Live Navigation! Patterns and Pirates! (2PvpHdoItzg)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=2PvpHdoItzg

島T include Yeah, all right. Well, here we are. Another day, another live stream. Monday, I don’t do live streams every day. Another Friday, another live stream. Pirate Capitan. Let’s navigate some life patterns. Let’s do it. So I think the big topic du jour lately in the, we’ll call it this little corner of the internet, which I can say, you can’t say it on a Father Erics channel, but you can hear navigating patterns. Big topic seems to be on agnosticism. James Lindsay is doing some bang up work on this. He’s got his WTF, his SEL video, which I’ve mentioned before, and he’s got this video called Negation of the Real or Negation of Reality. And it’s really good. Really tied something. First 35 minutes made me want to kill somebody, but it gets good after that. You need the first 35 minutes, unfortunately. The theme of the day seems to be around like what’s going on with this gnosticism stuff. Like, what’s up? Right? Which, you know, like fair, fair. What’s up? What’s, what’s with gnosticism? Why is there a gnosticism today? Why are we, what’s, what’s happening with the gnosticism? Where is it coming from? And I think, you know, Ethan, Ethan came up with this formulations. Just brilliant, right? This, the Christians are being is good and the Gnostics are emergence is good. And so for them, it’s just whatever emerges is good. And why would emergence be good? Well, I think from their perspective, emergence is good because and only because that’s what they think they have control over. So you’ve got science, science is selling you a bill of goods. Very much so the whole idea of science, right? Or modern science. And that bill of goods, roughly speaking, is a lie. You know, not an entire lie. Lots of good things come out of science. Don’t get me wrong. But science is massively misunderstood, right? A lot of people equate science with invention. Those are different things. Inventors invent, scientists explain, right? And in the process of explaining, they give us powers of refinement, right? So that’s where engineering comes in, right? Is that once you have an explanation, you can do engineering, right? And then you can do more testing and experimentation, right? But the science isn’t first and the science isn’t last. It’s just a little thing in the middle and it is a little thing. All the science in the world, if you don’t build it, it doesn’t work. If you can’t build it to scale, it doesn’t help. If you can’t build enough of it, it’s not relevant. Like, there’s a lot of pieces there and they have nothing to do with science. And science doesn’t typically like scale, which is super important. And that’s the issue. Science only does one little piece of a very large puzzle. But we’re sold science under the guise of, well, that gives us power and control over things from below, things that emerge. Now, I tend to think that we are creatures in between the material, the physical, and the ethereal or the spiritual. And we’re knitting those two things together to create reality. Lots of people have a problem with this. It gives you a lot of responsibility on reality. If you are looking across and down at the world, what you see is emergence and you see wonderful things emerging from below. What you won’t see is what’s pulling them up. You won’t see what’s pulling them up. You won’t see what they’re emanating towards. Ethan did another wonderful meme on the Mark of Wisdom Discord server, which is just absolutely lovely. And he actually posted it to the Awakening server in the midst of a complete breakdown at the Awakening server. It’s a flower peddling a bike and powering the light bulb that the flower grows towards. And of course, obviously this is absurd and doesn’t work, but man, is that a great meme. And that’s what the emergentists will tell you. That’s what these materialists will tell you. Materialism is looking across and down. I don’t know, I acknowledge E equals MC squared and that ideas are real and that there’s some form of reality to them. But I think the primary thing is really what emerges from below. And that’s why you just get into a flow state. It solves a bunch of problems. Eh, I don’t know. People in the flow state fall off a mountain and die. So, not a fan. You can just look at the world and know it. It’s like, no, there’s stuff you can’t see that’s running the world, roughly speaking, or at least having a large outsized effect on the world and what’s happening in the world. And we’re not seeing that. We’re pretending like it doesn’t exist, or at least some of us are. And others of us are too caught on the other side. We’re like, ooh, it’s all about heaven and hell, man. It’s not about here and now. It’s about the there and then. It’s like, eh, I’m kind of in the middle, literally, actually in the middle. And you want middle ground? That’s the co-manifestation of reality, baby. That’s the middle ground. That’s where we’re all stuck. And that’s what causes all the problems that we hate so much. But also, get over it. It’s not changing. So you can do it. And I think that’s the problem. These emergence are good, is good people. People are like, yeah, emergence is good. We’re just going to do a bunch of random stuff. And then whatever happens will be good. It’s like, well, probably not. So that’s just something to think about. That’s what I’m thinking about. This idea that, you know, it’s super simple, right? It’s just being as good versus emergence is good. That’s your starting axiom for everything you understand about the world. And once you determine, and I think it’s easy to determine when you think about it, which side someone’s on, are you on the being as good team or you’re on the emergence as good team, then you can really kind of understand exactly where they’re going to go and what they’re going to do and how they’re going to make their arguments. It’s really useful for helping people because that’s what I’ve really focused on. And I’ll just touch on it briefly. So the awakening for me and Crisis Server kind of imploded I don’t know, whatever. And yeah, that’s a complete mess. And they removed organizer roles from Manuel and myself, which wasn’t a problem. I don’t really care. But after they did that, they set up several threads about that. They did it publicly for no reason without telling us. And yeah, that place is a complete disaster. I’ve even had the original complaint and contact me and just a little tip. If you think that you’re giving somebody feedback, like, oh, here’s a little feedback for you. And you don’t like tell them upfront, hey, would you like some feedback? Because I have some or at least warn them like I’m giving you feedback. The odds that they’re going to be receptive to your feedback is zero because you’re a jerk. But anyway, just a little note, totally unrelated to anything because that’s definitely how I roll. So yeah, I mean, that’s what I’m thinking about. Of course, we can talk about anything because I’m happy for people to join and say hi. And yeah, let’s get this party started. We can pin this up over here. I still can’t put it up over here. I still can’t. And that’s no fun. So yeah, anybody who wants to join is welcome to jump in and we can talk about whatever. But you know, emergence, baby, it’s all about emergence. It’s not good. Emergence is just emergence. Anything can happen. Anything. The odds that something bad are going to happen from your emergence are much higher than something good manifesting from your emergence. You can see that too in the end, the structuralism, right? I don’t want a leader. I don’t want to follow people. I don’t want to be with people. I just want these things to kind of happen. And that’s not the way the world works, right? Like things don’t just happen. People have to make them happen. Uh-uh. Here’s some trouble. Yeah. How did you guess? How are you doing? I’m well, thank you. I love your live stream. I think it’s the ultimate mug. I really do. Oh, well, thank you. I’m always psyched to do them when I can. So I’m excited. Yeah. What’s on your mind? Well, because Ethan’s ideas, Ethan’s really had a huge impact on me too. His idea that that being is good. And also he has this profound grasp on the importance of unity and good, right? And he doesn’t diverge from it. And he understands the danger of tolerance, which is… Yeah. And then it gets into Gnosticism. And I actually think James Lindsay, I listened to him several times because I find his thinking so clear and it’s really easy to follow even the historical development of Gnosticism and how it keeps reappearing, which I find fascinating. And I think you have, you and Ethan are really, you have your finger on the pulse with this whole focus on what Gnosticism is. It’s brilliant. And it’s really cool that it coincides with what James Lindsay’s doing. Yeah. Well, I mean, some of the information’s coming from him, but yeah. And I think that, you know, the main problem is that I don’t like the way Lindsay frames it. Like I think he’s actually kind of wrong about tracing it historically because I see it as a pattern that recurs. And my general theory is that the problem is that let’s just suppose you had a slightly below average IQ, say 85 or 90 or something. Yeah, like Justin Trudeau. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wow. You’re more generous than I am. But you put all of your effort mentally into thinking about philosophical stuff, right? Because, well, maybe that’s the fashion of the day, for example. That could be one reason, no, why you do that. But there are many other reasons. So you focus all of your cognition on that question and you’re freed up to do so because we live in a fairly affluent society and you can have a fairly benign job and have plenty of free time to use your cognition however you’d like. And then you’re exposed to all kinds of things. Well, I think even if you’re not exposed to a bunch of things, basically, I think what happens is you will come to the same conclusions as Hegel and Marx and some of these other guys, because honestly, and I’ve said this for years, I don’t think they’re that bright. I think everybody is giving them way more credit than they deserve. Marx is clearly dumb, actually. I can prove this. You can read his quotes and say the quote itself is self-contradictory. Who would write something self-contradictory? A very smart person? No, not on average. It’s tons of his quotes. All of his quotes on capitalism are absurd, ridiculous, clearly observably incorrect, and they’re not compatible with one another. Yeah, it’s like that communist shit. You think about that when you’re like maybe 12. Like, hey, why doesn’t the government get together and fix this problem? And then your dad will say, well, because you ever heard of individualism and everybody’s got this soul and all this other stuff is involved with, you can’t just blanket statement the whole thing unless people consent. That’s what was interesting about the whole, you know, whatever, I don’t want to get this banned thing that just happened that we got out of. Everybody consented to it. That’s why it wasn’t like a Holocaust. Yeah, well, and that’s the thing. I think that literally, you know, like a three-year-old can do the postmodern. Did you watch that movie Outbreak, that Dustin Hoffman movie where the monkey virus came out and they had to kill everybody to stop the virus? What I’m saying is that that could have happened. Right, right, right. No, no. Thank God it did, but I think it’s because everybody consented. Well, they tried. I don’t know if it would have come to that. I don’t know either, but it was an interesting movie that, you know, exploring that. Like what would the modern… I agree that exploring that stuff is important. No, that’s a good, it’s a good, and it’s a good call up. Right, but I think… It is actually, and it may not be so exaggerated in my humble opinion. Yeah, it really takes a lot of force to go after a population though. Yeah, well, we’re pretty knee deep here. Yeah, I mean, maybe not so much in America, but in Canada, we’re pretty knee deep already, right? Canada’s, yeah, yeah, yeah, but you guys are consenting to near and dear. Yeah, like so people need to check out civil disobedience, you know, like what can you do nonviolently to… Yeah, like that’s where I am right now. Become ungovernable. Yeah. I’m really interested in civil disobedience, right? Yeah. And I’m not joking actually, because we have 30,000 dead from maid, from assisted, you know, suicide in Canada. We have 30,000 already gone. What’s that? I didn’t know about that. You got what going on? That’s crazy. I didn’t know that. It’s called medical assistance in dying. No! Yeah, medical assistance in dying. I thought that was like Switzerland shit. No, it’s here in Canada now. And you know, one gentleman was actually, you can see him on YouTube, his brother, he just had some mental… Well, I guess we all have mental health issues, quite frankly. He was emotionally dysregulated, right? So he needs… Who hasn’t been emotionally dysregulated in this world? I’m not sure. And so he goes, he finally, somebody sees him and you know, everybody freaks now when they see people who are emotionally dysregulated. I don’t know why, because we’re used to robots or something. So anyway, somebody sees him and thinks, oh my gosh, the guy needs help, because there’s a bit of a problem that way too. Like maybe you just need to talk to the guy and offer him a nice meal, you know, with some potatoes and cheese and roast beef or something. And anyway, but they panic and they send him to the hospital. The fellow goes to the hospital without any of his family knowing about it. This is in Canada. This is happening now. He goes to the hospital and of course he doesn’t want to be there and of course he shouldn’t be there. And so he gets worse and worse because they’re medicalizing something that’s really normal. It’s normal to be emotionally dysregulated. They medicalize it, medicalize it, and drive him crazy in the hospital. So and he gets crazier and crazier and they’re trying to get him out. The family’s trying to get him out, but they’re too late. By the time they get there, he’s talked to somebody about medical assisted dying. And he’s agreed that he needs to go because his frustration level has reached. It was created. It’s called iatrogenic. It’s when the people who are supposed to be actually helping somebody do more harm, which is pretty typical for our hospitals oftentimes. Anyway, the fellow dies and nobody knows about it. So they were going to pass a bill which would instantiate in law this very process so that it will be acceptable to anybody who has a mental health issue, which is probably everybody, right? Anybody who has a mental health issue is going to be eligible. It’s going to come up in 2024. So I’m really interested in what you’re saying about civil disobedience. I think the time has come. Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. I’ve got the book. I don’t know how much they hung out together, but they’re like on the same path, trying to sort some stuff out with government and order and nature. And what are people? Is a cabin in the woods good or is a city good? Where’s the line? Very interesting stuff. I’m still wondering. I don’t know. Are the Amish onto something or is Elon Musk onto something? You know, I don’t know. Yeah, I know. Right. I don’t know. That’s the question. That is the question, what you just said. The thing that you brought up, Elizabeth, that was actually that was really good, is that, yeah, we’re expecting robots. We’re expecting people. Look, I mean, and I have a video on navigating patterns you’ve been lied to, right? And I go over this. We’ve told people that people, and since you’re a person, that means you, are rational. Yeah. And then by and everybody else is rational and everything is rational. Well, what does that mean? Well, that implies a normative order, a normalization. That implies that there is a normal standard by which to judge things and everything. So that means you can judge yourself by your by your standard, right? And you can judge others by your standard and you can judge them by their standards. You can do all this because we’ve been told the world is rational and that people are rational. I can do this for you, kid. People ain’t rational. That’s never happened. And if you actually look at any any any of the research on rationality, it’s not there. The science is very, very the actual science is clear. People are almost never rational for any length of time about anything ever statistically. Actually, I’m sorry. We are cool. They would be cool. It would be great if we were. I mean, people can be cool for durations. They may be not rational, but they can be all right. I’m acting on rationality. I’m acting unconsciously on the flow of my thoughts. I am not thinking about the next word I need to say. That isn’t happening. It’s not occurring. I think you’re feeling it though. Yeah, it’s all emotions, man. It’s the limbic system. People don’t understand this. We are not this. We are this man. It’s all from from feeling. But I think there’s an order to it. I think there’s definitely an order to the limbic system, if you will, steering the ship, steering what I’m saying. You’re right. Am I thinking about what I’m going to say next? I don’t know. It’s kind of weird. I’m conscious of it now and I feel strange. But what is that? I think there’s an order to it. Like there’s a point. It may be, you know, you can’t put your finger on it, but it’s I feel like it’s logical. I feel like it’s rational. That’s the problem. I think rationality as such is post hoc. And I think the evidence for that is overwhelming. It’s all over the scientific research. What do you mean by post hoc, please? Post hoc means after the fact. Yeah, you can’t you can’t figure it out until you can put it into words. You know, but I want to make things in the past. You don’t rationalize what you’re going to do in the future. Very often. The people will have a problem with that. What’s the problem with that? Is that like a point of contention that I’m not aware of? It’s all about attention, right? It’s totally about attention. I’m not going to believe it. You guys, because I was here last week, remember, I couldn’t get on on this. And somebody said, oh, nice porch. Well, you’re not going to believe what happened. One of you said nice porch and you drew my attention to this bloody porch. Right. And guess what I did this week? I cleaned all of my stuff in this porch this week. Why? Because somebody drew my attention to it before I wasn’t really seeing it. Like, that’s how community works. Right. It’s all about attention. But one thing I’d like to point out, tell me what you guys think, because I think it’s a good distinction. McGilchrist talks about this a lot. And Francis Schaeffer, when he wrote in his book Escape from Reason, he made a distinction between rational and rationalistic. And rational is more what you’re talking about in terms of, you know, it very much implies the emotions and information through our five senses, intuition, et cetera. But rationalistic is that left brain. You focus on one thing. You want to figure out how to do, you know, whatever the scientific Christmas tree lights. That’s what I call it. Yeah. I think rationalistic is a better word because then you’re distinguishing. It’s still like, like to your point, I don’t know how to read your name. It’s roomy shroomy. It’s Boomshrim. But it’s near it’s near him on Discord. I don’t know what that really means. Boomshrim. I need to rename it near him. Can I do that real quick? How do I do that? Yeah. Settings. I don’t know how to do it. It’s fine. I’ll do it next time. Yes. Yeah. Well, it’s sort of it doesn’t matter. I’ll put it up next time. Boomshrim is my YouTube channel, but my name on the Internet is near him on my Boomshrim channel and Discord. It’s confusing. I should just. I know. But I’ve got all these names too. And I just can’t be bothered to change anything. So I just leave everything. Yeah. I don’t care if people find it confusing. But my whole my whole premise is it’s an explosion of ideas. It’s a Boomshrim, you know, because anyway. True, though. But I think that’s the whole that’s the intuition