, is we need to come up with good solutions rather than just keep putting out the problems. Right. Right. Maybe Chad has some good solutions. What’s that, Chad? Hey, Chad. It’s easy to find problems. And that’s the postmodern ethos. They don’t understand. It’s easy to knock things down. It’s hard to build them up. And if you’re focused on knocking them down, there’s going to be a problem. Hegel was also 18th century. I just like that. Yeah, it’s trouble. For sure. What’s going on, Chad? Beep. What’s up? My reception here is kind of shit. Sorry to hear that. It’s loud and clear. So you know, narcissism is like camping underneath a waterfall and getting mad if you drown. Yes. Like, this was a great camping spot. Why does God hate us? Right. Right. We’ve all been going to meet up. You’re not checking the framing, right? And so you’re blaming the bad God for the trade-off. This is a good place to camp. You did not understand what we made. Why wouldn’t it be a great place to camp? You know? I mean, we can pick whatever place we want to camp. This is our camping spot. Pfft. Right. Right. Well, it’d be interesting. This is good, our camping spot. Yeah. That’s how it works. You never engage with discernment of your framing in your trade-off. You just said, no, I want to do this. And if it’s not right, it’s the fault of a bad God. It’s like, no, if it’s not right, it might be your bad discernment. And you might need to fix your discernment in the world so that you understand what bad and good as such are so that you can apply that to pick a good frame. Right, a little humility, right? Humility is a very forgotten virtue nowadays. Yeah. Yeah, like, hey, guys, maybe it’s a bad idea to camp under the waterfall. Let’s camp above it next to it. No, no, no. You’re not God. You’re not God. You’re in the paratech. Shut up. That’s the parable, though. We over-read that parable of where to build. You build it by the convenient location on the beach near the water. Or you can be humble and try and build upstream, where it’s harder to build. And it humbles you to build and move with rock. But it survives and lasts longer. It’s the same thing with the middle falls. And the three little pigs and the big bad wolf. Yeah, three pigs is another good one. Right, the brick is hard. It’s a lot more effort. It takes longer, right? But then when the storm comes or when the evil wolf comes, it survives. And the others don’t. And that’s really important. Yeah, that’s so cool. And that’s the ant and the grasshopper, right? And all that. And let’s not forget what a Chad that last pig in the brick house was. He was super cool and let all the other pigs live in his house when the wolf came. Well, and he was stronger, too. Because he was stronger. Wow, the three little pigs. Forget everything else. Let’s just talk about the three little pigs. Three little pigs. I know something about his song. You can have He-Man, or you can have Star Wars. Which one do you want? You can have you, Star Wars, or you can have He-Man, Freudianism. But the problem is they’re both still science fictions. Can I drink? I like to have two cups of coffee in the morning. That’s mine. Running it hard. That’s that’s. Because I like about those things. It depends on the day of the week. We’re still inventing new ways to do psychology. It’s still in the frame. It’s a frame that can always be comparsely. They’re always like water into the ship. Because there’s always another way to reframe problems with perception. And look at the DSM. The DSM-3 is the best version, by the way. And then they did a four, and then they did a five, and it’s a constant reframing. And reframing is very postmodern. It’s like, yeah, but which frame is the best for helping keep? Because I don’t think there’s no way to help people with psychology, even though I hate psychology and I want psychologists to die immediately. That’s a different problem. There is something to psychology which can be helpful for understanding the world. Like I said, psychological projection just explains huge chunks of the universe. Right away, human behavior is explained so well just by psychological projection. Absolutely. It’s a critical concept, right? Well, and look. Yeah, and the problem is, if your solution is everybody has to be more self-reflective. That’s a bad solution. That’s a bad solution. You can’t make people do that. No. Why? I’ve been on so many of these debates on YouTube lately. It is ridiculous. What a stupid stance to be at. I don’t know. You need to start somewhere, though. You do need to start somewhere. If you don’t have a bit of self-reflection, you can’t start anywhere. Well, think about this. I agree with you. But think about this. If you think you’re talking to somebody that can’t do that, telling them they need to do that is never going to work. It’s never going to work. Never. Because number one, you’re insulting them. And then number two, if it’s true, you’re not going to get through to them. So that makes that person seem to look retarded. That’s like trying to get through to the gossip. I should start a Bible study. Excellent. I think he’s just got back from the Bible study, is what he said. Yeah, I think so. Connection to the data is mine. Where should people start? By playing and having fun. It starts as being a child. And some people miss out on it. And maybe that’s why people are still playing with dolls and going to public schools. Chess would play, though. Well, they’re not a human model. They’re not really playing with each other. They’re playing alone. OK, it’s fine. I’m trying to differentiate. They’re all individually playing games. It could just be OnlyFans. It could be video games. It could be whatever. All of them. But this is why it matters. So I posted a link to another video on navigating patterns. And I answered to a weird question. And this is the confusion. Again, I have a personal solution to a problem that worked for me. And then I go, the solution for everybody who has this problem is whatever worked for me. That can never be correct, ever. It’s a wrong formulation of the world, because it’s not at scale. Scale of me doesn’t work outside of set me. It only applies to me. Now, it might also apply to other people. But A, you can’t make them do it. And you don’t know if they have the skills. And you don’t know if it’s going to work for them even if they do have the skills and apply it. And that’s the problem. You cannot come up with these ridiculous ways of relating to the world and then apply them universally. It’s not a universal project. It doesn’t work. Yeah. Yeah. So that’s a big problem. We find ourselves in the middle of zillions of people thinking that that is not the case, right? That’s the problem with equity. That’s the world in which we find ourselves right now. It’s a problem with equity, equity in some sense. Flattening out old solutions. Yeah. Well, and that’s what universalism is. It’s an assumption that we’re all equal. We’re not even remotely equal. We’re not even remotely close to all equal. That couldn’t be the case because evolution would be wrong. And there would be no way to discern Jesse from Mark or Boomy Shroomy from Elizabeth or anybody from anybody else. If we were all equal, we wouldn’t know it. We wouldn’t know. We wouldn’t be individuals. We wouldn’t be apart from one another. The whole reason why we’re able to be apart from one another is because we are not equal. But Mark, we’re both wearing glasses. But Mark, we’re both wearing glasses. No, I’m wearing a glass. But wait a minute. You don’t think that there’s universal principles for living? Of course there’s universal principles. But that doesn’t make us equal. That just means that there are principles in the world. Or I was object to gravity. I wasn’t saying that anybody was equal. But that’s how you build a community. That’s not what I would say. That’s the community. That’s the community. The universal principles build the community. If you’re trying to solve individual difficulties, Can we build something on the fact that gravity is pulling us all down? Or would you have the problem of saying, no, it’s pushing us down. And then we’d have a war over that. Yeah, exactly. Can we even get along gravity? It takes more than principles. The idea of principles is fundamentally not. I said universal principles. There’s a ton of them. It’s not a helpful way to do anything. Yes, universal principles. We can’t hear you. Universal principles for living. Yeah, there are plenty of universal principles for living. But there’s plenty of them. So what? They conflict, some of them. That’s the problem. Like all these single solutions are insufficient. This is why submission matters. Like you have to submit to something in order to make it useful, whether it’s universal or not so irrelevant. In fact, the reality is irrelevant. Submit to what? What, Jeff? I think he was trying to say, what are we submitting? Submit to what? Submit to what is what he said. Oh, I see. Yeah, well, look, that’s what you need to discern, what you need to submit to. Should we submit to gravity? Or are airplanes heresy? Yeah, exactly. That’s one way to submit. You have to figure out what you need to submit to. And it’s not going to be the same for everybody. Because people are starting in different places. Nermal, pineapple, on pizza. I think we can all agree on that. Oh, my god. No, this is going to start World War III, sir. I’m kicking him off the stream. He’s not welcome back. It’s OK. This is my argument I will make for pineapple on pizza. Pineapple on pizza is only good if you replace the tomato-based sauce with a barbecue sauce. Put the cheese on. You don’t have pepperoni. You have chicken, black olives with pineapple. Because it’s sweet and savory. All in one. And the barbecue sauce gives it a little kick. You can keep the tomato sauce. If you’re going to have pineapple, you have to have ham. That’s the only rule. I can get on board. It’s perfectly good. See, we’ve got to compromise on bacon. What I’ve done here, though, is snuck in a proposition. We all agree that we like pizza. Yes. But some people make their crust of their pizza out of cauliflower. We’re all going to make pizzas. Great. We’ll all make pizzas. We know we need a base, and we need cheese. That’s it. We’re all going to the pizza hut. Yeah. You guys are getting on the pineapple. We can sit at the same table and order different pizzas. No. I like this. Now I’m hungry for pizza. No, no. We’re going to order the universal cheese pizza. That’s the news. We’ve got to have the cheese pizza, man. That would be socialism, though, in some sense. No, because we will provide a pile of toppings that you can select on your side. It’s the Korean method, naturally. And that’s the thing. What do you have to submit to? Well, if I want to hang out with Boomy Shroomy, I have to submit to his cheese pizza heresy. And that’s OK. I’ll submit to that because I like the guy. And if I’m going to go out with Jesse, I’ve got to submit to the fact that there’s no pineapple pizza because he’s a heretic, too. It’s like, well, I’ve got to submit to that. And I’m submitting to the commonality of pizza while submitting to these other things. It’s not a pick and choose. Look, if you submit to a religion, any religion, you’re buying into a bunch of things you don’t want. At the same time, you’re getting a bunch of things that you do want. And it’s that act of submission. It’s not what do I, individual person, submit to. It’s, oh, what trade-offs am I making for what I’m getting? I’m not sure that’s the right term, Mark. I don’t think it is submission. I think it’s embracing. It’s embracing. Acceptance. It’s acceptance. Acceptance, sure. Because just in the same way, like submitting to gravity, do I want to submit to gravity while I take a walk? Or do I want to take a plane for my walk? It’s not the same thing. So I embrace that I’m walking. And then I’m not taking a flight down by the creek side to collect my thoughts. Exactly. Well, and right. But it’s not any, you know, we get into this binary thing. People keep thinking, oh, I think in binary. That’s what I decide between two things. No, you don’t. There’s a bunch of stuff that happens way before you get down to two items. Because any decision is a decision for something and against a bunch of other things. And we don’t like to think of it that way. But that’s actually what’s happening. That’s actually what’s important is that that’s what’s going on. You’ve already excluded a bunch of things and prioritized a list. And then you’ve dropped everything off the list except the top two. And then you’re deciding between the top through and going, aha, I’m a binary thinker. I just make a choice between A and B. But that isn’t what happened. That’s only the very end of what happened. It’s the least important part in some sense. Has anybody wrote the whole Bible in binary? 