imagination enchantment place. Right. Instead of this, this and I, Mark. So how does this tie into Gnosticism? I think this Gnosticism is actually a rationalistic kind of process. Right. In a sense, it’s like the it’s like the Nazi machine. It was very rationalistic man. It’s a homunculus. It’s like a homunculus of the left brain. Yeah. That’s Hagel and Karl Marx. Yeah, it is. Rationalists. All the Gnostics are every single one of them. They’re all rationalists. Yeah. And they’re not fun. They’re no fun at all. No, they’re not fun. No problem. But the problem is rationalism doesn’t explain the world. The world is way too big for rationality. And I mean that on all levels. So you can think of rationality as the larger global project, right? We’ll say as part of, we’ll say, distributed cognition. Right. But what if rationalism isn’t big enough to contain that larger global project, which I think is true. So not. It is. Half the truth. Right. But then but then you can look at it on a smaller level. You say, all right, well, let’s suppose I can be rational, you know, for a while, which absolutely, that’s definitely the case. Right. And let’s suppose that I could be rational sort of in the future. Right. Like I can plan things. OK. Yeah. Right. Some things to some extent. Right. I mean, I’m not going to plan to brush my teeth because that’d be silly because I don’t even plan when I go to bed. So that, you know, I can’t plan that. So I’m not using rationality there. Whatever rationality I have available to me is not going to be sufficient to rationalize something bigger than me. Like that just doesn’t make any sense. And so the problem comes in, like even if it’s rationality all the way down, the rationality can’t contain the world. So when you try to contain the world with the rationality, when you try to say, all right, we are going to figure out this through rationality, you’re going to end up at Gnosticism because stuff is emerging that isn’t in the rational plane. And now all of a sudden you’ve fallen into Gnosticism. You’ve fallen into mysticism. You’ve fallen into mysticism, you’ve fallen into, because those things, they’re not, they’re not deniable experiences. Right. So it’s like the leftovers. What the hell are you going to do with them? Right. So there you have Gnosticism because you’re going to have leftovers. Reality is what it is. Well said. Oh my gosh. Gnosticism as leftover. Can somebody write a song? I’ll try. I was listening to something very interesting and I, somebody said something that I thought was really wise. You know, they were talking about Christianity and the ortho bros and just that sort of vibe of people that have the, in a very intellectual way, a holier than thou sort of thing. Like, oh, excuse me. You know, you can’t really believe in God unless you go through 15 years of theology and, you know, let me explain it to you. So they’re attempting to be the new priest class, the new preacher class, like the, the sort of a, what do you call it? YouTube influencer. But for that, that corner, right. And for a lot of people, that’s gross and disgusting and they’re, they’re calling them out on it. And I think a lot of people are, have a lot of people have really legitimate questions such as, and this is probably going to cause a wildfire of bullshit, but I think it’s an interesting question. When Jesus is, is praying to God, is he praying to himself and all of that? And then these people come in, well, how dare you? You know, how, well, you can’t fucking say this and what are you talking about? And they’re, you know, they’re attacked. And then I think they, they, they, people go out into weird places because they’re like, look, man, you don’t have to be so, you know, condescending about this. It’s just, it’s just a fucking question. Like what’s with all of the, you know, the positioning and the, the, the, this, all that. Does that make sense? Do you think there’s any truth to that from what you, you can see? Like fueling the Gnosticism that there, there needs to be an attempt, I think, to, you know, rationalize and make sense of some of these things that Jordan Peterson, I think, has tried to tackle, but we need to pick up the pieces. We need to start doing it. It’s a pattern that occurs because these people haven’t matured or they were mature and now they’re less mature because entropy is real and we can move backwards. Like we do. What happens? We move backwards at all scales. Like I could go on for literally months continuously about all the things, all the technologies we’ve lost in the computer field that I can name off the top of my head. You wouldn’t believe how many things we used to be able to do. We used to be able to do this with computers and now computers can’t do this anymore so that they’re physically incapable, but you’re losing infrastructure. In fact, I saw one last night. I’ve been watching it’s actually over three nights. It’s not a very long video. There’s a video of some guy with doom trying to play the original doom shareware version of doom on multiple monitors, which was possible back then, which sounds amazing to us now. But the way you play original doom on multiple monitors is the following. First, what you need to do is you need to get three different computers or four. You can have five because the video card was integrated. No, no, no, no, no, no cards aren’t even integrated. But what you do in the motherboard, I think they were there on board. OK, but it doesn’t matter in this case. The way you play multi monitors on these things is through the network. So you actually have one machine connected to all the other machines and that one machine tells the other machines what to display, except you can’t use a modern network stack. You actually have to use something called Novell Network. And technically, it’s IPX protocol. And so he actually loads all this stuff up in DOS 6.2. And then guess what? This doesn’t work with all the different versions of of doom. It only works. Oh, shit. So there’s not a privilege, which is like the first it’s got to be like doom 1.0 or 1.0. And it won’t work with any of the newer versions of doom. Right. And I have to say, they didn’t rewrite this stuff and get it, you know, and the new and rewritten versions don’t have a feature. They do. But it is to say that technically speaking, we lost the technology to run multi monitor doom almost when we got it. And this predates all this crazy multi monitor gaming. But he actually set it up and got it to work. And I was like, but this is an example of a lost technology. Yeah, there’s something going on here. Keep going. Boom. I was going to say I saw a dude play doom on a TI-83 calculator. But that’s the thing. People don’t realize you can be developed and then lose that development. You can be mature and then become less mature. That’s and I think that’s what’s happened. That’s what’s actually happened. And we’re looking at an exploit. You’re right. The maturity is a certainty. And we don’t have that certainty. Well, and we’re falling and we’re falling backwards into childhood in many, many ways. Backwards into childhood is that you start to get the idea that you’re an individual alone in the world because your mother’s taking care of you and your father’s taking care of you. And then you want when you don’t have that, let’s suppose you actually managed to get out of your mother’s basement and get the cheetahs dust off of you. And now you want that again. Well, now you want that again. So what’s going to happen is you’re going to look for a mommy and maybe that mommy is the state or maybe that mommy is the state. Or maybe that mommy is somebody that, you know, what wants to date you but doesn’t actually want to be your mother or somebody on the Internet, a YouTuber or somebody on Instagram or whatever. Yeah, whatever it is. And then, like all these patterns are playing out. But one of the patterns is narcissism because we’re told that we can understand things that clearly like any three year old would figure out. You can’t you can’t know that. Government like come on. The government is many, many, many, many, many people you don’t even know yourself. How are you going to know many other people when you don’t even know yourself? So how do we OK, I think you’re right. So how do we bring more coherence to say Christianity further for just for example, since it’s the project right now, the the restoration of Christianity, the rediscovery, whatever you want to call it. It does not seem very coherent to a lot of people and it gives atheists and Gnostics a huge amount of ammunition still yet because they’re like, yeah, you can’t start there. You can’t. This is the so this is the topic of the day. Right. So I got this image. This was on the VanderClay live stream that he did a week ago. Now, I jumped in there and I was talking about this image that I had in my head and maybe one of the artists will pick it up. We’ll see. I know Sally’s busy, so she’s not going to do it. Don’t do it, Sally. Don’t do it. Imagine a staircase. OK. And at the top of the staircase is somebody like what would use Paul VanderClay because that’s who I did it with. So Paul VanderClay is a Christian. Right. He’s a pastor in a Protestant church. And, you know, maybe Protestants are the problem, but whatever. So we’ll just we’ll just say he’s up there at the top of the staircase. Right. So he’s looking down the staircase and he’s looking at somebody like John Vervecky and John Vervecky stuck in the meaning crisis. OK. And then he thinks John Vervecky is two steps away from the top of the staircase with him. And so he’s reaching out his arm and going to pull him up. OK. The problem is that John Vervecky is down at the bottom of the staircase and VanderClay is just not seeing that. Now imagine that those stairs are actually labeled on the front side. The bottom stair is called Being is Good. And the next pair up is called Creation. Cool. And the next pair up is called, you know, something like like, shoot, I had. Learn how to dance. Learn how to enjoy dancing. You got to enjoy life too. You got to enjoy the series. It’s so true. It’s actually really true. Like, learn how to dance. I think I like John Vervecky. Can you imagine him rocking? Yeah, he needs to dance. He’ll figure some shit out for sure. The answer to the meaning crisis. We just. But he says he knows how to dance. He thinks Tai Chi is like a dance. Nah, he doesn’t. He’s so frozen. Tai Chi is like a dance, John. Especially if you’re not laughing and other people are laughing and have a good time with you, you’re not dancing. And it’s dancing with everyone else. So the reason why John’s project leads to Gnosticism is because it’s individualistic. It’s not about. And when it’s not individualistic, it’s a circle. It’s a circle. And everyone’s equal. And I’m like, no, because the thing you need to learn about reality is that reality consists of hierarchy. It has to. Otherwise, it’s not real. Anything you see in the world without a hierarchy is not reflecting reality. It’s not reflecting reality. It is an illusion. It is. What do you mean by hierarchy? Are you talking fractals? Fractal is what you’re talking about? No, just just everything has a hierarchy. So let’s talk about the hierarchy of fun. I want to talk about that. Yeah, let’s talk about that. I’m with you, man. It’s all well. I think that there this is a big factor in what in all of this. OK, so who who who draws the most attention? It’s the people that are fun. The most fun people aren’t the most intelligent. OK, and most intelligent people. All right. Right. Vice versa. All that stuff. So where is the sweet spot here? How do you get people to I think Richard Feynman had to figure out. That’s why he’s a big personal hero. Why do we need to integrate? See, this is the integration is part of the problem because because we’re neighbors. We don’t need them to integrate, but we need to kind of be understanding what is happening. Well, no, no, I disagree. I think all we need to do is accept that different people have different skills. OK, yeah. Well, yeah, absolutely. Well, but that’s the problem. See, these individualists want to say, all right, what’s the integration point? How can I integrate this? Why? Because to them, they’re using integration two different ways at the same time. They’re saying we make concept and concept be and put them into balance and integrated into me because they want to have that. And I say I’m not going to be the funniest person in the room for most people most of the time. OK, you’re very funny. Look at you. I just think how funny sometimes I do try. Right. But but but you know, integration and in coherence, you know, are they two different things? Because I think integration is just reduction. That’s all they’re talking about. They’re saying I can have thing A and thing B, no matter what those two things are. It doesn’t matter what they are. And I can have them both in equal measure. They’re balanced in me. That’s the problem with integration. The minute you say integration, you’re talking about a reduction. And I don’t like that. Where I’m kind of coming at it from is integration is reduction. Don’t forget that. Right. So let me let me rephrase this. OK, get what I’m really saying. I feel like Christianity as a whole has been weakened. It’s diluted. And I’m seeking, I guess, a concentrate, a sort of, you know, cohesiveness, a something that makes sense. And there, you know, so I don’t see any other religion that is so exploded and fighting about shit. I know. Good point. Good point. Why do you think that people are not in the religion anymore? Like, what do you think that is? Because I have an image for you. Inseparable narcissism. Inseparable narcissism. You call it church now. It’s like hell in a church. What’s another way to talk about narcissism? Another way to talk about narcissism is individualism. So that’s suppose Christianity has a whole that are bigger than a person because community is meant to hold communities and not individual persons as such. Yeah. That’s exactly right. When you try to reduce yourself to an individual, which, and let me state this clearly, I’ve stated it before, but I feel like you can’t state this enough. You are not now, will not ever be, have never been an individual. It is not a possible configuration for you. If you want to make the case that you’re an individual, what to me or anybody else, in my opinion, what you have to do is go live completely alone in a cave. Now, this solves two problems. You’ll be an actual individual and I won’t have to listen to your stupidity. And I just want to solve those two problems. But let me finish. So if you try to become an individual, you make yourself smaller because you’re losing connections to other people. You’re losing intimacy, the quality connection between people, quality relationship between people. And all of the sudden you fall through the net and now you’re not in the Christianity net anymore. I see what you’re saying. But there’s a distinction too because, and Bishop, Bishop, what’s his face? He, Maximus made the point that Christ actually makes us into individuals. We can’t make ourselves into individual. But as we know, people who are always focused on the goodness of God, they become these incredible individuals, right? Yeah, souls, right. So are we unique souls? And does that or does that, is that same thing as an individual? Like, what are you saying? No, no, we are unique souls. I think that’s fine. So when you say individual, I’m thinking you’re thinking cut out around everything and separate and divided. Yeah, that’s good. I’m down with that. I agree with you. That’s so good. Because that’s in my medieval fresco that I tell Ethan about because underneath the top, beside the tyrant, there’s a tyrant, right? And he’s got these eyeballs. It’s so cool. It’s from 1338. And his eyes are looking inward, right, Mark? Narcissism, right. But beside him is division, man. It’s division. There you go. I was just translating what Mark was saying. I was trying to. That is so important. Like, I think that is it’s important to define what we’re talking about. Like when Mark said, well, what are you talking about? Because, yeah, because there’s. Because I’m down with what you’re saying, bro, because, yeah, I agree with you. I don’t want to be separate from people. I want to be a part. I want to help. I want to be in the thing. I want to dance and party with everybody, too. Yeah, but that’s the paradox of Christianity, because the more that you’re with other people, the more you conform to, which is love, right? The more you conform, you form to other people because who wouldn’t want to because people are amazing. But the more you conform to other people, actually, the more distinct you become at the same time. It’s the beautiful. It’s a beautiful paradox of Christianity. You actually become the most shining individual, just like Christ. Christ is the example, right? I was reading today, but to your point about civil disobedience, because I was reading. I’m really into the Gospels like I’m turning totally Catholic. Yeah, but I’m really into the Gospels and I keep the Christ is just I have this Bible. My father gave me like 50 years ago and it’s got all of Christ’s words in red, which is super cool. Yes, I love it. And when he gave it to me 50 years ago, I thought, Father, OK, what is this? But anyway, here we are. And and the thing that’s cool about Christ, like there he is. Right. And he goes into the temple and his anger, like it’s really striking, man. He makes us look like milk, like we’re really lukewarm all of us, even Peterson. Like he goes to that temple and he just he just lashes through it. Yeah, it’s like I mean, they deserve it. Well, we need to. Yeah. But where are we? Come on. Where? Well, that’s the question. We’re debating about ridiculous shit and we can’t come together on any anything. That’s why I was saying it’s falling apart and they’re killing. Yeah, they’re killing except except in certain places, you know, certain places where they don’t have that problem with their religion. You know, it might be a different place, but they’re not falling apart. Well, that’s been let’s let’s let’s let’s quickly sort of sort of step back if you want to go to why this is happening. So let’s just look at that happened recently. So an incident happened on the awakening from the meeting crisis server where Manuel and I lost our organizer privileges. Now, honestly, this is not a big deal. Right. It’s not a big deal. It’s fine. If you don’t want us to run John for Bakie’s meditation, then we won’t run John for Bakie’s mediation. Oh, that’s I’m not familiar with that place. OK. You don’t want to. You don’t want us to run the listening parties. Then we won’t run the listening. Like all you had to do was ask and say, you know what, the community is upset for whatever reason. I don’t even need a reason. Like the community is the monocle mark. Yeah, we just heard. Now, the interesting thing here is, well, what actually happened? Well, a new user who knows almost nothing about John’s work, to be quite honest, because I actually kind of am an expert on John for Bakie’s work, came into the server, heard something he didn’t like. And look, I’m not saying that what he heard wasn’t true. I’m not saying that it didn’t sound bad or whatever. I don’t care. It’s not germane to the issue. He judged us unfit to be part of the server. Now, his judgment was given to the admins of the server, at least one of them, but probably probably more than one of them. And instead of doing anything reasonable with that feedback from a brand new user who doesn’t know John for Vicky’s work, they did announcement saying that we were the ones who weren’t following John’s work. So for almost three years, we’ve been doing John for Bakie’s meditation with clips of John in the video. We haven’t changed anything that we’ve done. We’ve done book clubs on the books that John recommended. We have listening parties. Some of them have John in them. Some of them have other, you know, whatever. It’s a community-based event. And so that person actually contacted me after causing this big kerfuffle and seven different threads on the server that were not about John’s work. And I kept pointing out, you know, you guys say you’re about John’s work. And then you started all these new friends that have nothing to do with his work with a bunch of people who aren’t even using his language. And of course, because I’m me, I’m using his language to describe what’s going on. Just to, you know, like I’m a troll. D, I stuck to John’s work and C, screw you. You think I don’t know John’s work? Is that what you think? Yeah, dude, fuck those people. They sound like a bunch of assholes. Look, it’s fine. That’s so important what Boomshrim just said, though. Like, exclude them, man. That’s what Christ did. He said dust off your face, man. But this guy contacts me. He contacts me and he says, I’m the one that made the anonymous complaint. Disgusting. I know it was you because I know who I talk to and what I say. So I already knew it. Like, keeping the complaint anonymous was already a mystical, weird dream fantasy. Right. And then and then he started to tell me about why his actions were justified. Now, he’s ruined the community completely. That server is pretty much going to be dead now. And it’s been dead all week because Manuel and I aren’t there. And among other reasons. Right. And there’s a lot of fighting and people are angry and they’re sniping and making accusations against each other. And now everybody wants like an open democracy. They want to know everybody who’s being banned from the server and all kinds of crazy things. Right. All unreasonable requests. All because one individual who was trying to be an individual acted in judgment of something that was there a long time before he was without getting any of the relevant information of what was going on. So he was able to single handedly destroy the community because it had weak leadership. Dude, I’ve never heard the word individual used as an insult until just now. That’s funny. But it’s funny because I know exactly what you’re talking about. It’s somebody that’s cut away from the group on purpose and they’re trying to cut all the other groups away to make them individuals divided from everything to where everybody’s unhappy and an ILS like them to do it like a virus. I’m saying what you’re saying now. It is a virus. OK. That’s the thing because it’s easier to destroy than create. And so it’s going to have a hard time with that terminology to sell it because it took me a minute to figure out what the fuck you were saying. But I get what you’re saying now. I agree with you saying. But yeah, we’re going to have our time with that. That syntax, bro. They’re not. Yeah. But they need they need to know that they’re not now. Nor have they ever been. Nor were they able to be individuals. So it’s available to you better yet. It should not be an aspiration. I think you can sell it that way. It should not be an aspiration. That’s also true. Right. Because what’s going to happen is you’re going to try to judge things that are way bigger than you. They’ve been around way longer than you can even imagine. Like, I can’t imagine two thousand years of history of a religion or a culture or people or like I can’t imagine a hundred years of a people. I can’t imagine a people. I have an abstract concept that mostly kind of sort of works sometimes for a lot of things, but not everything. That means I don’t understand it. Well, this was an experiment. But it’s not complete enough. Like, what am I going to do? Judge Ireland? Because I’m a quarter part Irish. Yeah, I’m going to judge the Irish. I’m going to judge the Irish right now. You ready, guys? Because I’m smart enough to judge the Irish. I’ve never been to Ireland. I’m very upset about that. Yeah, but you’re so Irish, Mark. So that’s that. Yeah, it can be occasionally. I know it is. The wild French Canadians moved away from France because they saw that the place was falling apart. Wow, that’s cool. I’m fifty percent proud. So. Well, OK, so I’m I’m very curious about what your opinions are about this, because this has been a recent debate on on the Internet. And it’s a very interesting point of contention that I that I’m exploring. And I said it earlier about, you know, when when Jesus is in the garden praying to God, is he praying to himself? Like, what is going or is it this witnessing thing that people say like he’s or fulfillment, fulfillment to show people? But was anybody out in the garden to see it? You know what I mean? Like, I thought he was alone, like he was having a serious moment. Like, what do I do? Right. So was it so was he talking to himself? And then so was he talking to God, his dad? You know, so this became a huge thing and everybody got very angry about it and very upset. And I thought, you know, that’s a pretty good question. Like, what let’s explore that a little bit. What’s going on exactly there? So, so, you know, so here’s here’s what happened today. Oddly enough, this is so funny. So I forget who it was. It was Adam, I think, and Manuel were talking about the Bible. I read the whole Bible. I might have read some pieces, but I kind of doubt that, too. So they were talking about the Bible and they and they were talking about, well, yeah, the story of Samson is three chapters, short chapters. Right. And only one of them pertains to the, you know, to Samson. And I was like, wait a minute, that’s not possible. And then I said, are you guys telling me that it’s quite possible that we have narrativized or story eyes is probably the better way to put it put into a story things that are the equivalent of metaphors and parables that actually don’t have all that story structure in them. And they were like, well, yeah, that kind of sounds right. So I’m like, all right. So people are reading the Bible like a book of stories, but it’s not a book of stories. It’s like the difference between like a fairy tale and a documentary. Right. It’s the same sort. Right. And this is where the question of fiction comes in. Yeah, keep going. Keep going. Yeah. So I recently came up with this and I put it on a response to Paul Van der Kler on Twitter, because Paul and I love Pastor Paul. He’s a wonderful person. He’s just great. And he looks shorter in person because his big head on YouTube is just way bigger. It makes him look seven feet tall. So when you’re talking about fiction, what you’re saying is this is a tale, a story about events I did not observe. It’s not talking about the trueness of trueness of the statements that you make, because I can say this with certainty, because of good story that is well told, true or untrue in terms of in terms of witnessing is a good story. But a bad story is one you can’t relate to. That has to be how true to whether or not it’s a thing that happened in the way that you say in the world. Can’t connect to it. Fiction isn’t an untrue story because a good fiction is true. Right. A bad fiction is untrue. And a bad accounting for what actually happened in the moment is equally untrue, no matter how historically accurate or precise it is. And I think that’s part of where we get confused. Keep going, Mark. Keep going, because that’s really interesting because a bad accounting about what actually happened isn’t true. So what are you seeing? There’s something that you’re seeing there. There’s some other piece there. Right. So what is, so no, you’re right. What is truth? Well, truth is not an axiomatic condition of the world. That’s why we have the word axiom. It’s a good Johnny Cash song. Being is good is true, but it’s an axiom. So it’s not really true. It’s an axiom. It’s a starting point to base your reality on or your claims about reality on. Right. Okay. What true means is that you fired the arrow true. It’s about a path. It’s an action. It’s a conformance. It’s not a thing. It’s not an object. It’s not a material. Nothing in the material world is true because you can’t conform to it. Your relationship to it might be true. But then the things involved in the relationship don’t matter, but the relationship matters. So in other words, if I tell you a story that you cannot participate in or find a mode of participation that applies to you, then that story is not true. Is it a lie? No, no. And this is where people get confused. Everything that is not true is not a lie. Right. Everything that is not true just may be unhelpful to you. So if I tell you I went to the store and I bought a Twinkie and when I went to pay for it, I didn’t have the cash in my pocket. So I used a credit card. There’s nothing inaccurate or imprecise in that story. Okay. However, it’s not true in that it doesn’t give you information that you can participate in the world. So is that what you’re saying the ostracism is? Yeah, keep going with this. But what you said about it’s not relevant, that’s important. It’s so important. Keep going, guys. Right. So I think that that is what Gnosticism is. It’s an observation that there are things in the world and then they’re drawing relationships and connections to those things. And so you can imagine. Right. And this is, you know, look, I’m going to be a little sneaky and postmodern here for sure. But I’m going to call it out right up front. And it’s not invalid. I’m not, you know, I’m not like I’m not going to condemn my own, you know, project. Right. You could describe John Vervaeke’s practices, all of them as a bunch of different people getting in a circle, saying certain words in a certain order and looking for an emergence. OK, what I just described is a seance. That’s what it is. A seance has the same physical description. Now, to be completely fair or as fair as I can be to John, like, I don’t believe that John believes that what he’s doing is like a seance. He’s actually this has come up before, by the way, on a video. So don’t come jumping down my throat about about John and seances because he’s used the word and he has denied that his philosophical fellowship practice, which he has two videos on that I know of, was like a seance, even though two of the people there. And to some extent, John agreed that it was like a seance. And he describes it like a seance. He describes it like a resurrection. He talks about internalizing the sage. Right. Well, to internalize the sage, you got to bring him back to life for you. So what you do is you read the book and or engage with right. And then as you engage in the circle with people, right, the spirit of the, this is the way he talks about it, the spirit of the person, of the author comes into being. That’s how they talk about it. That’s scary. This is scary stuff, man. That’s agnosticism. That’s what I’m saying. Like it’s a slippery slope, Mark. That’s why I said last time when I was at the Abbey, it’s a bloody slippery slope. You know, you start before you know it, you know, you’re you’re internalizing somebody, right. And it’s it’s it’s easy to do. So good point. But, okay, keep going with your idea of fiction and whatnot, because I find it. It’s really I think this is fundamental, the idea of what is fiction, what is narrative, what is story. And and and and back to back to Boomshrim’s point about what was going on in the garden there with Christ and and you know, so. And that’s the thing. I mean, let’s just let’s just for a second take seriously the idea that there’s a there there, right. That we can that we can point to something and say that we’ll say that that that something happened that no one could possibly have reported accurately because there were no witnesses at the time. And so what I mean by that is that if I were if it were me somewhere in the desert alone by myself and I had an interaction and I came back and described it to you. You are still not a witness to that interaction because it was just me in the desert. Okay. So there were no witnesses to this event. So there’s no outside, intersubjective observer to to validate or invalidate any of this. Okay. So that didn’t happen in that case. Now. If I hear the story in the Bible and I’m only you know somewhat familiar with it don’t think I’ve read that one for sure. Right. What what does that mean in terms of hearing that story? So let’s suppose that Christ never went to a desert or never went to a desert alone and never had that like it just didn’t happen. We’ll just say it didn’t happen. Okay. Through some arbitrary. I’m going to make an arbitrary standard because I’m not there’s no standard you can say it didn’t happen. But we’re going to it was relatable to in the in the garden. It was like when I was talking we stopped. Are we talking about him going to the desert and being tempted three times? Are we talking about the guy I’m talking about the garden? I mean, he’s like, oh, you know, he’s like, yeah, he’s like, why have you forsaken me the relationship? Yeah. I’m going to be a slightly different scenario, which is just the story. Right. Okay. So if there’s no witnesses, there’s no intersubjective, there’s no observer. Right. And then I make that claim and somebody reads that story and says, oh, this person went somewhere and talked to something somehow outside or inside of themselves. It really doesn’t matter at that point. And then came out of that experience with valuable transformation or valuable piece of knowledge. Right. And then I read that and then I can use that. And then it’s true, irrespective of whether or not it happened. It doesn’t matter if it happened. Because again, there’s no standard like this is people ever think this standards is no look up games theory. Mark, stop, stop, stop. No, no, no. We’re talking about patterns. So like you’re jumping levels here. We’re talking about patterns. So the point is, the point is happened is a funny word to be using it. I don’t even know if it’s relevant to be quite honest. The point is that it draws our attention or Boomshrim wouldn’t have asked us about it. So the point is it’s drawing attention. So back to your definitions, Mark, back to your definitions. It’s true, man. Because look, we’re talking about it in 2023, man. And I want to know what you guys think. So it’s true because you can relate to it. That’s the whole point. But it doesn’t matter. OK, so keep going. It’s a fractal thing, though. So it doesn’t when you say postmodern claim this happened stuff or didn’t happen is all this postmodern crap. Right. Yeah. So right. It has meaning. It has impact because it’s relatable. So this is why this this is so interesting to me. This new debate that’s huge point of contention between Catholics, Orthodox people, Protestants. When Jesus is praying in the garden, is he praying to himself or is he praying to somebody else that’s God or is Jesus and God the same thing? If that’s true, is it as impactful and meaningful when he’s praying in the garden? What’s the point? I’m not sure. It’s like blowing my mind. I’m like, what is the Trinity? What’s the Holy Ghost? Then what? How does this work? What is going on? Exactly. If we want to be coherent and not like, say, 12 syllable words and try to make people feel stupid and belittle them like what is actually going on? How do we come together on some of that stuff? It was very interesting to see them fight so hard about it. Wow. Wow. We have to realize that. We have to realize the difference between fiction, nonfiction and truth. Those are our three different things. We have to realize the difference between a lie and something that is technically accurate, but also not true. OK. We need those differentiations. We can’t. We can’t live in this binary world with this binary thinking. We need to be able to re-enchant the world. If you’re stuck in binary thinking, you’re in trouble. Because in a binary world, you’re on a flat plane fighting for power. That’s why there’s a Trinity. That’s why there’s a Trinity, man, because right away you’re gone. You’re gone from binary. It’s a whole different thing, right? Well, why wouldn’t it be like four? I had a debate on the Bridges of Meaning about that once about the Quaternity. And, oh, man, that pissed everybody off. And I was just interested. Why three? Why not four? Why not two? Why not two? Why doesn’t God have a wife? Is he a man? If he’s a man, what’s the point of being a man if you don’t have a wife? And then, well, what did he say? Well, you know, Zeus had a wife. And, you know, Thor, you know, and Odin. So, you know, God doesn’t need a woman. And so these are just simple questions that I have. And it creates these huge shit storms. And I’m like, but why? I think it’s a good question, you know, like. I think so, too. I think it is a good question. Yeah, I think it is. And the fact that people don’t want to talk about it is to your point. They’re stuck in the damn left brain like logical sequential. We are not in that world, man. Logical sequential is just fine if you want to figure out how to, you know, paint your house or something. But no, when you want to talk about reality, you’re right in the right hemisphere. It’s imagination, intuition, and anything’s up for grabs, in my opinion. Like, that’s it. Like, possibility, right? Because it says over and over again in the Gospels. Nothing is impossible. Nothing is impossible. Right. So I agree with you. We need to open our imagination and understand like all the weird and wonderful strangeness that can be. Try, maybe we can. But I think. Rationality. That’s really, you’re trying again. Rationality can’t explain the world we live in. It’s not possible. The only being able to understand the world we live in is the being that created the thing that we were born into because we were born into it. We were born into it at a certain time and in a certain place. And that constricts us or restricts us or constrains us. That already happened. That happened to people already. You have no choice about that. Yeah, but there’s something to know because we’re back to the same thing we were talking about, like this theological kind of paradigms, blah, blah, blah. And then the enchanted world, which is really the world in which we find ourselves all the time. So it’s fair and good to be talking about the Trinity and to be reimagining it maybe. Talking about it, yes. In the positive, yes. And relaying your experience with it as it relates to your life, not talking about it in the abstract because it’s not an abstract concept. Everything cannot be abstracted. That’s nonsense. I can’t abstract my food. I still have to eat. You can talk about food in the abstract. You’ve got to break it down and digest it. You do. It’s all about sex and digestion. I don’t know why people don’t talk about sexual metaphors in this little corner or anywhere else for this matter. It’s so obvious when you think of sexual metaphors. It solves almost every problem. Well, we don’t know what gender is anymore. That’s probably why. That’s a problem, isn’t it? In this little corner, we don’t have that problem. The problem that we have in this little corner is they are afraid of things that might be politically dangerous, and they are afraid of things that might be socially dangerous, and they are afraid of things that imply structure because that’s constrained. It’s backbone. It’s a lack of backbone. Let’s just say it. Okay. So this comes to my full circle, my point. Okay. If you were going to try to break a man’s back for asking that question and get on his hands and knees to just believe it with just beating people over the head with this church father, that church father, this thing, this scripture, blah, blah, blah, I think that is terrible to all of humanity. If you were going to try to break a man’s back for asking that question and get on his hands and knees to just believe it with just beating people over the head with this church father, that church father, this thing, this scripture, blah, blah, blah, I think that is terrible to all of humanity. I think that is terrible to all of humanity. It’s like you should. You’re given a backbone. You’re given a mind. You’re given this ability to ask questions. And if you’re just asking a simple question, please, can you just make this a little more coherent for me? Because I’m almost there. I see where this is going. But this thing doesn’t make sense. And it leads to a lot of other stuff. I’m like, I’m not sure. And then you’re just browbeated. I think it pushes people out into these other pastures. They don’t know where the fuck to go. For sure. Because where the hell are you going to go about Gnosticism with their new age? I’ll keep my backbone. I think the Gnosticism or what, they can keep the back, they can stand up still. And I think that needs to be talked about. You can’t