100110001? Oh, I’m sure somebody has. He did. I wanted to bring up my whole cheese metaphor, though. So culture is another word for, like, grows on cheese. It’s another word for cheese. The beginning of cheese. Yes, the genesis of cheese, if you will. The culture is you have to know when to cut off. You have to know when to limit it, when it’s too moldy. Yes. And that’s the problem with culture. Instead of separating the wheat from the wheat, instead of separating the wheat from the chaff, we’re separating the mold from the cheese. And it’s cultivation, right? And that’s the problem is that you can’t just quote plant seeds. You have to cultivate the soil, plant the seeds, and then cultivate the garden. There’s lots of cultivation going on. The planting the seeds is one small part of this. And so that’s the issue is that people are not appreciating this. It takes work to build communities. It takes work to keep communities healthy. Sometimes that work sucks because you have to boot people that you’d rather work with and help. Sometimes it sucks because you have to get rid of Boomy Shroomy because he’s just a cheese heretic and you just can’t take it anymore. And you’re just like, you can’t do it. And that’s the problem is that you can’t sit there, fly across in an airplane, and just throw seeds out the window like a Paul Vanderkley does and say, oh, you know, it’s all going to be great. That’s an emergence is good attitude. That’s not the problem. I know they tried to do that with airplanes and cheese. They tried. Find something that we all disagree on, but we all agree. We all have different disagreements on, but we still carry the conversation. That would be very interesting. Poop smells bad. We all agree on that, I think. Yes. But it’s good for your garden. That’s true. It’s really good for your garden. Mark, I want to know what you mean by Vanderkley doing this. I’m going to take a chance right now. What was that? Sorry, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. No, no, it’s OK. I missed something. I didn’t catch whatever it was. Stupid joke. Don’t worry. Go on. Was it funny? OK. Mark, I want to know what you mean by Vanderkley doing spreading seeds from the airplane. What are you seeing? What do you mean? Well, that’s what he’s doing. He’s basically flying across the YouTube in space with a bunch of people he doesn’t interact with personally, because he’s got way too many subscribers to interact personally with. There’s nothing wrong with that, because Peterson’s definitely in with it. But he’s already talked about this. He thinks he’s planting seeds and that that’s sufficient. And I’m saying, no, planting seeds is one small step in a much larger process to make goodness emerge. So when you’re just planting seeds, you’re being gnostic. You’re saying emergence is good. I’m just going to throw seeds out the plane window of YouTube, and I’m going to say that whatever happens to those seeds is good. And then I could make other arguments against Pastor Paul. And he was here on the stream earlier, apparently. I don’t know how much you watch. But I won’t. But I will say there’s cultivation of the soil before you plant the seeds. Then there’s planting of the seeds. And then there’s cultivation afterwards of those seeds so that they grow into good plants. And then you have to harvest the fruits or whatever. So all of these pieces and what Vanderkla’s doing is talking about literally only one of them. And I don’t think that’s good. I think that’s dangerous gnosticism, because Protestantism leads to gnosticism. Not in all cases. Some of my Protestant friends are lovely people. But there is a problem. And that is the problem. That is the problem. The linchpins. Yeah, that’s true. People want to get rid of the linchpins too easily. And we’ve talked about this. We talked about that’s what happened on VOM. They got rid of the linchpin. That’s what happened on Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. They got rid of the linchpins. What were the linchpins? And the place blows up. Yeah, it was Joey. Joey was great. He started the whole thing. Joey was a linchpin of VOM. Joey’s gone. And I miss Joey. Joey left. Probably doesn’t care, but I love you, Joey. For very good reasons. Because people hate success. And they hate structure. They’re anti-structuralists, even though they’re Christians. And that was the end of the server. And then they’ve been arguing and blaming Jacob for ending the server. And Jacob didn’t end the server. Joey leaving ended the server. And they called Joey to leave. And that’s why when Jacob left VOM and started his project, nobody paid any attention to him. When Joey left VOM and it was clear that VOM had blown up, they started to pay attention to Jacob and yell at him. That’s a shame. I didn’t know that because I was out of it. No, that’s fine. No, it’s better not to know about it. And in Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, they took away Marc Emanuel’s organizer privileges and then announced it for some reason, which was just dumb. And in the announcement, they lied about a bunch of things. They just made up a total story about what was happening. And then because they did that, everybody piled on. They also made a thread named removing of Marc Emanuel’s organizer rights. And so now all of a sudden, the server and somebody had the specs. They said, no, no, this server posts about 12 new posts a week in all the tech channels. Now you’ve got like 100 posts in a day, and none of them are about John Vervicki’s work. None of them. And so they basically annihilated the server while at the same time saying, well, we want to talk more about John Vervicki’s work. The only person using John Vervicki’s terms in all of the attacks that were levied against him and accusations which were incorrect that were made against him was me. I was using Vervicki in terms. They weren’t. And I was like, you know. And I did that on purpose because A, I can get away with it, B, I know Vervicki’s work better than anybody on that server by far, right, except maybe Emanuel. And C, I did it to prove a point. The point was you aren’t using Vervicki’s work. I am. You’re saying I’m not. But if you who aren’t, it’s psychological projection. All the crazy people jump into this thread, and they go, oh, Marc and Manuel hurt me once because I voluntarily went into a voice chat and stayed there. OK, did we make you go into the voice chat? I don’t understand the argument. Were you forced to go into the voice chat? Were you forced to stay in the voice chat? Were you forced to listen to us? Like, you could have disengaged at any time and saved yourself the trouble. One guy actually went so far as he’s telling this wacky tale, right? He’s like, oh, I went into the listening party. So he went into our active listening party. I didn’t realize they were stopping the video and making comments on it. And my heart began to race. This is like some of the words he’s using. And I was sweating. And I was like, OK, so you came into a new situation you’d never been into before, and it caused you some anxiety because you didn’t know what was up. That’s really a powerful statement of everybody’s experience with the new thing. This is tribal to communal. It was a community. And then the tribalism of different factions caused a tribal-like behavior. Yeah, but it’s scapegoating. It’s scapegoating, right? Yeah, it was a lot of scapegoating. And then all the different tribes get together and rip apart the scapegoat. But the interesting thing is the part he leaves out of that story is that the next week when we had another listening party, he came back. And the week after that, he came back. And I’m like, why are you focusing on this? And he didn’t say anything bad. He just said, I came into the listening party, and I didn’t know what to expect. And they were stopping the video as though any of these things are bad or have anything to do with anything. And then they were arguing and fighting with the people in the video. Well, yeah, that’s kind of the purpose of our listening parties. Maybe it’s not everybody’s listening party, but he’s making it out to be bad without claiming that it’s bad. So it’s a passive aggressive attack, a passive aggressive accusation. And then he’s leaving out the part that he came back twice and stayed for the whole listening party both times. Why is it it wasn’t that bad if you came back, dude? If you’re implying it was bad and you came back, that’s on you. That’s not on me. It’s crazy. Wow, like group protection. Other people can’t see. Oh, they can’t discern. The frame that he’s providing you is obviously self-contradictory and observably wrong. It’s wrong what he’s saying is wrong. It’s wrong morally. It’s wrong ethically. It’s wrong in actual materiality. Being passive aggressive is wrong behavior. The principles he’s pointing to are wrong relative to the words he’s using. Everything about what happened was wrong. And they can’t tell the difference. So what happens is all the mentally ill people for our behavior jump in and come up with equally absurd stories where they’re like, you called somebody retarded once. And I’m like, yeah, probably. So what, are they retarded? Because that actually matters because I care about truth and I don’t care about your emotions at all. Sorry, I just don’t have access to your emotions. I don’t care about your emotions. If I had access to your emotions, I probably wouldn’t change a damn thing I do. I’d say, yeah, maybe you’re not right to talk to me. Go away. Iconically. And they can’t deal with that because they want me to be like, oh, you poor, I don’t feel sorry for you. You’re in a voluntary environment, voluntarily engaging, okay? That means you have to take some responsibility for that interaction no matter which way it goes. And you’re not putting it all on me. That’s not gonna happen because that’s not true. And I care about the truth. How long were you there, you and Manuel? Almost three years we were doing daily meditations and they took all that away. Now all they did, they didn’t kick us off the server. This is the funny part. They took away our organizers’ rights and said, you guys aren’t in line with Reveki’s work. I’m like, the only thing we do with our organizer privileges is organize practices based on John’s work. That’s the whole thing that- They stuck in the stockades and everybody threw rotten cabbage at you. That’s right. But that’s the only thing we had the organizer rights for and that was the only thing we could use them for. And they took that away and then said, because you’re not doing this. And they basically implied that we were leaving the server. And I was like, I’m not leaving the server. What are you, high? You want me to leave someplace? You have a pair of balls and you ban me. That’s fine. I won’t even be mad. I don’t care if you’re a server, you can do what you want. But like, don’t lie. Don’t make up a story. Don’t imply that somehow this is voluntary and I’m leaving. That’s a lie. I’m not putting up with that bullshit. You’re slandering and lying against me. This is insane. Yeah, lies. You gotta nail those lies, man. As soon as you see them, right? You just nail them. Well, I do, Ross. I do. I know those lies right away. I go right after them immediately. Well, yeah. Otherwise you’re not gonna survive, man. You’re gonna get nailed. Right. You’re gonna get nailed by any wackadoodle that comes along. You’re either the hammer or the nail. There are many wackadoodles to destroy everything. And that’s why you need to, look, they don’t know they’re wackadoodle. They need the feedback. By being nice to them, you are denying them important feedback for their personal growth. That is not right. You should not be doing that. Bad you. Do not enable people. Enabling is bad. It’s bad for them. It’s bad for you. And it’s bad for everybody else. It’s just bad. There’s no frame where enablement is good. People aren’t used to this though. People have no idea. People are not used to this. They’re shocked when somebody actually calls out a lie. That’s right. No, but seriously, I think people go into some kind of catastrophic shock somehow when they’re- They’re terrified because the fight’s happening. Yeah. They think they’re gonna see guts and blood or something. Like, yeah. Because they like Terminator 2 and they should like Terminator 1. Then we should like a movie that has, it’s concentrated, it’s concrete, it’s its own story. You don’t need Terminator X onwards. You just need the one idea. Wait, you’re saying we didn’t need the chick Terminator? Is that what you’re saying? The blonde chick Terminator? You’re saying we didn’t need that? We did not need the blonde chick Terminator. Sorry, man. Oh, shit. We need it. Maybe he’s a little bit- All right. I’m gonna have to think on that. Maybe it’s Mark’s good. Wow. That’s a great story, Mark. Thanks. The reference is met up. How the group operates matters. And when it becomes a rival, you need to cool it out and say, hey guys, it’s no longer a community. We’re going into tribes. Technically, Mark, I think that’s what actually happens to you, but they actually, they did it in the complete reverse of the principles of the Viveki. They actually inverted Viveki’s principles of community. Right. That was the funny part, right? Is that they weren’t, they were the ones that weren’t following any of Viveki’s work at all. And they were diluting it all with their weird, Gnostic, cesspool scapegoating garbage. And I was like, do you guys not understand what you’re doing? Right. And in the meantime, they’re setting a new standard for any accusation goes against anybody without any evidence. What’s the long-term? It’s the French Revolution. It’s the French Revolution in Viveki land. It’s guillotines for everybody. It is. It is. This ain’t going anywhere. Ropes Pierre comes next, man. You know? Chad said to say the Cerberus are a very, it’s a very Gnostic statement. Yeah. Well, but yeah, a lot of people think they understand Gnosticism, but actually the Gnosticism already happened on the server because they rejected authority. And when you reject authority, you end up in Gnosticism land because you can’t go here anymore. Right? And there’s no reason for anybody to be on it. Look, look, I’ll just have to put it out there. Like BOM, FDMC, Mark of Wisdom. Mark of Wisdom has more people than any of those other servers, barring special events. Like I regularly have six people hanging out on my server now, even when I’m not there, which is lovely. Like that’s what I want. I don’t want to be there all the time. Right? I got things, I got 12 acres of land to manage. So, you know, that’s a beautiful thing because it’s, the community isn’t me. That’s good. Right? And the community isn’t just Manuel. Manuel and Mark haven’t been there and there’s been like three or four people hanging out together. That’s wonderful. That’s exactly what I want. And the text channels are vibrant. Sometimes they get a little out of control, but you know what? I mean, I’m too lazy to keep, to do too much. I’ve done a couple of things and said like, stop ruining my eruditeal memes channel with text, you know, and things like that. But by and large, we have a nice, tight, it’s small, right? But it’s vibrant community where we’re actually working on real projects like Sally Jo’s Virtue Cards and things like that. And she does most of my artwork. The only thing she can do is my animation on my actual channel. But all the artwork you see here is all Sally Jo’s work because she’s really good at it, right? What do you mean all your artwork? What are you talking about? Like what artwork is it? The little thing in the corner, the NP. In the corner, in the corner. Oh, oh. So let me see. I love it. Good job, Sally. Yeah. See the background, the map? She did that. Oh. Yeah, she did the background map. The thumbnail for this stream, she did that. She told me about it today. She’s like, why aren’t you using this? And I’m like, I didn’t see it. You put it in Canva where? And Canva changed where they put everything. So once I found it, I was like, this is great. I’m gonna use this for a thumbnail for my streams. And then I’m just gonna, you know, I put in new text or I’m going to. I’m gonna put in new text every time. So you’ll know the rough theme, right? Today’s theme was frames, right? And this idea of discernment that we sort of talked about last week, right? Some tying together discernment frames and the anti postmodern ethos of destroying this idea, right? And so that artwork, and we have other projects. We’ve got a ton of other projects. We’ve got the dragons, right? Well, we’ve got her book, which if you haven’t seen Sally Jo’s channel. Oh, I’d love, how can I see? How can I look at that book? I’d love to be able to look. I didn’t get one when you were at Thunder Bay Because I was busy talking to all sorts of people and laughing. She was talking about people. She was participating with Sally Jo’s book. I will find the link to. Can you just tell me the link? Like where, what? It’s Sally Jo’s channel. She’s got a short. So it’s Sally Jo M. Cooper. Okay, say it. Sally Jo M. Cooper? Yeah, yeah. Just look up Sally Jo M. You’ll probably find her. Oh, cause I’m looking for an illustrator. I wrote a tale when I came back from the breed. I don’t know if she can help you with that, but you can certainly reach out to her. So. She might know somebody. Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Mark. I was wondering why the dragon. Is it a reference to Peterson’s dragons growth? No, I assume you’re talking about that dragon. That dragon I got like a million years ago when I was very, very young. It came at Lac Hermes, which is the French festival, that they used to have every year, the benefit. The Quebec choir would come all the way from Montreal and Quebec city down to Bidiffert. And they would sing and dance and make merry. So it was literally a carnival. And we do have, by the way, Sally Jo has a Redbubble store. We do have psychic space dragons for sale. So you should buy psychic space dragons from Sally Jo. I used them in one of my videos, incidentally. Maybe I’ll link to that video. But yeah, Sally Jo does all kinds of artwork, including psychic space dragons. And oh yeah, here’s the psychic space dragon video on capitalism. If you haven’t seen my video on capitalism, it’s excellent. Yeah, no one’s seen it. 94 views. What the hell, guys? I’ll leave a comment. I’ll leave a comment. I’ll leave a comment. I’ll try and read it apart. Psychic space dragons. And then. God, we need to create a new vehicle for psychic space dragons. There we go. Okay, so yeah, it’s actually. Ultron? What do I think about Ultron, Benjamin Franklin, inferior to the Gundam? Can you wait? All right, I brought it up. Jesse, please answer the question. What do you think about Ultron? Man, you people. Okay, well, you’ve got Transformers, you’ve got Evangelion, you’ve got Gundam, you’ve got all the Gundamverse, you’ve got Ultron. What else have you got in that frame? All the mechas. Ultron and the Power Rangers. Power Rangers. Is a metaphor for what Carl Jung was trying to say. You got the blue Power Ranger, you got the yellow Power Ranger, you got the red Power Ranger. They gotta all come together to make this one big thing to fight evil. Yeah, it’s like a team. Teamwork makes the dream work. Benjamin Franklin, I need you to rephrase the question. What part of the think do you want me to answer? I think the dream. That’s how I’d say it. Because I can’t really comment on just a blanket statement. What do I think about X? I can just be like, I prefer other X. I need you to think. What do you think about giant robots, Jesse? Are they real? What do I think? They’re inevitable. Mechwarrior already solved this back in the 90s. Mechwarrior, man. Oh, I miss Mechwarrior. That’s some good shit. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Did you ever play Heavy Gear? Heavy Gear was a good game. Heavy Gear was big, yeah. It wasn’t big as Mechwarrior, though. Mechwarrior was just, yeah, I miss Mechwarrior. Yeah. How do we, okay, so maybe I should reinterpret the question. A story contains as much truth as the creators allow it. So I don’t think Ultron has as much truth as it should, as other mechas contain. The fact that Gundam has gone on for X number of years means it is tapping into a certain line of truth. The fact that Power Rangers kept disintegrating from what its original themes were is also telling. Power Rangers kept… Right, that’s the limit of the frame. It tried to become more mature when it was already immature from the beginning. So if it stays immature, it keeps its own locus of attention. Okay, wait. Ultron from Avenger, what is, what? Ultron is the creature that gets built from the AI and it builds itself and does all that nonsense. What do you mean the James Spader character robot? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. James Spader did the voice. What’s under the skin with Scarlet your Handsome? There you go. That’s, if you wanna know the cyborg that controls, go watch under the skin with Scarlet your Handsome. That’ll freak you out. Oh no, we’re gonna get stuck in this, in this. Hold on, whoops, I get the wrong one. How does Ultron’s character relate to his father, Tony Stark? Tony Stark is not really his father. He is more than one father. This is ridiculousness. This is where people get stuck in loops. Yeah, it’s not the same as the Terminator, John Connor. Also, it’s not a project of one person. And it doesn’t have a mother, which is why it corrupts because it has no mothering. What’s the least raised? Age of Ultron is the least appreciated or least talked about Marvel because it’s one of the ones that they’ve spent the most amount of money on is the ones that talk about the least. We should tell you something about the story. Exactly, it’s a crappy story. We’re not talking about the failure of X-films, but talking about the success of other films, but the ones in the middle, as you’re gonna talk. Well, like Star Wars, why was Star Wars so big? You were talking about it earlier, you know, how the only, and all these union things. Let’s get some more. How does Ultron’s character relate to his father, Tony Stark? Like, this is all crazy talk, right? Is the characteristics of Ultron somehow of a reflection from Tony Stark? Of course, it’s always that way, but that’s not relevant to anything. The relevant part about Ultron is that you can’t use males to build and have a good result. It will always corrupt because things need a mother and they need mothering or female cultivation, is one way to look at it, after they’re born, period. Otherwise they become evil. That’s the message from Ultron. It’s not that hard. Something very interesting, while we’re on the top of the Marvel universe, was I reluctantly, but eventually, watched Loki. I didn’t really know what the fuck it was about, but it was very interesting. It had these interdimensional police in this bureaucracy sort of thing, and they had these fake gods that were machines, and then they found out they’re machines, and then they found out that God, or whatever, is a guy from the future that figured out time travel or interdimensional gateways, and then he started fighting with himself and ended the universe with these big giant battleships made out of stars or whatever the hell it is. Wait a minute, so what you’re saying is, the bad God who was one, like Neo-Platonic One, shattered everything into a multiplicity or a many. Really, that’s so surprising. And he had to kill all of himself until he was one. Right, because he wanted to be one universe. So it’s fully Neo-Platonic, and all Neoplatonism leads to Gnosticism, and that’s the problem. I have some background problems. Jesse, have you seen the trouble of being born if you like under the skin, you might like it. I will see it. I was gonna say, I do follow a channel for a guy called Damian Waltheide. I left a pre-critical comment on his multiverse video. He was praising the multiverse, and I said, no, no, no, no, multiverse is the symptom of the problem. I know Damian. I’ve talked to him on Clubhouse many times. He’s an interesting guy, but you’re right. I’ve seen him on Twitter and stuff, but I’m like, Damian, what are you talking about? You’re a lunatic. Multiverse is the symptom of the problem. Multiverse is not the solution to the problem. Do you know Damian? Have you talked to him before? I’ve talked to Damian. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I have too, especially on Clubhouse. So that’s where I kind of met him. He’s an interesting character. Yeah, we used to do a sci-fi room every Sunday night. Oh, really? And yeah, that was run by Hollis Robin, and Hollis is great too. And Damian used to come on quite a bit. And then I talked to him in some other rooms too. I think Marvel films, they’re not good myths. He tends to help me. He’s the one who I’m trying to give it to Elizabeth in the conversation, is that people tend to think that these Marvel films are gonna gather people together and become the new myths of the day, like the greatness. And all the myths are just, all the stories are just garbage. They don’t hold any water. They don’t carry for any distance. And people like to think that the end game of what are and its truths are like a child’s play. But they’re new. They’re new and novel and emergence is good, Jessie. You just don’t understand that new and novel and emergence is good explains the world. Just the hellish world that we live in. Yeah, the hellish world. New, novel and emergence. Hey. Man, I’m having a good time. What world are you guys talking about? There’s birds outside here, the sun is shining. I’m having a good time next to the trees. Guys, maybe you need to move to the rebel mountains. I don’t know, it’s a bad place. It’s a bad place you’re in right now. Well, there aren’t bad places, that’s for sure. I’m only three and a half hours or so from the rebel mountains. But, uh. Excellent. Stories are as good as they challenge you. Maybe we should argue that. I don’t think the Marvel films actually put out any sort of challenge. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Hold on, we have to talk about fiction. Here’s my definition of fiction. You’re going to love this. This is great. Fiction is a story that the author didn’t directly observe. That’s all it is. That’s all it is. The reason why this is really important is because fictions that are untrue are bad stories. Fictions that are true are good stories. So fiction can’t have anything to do with truth and falsity or truth and anything else. And by true, I mean the arrow type true, right? The actual definition. This is true. We beat over this. We beat over this. I just, yeah, well, I had to specify in case Jesse was stuck in last week’s frame where he accepted a bad frame because he has poor discernment just for the purpose of trying to get along with a lunatic. So I wanted to make sure that that wasn’t still the case. It was a still eye trick and it worked. So yes, well, this is true. I didn’t disagree with your move. I’m just making sure you made that out of that move and used you to simplify the point of the whole theme, right? So when you think of fiction in that way, it’s just something you didn’t observe or the author didn’t observe, right? Now it can be a true story, which makes it a good work of fiction, right? Which means it’s something that you can relate to. Whereas bad fiction is just bad because you can’t relate to it. And if it were nonfiction, it could be equally bad because if you can’t relate to nonfiction, no matter how concurrent we’ll say it is with history. So you could have two tellings of history and one could be very dry and sort of boring and then it’s not useful to you because you can’t relate to it. And the other can be vibrant and they can both be equally concordant with what happened in the past. In other words, the physical concordance is there, right? Whereas with fiction, it can be a completely made up set of scenarios with made up characters that never existed and never could exist like the Greek myths. But it’s true because you can find a way to connect to it. I wondered, well, here we go. Is propaganda the mix of fact and fiction? When you mix fact and fiction, you have a definition of propaganda. Because it means that no, what I’m trying to sneak in is to say that any version of mixing facts and fiction is a propaganda of a type. It might not be propaganda capital P, but it is still a gradual propaganda. My problem with propaganda is I think it’s completely hindsight only. I know. I’ve been wrestling with this with my head since these conversations. Yeah, fair enough. Well, I suspect it’s unresolvable. All right. Ultron is my favorite character from Marvel, but I think his character is not explored so well in the movie. He is explored more depth in more depth in the series. What if? Look, it’s a horrible archetype. It doesn’t work. It’s an archetype of evil. The Gnostic god of AI is not going to make the world a better place, but it sure as hell is going to make the world a worse place. I thought the Gnostic god was Doctor Strange. How Gnostic is Doctor Strange compared to Ultron? Well, it’s all Gnostic, but that’s not the point. The point is that when you have something like AI in particular, the reason why it works the way it does is because of psychological projection. So if you have a predisposition to believe that it’s sentient, you’re going to say it’s sentient because that’s what you’re going to see when you talk to it. And Vervicki makes this excellent point. If you want to know if something is sentient, have it talk to a version of itself. When AIs talk to themselves or other AIs, they degrade into nonsense, almost instant, within 10 minutes, all of them. It doesn’t even take long. So obviously they’re not sentient because they’re relying, they’re parasitic upon us to appear how they’re appearing to us. And that’s what people don’t understand. Here we go. …the kind of narcissism that we’re living with. Wasn’t this one a few years ago? Are humans a murder? Is Mary really a major figure in Jesus’s story, especially compared to his father? Yes, she’s the most important part of the story. I don’t even know why that’s happening. We talk about her a lot. Yeah, it’s a very big deal. Well, look, go to an orthodox, you know, what do they call it, liturgy there, and you’ll just hear them say theotokos like every third word. It’s freaking insane. And theotokos is basically referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Well, you know, for the Catholics, it’s all about Mary, like the divine feminists everywhere. And the Protestants don’t have the divine feminine and they’re all stonastic. Connection? You decide. But I’m seeing a connection. Yeah, no kidding. It’s so obvious. So that’s that. If we were going to be… They get really, really… The Gnostic Mary is the Big Bang Theory. It just doesn’t have a female face on it. I like that idea. Yeah, that could be right. What do you mean? What do you mean? Tell me what you’re talking about. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Okay, so the Virgin Birth and the Big Bang Theory are the same thing. I could say a lot more, but I’m not a cheese pizza guy. I’m serving cheese pizzas here. I’m just… So are you saying it’s an event that defines space and time at the same time? Yeah. Well, but it’s also pure. And it starts from nothing. Right? And there’s a promise implied in it, not promises that the universe will unfold as it has unfolded. Right? So it has many of the elements of that part of that story. You also got the universal heartbeat people. They’re like, it’ll contract and expand like a heartbeat. You know, there’s people that say that. That’s how they explain it. Yeah. Well, they try to make it universal and infinite. And when you do that, you have a system that feeds on nothing. It’s just right because you’re getting around creation. You’re trying to avoid… There was an Outer Limits episode about this where they went into hyperspace and they ended up in God’s bloodstream dodging blood cells. I was like, that’s wild. Like, whoa, what the fuck? It was a good episode. And that’s the problem with these things is that when you’re trying to dodge the fundamental question of creation, you’re running a little problem. And that problem is that you can’t have a starting point. And when you don’t have a starting point, it’s very hard to orient yourself. Orientation requires a starting point, right? And a starting point requires good grounding, whatever that grounding is. It’s not even relevant for orientation as such. It also requires an ending point. And then it requires you as an agent. And you need all of those components. And then what do you need to do, Elizabeth? You need to apply discernment to make a judgment to take an action. It’s your favorite thing, right? And to judge your judgment as such, you need to make sure that you have the ability to discern your frame, not just the action in the moment, but the frame. Oh, my action keeps not working. I keep banging my head against the wall and saying, ow, because I have a headache. Well, that means you have a bad frame, my friend. Another way to know you have a bad frame is you’re stuck in a paradox. There are no paradoxes in the universe. If you are stuck in a paradox, if you see a paradox, that is the limit of the frame that you are in. And you can change frames and get around that problem. That is what that means. I believe very firmly that this is how the ancient Greeks used paradox, right? Zeno’s paradox is the statement that materialism doesn’t work to explain the world. If you try to use physicalism and measurement and quantity, you can’t touch a wall because you could always have the distance. That is true. You can never meet the wall in Zeno’s paradox. The answer to that is the world is not only physical. Once the world is not physical, that means you can have a goal of reaching the wall that supersedes the quantity required to do it because the quality is larger, which means the quantity, the material is not primary because it’s not bigger than the quality. That means that all potential comes from quality and that potential is bigger than actual, of course. I think the actual manifest as a result of the potential. And once you understand that, you’re no longer a materialist. Can you understand that from my explanation and adopt it? Probably not. But that is the fundamental difference right there. And once you realize that, you get out of your materialism. I think a wonderful story that illustrates what you’re talking about is HP Lovecraft’s From Beyond, the concept of the resonator. So they open up like a portal to another dimension. And it’s not necessarily good or bad. It’s just so different and alien and weird that we can’t interact with it in a way without it destroying our flesh, without it just making us into something that we’re not like. And it seems like we’re monsters at that point. You know, as Jeffrey Combs famously said, he’s like he bit his head off like a gingerbread man. You don’t want to see that kind of shit because that’s what’s there when you keep going out trying to see what’s from beyond, man. Right. Yeah. No, that’s a good that’s a good reference. I’m actually surprised I didn’t see that. Yeah. So Benjamin Franklin, let’s see. I think it has something to do with what Mark was saying earlier about the need for a leader in a server. The leader subjects marry. No, no, I don’t think so. I don’t know why this is hard. No, this is really easy. There’s a divine feminine and divine masculine. OK. And there’s overlap. That simple. There’s one thing at the top are all wrong. There’s not one thing and there’s nothing at the top. OK, it’s just wrong. This is all Gnosticism and neoplatonic garbage. It’s all occultism. There’s not one thing. The postmodern top down power from above narrative is wrong. It’s just wrong. It’s just flat out wrong. If you want more wrongness. And we just noticed this the other day. This is a breakthrough from this week. There was the first sort of women’s liberation convention in Seneca Falls, New York in the United States. OK. And in this, what happened was there was this thing called the Declaration of Sentiments. Now this is 1848. Read the Declaration of Sentiments and then go read the Communist Manifesto. And you tell me that the same spirit wasn’t driving Karl Marx and the crazy women’s livers that started this ridiculous movement that is based on flat out ridiculous lies. Things that were never true in history once. You know, like he, he, you know, forcibly took her salary and property. That never happened in history. There was never a time in history where women en masse were not allowed to own things. That just never happened. What do you think a dowry is? Like really? Like come on. Like where are you getting this garbage from? Certainly in the US it never happened. What are these people in 1848 even talking about in the United States? They’re all wealthy. They’re all well. All these women are wealthy. Every single one of them. They get together in Seneca Falls and they bitch about the problems of being wealthy. That’s what they’re doing. And what are they doing? They’re creating a Gnosticism in that. And Lindsay talks about it. They did cults. A lot of cults. Yeah, yeah. The Gnostics were always wealthy. The people who started these things were always wealthy. These are your enemies. They are not your friends. Right? That’s how you avoid the Gnosticism. We found it very interesting that that spirit was roaming around in 1848 infecting all kinds of things all around the world. Yeah. I think that’s why Lovecraft wrote about it so much. I think a lot of people were very aware of the innate occultism across the board. And I do think now that I’m saying it’s funny you think more deeply when you say stuff out loud and I’m thinking of this resonator and from beyond, I think it’s the ideal Gnostic object or aspiration or tool. And I think about how Tillinghast tried so hard in the beginning to perfect the resonator, get the forks tuned just right to the frequency necessary. And then by the end of it or the middle of it actually, because he started to realize he takes a hammer and tries to smash the fucking thing and just destroy it. He’s like, oh my God, my pursuit of knowledge has created pure evil, a portal to hell. Like I had to destroy it. This is horrible. But, you know, he opened the door, he cracked the door just a little bit and it couldn’t close and so on and so forth. But it is it’s the perfect tool and the wisdom is destroy it. Right. Get rid of it. You know, there’s a there’s a this is the paradox. If we were meant to live in that realm, there would be a bridge to it naturally. And there’s not you’re trying way too hard to do something that’s not natural. Yeah. Yeah. You’re well, you know, like you can have a good wizard. I’ll argue. And I think it’s displayed in the rings. You have Saruman in the tower alone playing with a black ball, you know, playing with his black ball by himself up on top of the tower. He loses his mind. He’s reading these weird dark scrolls from Mordor and shit. And he gets fucked up. Right. And then you have Gandalf hanging out with the cool forest dude and all the hobbits. And he’s grounded like running around the earth, you know, all over the world. Yeah. All the time. He doesn’t stay stuck in the balance. Right. That’s the solipsism, the solipsism of the tower. Yeah. Right. The loneliness of the tower. Yeah. Not this one. But you young built a tower. Right. So there you go. You can’t get down off of it. He didn’t stay up in it all day. Unless you did. Well, we don’t know. I don’t know about old you. Not so sure. Not sure. You know, he went wrong, but I don’t know where. And so I won’t touch his work. It’s tricky. He’s tricky. Well, I look at my rule is if I don’t know where he went wrong, then I’m not going to engage because the dangerous actually opportunity for enchantment is too high. And so you have to use wisdom and discernment and say, look, I don’t know where this guy went wrong. So I don’t want to get enchanted by him because how much was he enchanting himself? This is the problem. Solipsism. You enchant yourself. This is so this is something Emanuel and I talk about quite a bit. We go, no, no, we interrupt people on purpose because if somebody starts out with a bad axiom and they tell a story based on that bad axiom, when they’re done telling that story, they have enchanted themselves. And if you let that happen to them, that’s partly your responsibility. So people are always up to you. Interrupted to me. They said something wrong and that was not going to lead to the good. And we stopped it immediately because that is our responsibility. Now we’re responsible if they continue anyway, but we’re at least responsible for trying to stop the enchantment. You can once you can’t yourself with a bad story, it’s very hard to get rid of it. You’re setting up a conceptual system again, right? You’re setting up your hardwiring your brain. You got to be careful how you speak, man. We don’t appreciate this idea. Sam Harris is an idiot, but because he strings words together intelligently and they’re big words, we get enchanted by that. And we believe his story, even though as I’ve demonstrated, he just says lies to just obviously incorrect things. He’s stuck in a tower playing with a black ball and loses his fucking mind. Absolutely. But his enchantment is inarticulation, good articulation. Karl Marx read his quotes just on capitalism. I have a list of them. OK, the quotes don’t make any sense. They’re obviously incorrect and they contradict one another. So he’ll make two different statements about capitalism and their contradictory. Nobody notices this. Apparently, everybody goes, well, Karl Marx had a point about capitalism. No, he didn’t. Everything he said about capitalism was actually factually observably wrong. It’s that simple. He was just wrong. So why are people listening to Emanuel Kant and Hegel and Marx and all these other idiots? They’re enchanted by the articulation. OK. OK, they don’t realize the propositions don’t make any sense. They don’t realize that if you’re swearing at somebody when they’re in the middle of making a statement and then you say, you won’t let me speak, that you’re in the wrong for doing that, that the other person, no matter how emotionally dysregulated you are, did not do anything wrong in that scenario. And you need the discernment to recognize that the emotion does not determine what happened by itself. The emotion has to match in a frame where the emotion and the words actually cohere. Otherwise, that person is not to be trusted. It can’t be trusted. Yeah, I don’t think so. I think Sam Harris couldn’t believe that everybody believed him. I think he knew he was playing. You could see it when he was talking to Peterson. He was so glib the way he was coming up with his statement. He was very glib. Super glib. I think he thought, oh my God, all these people actually believe that I have something to say. Well, I’ll just keep saying it because it’s worth it. Right. Well, this is where Peterson gets something wrong. He talks about certain evil dictators and this whole idea of audience capture. The problem is that some people play to the audience and some people do not. And sometimes you should play to the audience and sometimes you shouldn’t. So what we explain to people is, look, if you’re going to go after somebody like John Brevaki, and I’ll give you all the ammunition in the world if you want, I’m not going to do it, but I’ll give you the ammo to do it. If you can find a problem, I’ll tell you how to articulate to him in a way that he can’t worm his way out. That’s not a problem for me. Right. But you have to understand that you are not going to change John Brevaki’s mind because he’s got 25 years of invested interest in his crazy idea and he’s not giving it up ever. It’s not going to happen. Okay. It would kill him. Okay. So if you’re doing that, you need to understand that it’s for the sake of the audience and not for the sake of John Brevaki. Because sometimes that’s who you’re speaking to is the audience and not the person. Right. Yeah. That’s what makes podcasts up, you know, and everything. You’re positioning for the audience and you’re not actually talking to people so the audience can watch and learn with you. Right. Right. So taking up the project of, say, knocking down Sam Harris by himself in public might be useful in some cases, right? But you always have that question. Am I talking to the person and trying to get them to move or am I talking to their audience and trying to get them to move? And I would argue the audience is way more important. There’s a way in which if Sam Harris were right, and this is a way you can discern people that you want to listen to, people that you want to listen to are not aimed at convincing you or the audience. If they’re aimed at something beyond both of those things, you’re aimed at something higher, a virtue, a value, a set of principles. If they’re aimed at something higher, then A, they can be convinced to reframe. They will answer questions, which some people don’t do. Like if I ask you a question or I say, hey, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Can you explain it to me? And you don’t. Not only you’re in bad faith, because you are, but you’re also not able to hear me because you’re not adhering to a principle. You’re trying to do something specific in the moment to me. And so you’re ignoring my questions, which would enable me to cooperate with you. So you need to know that you can sense when people are going after virtues and values. And I’m not saying don’t talk to anybody who isn’t going after virtues and values, but I’m certainly saying. I think Sam Harris, he turns into Ham Ceres. He does it because he listens. They