follow them for wanting to still stand and figure it out on their own terms. Right. I think that’s very human. Yeah. But to your point, like that’s exactly John Verrechi’s situation, right? He’s going to have freaking backbone because he was so traumatized by some god, excuse me, god-awful church’s child. So he’s just like backbone man. And people don’t understand that. He is on a journey, man. He’s chiseling out, being able to breathe, frankly. That’s what it’s all about. Gnosticism, that’s a brilliant correlation actually. Like Gnosticism is backbone. And I think that’s very valid. You’re being empowered with something you don’t have power over. Like Gnostics think that they can do things like summon spirits. But I think that’s why they’re what’s going on. If I could put my finger on it. Yeah, it’s the only space for them. Like what are you going to do if you’re stuck in a paradigm that’s so bloody tight that you can’t even bring in any other idea? So how do we attack that? Where are you going to go? Now that that’s kind of a target, how do you label it further and how do you attack it? Look, I’m going to go back to what Peugeot said. So Peugeot in episode eight of Exodus, which I had the pleasure to view on somebody else’s account because they’re a wonderful human being. He said in there that well, Oz Guinness had attacked him and said, Jordan, you’re wrong. You’re wrong, Jordan. It’s God emanates from above, down upon, and then Peugeot jumps in. And he says, hold on, Oz, I want to defend Jordan here for a second. Right. And I’m going to have to paraphrase from here on out. But Jordan has a way of talking to secularists because if you start talking to them, God, their eyes glaze over and they can’t hear you anymore. But you have to take care of these people and take them step by step. That’s my staircase. That’s where I got that. But how to do that is the question. But by the way, Mark, wait, wait, time out, time, time, guys. The point it’s important to note though what Peugeot did there, what he did, which I thought was unbelievably brilliant. First of all, he said to Dr. Peterson, he said, I think you need to let Oz Guinness speak here. So he actually directed Peterson back to what Oz Guinness was saying, because Jonathan also realizes you don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Right. You need your gestalt. You don’t want to go to Gnosticism. And then he said, but then he told Oz Guinness what Peterson was doing. I don’t even think Peterson can figure this out. Well, look, let’s go ahead and I don’t like criticizing successful people at doing something that nobody else seems to be able to copy because they won’t listen to me. But Peterson is still a materialist. OK, so the Gnosticism is still a possibility because Peterson is not at being as good. He’s still at emergence is good because that’s all he talks about as a scientist. And so he’s not dancing in that. You’re right. He doesn’t understand emanation. He’ll say it just like Verveki says it. He says emanation. Now, let me tell you about emergence. Here’s how emergency every single time for Verveki does that. He’s never not done that. Neither of these guys have ever said, oh, I agree with you. Emanation is important. And let’s talk about emanation. They never want to talk about emanation. Why, Mark? OK, you answer that question for me. Why? Why doesn’t he know why is the missing the missing starting axiom? So this is where I was where I was going before. The staircase metaphor that I gave you earlier came from this. OK, I realized when when you know, and I listened to it. I haven’t clipped out somewhere on my computer. In fact, I have the clip of of of Peugeot defending Peterson. And the reason why it was so important is because he said step by step. And I was like, oh, OK, so there’s a staircase of axioms and that’s where they lead up. And if you have other axioms, they don’t lead up. They may lead up a little, but then they lead back down or they may lead down or they may lead all over the place. Right. Because a lot of this problem is just not understanding that in the scheme of things, the world is a triangle. The universe, the existence is a triangle. And what that means is there’s a lot of not good that is actually evil. There’s a lot of not good that is just neutral. Right. Just like liturgy. You got to go through it. You got to get up every day. You get to brush your teeth every day. You know, there’s a lot of things like they get interest every day. Right. Maybe not every day because one slip here or there won’t kill you, but two slips, three slips. And the next thing you know, you fall into the evil. Right. Because that’s what happens to us. Right. And so we’re always we’re always at least treading water against entropy. But if you want to be good, if you want to do good, there is very little good. It is up here at the top of the triangle. And you have to aim for it. And because there’s very little of it, you have to struggle to get there. Yeah. But Mark Peterson is doing what Boomsroom is talking about right here and trying to figure out about what Christ said there. Boomsroom is trying to get these levels. Like, how do we? He’s not talking about it. Yeah. But what are? No, this is important because I’m wondering the same thing. How do we how do we scaffold? It’s almost like scaffolding. Well, you have to. You need it. OK, I see it as like the leap of faith that Christianity asks. The Gnostics are like, I’m going to build my own scaffolding and I’ll go over there and maybe check it out. They don’t trust the scaffolding the Christians made. They don’t trust getting on your knees and just taking it, taking their word for it. Like, who are you? Maybe you’re going to try to fuck me. What if I bend over? I don’t trust you, man. You know, so they’re right. They’re individuals. They’ve been told themselves. Why wouldn’t they? If I were told that I might believe that they’re not stupid enough to believe that. I think on the extreme, they think they can build it themselves. But I really do think they’re trying to understand what the fuck is going on. For the most part. You’re not right about this leap of faith. That’s what Gnosticism is. Gnosticism is the leap of faith. Gnosticism is starting from some point and then building it up rationally from there. But it’s wrong because you actually have to make a leap of faith because your basic axioms are wrong. Christianity, to your point, Christianity, this is what I totally disagree with the leap of faith idea. Peterson talks about it. It’s not a leap of faith. It’s based on your experience for heaven’s sake. It’s based on experience. It’s based on community. It’s based on distributive. It’s based on distributive. That ain’t no leap. I see what you’re saying with that. The dangerous concept. That’s Gnosticism. And people need to get their head around it because it’s dangerous to think that you’re making some kind of leap. That’s Gnosticism, man. That is not Christianity. And I’ll go to my death on that one. I feel what you’re saying because when I started to understand these concepts of God, I felt an energy that I didn’t quite feel before. I didn’t even have to. Yeah, it did come very naturally. I didn’t have to like logic it all out. I’m like, oh, that really just makes a lot of sense. But however, when I hear other things such as the who is Jesus praying to in the garden, I’m like, huh, that’s a good question. You know, it doesn’t make me think, oh, heresy, heresy, you know, shut up. You know, I’m like, huh, you know, what is that about? But look, I think the problem is that it’s all a leap of faith. And we actually have it’s so funny. We had this discussion earlier today. No, any decision is faith. You make all your decisions. That’s not a leap, man. Don’t give me this freaking leap. It’s not a leap. Faith is good. If you’re a rationalist, all faith is a leap. If you’re a rationalist, all faith is a leap. Oh yeah, if you’re a rationalist. Well, look, we’re talking about them. You can’t use your perspective. No, you guys are talking. Boomshrum said he was talking about himself. He put that in the Congress of Christianity. Maybe he’s not a rationalist. There’s no leap of faith in Christianity. We’re trying to get to the point to fix the rationalists. This was Nieram’s project. I know, but this is important because the leap of faith is part of this problem that Boomshrum is talking about. Well, let me take his problem seriously then. OK. Any decision is a leap of faith because you do not know what’s going to happen in the future. Potential is dangerous. Potential could go your way. It could go way better than you think, or it could go much worse. Yeah, but you’re acting on evidence. What are statistics? You’re acting on evidence. Statistics. No, no, no, no. No, you’re not interacting on evidence. You’re acting on evidence. Yes, you are. For sure you are. Well, no, I’m not at all ever because I don’t believe evidence is useful. I would say we run off of statistical heuristics. You’re not. You don’t do statistics in your head. No humans do statistics. It’s a feeling. I’m like, I have a pretty good probability that if I do this. That’s the myth of game theory. That’s the myth of game theory. John Nash, who was considered the father of game theory, actually disproved that we are doing anything like game theory in our heads. Because to go buy a loaf of bread at the store requires that you do calculus according to game theory. That’s actually what game theory says. I think we do. How do we get anywhere? How do we navigate any patterns? How do we move? We notice patterns, right? How do we notice patterns, Mark? Go, go, go, go. That’s observation. Noticing patterns is just observation. How do we notice them, Mark? That’s the problem. It’s observation. It’s observation. No, it’s your freaking body. How do we know what to do? It’s not observation. It’s your body. Your body feels it. Wait, wait, wait, wait. We notice the patterns. That’s what observation is. Okay. Then we participate with the patterns. And if that does so, for example, if you’re three years old and you start fake crying at your mother, because crying works, and your mother senses that you’re fake crying, because maybe she doesn’t, because some parents don’t. Right? Okay. You may not get what you want. So you participated with the pattern of crying gives me something, right? Usually what I want. And then that fails. And you go, oh, okay. Participating with the observed pattern doesn’t work under these circumstances. And then eventually you intuit. You don’t calculate. You don’t look at statistics. You intuit that if I’m being dishonest while I’m crying, if I’m crying just to get what I want, my mother doesn’t give it to me. That’s not true for all mothers. This is where it’s a problem. Everybody wants one universal solution. I got to do it for you. Okay. Yeah. That is sort of a statistical thing, too. Your body’s not doing it. Yeah, there’s a chance she will. It’s like a dice roll. No, it’s not statistical. You’re participating in it. Yeah, but you’re kind of looking at your participation. We don’t do statistics in our head. Well, not like it depends what we mean by statistics, but we’re definitely measuring things out. So based on our experience and our body’s reaction to it. We’re not measuring anything. It’s a whole lot of thinking. Okay. What do you think generals are doing on a battlefield? Let’s use that. Let’s use a war scenario. What is a general doing on a battlefield? Let me finish the analogy. That’s a good one. So what we’re doing is we’re participating with patterns and finding out when those patterns apply and when they don’t through repeated observations. It’s not I’m observing the world. What are you doing when you’re facing something unknown, though? Well, this is what I’m saying. It’s okay. You’ve ever done was unknown. Everything, every action you ever took was unknown at some point because you didn’t know anything when you were a baby. And so you know, postmodern, no, no, that’s not true. No, postmodern. You learn those things through participation. So when you participate, you act on faith. And that’s how you learn what proper pattern participation is over time. You don’t calculate it and you don’t measure it. It all happens as the result of the interaction that you have in the moment. Yeah. No, I think you’re a bit off on this, Mark. I think it’s left hemisphere and right hemisphere. McGilchrist says the same thing. You can’t just go. We can’t just go. No, no, I’m not saying it’s wrong. Look, McGilchrist is wrong about a few things. And one of them. Yeah, but he’s right. Well, here’s we are primarily beings of action. We are not primarily beings of thought. That’s why we’re not primarily rational. We are primarily reactive. We react to our emotions. And that determines our actions way more than rationality, because that side of our brain gets all the data later. It’s very slow. No, no, because we’re not our bodies tell us our bodies regulate when things are are are working properly. It’s our bodies that tell us. And so it’s based on our bodies. We’re not being reacted to. But our bodies tells a lot. It’s not just our bodies. Oh, yeah, man. My body tells me almost everything. I’d say 99.8 percent of our body tells us. But also your brain affects your body. So if you have stress, you can make yourself sick. So it’s not a one way communication thing with the body being correct about everything. But you have to be a little bit careful. You don’t throw out thought like back to Boomshrim’s idea of what’s what’s going on with Christ at Gethsemane. Like, what is that? What is that all about? And because there is there is thought and thought is part of the right. So thought is not apart from intuition and imagination. They’re all together. So we’ve got to be a little bit careful that we don’t throw out thought. And this is the deep confusion with everybody. How close does Christ have to be to humanity to make the maximal impact? I think is how I would distill that. How close does Christ have to be to humanity to make the maximal impact? He has to live with us and he does. So that’s what that’s the personification. Or does God need to have a son rather than a how do you call it a robot body made out of meat to inhabit and walk around? Or does he need to have a son and watch his son and look at him? Or does he need to have a son and watch his son and look at him? Or does he need to have a son and watch his son and look at him? Or does he need to have a son and watch his son and lose his son to relate to us more? No, no, you’re right. He has to walk among us as one of us, birthing, living, suffering and dying the way we do. That’s the only way he can relate. And this is like is it him or is it his son? No, it is the question. It has to be both. Yeah, that’s what’s confusing. Like what happened? And better yet, how can we relate to that? Or should we relate to it? What is the point of the thing then if we can’t relate? Mark’s point. Mark’s point is the individual problem all over again, right? It’s not what we think it is. There’s no such thing as individual. It’s all relationship. It’s all the betweenness. That’s what McGill just talks about constantly. It’s the betweenness. So it’s the and I don’t even know how to put that into words. The infinite in between the one and the two on the ruler. It’s all infinite points. Yeah, well there you go. Okay, that’s good actually. And that’s the core issue, right? The core issue is because the post-moderns believe and John says this. He’s like I don’t want to personify. At one point John said to Vanderkleid, he said why the personification? Why can’t we just use the Bible and ditch the Jesus? And I was like and Vanderkleid explained it to him. It has to be personified so that we can relate to it. We have to relate. And reverse too, which Nero did beautifully. I think it goes both ways for sure, right? Like God’s relating to us as humans in the human struggle by creating himself or a version of himself or whatever, a lesser version of himself. And you know that’s even an argument is Jesus is not a creation. It’s an eternal. See, it gets so into the weeds and confusing and argument bound. It can. But that’s because you can always add detail. And this is the problem that we get. We always add detail. And you can add an infinite amount of detail. This is what the physicists learned years ago, by the way, decades ago. You can always add detail, right? There’s always another fundamental particle to find always. And that’s the problem. It’s just like oh, okay. So the further down we go, the more stuff there is. Yeah, you can dig to China. Except there’s no China. You’re just going to keep digging forever. Or you can say, you know what? I’m satisfied with this. This is enough for me to interact with, interface with. And now I’m going to act in. I’m going to take a leap of faith that the rest of the details are correct. And I don’t need to know them. And I’m just going to act on the information that I have. Because this is all about the idea that information is somehow the highest value. And that the more we have, the better decisions we’ll make. That’s not true. The more information you have, the less likely you are to act. And it doesn’t include… Yeah, I was just going to say that, Boomshrim. It’s all about feeling. It’s totally about feeling. That whole thing in the garden is about feeling. Christ is showing us that our bodily reaction, our emotional reaction, to whatever is happening is painting a picture. It’s painting a picture of how we are, basically. And that’s what gives us eyes to see where we need to go. Right. It gives us community. This is excellent. So, okay. How do I put this? This is a hard thought to keep coming up with. I’m going to keep going. I’m going to keep going. I’m going to keep going. How do I put this? This is a hard thought to keep together. All right. How can you relate to that story of him praying in the garden if he’s talking to himself? But if he’s talking to God, as in an other, something like somebody that can hear him, instead of, oh, I have this thought. I already know what I’m saying. I just had a prayer. It’s automatic. He put his hands together and had the prayer like sending a transmission out. Right? Wanting something, wanting, and it’s moving because it’s like, oh, I’ve been there. I’ve been scared like that. I can relate to that. We both talked to God and revealed ourselves. Been naked in that way. Well, and that’s why it’s important that the story is that. Relatable. Because it’s relatable by us. Because that’s how we know it. Does the Trinity make Christianity less relatable? And that is why you can’t attain more. It makes it more relatable. Tell me more about why that is. Because she didn’t get into this earlier. She actually stumbled across this earlier. If you live in a binary world, and I put a link to the binary thinking video that I did on navigating patterns, which everybody should watch, which is awesome. You are fighting over the same space all the time. It is power. A duality. It’s power. It’s who has more. But isn’t three companies? Hold on. Because you have two perspectives. Your perspective and the other perspective. If you think of God as just God and man, it’s a struggle for power from below versus power from above. That’s what it is. It becomes a struggle. A struggle for heaven and hell. Those are roughly the same thing. I agree. But I think the problem people have is why is it the father, son, and the Holy Ghost and not the father, mother, and child? Let me show you why. This is valid. There is a struggle between the father and the son. Who is the ghost? Where is the mom? Did they kill the mom? That’s why it’s a ghost? No. Calm down. There is a struggle between the father and the son. That exists. The son has to take over the father’s empire eventually. That means he has to step down or be killed. But there is a way in which you can accept by transcending that sacrifice. And both sacrificing a little. So that you’re not fighting for power anymore. You’re lifted up. There’s the triangle. That’s the third thing. And the Holy Ghost represents the space to move up. It says you are not stuck on a flat plane of power. And in a struggle with other people. There is a plane above that that you can rise to. And the way you rise to that plane is by making a small sacrifice on that plane by both parties. And then they rise up and now both parties can be lifted up together and benefit. It’s not a loss for one and a gain for the other. It’s a small loss for both. That sounds like God. That sounds like God to me. So who’s the father then if that’s God, the ghost? No, no. The ghost isn’t God. The ghost represents the space. You said the lifting up, the levity. You’re going towards the top of the pyramid. That sounds like what God is like the promotion of growth. It’s the pointer to the fact that there is a space above you. It’s just the simple statement to pull your attention to the fact that you’re not stuck on a plane fighting with the other people in the same plane at the same time. You’re not. You are able to go up. That is the statement. You’re able to rise above the conflict that you’re trapped in and make small sacrifices on both sides for gains that are larger than your sacrifices. And that’s what people don’t understand. That’s actually the core message that people don’t get. If you give up a little, a little of your speaking time or a little of your patience, in my case, in my case both, then you can hear the wisdom of Elizabeth and Nero. Otherwise, I can’t because I’ll just keep talking and I’ll just keep trying to make my point. But I give up a little and you guys also give up a little so I can finish my damn points. Right. And then in that way, you see distributed cognition, you see the cognition coming from me to you guys and back and between each other. Right. And then we all get smarter in that process because I’m not. Look, look, this is navigating alive patterns. OK, I’m not much of an agenda. I just scaffold a little bit of stuff and then we but I scaffold the stuff and then go for the emergence. And then I trust that that emergence is good because I trust that you guys are in good faith. I know in this case, everybody here is in good faith and we’ll see. And he’ll be in good faith. Right. And that’s not always the case because we’ve had conversations in the past where not everybody’s been in good faith. And like fair, I’m not blaming them. That happens. I can trust the emergence from our conversation to be, we’ll say, more Christian than Gnostic. And that I think is a good thing. Like, I’ll just state that right out. Gnosticism bad. I’ve been down that path. You want to talk about occultism? We’ll go into it. I love occultism. One of my favorite subjects. I know way too much about it. You’d be absolutely terrified of what I know and what I could tell you about it because it’s scary. But that’s why Gnosticism is dangerous. Like I know Gnosticism is a dangerous bad thing. It is really bad. Like you have got no idea where that hole, how deep that hole is. It’s absolutely true, man. Absolutely. You know what? Though there’s something else going on here. Bishop Maximus, if you listen to the conversation that he had with John Verveckis, is absolutely brilliant. And what he said at the end, he was talking about the Holy Spirit, right? And I really found this helpful because from the Orthodox, and I’m not Orthodox, but and I have my problems with it too. But what he was saying is the Holy Spirit is that which, you know, Christ says that the Holy Spirit will come upon all of us. And it’s like the, I don’t even know what to call it. I think they call it energies in Orthodoxy. It’s like this being that allows us, I don’t even know how to articulate it. This helped me. But it allows us to become the Christ that we’re looking towards somehow. So it’s almost to me, this could be totally wrong imagery. I call that good vibes, but you know. It’s like they become more and more, more imminent, right? They become, it’s God and then Christ and then the Spirit. It’s almost like it moves closer and closer to our inner being somehow. So I think there’s that piece as well. And I think we have such a crazy idea of the feminine, like this is, oh, don’t get me started. But we don’t understand the feminine. Paszlo talks about this a lot because we’re so, our society, we’re so used to the way everything’s seen here in this world and this flat plane on which we find ourselves. And the feminine and the masculine are much more, like Christ is so feminine in many ways, right? He’s very feminine. He’s, talk about compassion. Let’s talk about Mary, you know. I love Mary. Oh my God. Don’t get me started. Where’s my icon? Right, right. So, you know, maybe this is a really bad thing I’m about to say, but I’m just curious and I’m a fool. Whatever. People call me whatever you want. But, you know, what the whole thing about Mary in free will, right? Like, you know, where was the ask? You know, where was the, hey, would you be cool with maybe carrying God around? Maybe or something. I don’t know. She was ready. She was absolutely ready. This woman was already in her space, in the space or wherever you want to call it. Like, was there a point where it was like, you know, discussed or they just were like, this is happening? She was like, oh, I already know. No, no, she had to accept. She had to accept. Okay, see, that’s how foolish I am and ignorant about it. So it was like a whole conversation of like, hey, you know, we’re going to this is going to happen. Are you cool with this whole thing? This is what’s going to happen after that. And then we’re we’re off to the races with the whole next chapter of the Bible. I’ll get my icon. It looks okay. Yeah. Yeah, I think I think that that is what it is. Like you have to you have to kind of engage with with the whole story, right? Which is, yeah, she was asked and she agreed. Yeah. And then because that plays into the whole idea of mothers watch their children suffer and die. Like that’s their task in life. Yeah. Oh, can we see Mary? Like, look at her. Yeah. Mary, this is Jonathan Peugeot’s Mary, right? No, it’s such a strange concept to me that that’s the idea of perfection. Like a virgin. She’s she’s ready. Like she’s ready. She’s she’s she’s not like we are like not. She’s not like the modern, crazy female. If you like, she understands that as she into she’s almost integrating into herself. Look at her. Right. And she’s got her hands like I want to see her hands. Look at her hands like she’s open. She’s open to truth. She’s open to goodness. And she’s not she doesn’t have any Gnostic ideas. That’s what this is all about. There’s ideas in that lady’s head. Look at her like she is totally. Yeah, I can. And she’s she’s she’s very like childlike. No, she’s complex. She understands reality. She understands how reality works totally. And that’s why her hands are so are so open to. It’s a concept I’ve really never I just can’t I can’t relate to it. It’s just I don’t understand it at all. That’s Mary and she’s everywhere. You need to go to Italy. Boomsherm, you can come and visit me. I’m going in April. Excellent. Yeah, I go to Italy all the time because I was telling Ethan on all the many of the street corners wherever you go, there’s there’s depictions of Mary and the Christ child. And when you see her over and over again, like it changes you to see Mary over and over again with this child that she contains. And and she and the whole idea of the feminine is as as the container. And it’s like it’s it’s the most sacred space. She wouldn’t have thought, oh, my God, like why me? She would have. Right. She would have been overwhelmed that she was the chosen one. That’s how I see it. She would be overwhelmed that she was the chosen one. That’s how that’s what I think. Oh, yeah. But also women create the space. I mean, here it didn’t feel that way about her. You need to look at this icon a bit. I know. Well, I’m looking at it from the context of just all the ancient religions. And then, you know, maybe that’s not fair of me or what or whatever. But I’m just looking at it like, you know, the gods before had no problem coming down and, you know, bedding down our women like it was a very common thing. They did not mince words when they spoke about it. But now here comes Christianity. We’re mincing our words. You know, it’s like it was a laser beam in her belly or it just they asked. They were very polite. It’s not like you came down and danced with her and then they took her off somewhere. You’re missing something in the story. OK, you ready? There’s pictures everywhere you go to in Italy. Guess what you see constantly? Elizabeth and Mary, because they get together when they’re both pregnant. Right. It’s in the gospel. You read it. They get together. I think Mary goes and stays with Elizabeth. It’s about relationship again. They’re both in the same boat, so to speak. And they they’re together. And so it’s it’s like that’s just a perfect depiction of how everything works in life. Right. It’s about the relationship again. They’re both they’re both chosen women and they come together. I think they’re cousins. It’s it’s an amazing story of a relationship and how so it’s not. Once again, I think it’s a bit individualistic to wonder what she was thinking when it happened. I think she was already aligned and in Mark’s navigating pattern, she was a lot. Sure. I mean, I’ll be the first to admit I’ve got individual. I mean, I don’t know what to do about it. It might be terminal. I’m not sure. You know, maybe it’s a disaster. I’m trying to hope that like they just have to kill it all and hope that, you know, it’s reborn in you somehow because it’s right. For sure. Right. I think it’s a fine line boom shroom between being an individual and and and and also being made made in the image of God. Like there’s a frickin fine line. I think we all struggle with. Yeah, there’s a fine line between being that and, you know, Lucifer and wanting to make your own your own deal, your own candle. You know, is it is it Lucifer and tell you have a skyscraper or to have a boat? I meant to swim. That’s the Amish Elon Musk argument. That’s because that’s what Satan does. Right. He concentrates us in the material and the physical and takes our eyes down away from what’s higher. And to me, it’s like, well, no, it’s just isn’t Satan worship. It’s like, no, no, no, no. If you’re not worshiping God, it’s Satan worship. It’s like, that’s the problem is that you’re still. Okay. These non-person God, you’re you’re advancing Satan’s cause. Yeah. And you’re with the spirits, man. You’re with the spirits. If you’ve ever been there, my God is scary. I’ve been. Yeah. No, it is. It is scary. But I think it’s coming from all this like the same like let’s do factory farming. Let’s have automobiles. Let’s have rockets. That’s what those are very driven by this Gnostic bullshit that we’re talking about, too. You know, it’s those people that manufacture these things because they want to create something outside of God and nature. And Joe Rogan has this argument that, you know, computers are natural because humans made them. I don’t know, dude, like when we’re talking about this, we can we can say that a tree and a cell phone are like two different things. OK, I don’t know if it’s natural for humans to do what we’re doing. We could do anything. So then you’re saying do anything that we do. No, that’s the denial of creation. OK. OK. Yeah. But at the same time, if a tree is an extension of God’s mind, so is a computer is an extension of a human’s mind. Like, yeah, that’s the line. The line is at what point is it more human than God? Right. That’s the line. Right. There’s nothing wrong with factory farming, except when you do a bunch of factory farming, you make a bunch of people no longer have work that they can handle because they’re middle picking things in the field. Sorry. Like, you know, sometimes I’m that person. Sometimes I’m so burnt out that I need a simple task to keep my anxiety in order. And I can’t I just don’t have the mental energy to do something sophisticated like program a computer or even set up a VCR or set the time on my microwave or whatever it is. It doesn’t matter. We all get there. And sometimes in time, right, like sometimes we’re we’re fine until we’re not right. And we’re old age. We get an illness like I had. Right. Whatever. And then all of a sudden we can’t do what we used to be able to do. But if those lower end jobs aren’t available, then we lose something. Like, sometimes I need to be out just cutting down tree branches and piling up sticks. Otherwise, I don’t have time to think about these complicated things. And I get locked in my own thoughts instead of reconnecting with nature. Because when you’re just having your thoughts, eventually you’re building upon yourself. That’s the Tower of Babel. If I have these thoughts and I go for a walk and I’m interacting with trees and I’m dodging the branches or I’m staring at my pond and listening to the water trickle through the pond or whatever, that all happens. Right. And I’m hearing the birds and I’m having these thoughts. It’s a whole different thing. Something out of control compared to an environment you are in control of. So that environment you’re not in control of in nature elicits all of these challenges. And then when you’re in this environment that is controlled, the challenges are gone and you’re weakened. I know, but your question, Boomshrim, wasn’t your question, how do we move people from Gnosticism to Christianity? Yeah. I think it’s like, I think it’s the fun. I mean, I think that’s the whole project. Yeah. Make it more attractive. Just through conversation. I just see so much, oh, I’m up on top of the hill. I’m going to throw a boulder down at you and make you look stupid and everybody likes me more now type of thing that I see going on a lot. Instead of, what we have here, I just want to say, is a very rare thing on the internet where we can get through something without yelling. Like my stupid question about Mary. I would have been like, if I could destroy it by another group of people. So I appreciate that I could be foolish and kind of talk and figure things out and everybody can have a nice time. I think it needs more of that. For sure. Then I got to show you my icon from Johnson and Pescell. Yeah. And I love it. It’s beautiful. Yes. The wood carving stuff is amazing. I really like that whole art form. So let’s get back to that question because yeah, that is the project. It’s always been my project. First, you need to understand a few things. Okay. The first thing you need to understand is that Jordan Peterson is obviously able to kind of do something like this. I don’t think that’s controversial. I think you disagree with me. You’re just observably wrong and you’re welcome to be wrong. And I really don’t care. And I’m not interested in your criticism of that statement. So how do more of us do that effectively? I think it’s evident. Right. So the question is how do more of us do that effectively? Right. So my thesis on all of this and I talked to Van who played it probably a year and a half or two years ago now. And in my first talk with him, I said flat out, it’s my name next to Jordan Peterson’s name on the internet, by the way, the same title for a video. So if you want to find that video on Paul’s channel, just put in Peterson and LeFevre. You’ll find it right away. Oh my gosh. Paul was very kind. Paul is a wonderful. Paul does things that people don’t understand. Sometimes I look, sometimes I catch him and I’m like, oh, I see what you’re doing, Paul. So I said in there the way you understand Jordan Peterson’s work is you engage with John Verveckis work. Why? Because Jordan Peterson is a pragmatist and I love pragmatism. I’m a pragmatist. I love pragmatism. Pragmatism first, pragmatism second, and pragmatism third and screw everything else. The philosophy can get burned for all I care, burn all the books. Doesn’t matter. Let’s just get things done. Right. But Verveckis builds a science of meaning and with a science of meaning, which is a framework and a vocabulary. Some of the words I agree with, some I disagree with, doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter that I disagree with some of John’s ridiculous words. It makes no difference because now they’re common to a bunch of people. So now we can get with other people. And there’s a filter. Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, which should be called Awakening to the Meaning Crisis, by the way, it’s just misnamed, is a wonderful series. The number of people that can engage at that level with that material is tiny, tiny. Eight billion people on the planet, maybe a couple thousand are ever going to be able to understand awakening. It’s really hard. Even if you’re interested in it, the ability to engage is next to zero because it is, I guarantee you, harder than a college course. And I don’t mean an average college course. I mean that series is harder than any college course in any subject at any time. There is so much going on. It’s philosophy. It’s history. It’s religion. It’s psychology. It’s neuroscience. It’s got all of that packed in into a very coherent argument. And look, I’ve got my disagreements, especially with the axioms that John puts out. We can’t go back. We can’t live in a true world of mythology. These are axioms. I think they’re wrong. It doesn’t matter. Because with that series, I can now talk to Manuel about things that I had no language and framework. It’s not that I didn’t understand them. I said this in the talk. I said, Paul, the reason why I’m here is because Verbecky talks about a meaning crisis and Peterson also talks about the meaning crisis. He doesn’t use that term directly, but it’s called maps of meaning, guys. It’s not a stretch, right? And I said, meaning crisis? Well, I solved that for myself years ago. How could everybody be prepped in a meaning crisis? This is an easy problem to solve, right? And this is the point at which you realize you know something that you can’t communicate either to yourself in some cases or to others. Then John Verbecky comes along with a gift from above. As far as I can deny that all he wants. And I don’t think he would, to be fair to John. But a gift from above, which is a science of meaning. Well, now it does two things. It filters out all the people who are unserious, like the Jordan Hauls and the Forest Landrys and these other Gnostic clowns who just don’t have the intellectual horsepower. It filters them out. So I get the serious people to talk to. And it gives us a common framework so that I can talk to them. And that when I’m making statements, they understand those statements. And so now we can work on breaking down what did Jordan Peterson do? And I posted one of my one. I have like three. What did Peterson do videos? So I posted the latest one because that one’s actually doing really well. And I’d like to get it over a thousand views, guys. So I posted that because in there I’d go over one of his tricks, like a very clear thing that he does that nobody else has ever done that is to make it work. There’s no Christianness about it. He right. You wouldn’t buy anything. But he shoves you into the Bible using a trick of history. That’s what he does. Right. And I go over it in detail in the video. But what do you mean a trick in history? Like people like history. You’re going to like this. What are you talking about? I’ll give you the quick outline. OK, so we start out talking about the things that we’re going to talk about. Talking about. Look, in modern times, there’s there’s things like Pinocchio and he says, Why do you like Pinocchio? And then he says, Forget about why do you like Pinocchio? Why does Pinocchio make any sense? And he goes through the factual account for why Pinocchio cannot make any sense to you rationally. It’s not possible to watch a cartoon about a wooden boy and talking cricket with a fairy in it and relate that to your life. It’s not possible. So what the hell’s going on? And he takes some psychology. Right. And he mixes that in. And then he takes you to the Lion King. Right. He takes you back back through. He talks about Jung and he talks about Nietzsche. He doesn’t talk about psychology with Jung so much. And he doesn’t talk about as near as I can remember any of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Zero philosophy points from Nietzsche. Well, he’s using his prophecy in both cases. He’s appealing to their prophecy. What did he predict in this book? Oh, he predicted this. And I think that’s right. I think that happened. So he turns them from