listen to the audience. They invert themselves or whatever you call it. He’s listening to the audience. Right. But that’s not the necessary interaction. Like everybody’s worried about audience capture. Audience capture is not inevitable. And you don’t have to worry about it if you’re aimed at virtues and values. Audience capture isn’t something you have to worry about because you’re aimed at the virtues and the values and you can avoid all this problem. It’s just that the materialists like John Breveke and Pastor Paul Van Der Kley, as much as I love him, he’s also materialist, and Jordan Peterson are so worried about the postmodern critique, which isn’t a critique. It’s an observation made by retarded people. Right. It’s obvious that the story took over and then that enabled the bad people to do bad things. That’s not what happened. What happened is people lost the ability to tell a good story, frame, from a bad story, which is a frame. How did they do that? Hitler and Stalin disabled the churches. That’s what they did. They did it differently, but they disabled the churches. Why? Because churches give you ethics. What are ethics? Ethics are the ability to tell a good frame from a bad frame. Why do frames matter? If I’m not in your frame, I can’t cooperate with you correctly. If I am in your frame, we can all build something beautiful together. And that’s why you have to keep the frame, you know, up above the person. The frame is bigger than a person. Otherwise it’s solipsistic and reciprocally narrowing. The frame is really important. You have to be in that frame in order to build together. It has to be a common enough frame for us to build something together. There’s no other way to build things together. You need to be able to tell a good frame from a bad frame. Our frame was going to be broken last week by David. So I kicked him out. It’s that simple. I preserved the community by getting rid of the bad apple because the bad apple is going to spread worms to everybody if you keep it in the barrel. It’s that simple. But his reaction showed that he knew that. That’s why he exploded like that. He already was failing it. He knew it was off or he wouldn’t have done that. He really didn’t belong. And that made him upset because he wanted desperately to belong because we all want intimacy. We all want a quality relationship with other people. But then he’s not able to be there. And then what happens is other people enable him to not learn from that experience. He should have been shunned and taught, no, you did something wrong and you need to make up for that somehow. Otherwise you will never be allowed back in the community. I want to help everybody I can, but I recognize I can’t help everybody. And I’m not going to risk the community just to save one person. That’s not going to happen. So in some sense, audience capture, inevitable audience influence and control, if evil. When you try to control. I mean, that’s not inevitable. Isn’t it? No. Well, you have to tell a story. You have to captivate an audience. You can captivate the audience, but audience capture when they captivate you. You can discover a story. You don’t always have to like, yeah, it’s like you’re discovering a story together. Right. If you’re discovering a story together, that’s an Austin, right? Because it’s rising from beneath. If you’re aimed at virtues and values, you’re doing the right thing. And sometimes you’re going to have followers and sometimes you’re not. Sometimes the mix is going to be different over time. And you better be okay with that. I doubt that you have to go do this. You know, I doubt that I don’t. I don’t. I don’t. I don’t. I don’t. I don’t. I don’t. I don’t. You shape story argument. I think you’re wrong about that. Actually, some stories can end abruptly. It should be going like this, right? And the end of the story, the end of the story is open ended. It’s all wimpy, wobbly, right? Yeah, it’s wavy. Well, I’m just putting it out there. I think that’s where a story’s going to, I think that’s where it’s going right now. It’s going like, it’s not going to be following the regular patterns because it can’t, right? But when you put the, when you don’t have the ability to discern frames, you can’t tell a good story from a bad story anymore, right? And then that’s a problem. But if you try to say, oh, stories are all you shaped, you fit them into a box. I didn’t say stories are all you shaped. I said, hey, stories are like this. Some stories are like that. Other stories aren’t like that. It’s funny because the people that say that, well, first, I don’t know if they have a difference between story narrative and archetype, which is important. I have a video on that, by the way. And then I’m also not sure if their idea of story as it sits is relevant, right? Because you could say, oh, Joe follows this pattern of a U-shaped story. Okay, well, maybe every story could be put in a U-shaped pattern. That doesn’t mean that’s what they’re following, right? Because this is framing question. Are you imposing a frame or is the frame valid for what you’re trying to understand? Because it’s the thing you’re trying to understand that’s important. That’s what gives you discernment, right? So look, I can always say that it’s very easy to understand what’s going on in the US by figuring out whether or not somebody’s a Democrat or Republican, and that’s going to tell you everything about them. That’s totally freaking ridiculous and wrong. Okay, but people do it all the time. They put everything in a political frame. But they say, I can tell everything about a person, like what kind of person they are, by how much money they have. That’s an economic frame. You can’t tell anything about a person by how much money they have. Literally nothing. In the same way, you can’t tell anything about their stance on any issue by- Everything takes time. Left or right. The key is time. And space. You can put anything into those frames. Literally anything. But it doesn’t work. And that’s where the discernment, oh, it doesn’t work to make everything political. Oh, it doesn’t work to make everything economic. Oh, it doesn’t work to say, we have an expertise crisis. I don’t have an expertise crisis. I can tell you in 10 minutes of just researching an expert whether or not they’re an actual expert that should be listened to or not. The fact that you can’t do that means you have a problem. I don’t have that problem. That’s not a problem in the world. That’s a problem with you and your inability to discern. Bad frame. It’s a bad frame. I know which experts to listen to and on what, because that’s the other issue. Where does their expertise begin and end? Because even if you’re an expert at, say, physics, you’re probably only an expert in a small slice of physics, and I need to know what that is. I have tools for discerning that. It’s not a worry to me, but you may not. That’s a problem with you, not with expertise, not with the structure, not with the culture. That’s a problem with you. We need to rebuild ethical systems. Yeah, for sure. Virtues and vices, right? We need to point at ethics again. That’s why I call out evil. Look, we’re working on a project. Sally Jo’s project right now is a virtue card. We’re working on the virtue cards, and we’re going to have games around virtue cards, and they’re going to be awesome. Yeah, and if you want to contribute to that project, it’s on the Mark of Wisdom Discord server right now. Will I get it online on the web someday if I can ever sit down and figure out what I want to do with WordPress? If anybody knows any WordPress experts who want to volunteer their time, let me know. We’ve got a server. We’d love to get it up and running and put some of this stuff out there for more people, because Discord’s a pain in the tail, and we’ve been trying to get off of it for literally two years. So we’d love to expand our projects to the wider web. That’s a great idea. Oh, she’s got it all mapped out, too. She’s already got the clothing picked out for most of the virtues, and then she’s going to go after the vices next, I think. This is why summarizing up before I go, the 9-dot frame problem. What Viveki builds a lot of these thesis on, actually, if you write. Is it actually a good problem to solve? Is it a good accent? I’ve been seeing how it comes across in this, because we’re talking about frames and reality and ethics. No, it’s not. It’s not good. It has an ethical thing to it, doesn’t it? It’s explicitly not good, because it doesn’t talk about the good. It doesn’t talk about the true, and it doesn’t talk about the beautiful. All the 9-dot problem says is there’s a novelty that allows you to solve a problem. That’s all it says. It does talk about frame breaking, but frame breaking in and of itself is not good, because I can drop acid all day long. That doesn’t mean I’m going to have a good outcome. It doesn’t mean that I’m going to find the truth, and it doesn’t mean it’s going to be beautiful, because I could have a bad trip and go in the opposite direction of all three transcendentals. Okay? That’s bad. All of that is bad. It’s bad. It’s not beautiful, and it’s not true. Now what? It’s been breaking frame. I broke the frame. I took too much acid, guys. I just had a flashback. You broke the frame. We could see more of the background that Sally Jo did for me, and then he was back. Wow. Virtue cards. I love them. I just had a flashback. It was crazy. Virtue cards are a great idea. I love it. Yeah. Wow. Are we going to be able to buy them? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. We’re going to sell everything. Sally would sell anything to anyone. She doesn’t care. I’ve got to make the argument, though, in light of my flashback, that I don’t think it’s a frame-exploder. I think it’s a frame … I use the car analogy, and I think I just built a rocket. It took me a while, and then the drugs were like rocket fuel. As I said earlier, the analogy I use is if you don’t have a good navigational computer, you’re going to crash on some planet you really don’t want to be on. Then all these phasers are going to come out and impregnate you with evil. You’re going to come out dead. You’re going to be dead behind the eyes, and whoever you were is gone because something possessed you, dude. I went out there with some phasers and photon torpedoes, and I was ready, man. I fought this stuff. I didn’t listen to Terry. I didn’t listen to Terry McKenna, man. I’m like, give in. You’re giving me the astonishment. I was like, no, I’m curious. What the fuck’s going on out here? What is all this? I wanted to take a scalpel to some of this interdimensionality. Maybe I just went crazy, but I feel like I pulled some of it off, and it’s worth mentioning. I do agree with you at large. It’s dangerous. When you’re trying to build a warp engine, it’ll blow up, dude. It’ll blow your mind. I wasn’t trying to go warp seven. I just wanted to go warp one. Warp factor one. This is just cruise around. This is enough for me to figure out what’s going on here. But just do the novelty of the frame breaking, and then the emergency is good, because we broke the frame. So it must be good, because the frame we were in before has a constraint. It’s like, no, all constraints are not equal, and no constraints is important. You don’t want to blow it up. What happened was I wanted to shift perspective. I didn’t want to abandon and blow up and say, this is all bad. I’ll do a brand new thing. You can’t control that. That’s the problem. When you break the frame, you don’t have control. That’s the problem. That’s why you want to cooperate with people. This is where Verbecky’s work falls down. He says, communitas, like once or twice, like magic words, and then moves right on. It’s like, no, no, no. You don’t understand. If you’re not in a community of meditation, then your meditation is going to make you solipsistic, and it’s going to skew you to the back. It’s going to skew you to gnostic evil. That’s what happened to Sam Harris. Sam Harris is enlightened. Sam Harris doesn’t care how many children he has to kill for him to be right. That’s pretty much where we’re at. Well, I guess I don’t … How did I end up where I’m at? Because I … You got lucky. You should thank God. I don’t know. I know I can’t really talk. No, but you’re a shaman. You’re a shaman. Don’t worry about it. That’s it. It’s obvious. I would say I would try and push near it. Yeah. Whatever you want to call it. Materialism is comforting. In some ways, materialism is very comforting. It’s very comforting to stay in a materialistic frame. If sometimes too much comfort is distance orientating, you disassociate with too much comfort, and you need something to give you a bit of chaos, you need to put a bit of fuel in the car in order for the car to go forward. If you’re too comfortable, if you’re stuck in one spot, the car’s not going to go anywhere, and you’re going to feel … Yeah, like what The Matrix was saying with the red pill. If something needs to spin, if you need to spin, if you need to go somewhere, you need some other force to kick start the momentum. Yes, in some ways you can make a very tiny argument that maybe a small amount of experience can help kick start the process of you going forward. Right. But really, let me speak plain. I did a lot of psychedelics. A lot. It wasn’t just a little bit, like one time. It was like years of a thing that I was doing here. Not every day, maybe a couple times a month in the summer. This is a seasonal thing. I don’t want to do it in the winter. I want to go do it outside and things. I sat down with some problems with myself. This was before Discord was really a thing. I was kind of doing my own thing, maybe watching a YouTube video here and there. This was also way before Peterson. This was years ago. But there was a lot of benefit in doing that and then talking to people about it. I remember I talked to my dad for a really long time after I came down off the mountain when I had a long mushroom trip. I just sat there and talked to him for hours about some of the deepest shit that I just sorted out in my head. That was my intention to go up on the mountain. The value was not in the drugs then. The value was in the drugs. Yeah. It was like it helped me reveal these things so that I could share them. See, that’s the problem. The problem is that magic is not actually in the drugs at all. The magic is in the communitas and discussing it with other people and engaging with the distributed cognition because we outsource our sanity. I think that’s the best way to get another perspective. Because you come to a conclusion in your head like true or not true doesn’t mean that it’s a valid conclusion. And the only