psychologist and philosopher into two prophets. OK. And then he leads you back further through history. And the whole time he’s making these connections between these stories and these symbols to what you do psychologically. So he’s strictly on the science realm. He’s saying, look, there’s these myths. And he takes you all the way back to the Sumerian myths. Right. All the way back to the Sumerian myths, which is great. So you’re in the Sumerian mythos. And then he runs you forward from Sumeria into Egypt. What’s so special about Egypt? Egypt is the historical nexus of the Bible. That’s the historical nexus to get into the Bible. If you want to use science to get into the Bible, you can’t start at Genesis. You can’t because evolution goes all the way back to nothing and doesn’t have an explanation or a starting point. So you need a starting point to get somebody into the Bible. So the starting point is Egypt. That’s where history and the Bible meet. And that’s the trick that he does. And I go into it. I see. That’s kind of what I was saying. The people that are in the history and can make those connections, they’re like, this is it. Here we go into the Bible now. And he got all these people on board. And we’re talking about how do you pull people away from Gnosticism to Christianity. That’s exactly what he did. It’s exactly what’s going on there in that whole ordeal. Ah, so he uses history. This is really interesting. OK. It’s very interesting. And he also states, Peterson states over and over again, hierarchy is real and hierarchy is older than trees. And what the hell are you going to do about it? So Peterson the whole time is peppering you with constraints and saying these are constraints. He says the Pareto distribution. What are you going to do about that? The Pareto distribution actually determines the distribution of stars in the universe. OK. You’re not a star in the universe. What are you going to do about the Pareto distribution? I’ll tell you what you’re going to do about Pareto distribution. You ready? Nothing. Nothing about it. You’re a little tiny speck of a nothing in the world. And there’s nothing you can do about the stuff that was here first and that is bigger than you. So, Mark, is Jordan and John and several others marrying old or old world psychology to new world psychology and tying in? No. No. No, no, no. OK. I think let’s suppose you’re Jordan Peterson. OK. Let’s suppose that you’re like a psychology expert and that you’re in the top 1% of all psychologists in the field, which he was before he got big. Before he got big, he was in the top 1% of sighted people. Right? So he’s big. He’s big. When in his Maps and Meaning series or any of his lectures, does he actually pull out the gun and say, I have a PhD in psychology and I’m one of the top psychologists and I’m telling you this is true? Yeah. But what I’m saying is like, did we see old world psychology? Like, he doesn’t do that. He could. But he doesn’t. Instead, he uses he uses the trick. He says, you know this for yourself. Why? Because it appeals to your phenomenological experience in the world. In other words, rather than making a propositional point and saying, I, psychologist Maximus, do declare that you do this in your head. He says, you know you do this in your head. Think about it. He puts your attention back to you between you and the world and focuses you on that relationship. Right. Which is a re-enchantment. Right. Because you’re not in your head and you’re not outside your head. Because the problem with the Gnostics is that they try to resolve everything as either outside of them. But did we see the prophet doing the same thing in the Old Testament? And that they would they would. Did we see that? Like that what they would take a current problem and marry it to a a a point in an anchor it to a point in your life where you could actually act like, didn’t we see that? Didn’t didn’t we see that in the Old Testament? So that’s that’s what I’m saying. Like it has to be true all the way through. Like like we are who we are. Human beings are who we are. So psychological truth is psychological truth from the beginning. Right. That’s all I’m getting at. Like I’m reading Dante, man. Thirteen hundred. He is just we could all read it together and you go, oh, I get this. I get this. I get this. Like that’s seven hundred freaking years ago. And I’m reading Dante and he’s my best friend. Right. Like to your point, the psychology. But what’s cool is that they’re bringing the scientific research from psychology, from cognitive science and they’re using that as scientific backup for what we’ve always known to be true. Well, it’s giving us a language. It’s giving us a science is giving us something slightly harder than mud that we can stand on to actually take confidence in these things. No, he’s not giving us science. He never gives us science. What do you mean? You can read books. You can read the whole maps of meeting. I’ve tried. It’s hard. There’s no science. It’s even harder, actually. But he’s never appealing to empiricism. That’s what you mean by science. Right. He doesn’t do that. I could see that that he doesn’t appeal to empiricism. I see what you’re saying. However, I do. I can’t fight. I cannot fight the inkling that what we’re seeing with Jordan and John is that we needed. We reached a point like in the Tower of Babel or something like the myth of Tower of Babel or something where we couldn’t actually talk about certain things because we didn’t have the language for it. Like it literally was not available. OK, hey, Mark, you know, you stories instead. I see what you’re saying. Yeah, we use stories to try to get at it. But now we have these jargon words. We got all this stuff. Yeah, the problem. This is the problem that, you know, quite honestly, no Christians seem to understand. Right. Because if you’re a Christian, you have language and you have Christian framework and you have Christian axioms and you don’t see any of that. OK, you don’t. You’re in the system so you can’t see the system. It wasn’t handed to you in a book that you read. It was known to you the correct way of knowledge, which is by participation. You participated in it, whether it was through your parents or even after your parents. Mostly familiar. Mostly familiar. You played it out. You did the Piagetian thing. Now I’m going to invoke Peter’s and you embodied the knowledge. Nobody told you being is good. Nobody ever freaking told you that. What are you, a lunatic? Nobody talks like that. You’re insane for talking like that. My father talks like that every morning, every single person. Just like this explains you, Elizabeth, this is why you’re a crazy person. So so but that’s the problem is that you don’t have to talk about it. You can just live it and act it out. No, you don’t need the language at all. Yeah, you do. You’re using language and thought. This is a common. We go. Chris does it all throughout his book. You know, your dad’s got to say stuff to you to teach you the thing for you to know how to act. Agreed with that. You know, and you see him saying it, you see him doing it. That’s why we have the saying if you can walk the walk, you talk to talk, you walk the walk. Yeah, that’s fucking. You can’t throw out thought and words, language, actually, because I don’t know. You can’t throw out language. No, no. In medieval times, they would often go not every deal. They would often go to a master to learn something as an apprentice. The master wouldn’t talk to them. They still do that in Japan. They do it now. Yeah, agreed. Agreed. They’re actually allowed to speak because they take you out of the propositional tyranny. That’s the point. But his lack of speaking is speaking. When you’re as an apprentice, when you go to a master and he will not speak to you until you start grasping his meaning, then but he is speaking without speaking. Body language, yeah. Body language is still a language. I would say honestly, like I would say it’s probably even more of a communicative language than actual language. And I see what you’re saying. Because animals get it. Yeah, exactly. That’s what Piaget said. This is what he said. He says your knowledge is embodied first and foremost. And it just turns out that you don’t need to turn that into propositions. I can’t tell you how I code. I can tell you the results of my coding. But I can’t tell you how I write software. In fact, I know for a fact that I don’t write software the way anybody else does that I’ve ever met. There’s a few people that I think are close. But I can’t tell you about that. It’s impossible. It’s absurd. Is that an art form? At that point, is it an art form though? Sorry? Yeah. At the point where you’ve reached a thing that others do, but however you do it in such a way that others would not necessarily be able to copy readily unless they saw your work and then would be able to copy it. Is it an art form at that point? No, it’s all art. If it’s art, then it’s an expression of you. And until you’ve subjugated it to a higher power, it’s an expression of you. No? No, it’s all art. It’s all art. That’s the whole thing. But what I’m saying is all art, depending on what type of art, Jonathan’s art is a little bit unique. No, no, no, no, no. The act of participating with the world in any way, shape, or form is art. Yeah, for sure. Craftsmen were all artists. There are no craftsmen that are not artists. That doesn’t exist. It’s just that we put art in the stupid propositional box. This is what he means. Well, art has to be painting or drawing or photography or no, it doesn’t. Art is making a table. That doesn’t mean that everybody that makes table is a good artist, but it means they’re all trying to art. There was a little House on the Prairie episode about this where Mr. Engels started making these tables in Sleepy Eye. And then this other guy in the next town, like Winchester, said, I want you to come over here and make some tables and some furniture. He starts making it. They hire like eight more dudes. They make the best fucking tables. They’re super strong. There’s this rich dude that comes into town. He says, Charles, Charles Engels, I like your tables. How would you like it if I bought them from you? He’s like, yeah, each of them are $40.H{e}^{\prime }slike,no,Iwanttobuytheideafromyou.I^{\prime }mgoingtomakethesetables.H{e}^{\prime }slike,youca{n}^{\prime }tmakethesetables.Thisissohardtodo.Ido{n}^{\prime }tknowhowIcouldteachyoutomakethetables.Hesaid,do{n}^{\prime }tworryaboutit.Ihaveanengineer.H{e}^{\prime }sgoingtotakeoneofyourtablesapartandw{e}^{\prime }regoingtofigureitout.Andh{e}^{\prime }slike,whatdoyoumean?Andthemillionaireislike,w{e}^{\prime }regoingtousemachines,sir.Machines.W{e}^{\prime }regoingtomaketablesforeverybody.AndCharlesEngelswasjustlikeimmediatelydisgustedbythis.Hewaslike,no,the{y}^{\prime }renotgoingtobeasgood.I{t}^{\prime }snotgoingtobe,youknow,whatareyougivingthesepeople?H{e}^{\prime }slike,the{y}^{\prime }regoingtogetitfor$10 cheaper. And he wouldn’t sell it to him. Blah, blah, blah. And anyway, the guy starts making the tables without permission. He changes one little thing and it’s like technically legal. So, you know, what’s the rational thing to do here? What are you supposed to do? What’s the thing? You know, Charles isn’t selling any more tables. He had to fire all the workers that he hired. It just ruined a lot of people’s lives. So Charles Engels goes over to the wood factory. He punches the guy in the face is the end of the story. He punches him in the face. That’s not a bad end to the story. However, that’s the way of humans is that we always build upon, like when you reach into your imagination, you’re not actually reaching into anything that you have. You’re reaching into off-guarded memories. You’re reaching into anything that… It’s a space of possibility. It’s a space of possibilities. And every one of those possibilities is tied to a certainty that you saw in a previous time. No, it’s actually not. In fact, your imagination is weird. Okay, this is something I’ve had a question about. Do you, Mark, think that you can come up with an actual, original idea? Something you have not seen, something that has not been revealed to you by another human or anything like that? It happens all the time. Of course, people do that all the time. Now, when we tap into that, are we tap… Okay, now we’re getting into the realm of… We’re not tapping into anything. Are you sure? Are you sure? Yes, because that’s materialistic, dude. You’re being a materialist. No materialist on my channel. I’m not trying to be a materialist. I’m trying to be a spiritualist. Let me tell you how I know because these tales are really important. Because it’s… And I’m going to do a video on this. It’s going to take a long time. But I’m working on the notes for this video. You said tap into. Okay? Tap into implies there is something physical that you are drawing something out of or from. That is a materialist way of thinking about the world. Okay? Another way to think about that is that when I go into my imaginary space while I may have a starting point, because everything has to have a starting point, okay? There’s no… What do you call it? There’s no view from nowhere. There’s no pure consciousness event. These are nonsense ideas that can’t possibly have any utility in the world. Catherine talks about that with me in the Intimacy Crisis video on navigating patterns, by the way, if you haven’t seen it, it’s wonderful. So what that means is there’s always a starting point. Okay, fair enough. There’s always a starting point. But instead of using things I know about, I can launch from that starting point in pure exploration, which I think is closer to what these people are describing. And in that pure exploration, I can find something or build something, maybe from things I’ve never seen before or thought about before, and make them manifest. And the reason why I’m sure this happens is because if you look at the course of science in the modern era, we’ll say from the late 1800s onwards, what you see is that science is doing what science fiction writers imagined. Science isn’t… I agree with that. But they’re not tapping into something… It’s Star Trek and the cell phone. Star Trek invented the cell phone. Yeah, 100%. 100%. Yeah. They’re not tapping into something they already knew. They’re tapping into pure imagination that was expressed as written form by an artist. That’s literally what’s happening. There’s no question about it, right? That’s actually what’s happening. But it’s still a string of thought. So it like with the boom-toons, or notion about the Star Trek and the cell phone, that he said that we saw that in science fiction, and then we brought it into reality. The same thing is going on with Terminator and AI. Where did the other things happen? We haven’t done that yet. It’s only the good things that we’ve made happen, like the medicines, the cell phone. There are some other nasty things that are at work that we… There are some nasty things at work in the science realm that take the COVID vaccine, whether you think it originated in China or not. Right. It was all consensual, though. That’s what we were talking about earlier. It was all consensual. It could have been that outbreak movie with Dustin Hoffman where they burned everybody alive. 100% that easily could have been impetus, and somebody wouldn’t have recognized that. But again, you have to go back. You can’t start it this time. Let’s go back. Where did the writing come from? Agreed. It started… But it’s like layered wood. Layered wood. If everything is built upon the things before it, is it not? Yeah, but Josh, that’s not the case you made. No one’s denying that people build upon other things that people do. That’s the relational aspect of the world. That’s the Holy Spirit. That’s what it is. It’s the ability to build upon other things that other people do. And language facilitates that. I’m obviously… I don’t know why I’d have to say this, but apparently I do, based on all these crazy comments. I’m using it all the time. I’m on YouTube. I’m like, I’m learning a cultural cognitive grammar. But hold on, Josh. Look, the fact that you build on things means there’s a world outside yourself that allows you to interact with other people. And that’s what it means. That’s the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit also covers the imagination. What is the space from which you generate new ideas? Whether they’re based on old ideas or not, I don’t think has any relevance in the world. There are some new ideas… It has relevance because we need to know it doesn’t come from us. We need to know that we have… Yeah, I think it does. Tradition’s important, man. Tradition’s everything. There is no actual originality. There is no actual individual. Everything is built up… I mean, for me personally, and I could be wrong, and you guys are welcome to rip this idea apart, as far as I can tell, humans are highly programmable. We get programmed from birth, and everything in our imagination is built off of somebody else’s idea that came before us. Just like wood in a tree is built off of the wood before. Yeah, for sure. Originality comes from the word origin, back to the origin. That’s what originality is, in fact, etymologically. So in every original thing that we think that we’re coming up with, like you with your coding, you say that I code in a different way than anybody else really does. There’s a reason why I do not know what it is. I haven’t lived your life or anything like that, but I think if we were to dig far enough back through the archives of your psychology, we may find something that allows you to code. Look, it’s not psychology, right? Are you sure? No, it’s the movement of the spirit, right? And that’s why it’s the Holy Spirit, because it’s the movement of the spirit. It’s all spirit. What is spirit separated from… And this is where I have a hard time. What is the definition of spirit in the absence of psychology, and what is the definition of psychology in the absence of spirit? Psychology is a categorization through… Psychology is a branch of ancient Greek philosophy, right? So it’s a categorization. It’s an ontology, Molo ontology. It’s a categorization of a certain way of thinking about how you think. Okay, that’s what psychology is. No, when we inherit a spirit… You’re sending out too many equivocations. You’re sending out too many signals at once. You’re asking layers of questions that don’t relate to each other, so you won’t get a solid conclusion. Okay. You know the way to understand psychology. Think of it as discernment of spirits. Yes. It’s one categorization of spirit. Thank you, Jesse. I was trying to get there. Right. It’s one way to categorize spirits. That’s excellent. You could say that somebody is schizophrenic. Okay? And then what a priest would say is that somebody is possessed by a demon. Okay? Then you get to decide which framework is better for fixing the problem. Now, I’m not going to make a claim that one framework is better than another because I don’t know, and it could well be, that the psychological framework is useful in some circumstances for some people more often than the spiritual framework. They’re both pointing at the same thing, right? They’re both pointing at spirit. Well, that’s what I was trying to come to is that when we’re talking about, like, it’s very, as a newcomer to this sphere, when we’re talking about this category and this category, often the two are equatable. Like, and so when we’re talking about spirit and we’re talking about psychology, often we’re talking about the same thing, but we need verveci words, we need some sort of word, so that we know what we’re talking about. We already got the words, I think, is Mark’s argument. We already got the words. And I think I figured out what you’re doing here, man. You’re talking about spells. You’re trying to dispel a lot of things people say and they have this idea, but you look in the dictionary and it’s like, what the fuck are you talking about, you know? And you’re out with the dictionary. Yeah, and that’s the issue, but I want to hear from David here because he’s been trying to jump in. Sorry, David. I didn’t… Go ahead. Sorry, David. Yeah, I want to ask a question. Can you demonstrate that the spirit exists? Can you demonstrate that the spirit is a thing that exists? It’s not a thing that exists. It’s a way in which you act. It’s easy to demonstrate the spirit. Just go without food for three days. Tell me what you feel. Or you can watch me dance around the room. You can see the result of a spirit. I agree with that. I’m thirsty. There’s the spirit of thirst. That’s not a spirit. That’s just your biological reaction. The impetus to want to drink is a spirit. You can have a spirit of anger. You can have a spirit of lust. You can have a spirit of all these things that your body… You’re using spirit in a different way than I would. Well, it’s a spirit because it’s a signal. It’s the impetus. Your spirit can be an impetus to do a thing. Like when… Good vibes or bad vibes. That’s what people say now. I say, that guy’s got good vibes. I need to hang out with him. When you fall in love or any of that, the fact that those things can correlate in some people in some measurable way does not mean that came first. It doesn’t mean that. There’s nothing. There’s no scientific way. Scientists will admit to this if you just ask them. There’s no scientific way to tell which came first. Something triggered that response. I think Neeram was on this earlier. What am I doing? My channel is about cultural cognitive grammar. I’m trying to fix the way people think about the words they’re using so that they have a framework to understand reality. If you start using words like racism to mean you disagreed with something that I find sacred, then all of a sudden the language ceases to work. That’s why we keep relying on language for cooperation because it’s not going to work if we keep redefining words every other day. Somebody actually accused me on the awakening server. They said, here’s a clip, Mark, of you talking to somebody in a voice chat using the word retarded. Retarded is a medical term. Something to retarded, man. Some things are retarded. No, he had no idea where the word retarded came from. It means slow. What do you mean? Or you turn it down. You turn it down. You return the volume on your stereo. You would use it in a car with a distributor. You would retard the timing. Why? Because you have to fix the car. It’s not a medical term. It’s a French word. It’s a French word. Retarded. Retarded. Let Deed tell us what he thinks spirit is. I’m interested. I want to know what he thinks it is. What spirit is something… See, I think when religious people use the term spirit, they mean something that is outside of the body. Like, you have your mind, and I think that’s where everything comes from. But spirit is something I… I just want someone to demonstrate that there is a spirit. And I don’t think you can. No, you can. Are you telling me? You want one that we all agree on? It’s not a spirit. You got a vibe. You’re trying to figure stuff out, man. I don’t know what your spirit is. I don’t know how to show you a picture of it, but I can feel your vibe by you talking, and I can see you. I don’t know. I feel the spirit of what you’re trying to get at. Yeah, but that’s my brain doing the thinking that makes me say the words I actually have. Well, I don’t have access to that. I don’t actually know what the hell is really going on. I just know that I can feel, and I acknowledge that that’s something, and I operate off of that. It’s not the easy thing. Dave, I’m still… Are you saying, Dave, that you don’t… that it’s hard to even know that such a thing as spirit exists? Is that what you’re thinking? Yeah, I don’t think that spirit exists. So, in your paradigm, I’m really curious, because this is interesting. So there’s mind and there’s body, right? How does mind exist? What do you do with love, for example? Where’s love? What do you do with anger? Love is in the burn. It’s a series of chemical reactions in the burn. Love. But the series of chemical reactions that you’re having that might cause you to love and or be angered, that is the spirit that controls your body, is it not? If somebody cuts me off in traffic, I’m not thinking logically anymore. I’m thinking, you mother efferent, why did you just do that? Do you see that spirit of anger that came over me? The thing that is actually running my system at that point, the fuel? I don’t know. That’s emotions. I don’t know what you’re talking about with eyes. I’m saying that emotions and spirit are tied. They’re not similar. Emotions are the expression of spirits. Oh, there you go. That’s not true at all. I don’t know. I like that. It’s not all spirits are. Spirits are bigger than that, but emotions are a subclass of spirit. And that’s the problem. I don’t have access to the chemical changes in someone’s mind. But I can still sense their spirit. Right. I feel like this has been explored very well in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Are those spirits they’re eating, the soma giblets, you know, those little things? Have you guys seen the TV show, Brave New World? They kind of changed it a little. They had different drugs that they could take to wherever they wanted. It was far more interesting. And it kind of revolves around separating the chemistry from the spirit. Because they were eating the soma. I’m sad. I’m going to be happy. But some people, they started to realize it’s not working anymore. Because their spirit was shining through. Or whatever. Not the chemicals. The chemicals didn’t matter anymore either. They’re drugged up with all this soma shit. But still something beyond that was shining through. Chemicals can wear off over time. It doesn’t matter what chemicals you take. They stop working over time with exposure. Well, what’s causing them to stop working? Liquor is called spirit. Right. This is what I’ve heard. Thomas just said this. Liquor is called spirit because of the spirit. The liquor is called spirit because of how it controls your body. And I agree with that. Not only that, I think whiskey is a different drunk. Gin is a different drunk. Wine is a different drunk. They’re different spirits. Those are different spirits. That’s why they’re called spirits. Absolutely. Even drugs. You’ve got different spirits with drugs. Why on earth are there spirits? Because we were talking about the Holy Spirit before. It’s a loose tongue. Oh my gosh, this is really complex. What does it mean? I like mugs. I like mugs. Because he said it’s an expression of emotion. And I like that. Because the often… Okay, so take the liquor analogy. When I’m drunk on whiskey, a lot of times I might start feeling nostalgic. I might start feeling emotional. I might start… I’ve even come up with poetry and things like that. I’ve been pretty darn hammered. And I was like, actually that was pretty good. What spirit was I under when I came up with this? And it does control your mind. And so like, okay, so I fast every once in a while. I fast quite a bit. I work through the day and then I eat in the evening. And I gotta tell you, I’m not a violent person. I really try to avoid fights and everything like that. But I’ve almost gotten into fights. Oh my gosh, I got so much. There were two people who walked in front of my truck. Not at a crosswalk, not at a stop sign. They just did it because they felt like they owned the road. I got out of my truck at 3 o’clock in the afternoon. I was like, what did I just do? I was hungry and that spirit of anger was so much more ready. It was so much more ready. That’s not Josh. He’s a nice guy. He’s super sweet. He’s a nice guy. He’s super sweet. Oh my gosh, he’s a nice guy. He’s super sweet. Dave wants to say something guys. Dave wants to say something. Yeah, but scientifically we can demonstrate that the mind exists. We can demonstrate that the brain exists. We can demonstrate that the body exists. I agree. I agree with Mark. Can we let him speak please? Because I want to hear what he has to say. Thank you. We cannot demonstrate that the spirit exists. We can’t demonstrate that the mind exists. What measurement is there for the spirit? We can demonstrate that the mind exists, the brain exists, the body exists. There’s no scientific way of understanding it. There’s no scientific way of understanding it. I can help out with this. I have an answer. Spirit is like a program on your hard drive. You can see the hard drives there, but I don’t know how or when we’re going to be able to see the programs to show you. But that’s what it’s like. Until you can demonstrate that the program exists, then you’re not just driving believing that the program exists. How am I talking to you? There’s something going on. I’m somehow able to speak to you even though I can’t prove how language is stored in my brain. That’s not a spirit. That’s just your brain working. It’s like this group though. This group has a spirit right now, right? There’s a spirit. There’s something going on about the relationships between all of us. You even mentioned it actually. That’s what spirit is. It’s what you know to be true. It’s what you know to be true. You can sense it with your senses. You can feel with this group of people that there’s something more than just our bodies. The question is, Claude, because you can’t measure something outside, you can’t measure. How do you measure something non-material? How do you measure something non-material? How do you measure something non-material? Right. How do you measure a measuring stick? It has a quality though. There’s a quality to it. That’s the quality argument. That’s the quality argument. There are qualities to the world and qualities are definitionally not measurable. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Because that’s materialism. If I can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist. I can give you a list of all kinds of things I can tell you exist that we can’t measure. That science is only a tiny part of the world. Tiny part. I’m not saying that because we can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist. But you’re saying that it does exist. I want your justification for believing it does exist. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist because we can’t measure it. But you’re saying that it definitely does exist. You don’t want to use the word metal to measure it. You don’t want to use the word metal to measure it. Okay. It was the spirit, possibly the measurement of. Because you’re saying that your brain is… Let me describe my anger situation. You’re saying, yes, you were deprived of carbohydrates or proteins. And therefore you laughed out at somebody. That’s the process of events. However, the context for understanding that would be submitted in a spirit. Does that make sense? And just like the whiskey is grains and it is things, carbs, it’s sugars, it’s all these things. However, it’s contained inside of another body that gets delivered to you in which you take on that spirit. It’s the context that you actually… So the behavior that you’re displaying is going to need a context. Otherwise it’s just errant behavior. How do you measure how angry you are? Like Josh. How do we measure how angry Josh was when he was angry? How do you measure that? The timing of things to measurement is that we can’t measure consciousness at all. That’s what the Thunder Bay Conference was about, consciousness and conscience. And the guy actually got up and said, yeah, we don’t have a measurement for consciousness. But nobody thinks consciousness doesn’t exist. That’s insane. Magnets, like Richard Feynman in Magnets. If you can’t qualify, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Exactly. Well, and Vervik talks about this. He has a stupid example because he doesn’t understand math. But he says E equals MC squared. Is that real? Can I hand it to you? Can I flip it around? If I hand it to you, do I still have it? How many copies of E equals MC squared are there? The way you hand it to somebody is with a nuclear bomb. You don’t need E equals MC squared to create a nuclear weapon. I know, I know. But that’s the issue. It means how do you measure E equals MC squared? In fact, they don’t know how to measure it. It hasn’t even been confirmed. It’s just a business that we’re operating on. If it’s in 12 point bond, it’s exactly 3 inches long. It even takes the device of the atomic weapon and it doesn’t actually have a spear because it can be used for a nuclear reactor which is a fuel. It can be used for destruction. It’s an un- It hasn’t actually become embodied in a way. It’s only been unleashed. It doesn’t have a spear yet. No, you’re right. It is being embodied through the reactor which is a good spear and the bomb which is a bad spear. It is embodied. I can see that. Yeah, it’s a constraint. And that’s why constraint matters. That’s why leadership matters. That’s why authority matters. And the container matters. Because the container constrains the spirit. And if you don’t- Is the spirit the container? In your opinion, Mark? A container can be a spirit. Okay, like the xenomorph. The xenomorph has claws but humans have fingernails. We’re embodying good whereas an alien that bursts out of your chest is embodying evil spirits. The container constrains the spirit. This is why mob rules is a thing. Because if you get a mob together, what did you do? You have a bunch of agents in the world. That’s what a mob is. And I make the argument that the only agents in the world are people. Because we have time, energy, and attention. And if you direct time, energy, and attention, direct it, that’s power. If you don’t direct it, you’ve just been a monster. You’re a monster. You’re a monster. If you don’t direct it, you’ve just put energy into the world and time and attention. They’re all there floating in potential. And then a spirit comes along and rises up and the mob does something. Now that thing could be good. But the odds of that thing being good, and that’s an emergence, by the way. Right now we’re back to emergence and emanation. That could be good. But the odds of it being good are small because there’s a lot more evil, it’s a lot easier to do destruction and emanation. So the fact that once or twice emergence happened and mob mentality did something good means nothing. Because at that point you are playing the odds. Most of the time it’s not going to manifest in the good. However, if the leader of the group rises up, takes control, and sets the boundaries of the container, and they don’t do that by themselves, nobody does anything by themselves, that’s absurd. They negotiate with the crowd to what are we going to do? We’re not going to break anything, guys. And if anybody breaks anything, I want the rest of the people around them to grab them and stop them from breaking things. This happens, I’ve seen it. This happens, Tim Poole describes this too. If somebody does that, the spirit is now contained. That time, energy, and attention is now contained by a spirit. And the power gets manifest up through the head, the leader, towards the goal. And now you have something that can move the world. But if you don’t submit to the leader, if you don’t submit to leadership, to authority, if you don’t submit to the head, the body can’t hold. And then all of a sudden you have random emergencies, and most likely they’re going to be bad. Jules Verne covered this in the Time Traveler with the Morlocks, I think. I see a lot of parallels with that. Yeah, the Morlocks, they change, so if people don’t know Jules Verne’s story, you know, the moon, like, cracks open from astronauts mining the moon, and it cracks open and fucks everything up, and all the humans go underground, and the rich people go underground with all the military, and the regular people are left up there to die, but some of them make it. So all the people underground have no clue that it’s okay up above for like thousands of years, and they start to go blind, and they hunch over, and they turn into these fucking monsters, it’s just gross. Golems, golems. And then they start stealing the women from up above, and eating people, and they’re monsters. That was the thing that created the equilibrium, is they only take a couple at a time. And so every once in a while the underlings come up, and they snatch a few of the upperlings, and it creates an equilibrium. Why is that a good story? Why is that a good story? Because it follows a true pattern. It’s a very interesting story, because the higher, or the lower takes from the higher, and it creates an equilibrium. But you don’t have a third dimension impetus. But it’s true. Like, you, that happens. You can observe that pattern in the world. That’s what makes it a good story. If the story would be different. But it’s a depressing story. It’s a depressing story if there isn’t a cause for being a higher being. Because you could easily see how it might be more beneficial to be one of the lowerlings, and be under the world, and just take what you need, rather than be one of the higherlings where you could be with its utopia, but you might just snatch it. That’s the problem. He went forward in time, hundreds of years, to see what would happen if he left the Morlocks alone. And of course, they destroyed the whole earth and ate everybody. That’s because it’s relatable. You see that pattern in the world. And so, at that point, the story might be fictional, because no observation occurred. That didn’t happen to a person directly. And nobody observed it happening to a person. That didn’t occur. But the story is true. Now you could look at any number of other time travel type stories, and say, that story is a bad story. Why? Because it’s not true. Back to the future. Is it true? And what you’re referring to there is your ability to participate in the pattern that the story is exemplifying. That’s what makes a story good or bad. Okay, so the ending of Back to the Future 2, when he gets on the choo-choo train and goes to the Wild West, is that more uplifting or the main character in the time traveler going underground with his little…I’m not going to spoil it. Which one is more inspiring? Even…I gave it away. I gave away the ending to Back to the Future, but not to the time traveler. Yeah, but whether they’re inspiring doesn’t make them true. Back to the Future 2 wasn’t true. The time traveler wasn’t true. No, they’re true. But it is true. It metatrue like what Peterson said. That’s the term he used metaphorically. No, they’re fictional, but they’re true. That’s my whole point. No, no, no. You can’t be fictional and true. The two are opposites. No, you can be. I’m with Dave on this. I agree with him. No, no, no. I think you’re off there. A fictional story is just a story that didn’t occur to you and then you know what I’m sure. Fictional, by definition, fictional means not true. You can’t have a fictional story that is true. No, no. You can. You have to redefine truth. Fictional means not true. True is not historical concurrence. In the spirit of a ship keel. A keel can be true or not true, which is crooked. Fictional means not true. If you have a fictional story, it is by definition not true. That’s not true. I agree with Mark and I agree with Tim. Fictional means not true. I agree with him. I agree with him. That is what fiction means. Fiction is clearly not true. We all know that. He’s right. Hold on. Mark, you’re wrong. I’ve got it up on the screen. We’re cool with that, but it’s not right. From Oxford languages, literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events in people. Imaginary. Are imaginary events true? They’re not. They’re imaginary. No. They better be true. Some of them better be true. How do you think it works if you don’t work with them? They’re imaginary. Oh my gosh. Mark, a great hero is postmodern. No. Look, look. If you imagine a tricorder and then someone builds it, was the tricorder true? Because it became true. How are you making that distinction at that point? It just isn’t true yet. It’s pre-true. Why don’t we say it’s pre-true? This whole idea of truth and narrative is critically important. I don’t think we know what we’re doing yet, so keep going. We need to know what we’re talking about with truth. What are we talking about? Play the Johnny Cash song, Mark. Fiction is the opposite of true. If somebody’s fiction, it means not true. The word fiction means not true. You’re using the wrong word. You want to argue for truth, but you’re using the word true. So already your terms are wrong and you’ve not failed to define your term when you say true. True is different axiomatically from