way you can test that is with another perspective. And the best way to get another perspective is not to rely on your solipsistic self because you’ll probably narrow in on something Gnostic about Ultron or something like some people do in the comments. The best way is to talk to other people who say, no, you’re crazy. And it’s wrong because you need somebody to push back. You need somebody to or not to push back. Say, yeah, you know, that part of the thing you said is absolutely correct. But here’s how I see it. And then you don’t want to rely on one person. You actually want to rely on a bunch of people. And it would be better if those people were all steeped in the same tradition. So they had similar grounding so that that grounding was built up over time. So it’s not just distributed cognition of people, you know, in the moment who are only as smart as you. It’s people who were steeped in the distributed cognition through time and have that grounding. And that’s and that’s actually really important. But what do you think happened? Like, what do you think? It didn’t feel like it was a frame. It doesn’t matter. But it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. It does. Like, because I still wonder, you know, like, what did I do? You got the benefit. Like, what difference does it make? Because it’s interesting because, you know, I did see people go crazy and. You did go crazy. Hang on a second. You did go crazy. You did go crazy. And out of the goodness of whatever entity you want to praise that kept you from harm or from as much harm as it could possibly be laid upon you. I felt like it took a lot of effort to keep myself together. You’re crazy enough to do it. You’re crazy enough to do it. You’re crazy enough to survive it. And you’re crazy enough to share it. And you’re crazy enough to be here with us crazy people. Right. And look, and it worked. And that’s you should just be grateful for that. And you had to strain and struggle. And most people won’t or can’t. Like, a lot of people think, oh, that person did that so I can do that. No, that’s the equality and the equity and the nonsense. No, you do everything that every other person can do. Obviously, you muck it. So don’t assume that just because somebody did something or 10 people did something that that thing is available to you. But I want to move on to this question. I have a question. I got to go, guys. All right. Elizabeth. See you. I’m talking to you. Back next week. See you. What’s the difference between fishing and fishing in a fishing MMORPG? Massively multiplayer online game, basically. Right. I think earlier you said something about the server workers. But the other are also the fishbowl. Well, look, the difference is you’re not in person with that. Like, what is this? What is this nonsense craziness? There is no concordance between being together with somebody in a video game and being together with them in person. None whatsoever. The amount of signaling that happens when you’re in person with another person is so much vastly greater than the amount of signaling that happens when it’s filtered through a computer. You’re not understanding the. What is it? Orders of magnitude of bandwidth difference. OK, well, what do you think reading a book is? Like, what do you think reading a book does? Like, I’m saying reading a scene of fish. Yeah, let me let me finish this. We’ll get to that. The amount of bandwidth equivalent of somebody watching body language is so much higher than the bandwidth available on the Internet between two computers, much less the bandwidth that can be processed. You have no sense of scale at all to equate those two things. None. Like, it’s not even close. And that’s the problem. Video. I mean, video files are huge. I mean, video is going to be like several gigabytes, probably. Right. Because there’s a lot of information contained in my hand movements in what I’m wearing. Right. In Jesse’s movements in in New York’s movements. Right. In the background even right in the movement of the carrot. Right. I keep moving things around to make sure no one’s obscured by the by the thing in the corner. Right. Like, there’s all this stuff going on and all that communication is there. And there’s all the facial expressions. There’s all the silliness with my awesome monocle. Right. And the hat. Like, there’s a lot of signaling going on that you’re not really appreciating. None of that signaling happens in an online role playing game. All I can do is pick and customize something. And then there’s this limited set of movement added to it inside the computer. I don’t want to get technical. I could actually describe literally all the tech behind this. I actually could. It would take several hours. It would be boring. Most people wouldn’t like it. I’m telling you as an expert with 30 years of experience in the industry, you have no idea how limited that software is. It’s way more limited than you can possibly imagine. And the illusion that it’s not limited is an illusion. It’s not reality. When you’re in person with somebody, there’s so much more going on. You have access to so much more information and it’s all real time. The stuff online is not even close to real time. It’s quick, but it’s not real time. And so lag matters. Total information transfer matters. All this stuff matters. Boomy-shoomy. Go ahead with your question. What if you’re reading a book that’s describing a scene of fishing? How powerful is that? Well, it’s very powerful, but the thing is they’re utilizing a trick. And so let me tell you a little side story and then I’ll get back to your question. This little side story is fun and interesting and it’s illustrative. A buddy of mine years ago figured out that in fact what was happening was, and this is like 10, 15 years ago, it’s a long time ago. What in fact was happening was the people who were advertising on the internet were actually sending you their advertisements and you were paying for it. Because if you’re pushing these ads through JavaScript, and most people were, they’re transferring the JavaScript. The JavaScript runs on your computer using your electricity in your browser and then displays their information to you. And he calculated the cost of that and how much money they should be paying you for the privilege of running their ad on your machine because it’s costing you electricity. And it was a really funny calculation. And so authors do the same trick. Authors are using your imagination to communicate to you. And so what ends up happening is you read HP Lovecraft, I read HP Lovecraft. We both have very different visions of what’s happening. Part of that, ironically, is informed by the covers of the books that you got. Now, what I can tell you is there was a certain set of books, I forget paperbacks in particular, I forget when they came out. It was probably in the late 80s and early 90s or something like that. And this particular artist did those covers. I have original maps of those, which I didn’t get signed because I didn’t know at the time that I could get them signed or I would have gotten them signed. So I have those colors, those covers rather, as artwork. And it’s beautiful. But it’s all these weird blobby creatures and stuff. It’s very, right. And I also have a bunch, and I probably still have them, of covers older than that from the previous printing where it’s almost cartoony. It’s almost comicky. Right. And they’re very discreet. So it’s mostly black and then like an orange blob type monster and things like that. So I have two different sets of covers from HP Lovecraft. But my image of what the Lovecraftian world looks like does not match yours. They might be really, really close, but they don’t match. They both come from our individual perspective imaginations. So the author is using your own imagination for you to fill in a bunch of detail. And then you can look at different authors and how they do that. So Stephen King, and the reason why I don’t like Stephen King and won’t read Stephen King, aside from the fact that I think his writing is really not that great. I don’t think he’d disagree with that, by the way. He thinks he likes Lovecraft too. I think Lovecraft is good. Right. And so my bar is Lovecraft and up. And he’s not up. He’s very detailed. A lot of words. He’s describing scenes in great detail. Less imaginative play there, but way more accessible to a larger number of people. Because some people have terrible imaginations. So when you start talking about a room where someone’s being tortured, they can’t imagine that. It’s just not enough detail for them. When you start filling in all the detail like Stephen King does, you become a much more popular author, at least in that genre, because more people have access to it. Because fewer people need to use their pure imagination on it. So there’s a balance there. How much is the author borrowing your imagination to make their project come alive, basically? I don’t know. That varies by book. But that’s what’s happening. It’s a hack. And it’s not a bad hack. I’m not assigning a judgment to it. I’m just saying this is what happens with books and stories in particular. And you’ll notice Lovecraft is like the king of A, gothic horror, and B, short sentences. The only more concise author, and I don’t know this for sure, but I have been told, is Milton. I haven’t read Milton yet. I don’t have it. I just haven’t cracked it open, because books are evil and I want to burn them all. Yeah, I have The Paradise Lost, where it’s the original and then the modern. Oh yeah, okay. So the issue there is, I have high imagination, so Lovecraft is great for me, because I’m dyslexic, I’m highly dyslexic, so reading is actually a real chore. Oh, whoa. You can contrast that with something like Ayn Rand. Lots of words, 12, 1,300 pages, something stupid, in Atlas Shrugged, in The Fountainhead, ridiculous books. I did read them, though. I can’t get into Ayn Rand, because I realized it is a highly intellectual woman’s fantasy. Novels like her smut books. It is to some extent her smut books in some cases, but she’s very detailed and she’s very verbose. And I can understand her just fine. I want what she wants out of men. Right, right, right. But she’s not detailed about the material features of the world that she’s built. She’s only detailed in exemplifying the principles and the philosophies that she’s trying to talk about. I would say she doesn’t have a full philosophy, and therefore she’s not a true philosopher. I think she had a crush on the Ubermensch and never found him. Well, look, I don’t know if his website’s still up, but you can look up Nathaniel Brandon and you will find the backstory to that whole thing that justifies your statement. Oh, I know all about Ayn Rand and her employees. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And she’s got her husband. Well, that was Nathaniel Brandon. Nathaniel Brandon was the guy. He was the guy. And he later became a psychologist. Now, his critique of Ayn Rand is wrong, by the way. So if you read his stuff, just be aware, he’s full of shit and half his shit is completely bonkers and wrong. But the exemplification, sorry, the way she tells her story, the detail she adds is in the framework to exemplify her philosophy. It’s not in the character so much. And certainly not in the physical world. She leaves that up more to the imagination. But Lovecraft leaves everything up to the imagination and just uses these tight, concise, sometimes people consider them run-on, but they’re not technically run-on sentences. But he does. Sometimes he doesn’t. Right, right. No, no, but he’s very clever about when and where he talks about what. He’s pointing to, and he probably, look, I will make the argument that he points at the ethereal world through propositions better than any other author. Now, I might be wrong, it might be Dante, it might be Milton, you know, there’s a lot of stuff I refuse to read. He’s got more. He’s just got something else in there. But I think that actually he gets at the universals far better than everybody else. Like, far, but hold on, hold on, let me get you up there. All right, there we go. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I object. I object. Oh, what’s up, Manuel? What’s up, dude? Manuel, welcome. I am up. Have you listened to Andy, or did you jump in because you’re a crazy Dutch person who just woke up? I’m a crazy Dutch person who just woke up. Excellent. All right, hold on, hold on, let’s see. All right, Mark LeFever, based on your description, is real fishing kind of like realist painting? No. Well, fishing in a game is more like abstract impressionist painting. No, that’s a bad analogy. Look, the level of detail is different. Okay? And so the level of detail is different. And so the level of detail is different. You can’t equate it with anything. Real life is real. Everything else is less. And everything else is light years less. Several orders of magnitude lesser. This is why solipsism is dangerous. When you’re interacting in your head, you’re losing all of the idea of constraint. Constraints don’t exist in your head. And so you’re losing touch with reality, actually. You’re actually divorcing yourself from reality. Now, while that may have some utility in frame breaking, if the frame breaking isn’t for the good, you’re just becoming more gnostic. That’s our rough outline of an argument for why Vervecki is not doing good. Because in order to do good, you have to do the good. You can’t just say, well, these things could lead to good maybe someday, which is true. You have to say, no, the good is tiny. We have to go towards the good. It’s a struggle. You have to struggle to go towards the good. It just is what it is. There’s no way around that. You can’t say, oh, I’m going to computer my way to the good. I’m going to massively multiplayer online game my way to the good. I’m going to simulate my way to the good. I’m going to metaverse my way to the good. You’re not going to do that. Those things are too small to bring you to the good. Period. End of statement. The only thing that brings you to the good is real action in the real world with real people in a real community. And you need all of those. You need a real community. Real action in the real world with other people is more evil, narcissism, occult bullshit. It’s not going to work. Look, you can be Luke Skywalker, an individual in Star Wars, or you can be part of a team in Masters of the Universe and tell a better story. Case closed. And do more stuff. So there’s this thing that my church did and they went online during COVID. And the distinction between coming together in person and having the music, having everybody sing, having the voices resonate between each other, all of that stuff, right? Having people clapping and doing that alone in your home, feeling stupid. What you can do at home is just completely different. But it doesn’t mean that you can’t do things at home. You might achieve things that are similar or even better at home sometimes, but it’s not likely. Because you have less things to relate to. And when you want less things to relate to, maybe you should figure out why that is. Because I think the reason that you want less things to relate to is because you can’t relate to the things that are there to relate to. And then you should ask yourself the question, why can’t I relate to the things that are there to relate to? And the answer is probably that you’re misattuned. Like the way that you’re connecting to signals is not in a healthy way. That’s a bad thing. Right, that’s exactly the theme, right, is frames and framing. How do you know you have a bad frame? Because you can’t interact with all the things that other people can interact with. Why is it that you want to tear down someone successfully by running a community online in his live stream rather than point out that, oh, community is a good thing and it’s good that you protected your community by getting rid of somebody who was trying to destroy it in the moment? Why can’t you do that? What is wrong with you that you feel so resentful and angry that you’re going to go after a good thing? Right? It’s because you know you can’t manifest the good. Well, maybe you should fix that by manifesting the good. Maybe that paradox is resolvable. It also occurred to me while you were tracking menu. I was very helpful. A lot of people will project and they’ll say, oh, well, you said that I shouldn’t use any material way of understanding the world. Like nobody ever said that at all. So if nobody ever said that and that’s what you heard, what the hell is wrong with you? Like at a certain point, and this is what I’m saying about noticing bad frames, if somebody didn’t do the thing you’re accusing them of doing and you can’t point at an instance of it, you need to question whether or not that’s you or them. And the answer is it’s almost certainly you because otherwise there would be evidence that you can show that would demonstrate what you’re talking about that other people would also recognize. If you can’t do that, then you inserted that in your own head. It didn’t happen to anyone else. It’s a frame that is unique to you. That’s a problem if you want to cooperate. If you want to cooperate with people, that’s fine. Don’t. Also, don’t be angry at them. Just leave them alone. Go live in a community by yourself. And maybe, like you enact a pattern. So if you’re unable to be intimate with people, you’re going to make certain types of transgressions. And then maybe other people in the world also make these types of transgressions and they recognize the position that they’re in, so they empathize with you. And they start, just like with the book, they start building this collective story. And maybe there is a way, and this is what this enchantment, this wizardry is that we’re talking about often, is if you get into a group and you just keep reinforcing these positive without ever actually acting out the conflict, or if you’re acting out the conflict, you’re disconnecting it from the thing that is causing the conflict, maybe because you can’t see that that is what is causing the conflict, then you can create like a separate reality that you can participate in somewhat, but then that’s disorienting you from actual relationship. Like now you’re in a bubble, and from that bubble, you can’t step back into the world. And now everybody in the world has to conform to you because you’re crazy, literally, right? Like you’ve changed your relationship with reality in such a way that you’re no longer relating to the real, and then other people need to accommodate you in your lack. And it’s like, and I think that’s the accusation all the time. It’s like, okay, like there’s a lack, you need to accommodate the other in the lack. I was like, well, I want to do that sometimes when I have time, energy to do that. Like if I don’t have the time and energy because of whatever reason, I’m not going to do that. Or if it endangers the community, which is my point earlier. Like, no, I reserve the right to protect my community by hurting somebody else in the process. I just reserve that right because one person is not worth losing a community over. Sorry, it’s just not worth it. And that’s what we saw on the awakening server. That’s what we saw with David. Like David didn’t want to cooperate and he wasn’t going to be able to cooperate. No matter how many accommodations we made for him, he just wasn’t going to cooperate, which is fine. But then you can’t be with us if you can’t cooperate because that’s what community is. And it doesn’t mean you have to cooperate in every way all the time, blah, blah, blah. But it does mean you have to be able to cooperate. And we tolerated him for as long as we did because we had hoped that he could cooperate and he just proved us wrong. And, you know, whatever. Sometimes we’re wrong. We try to be right. We try to guess correctly. But sometimes we guess incorrectly. And that was one of those cases. And I thought that, you know, Jesse in particular was particularly generous with him. I didn’t have the patience for that or the energy to put up with it. I was kind of like, yeah, if you’re going to be like this and like deny that the dictionary exists and that that’s the way we can communicate common content of words and therefore get to a common context of words and therefore get to a common meaning of a word, then I don’t know what to do. Like, I don’t have a way to cooperate with you at that point. But any amount of bowing to the insane person doesn’t solve the problem of he’s still an insane person. And I saw yesterday, I saw on Twitter this video of the experiment where you swap your hand out, right? And then you have this fake hand. And then they synchronize the touching of the hand with the touching of your hand so that you get this imagined connection with the other hand. And then they stop the synchronization. And you keep responding to the hand being touched. So at that point, and you can see the visual emotional reaction of the person to the imaginary hand being touched. In illusion. Yeah. And he’s actually thinking, you can see the hand on the other side move on the finger that’s being touched in anticipation. So there’s an element of his mind that is anticipating what’s going to happen. And effectively, the anticipation of his mind is stronger than the actual signal. Right. So what’s happening is he’s projecting reality upon his experience. Like he’s not actually experiencing what’s happening. And you could see the guy, he was like a stoner guy, and he got like completely sucked in. Like it just ruled him. He was being ruled by his experience. And he couldn’t break out of it. Like he was literally under a spell. Like if we’re talking about wizardry or whatever, like that’s… That can happen in a conversation as well. Right. It happens all the time. And I think it didn’t used to happen as often in the past because those experiments aren’t new. And the way people responded in the past was very, very different from the way they’re responding now. We had more of a sense of ethics in the past, or common ethics, or common frames. And so when you have that, an embedded, shared sense of ethics and frames, of course people can easily reframe things for you, which is what we see, right? To reframe reality. Well, if you’re looking for intimacy in the moment, instead of intimacy for all time, for example, like what makes the Christian story better, well, maybe it’s timeless. Maybe it resolves the problem of intimacy over time past your death. All right. So that’s really important. It’s like, oh, okay. Like, you know, the fact that this is a thing, that we need a frame that’s beyond ourselves, right? It doesn’t even have to be… It doesn’t have to be the fact of a frame or a common frame. It has to be bigger than us so that we can ground ourselves in it. Like, that’s actually super important. And people don’t realize that. But also, listen closely to the story, right? The story is that you don’t have a concordance with your physical self. Any concordance you have with your physical self can be hijacked by something that is not attached to you through a simple mechanism. Think about what that means for your own self-control. Now I’m going to answer a question. Why do you think people enjoy friendly competition? Well, competition is inevitable. There’s no such thing as friendly competition. It’s all friendly. Because it’s fun. In sports, there is a collaboration within teams with the competition between teams. Fencing is a different scale. No, look, there’s a video on this on the channel, navigating patterns. Okay. I’m going to use the video that we’re supposed to copy this video. Basically, people misunderstand cooperation and competition. All cooperation is a subset of competition. And I think that’s what the problem is. People don’t understand the basics. But the thing is that they miss is that everybody can have a place that they can master. You can specialize in stuff. Like we were talking about earlier. People are good at greeting at the Walmart door. See, this is where the confusion comes in. It’s unnecessary. You don’t have to be good at anything. You can be good enough. That’s an option. I want to be the best at something. It’s bullshit. It’s unnecessary. It’s complete garbage. You’re creating a conflict where none need exist. You’re creating that problem for yourself by yourself on your own. And you don’t need to do it. You want to solve problems? The best way to solve problems is not to create them. That is an option to you. You can avoid creating problems. If you don’t believe me, just watch the movie War Games. Actually, the answer is right there. Why is the answer War Games, Mark? Because at the end, the resolution of War Games is actually the following. A strange game. The only way to win is not to play. Right. If you don’t create the problem of nuclear war, you don’t have a problem of nuclear war to solve. And it’s really that simple. Which is actually the principle that these people in these circles uphold. Don’t create conflict. We can just get along all the time. But you need to have some conflict because the conflict is the thing that is corrected. And the way that you resolve it is by willingly engaging with the conflict. So you embrace the conflict as a corrective mechanism and therefore as it being good. Because the person that is conflicting with you is good. Look, competition is an easy thing to resolve. If you think competition is a problem, don’t compete. Like if competition vanishes, then that doesn’t mean don’t play with the other competitive person. I’m pretty competitive. You can play with me and you can just lose and accept it. It’s not a big deal. Then all of a sudden the fact that I’m competitive doesn’t mean anything to you. And it can mean something to me and not to you. That’s okay too. There’s nothing wrong with these formulas. Everyone is acting like there’s a universal. We all have to share the exact same values about the exact same things at the exact same time in the exact same frame. No, we don’t. That’s wrong. It almost never happens that way anyway. It’s completely ridiculous. There’s no reason to do that. You’re just faking intimacy because you’re not able to submit to a creation that allows you to be intimate with other people. So I know, drop the bullshit, get a little bit of humility and submit. Then all of a sudden all of these things that are problematic will vanish. Responsibility. Take responsibility for what you can take responsibility for. It’s always like that. And you have to take responsibility to be in a group. You can’t just continue to be single. Sometimes you can’t carry all the groceries from your car into the house. That’s okay. That’s impossible. That situation doesn’t exist. We’re just not sacrificing enough. We try. We all try. You’re not sacrificing enough, Naram. You’re not sacrificing enough. You’re definitely not going to do your first haul with your eggs and your bread. I like how women do it. They make the men help them get the groceries in the house. It’s like, that’s cheating, damn it. If a man did it alone, he’d find a way to carry 10 bags of groceries in one trip. He would. That’s what we do, damn it. We aug. I figured out a way to carry 50 bags of groceries at once. If that were the goal, I would find a way and it would happen. It happened with a wheelbarrow. I’m not going to participate. I got the wheelbarrow and I carted it up to the porch. That’s what I did. We’re trying to make a cheese pizza. All right. Look, we get back to the pizza. I did later that night. You and the cheese pizza. Now I’m hungry. Maybe I should order a late night pizza. The cheese pizza is the Indian. It’s going to be a good spot. So yeah, I read this thing. You can’t be stolen from if you choose to give. That’s so powerful. What’s the distinction? Well, the distinction is your cooperation. Even in the thing that is deemed negative to you, if you voluntarily cooperate in it, and you can’t even find joy in the thing that everybody else is getting traumatized by. You have to realize that that is an option. If you realize that that is an option, then you also have to realize that you’re not picking that option. Being a delegate from the rebel mountains, I feel like it’s my duty to say that’s not true, that’s wrong. You can’t do that because you’ll run out of shit to give to people, man. They can’t steal anymore if you don’t have shit to give. That’s not true, man. They give it to their fucking friends. They’re just like, oh, this guy’s got free shit. Let’s just fucking get it out of his house. Now you’ve got to draw a line. The only way you can get people to not steal from you is to give it to them. I’m pretty sure that’s communism, right? That sounds fucked up. They can’t steal the rebel mountains from the rebels, Niamh. They can’t do it, man. I’m not going to let that happen. What is Jesse doing now? What are you showing us? It’s the art. What crazy madness is this, my friend? These people are blackmailing this old man with pity. That’s what it looks like to me. To dare suffering. Rembrandt, never heard of him. Who’s this guy? Are they Christmas caroling? Yeah, he’s like a Dutch guy. Is he on disk one? He’s just saying they’re Christmas caroling. You’re always going to need… Who’s taking responsibility here? Both of them, in some sense. Well, and that’s the thing is that, yeah, you can’t take all the responsibility on yourself. That’s the Christian guilt thing, rather the Jewish guilt thing or whatever. It’s Emerson’s wicked dollar that he still gives. And you can’t let other people off the hook for their responsibility either. And so you have to take some of the responsibility yourself and you have to give the rest of it to the other person. And it’s discernment to know where that line is. This goes back to the discernment we started with. I mean, if you feel like it. It’s discernment, judgment, action. Or what is it? Discreet. When you make something discreet. Discretion. So discretion is the action. So that formula still applies. And that’s still what you have to deal with. You have to deal with the discernment. If you spend all your time believing that you’re not judging and you’re still taking action in the world, you’re lying. That is not what’s happening. The question is, were you discerning consciously or unconsciously? Because if it’s unconsciously, it’s in your head. Everything works and it will change and you won’t notice. And you won’t be following principles anymore. And look, drug addicts have this problem all the time, right? Because they don’t know when they do their drugs. I have talked to people on drugs who have told me later, I wasn’t taking any drugs. And I’m like, dude, like, it’s easy to tell. Like, what is wrong with you? And they have no idea that they’re lying. They have no idea. They have no discernment, no framing. And I want some people to remember that there are people out there in this world. You will give them a can of soup and they will take that same can of soup and bash your brains out and steal your car. So watch out. Be careful who you help. There was a story years ago in Florida when the 2008 housing crisis hit. So like in 2009 or 2010, somewhere in that range, when it was really bad, there were articles in the paper about the people affected by this because in Florida it was particularly bad. They foreclosed on a ton of houses. These people, they opened up a bunch of new soup kitchens. The soup kitchens had to color in the barcodes on the food because the people who were affected by this, who were made homeless and were drug addicts, were taking food cans. And instead of eating them, and they needed them, they actually needed the food. Instead of eating them, they were going back to the grocery store, turning them in, getting a cash refund and buying drugs. That’s what they were doing. And so, yeah, be careful who you help because maybe even just giving people food isn’t going to get them fed. They would rather turn that food in for money to buy drugs. That happens in the real world. You have to be realistic about how people are. Or to Niram’s point, they could bash you over the head with that can of food. I’ve seen people act like this. This happens in the real world. You need to be realistic about what you can and can’t do. It’s sad and it’s dangerous and it’s heartbreaking. And this is why you need to give good, strong negative signals to people who are doing bad things. Otherwise, they’ll end up in that space where they’re bashing people’s heads in for giving them food. Yeah, but not me. Niram’s in the Rebel Mountain. He ain’t helping nobody. That’s not true. I would help you guys, but you know, some people, you know, I don’t know. Yeah, but I’d have to steal from you to get anything. No, do that. If you need something, because we’re friends, I consider us friends here, I would be happy to help you. I would be more than happy to help you. I need a crane operator. Can you come over here? What do you need? Let’s build a castle. Let’s build a castle with a crane. Let’s build a castle. I’m down. I’ll be the crane operator. No problem. I’m ready. You want to be on top. I get it. I can operate a lattice friction crane, which can move the big heavy stuff over and over. The hydraulic cranes get too hot. They’re good for, you know, short little jaunts. Have you sat in like these amazingly high, really short… That’s a tower crane? No, I’m not that fucking crazy. I’m on the ground, but I have operated the big lattice boom, which, you know, is the lattice structure, which can lift the heaviest shit. Heavier than the tower crane sometimes. Most of the time, I’d say. Tower crane is for skyscrapers. I don’t want to work on a skyscraper. A shipyard uses tower cranes too, but that is very, very hard to get into. That’s like the cream of the crop. You got stuck in a specialty that we know nothing about. You don’t have a death wish? No, I don’t want to get in a tower crane. No, that’s crazy. I’m good. Because you got to climb up this ladder and hook yourself onto the next rung and then climb and then… I’m like, fuck that. I’m not… No. They pay you 6k, you know, though. I mean, six figures. And when they fall over, you die. And that’s the end of that. Most crane accidents are tower crane. Yeah, they are. But they pay you $100,000, man, a year to do it. Yeah, they should install elevators on these things. Why would you have to climb on a ladder? Well, see, an elevator is extremely heavy and requires a whole lot of weights. That’s right. And you just can’t do that. It’s impossible. It would collapse. You have to do that. They have to be light. Yeah, sucks. Constraints, Manuel. The world is full of constraints. The crane itself is literally an elevator. I make the argument constantly that engineering is the purest form of all science because it’s real. Did I just have a genius answer? I don’t think engineering is science at all. I think engineering is that. The application of principles, some of which are science, but actually most of which are just inventions. But again, I want to state it again. Part, at least a partial definition of reality is that which objects to your subjective experience. It’s really important to know. If all you have to go on is what’s in your head, the odds that you’re in alignment with reality are very low. You’re not going to know unless something pushes back against your subjective experience, whether or not it’s real. That’s why we need negative feedback. And without it, we go insane, literally. All right, guys. Well, have some good cheese pizzas. See you soon. Thank you. Have a great day. Always a pleasure. Thank you so much. See you, man. Cheese pizzas. Cheese pizza. So, Manuel, I… You missed the whole pizza outline, dude. Exactly. Manuel, I wanted to ask you what you thought about that Star Trek episode. I had to go to lunch. Oh, yeah. Did you like it? Oh, yeah. How did I like it? Well, it was good to see some old, low… Well, it’s not low production value for that time, but for this time, it’s low production value and the way that they dealt with that. Yeah. And there’s something cheesy in there, but I think it’s also partially intentional cheesy. It is. Yes. I’m in on the joke, for sure. Yeah. No, you should watch all the classics Star Trek. It’ll teach you a lot of philosophy. They had so much fun doing that show that some episodes, they’re like singing and dancing. They’re totally crazy. Like in one of those mud episodes, hardcore mud, it was like this pimp, this space pimp that is like the nemesis of Captain Kirk or something, but it’s funny. It’s not like serious life and death. I mean, it is. People are shooting… Did Chatter talk about that? Did he talk about fun episodes and things? Man, very little bit. He mostly just talked about, I guess, the past 20 years. You got to think that stuff was 50 years. Yeah. He talked about Boston legally, talked about some of the movies. He talked about going to space, because that was a big deal last year. He went to space. Yeah. So yeah, he talked about that and a little bit of the original series. I would have loved to just hear some stories, but I know that’s a long time ago. It’s a really long time ago. Yeah. Well, he wasn’t well-liked apparently on the… You know… …door into him and stuff. I think it was a bunch of must-be-nice stuff. The guy was the lead role, and he had all these lines he had to memorize. A lot was riding on his performance. He didn’t tell the writers to give him more lines. They just got hired for that. I think that was a lot of weirdness around just, he’s the star of the show. Yeah, there always is. Yeah, people don’t like success, as we said earlier. Yeah, exactly. Because he’s a friendly guy. I’ve got… I’ve dive deep into the whole controversies and controversial stuff. Oh, yeah? Most people got along with him. It was just one or two people that they didn’t really get along with each other at all. Rebels who don’t like success from the rebel mountains, no doubt. Yeah. He did tell a funny story about DeForest Kelly and a bagel, but maybe I’ll tell you that some other time. Oh, that’s funny. So what is this structure or whatever that you were talking about, Mark? Did you organize your pirate ship? Is that what’s going on? No. Which structure is this? It’s not about the cheese pizza. The cheese pizza conspiracy? It’s not a conspiracy. It’s Nieram’s whole thing. He says it’s basically ecumenism is a conspiracy. He says it’s basically ecumenism is a cheese pizza. This is how we all get along, right? Because a good cheese pizza is delicious. Now, I call that the cheese pizza heresy. It’s a heresy against the obviously superior pepperoni pizza. And yeah. I feel myself melting already. I just think, Manuel, long story short, I think some people put too many toppings on their pizza, try to force feed it to people and give them heartburn. I like a lot of this philosophy of religious stuff. It’s like, eat my fucking onions and sausage. Like, dude, that makes me sick. And I’m just like, let’s all eat a cheese pizza. Let’s just all shut up about all this. It’s a cheese pizza, man. It’s very simple. Cheese pizza is Play-Doh. And toppings are a can and a hagel and a mochi. That’s exactly what I’m saying. That’s what he’s saying. That’s all he’s saying. That’s it. Very simply. And it’s a very cheese pizza-like approach to it in its explanation. Well, and then we had Jesse with his freaking heresy against pineapple pizza. I’m like, no. He’s like, well, pineapple pizza has that barbecue sauce and it can’t have tomato. It’s got to have a white sauce. And I’m like, no. No, that’s not true. Yeah, the pizza wars were real. They were real. Like, this is serious stuff, the pizza wars. How do you allow people to disrupt the communion in such a heretical way? You should be more authoritative. I didn’t threaten to throw Jesse off the stream. I threatened to throw anybody who doesn’t like pepperoni off the stream. We went back and forth quite a bit. But nobody, we kept the integrity of the community intact. We unfortunately had to get into the Grim Grizz thing, but we did. So we navigated all of that. No, it was a good navigation. I really appreciate it. If we can just get the crazy people to stop being gnostics, I think we’ll be fine. Yeah, but then they’d have to stop being crazy. Well, yeah, they don’t want to. They’d rather prefer these little tiny frames like politics or painting or whatever because they don’t have to really deal with the complexity of reality and take responsibility for being a being in the world. So do we want to talk about appeasement or did we already do appeasement? No, I don’t think we want to talk about appeasement. Actually, I think we want to close this stream down because I’m pretty freaking tired. And yeah, I think we should leave appeasement for next time anyway. Yeah, you don’t want a piece of that pizza? Geez. No, you need to get a Sally Jo to make like a picture of a dancing pea to try to appease everybody. This is why we don’t let you talk to Sally Jo. Oh, can you imagine the art? Oh, the humanity. No, I can’t. I can’t because I don’t like to have nightmares. That’s why I think we need more time with tolerance and appeasement anyway. We did bring it up early, but as a bad thing. But yeah, I’m pretty knackered. So I know you just woke up, so you’re good to go. And I’m like, I should get to bed because it’s like past midnight. Oh, my God. 12.12. And then not being able to get to sleep for another two hours is not ideal. Who would I be to keep you from your sleep? You’ve done it many times. Okay, yeah, blame me. Yeah, yeah. Well, you’re partly to blame. But yeah, no, I think the stream’s nicely wound down. We lost Jesse, who’s awesome. So it’s kind of like momentum lost. But I really appreciate everybody engaging and I hope people find this useful and that they kind of understand frames and discernment are important. We need discernment to pick good frames and bad frames. We need towels to know, oh, this is a paradox. I must be in a limiting frame. Maybe it’s okay to be in the limiting frame and accept the paradox. But you got to know about it and you’ve got to accept either. I need a new frame or I’m accepting this limitation. Right. You have to know that you’re making that sermon and too much time spent in this lie of nonjudgment, which is just not what you’re capable of living in because you wouldn’t be living if you weren’t taking action and action require judgment means that we’re not paying attention to how good our discernment is or how bad it is. And so we’re not practicing it. And we need to have that feature. Like we need discernment. We need to know good from bad. We can’t just take middle positions and apply appeasement as we’re going to talk about next week. Or maybe, maybe it’s possible that Manuel and I will do a stream early next week on appeasement. We’ll see how this all plays out. Parting words from Niram who’s here the longest. What you got? Man, it’s been awesome. Yeah, let’s do it again. Yeah. Right. Manuel, parting words before we shut the stream down. I think I’m going to rebel against the pizza metaphor. All right. Just put a little Italian herb on it. It’ll be fine. It’s going to be fine. There’s nothing wrong with a good cheese pizza. All right. And then I’m going to try not to screw up. I know I keep adding things. We got the thumbnail right this time. The thumbnail was cool. And then Eden pointed out to me that I forgot to start the stream with being as good. So I’m going to end the stream with being as good because that’s important. And I’m going to wish everybody a lovely evening, afternoon, morning, wherever you are, whatever you are, whenever you’re watching this. And I hope that we’ve helped you to navigate some live patterns in the moment and that you’re seeing some of these patterns recur. And you should watch all of my videos and navigating patterns because they’re all excellent. You comment on all of them. Let’s get this, you know, let’s get this pothistophied, as they say, and have a have a great rest of your day. Check out some cheese pizza. Cheese pizza.