truth. Say that again. Say that again. True is an orientation. It’s an orientation. When you’re saying fiction is not true, what you’re saying is it’s not an orientation. Like true north. It’s a navigational concept. True is a completely different argument. True and truth are two different words. Our wording is incorrect. What you’re saying is that when we’re talking about true, we’re talking about the straightness of an arrow. We’re talking about the trueness of north. When we’re talking about truth, we’re talking about something we can put our foot on. Is that what you’re getting at, Jess? Yeah. Okay. Dave, what do you got? Yeah, I’m saying if you’re going to a library, there are fiction books and there are non-fiction books. Fiction books are not real. They are imagination. They’re not real, but I think what we’re saying is some of those fictional books are pointing true north or true south. Like, a direction we don’t want to go in, I guess. Tell me the difference. Tell me the difference between a fictional book and a non-fictional book. That’s fair. What’s the difference? A fiction book is made up. It’s not true. A non-fiction book is true. You can write entire histories that are made up. But that’s made in fiction. I’ve just defined what you mean by true. You should define what you mean by true. What’s Dave mean by true? And then what do we mean by truth? Because these are important. Go. What is truth? I would say true is things that are demonstrable and things that have happened in the past. Like a non-fiction book. Like a history book would be non-fictional. What is a prophecy? A prophecy in terms of future. A prophecy is something that claims to predict the future. You don’t see it as relevant? I don’t believe in prophecy. I think it’s bullshit. What do the people in the stock market do? A stock market. What do people trying to discern if they buy stocks, sell stocks, what are they doing? Trying to find what’s true. I’m getting out of the literature realm, which is where you’re trying to talk about. You don’t have to use historical and all that stuff. If you want to talk empiricism, let’s talk empirically about something that’s defunable within this container of conversation, which is truth put forward. Stock brokers. How do they know what’s true? Prophecy is claiming to know the future. Stock brokers that’s just guessing. That’s just betting. You’re betting that in the future this is going to happen. It’s a different thing. Prophecy is claiming to know the future before it happens. The stock market is just gambling. What if the claim turns out to be accurate? All science is about making a claim and then testing that claim. When you make the claim, the claim can’t be validated. Why are you making the claim? What’s your point, Mark? What’s your point? My point is that everybody all of your actions, every single one of your actions, is based on something that you don’t know and can’t verify in the moment. You guys are all postmodernists. There’s no hope. Prophecy is claiming to know the future before it happens. Betting on the stock market is just betting. It might work, it might not work. We don’t know. Prophecy is claiming to know the future before it happens. When it does work and you predict that, what are you doing? If you saw a trend and you bet, okay, so right now Bitcoin is slightly going down. Okay, now if I draw a descending triangle in the graph, I can see that there’s a very good chance that it’s going to go down as long as it doesn’t break the trend line. Now, as soon as it does break the trend line, now we’re in a different scenario. But until it breaks, I can predict even into the future what it is very, very like 89% likely to do. Exactly. No, the percentage is the main thing. Prophecy is if you claim to know the future before it happens, you are saying with 100% certainty that I know the future. No, that’s not in all what prophecy is. Yeah, it is. It’s saying you’re not that’s what prophecies are. You say you know what prophecies are. You know the future before it happens with 100% certainty. Is E equals MC squared true or not? Yeah. No, it’s not. Not by your definition. Nobody’s ever been able to validate it. There’s no evidence at all. There’s none. What does it mean? You can just write A equals M2. What does that mean? It’s energy equals the speed of light, matter. Energy equals matter times speed of light squared. Where is your evidence that that is actually the case in the world? Because it’s either true or it’s not. Energy equals matter times the speed of light squared. But it’s true. Where is the evidence that what experiment has been done that proves E equals MC squared? It’s theoretical, bro. There aren’t any. There’s zero experimental data that backs up the E equals MC squared. To Mark’s point, there’s an entire field that’s called theoretical physics for a reason. There gets to be a certain point at which you cannot, you cannot get to the next thing without guessing and without just putting things out there and trying them. It’s theoretical, right? Science is explicitly wrong. You’re using the colloquial term of theoretical. When scientists talk about theoretical, it means… Science cannot make truth claims. Science has never made truth claims. Science cannot make truth claims. That’s disappointing. No, science cannot make truth claims. Definitely can’t and doesn’t try to. Theoretics in science is the highest thing. There’s nothing higher than a theory in science. Because it doesn’t claim truth. How do you have to be to make a theory good? How is that different? What you just said, theory in science is the highest thing. How do you validate that statement from saying theology in religion is the highest thing? You’re saying… What I’m saying is… No, what I’m saying is you’re using… You’re using… Again, you’ve not defined terms. No, he’s not. You guys are just… Truth, they’re two very different things. What’s truth then? What theology you’re trying to enact on the world? Truth is something that stands. I’m saying there is a word theory and you’re using the colloquial definition of theory, meaning just a guess or something. In science… No, I call that this. I call this this. Can I finish the sentence? You let Dave talk, you keep interrupting him. Right, what I’m saying is that in science theory is the highest thing. Theory includes law. Not truth, it doesn’t rise to truth. Results. Results are the highest thing. You guys haven’t defined truth. Come on, Mark. Jesse, what’s truth? Results. Is that what truth is? Yes. In some ways, yeah. Truth is results. Truth is what gets acted out in the moment. The theories of science led to the nuclear bomb. So? It was a result that wiped out Hiroshima. So? It was still true that the atomic bomb worked. It didn’t work. It doesn’t matter whether it’s good or bad. It still resulted in the atomic bomb working and the universe doesn’t care whether it’s good or bad. It either works or it doesn’t. Hold on, Josh. Hold on. Here’s the new scientists. You can just Google this. I’m just Googling this right now. I swear you just Google this. Scientific truth doesn’t exist. Yes! That’s true because the highest order in science is not true or truth. The highest order in science is theory. Theory is the thing that hasn’t been disproven. It’s not the thing that is true. It’s neither of those things. Explicitly neither of those things. So all of science is a theory but most stories are true is what we’re trying to say. It doesn’t claim to be true. It’s saying this is the best we have at the moment. It’s fine if that’s your definition of science and it’s insufficient because we’re going to have to deal with things that we cannot define, we cannot equate, we cannot actually deal with. So therefore your understanding of science, you’re not going to actually be able to get out of bed tomorrow morning because you don’t actually know when to get out of bed until your alarm goes off. Until you have some actual impetus. However I guarantee you if you have an appointment, if you have an interview, if you have something important enough a spirit is going to come over you and it’s going to make you want to wake up earlier. Define spirit. We already did. It is the thing that is the context for your energies. It is the… Define energies. It’s like how you make other people feel either good or bad. Well have you felt a different… Okay brother, have you felt a difference between you when you were angry, when you were energetic and when you were depressed? Have you ever felt any of three of those things? Yes, a lot. That is the spirit. And your brain produced chemicals that allowed those things to take place, did it not? Yes, so that is spirit. Now inside of that, you had a context for that. You had a context for anger, you had a context for happy, you had a context for depressed. Those are the spirits. You have a spirit of depression, you have a spirit of anger, you have a spirit of this, you have a spirit of that. We’re not trying to disagree with you, we’re simply saying that these are the languages that older ancient peoples use to context…contextify I doubt that’s a word. To contextualize, thank you, that would allow you to actually understand what you were going under. Because if you feel depressed and you do not know anybody who understands what depression is, you will not have a context for it, right? You will just be understanding your brain chemistry. So you won’t actually understand that you’re sad, you will just know that the day felt like shit, and yesterday kind of felt good, but not really. Do you see what I’m saying there, brother? Yeah, sorry, are you saying that spirits exist outside of humans? I don’t know. I have no idea. I think it could be ethereal. I think that there is a really good chance that if you’re in a particular area… I’m Native American, obviously. There’s a lot of Native Americans that talk about spiritual things and that. I live in Southwest Colorado, very near Mesa Verde, which is a big Native American ancient place of sorts and things like that. And yeah, I could tell you that there is, I think, the spirit of people that have passed before us that kind of…and if I could… it sounds like hokey pokey language, but off this area… No, you’re not feeling what you’re saying. I kind of do. I’m not going to be weird about it, but… Yeah, I get that too. I can get that totally. But then the question would be what came first, the spirit, or the humans? Because you’re saying it’s the spirit of elders that came before. But did the spirit exist before? Did the spirit exist before the humans existed? Yes. I think that time is a little bit limiting in that everything that has ever happened has already happened. It just hasn’t necessarily been realized. So, inside of every moment, I’m going to experience another action. However, those actions are not realized to me. I think it wanted to do it. I think it wanted to do us. I think it wanted us to happen. I think it makes sense. See, that’s the problem. You’ve got to build it step by step. You don’t want to take more lead, Josh. That’s the problem. You’ve got to build the axiom step by step. But you see, I’m sure Jesse noticed, but I want to make sure Jesse noticed. You see, you have to build in the language. Because the words are there. The words are there, but the language isn’t there because language isn’t only words. It’s also the concept. So, if you haven’t thought of the concept of spirit before, or you haven’t thought of the concept of where your emotions come from, or you haven’t thought of the concept of why did the chemicals change in my brain that is the thing that I measure, right? You haven’t thought of that before. You can’t use the words, even if you have them, and sometimes people don’t have them, to talk about these things. So you can’t contextualize them anymore. So you have to build up the axioms in front of the concepts so that when you introduce the concepts, they have a language to use. They have an insert. They have a plug-in. An actual place to go. Otherwise, it’s going to be a miss. It’s just going to be misconstrued or something like that. If you make it too big, so let’s suppose we collapse time all of a sudden like Josh just did, then there’s too much possible projection to two other objects. I don’t think he collapsed time. That’s the way time works, actually. That’s eternal time, man. Right, but eternal time is actually a lot of different other axioms you have to understand before you get there, is my point. And you don’t need to go there, would be my argument. I think it’s really helpful to go to a place like that to understand something like that. The other Christians would, because they’re Christian. To me, native understandings like that really help me understand Christianity. It was actually being at a little group of First Nations people here in Canada. I’ll never forget it. I have never felt the sense of sacred the way I did. It was just a few people, and the elders were there. There might have been maybe 30 native people. The elders were there, and they asked, we were all just milling about, and everybody was talking, and they asked us to be quiet. And I have never sensed anything like that. And they asked us to stand. And then, I remember there was one native gentleman who was making these beautiful necklaces, and he had such a sense of eternal time. So, I don’t know, I think eternal time helps us understand Christianity. It really does, because you can get beyond the free will and determinist debate by understanding that all of your actions are going to be… You’re right into the world of enchantment. We don’t need fairy tales when we’re First Nations people. What did you just say, Josh? I want to hear you say that again. I couldn’t hear you. Sorry. He said something heavy. Well, I was in Bible school at one point, and there was a lot of Calvinists, and there was a lot of free-willers. And the free-will people said that, you know, all of our actions are free-will 100 percent. And the determinists said, no, all of our actions are determined no matter what. However, you can totally get rid of all that debate by just realizing that all of time, because God is an entity that describes himself as being outside of time. So, therefore, if there’s a being that is out, or an entity that is outside of time, all of time already exists. You simply experience it like reading a book. You only experience it every word at a time, every second, every minute at a time. However, it already exists. So you have a free will. What does she got? The order of time. Carlo Rovelli is a physicist, an Italian physicist. He says exactly what you say. There’s no question. Time is a flat circle. What you’re saying, Jesse, is absolutely true from a physicist’s point of view. You need a framework to understand all that in, is my point. It’s great if you have the framework to integrate it. But this is the problem. You don’t need the framework to integrate it. You do. You have a 454 V8 engine. You need to strap it to a sturdy steel frame. And you need to make sure that you have a thick, heavy-duty steel driveshaft going at least into a 400 Camaro rear-end differential. Otherwise, you’re just not getting anywhere. No, no. It’s going to go somewhere. It’s going to go into your neighbor’s house. It’s going to go to an ostracism. It’s going to go to an ostracism. It’s going to go to the creek. If somebody notices your porch that exists, you’re going to pay more attention to it. If somebody understands eternal time, your attention is going to go to it. It’s going to open the door of enchantment. That’s what we’re talking about. I am still talking. It doesn’t mean you can drive it. Let the woman speak. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. David’s the man I’ve been waiting for in this little, quick corner of the internet. There’s no respect for women, Dave. You need to know about this whole thing. There’s no respect for the feminine. There’s no respect for the feminine. And that’s a whole other story. No, honestly, I think the concept of it, like that helped me a lot to understand the eternity of time. Because if you can understand that time’s eternal, you’re not locked into all of these left-brain concepts. Why don’t we tell a three-year-old that? If you’re right in Luke’s enchanted world. No, it doesn’t. Why don’t we tell a three-year-old that? Why don’t we just teach that to three-year-olds? I do. You do. You do. And they’ll understand it. Because they know. Delayed gratification, Mark. Delayed gratification, Mark. One of Jordan’s hallmarks is delayed gratification, right? Well, delayed gratification is understanding that if you give up what you have now, you may get something better in the future, which is ethereal. It doesn’t actually exist, but you believe that you can manifest something better in the future, correct? What you’re doing, you’re pulling yourself into the future, Jesse, when you do that. You’re actually pulling yourself into the future. There’s no question. You’re creating. You guys need to be around more mentally ill people and hear how they misinterpret it. I’m mentally ill and I’ve never met a person who isn’t mentally ill. I have a mentally ill idea. I think we’re trying to build a car here. We’re trying to build a car. I think Jordan Peterson started with a lot of the body work and part of the engine. Then we’re trying to build some tires that are fat enough to take these curves and the speed. There’s all these religions and different perspectives that are like the Flintstone mobile. We’re like, yeah, I see how that works. But we’re trying to get this fucking Ferrari going, man, or at least a truck. Something to carry this shit into the future. They’re like, I can’t do that. Look, this is a great suspension system. No, no, no, no. I like this old giant spring. I don’t want independent suspension. Get the fuck away from me. I think that’s what’s… Exactly. We’re trying to build a tank or something to get across the new challenges of our day. Exactly. We’re right in the midst of the edge of the chaos. There’s a lot of people like the Gnostics building jalopies that don’t make it far. They think it’s the greatest thing ever. Gnosticism is what happens when you encounter the inevitable mysticism that materialism doesn’t explain and you don’t have the main integrity. The potholes in the road. You don’t have a container. You don’t have the concepts. You don’t have the understanding. That means that that strays immediately into Gnosticism. That’s actually the source of the Gnosticism. It’s kind of like a car that hits a pothole and it falls apart and kills everybody or somebody else on the road. It’s bad for everybody. Right. So if you’re against Gnosticism, you’re against people claiming that they know things. That they know that God exists. That’s what it says. Knowledge and all. Yeah, I know that. But this attitude, it’s the goal, the result. So would you clash yourself as Gnostic? Man, I don’t want to label myself as Gnostic. I didn’t hear what Dave’s question was. Sorry guys. He asked a question and I couldn’t even hear it. Yeah. So would you all clash yourselves as Gnostic? I’m an Gnostic atheist. No. I’m Catholic. Yeah, but Catholics can be Gnostic or Gnostic. I’m Boomshrim. I’m a whole other. I don’t know what to label myself as. I think that’s a weird question nowadays. Yeah, that’s honestly like an idea. I have no clue. Yeah. You’re either Gnostic or you’re Agnostic. No. I don’t think so at all. Give me a third option. You’re either Gnostic or you’re Agnostic. That is a… I know our green. It’s a dialectic you’re using. Yeah. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s not a false dichotomy. You are either Agnostic or you are Gnostic. They are opposites. It’s a true dichotomy. You can also be green. I don’t have to agree to your terms. To have a conversation with you. The framework’s different, Dave. We don’t have that framework. I don’t think anybody here has that framework of these two opposing. You kind of have unknowing. Right. I’m in a truck and I think Mark’s in another car and you’re in a car and maybe you’re in a helicopter, Dave. We’re on these different vehicles with this different framework trying to make a civilization together. That’s the goal. That’s what we’re doing. It’s like a busy, busy world. I’m in a tank, dude. Right here. Mark’s in the tank. I’m in the truck. You’re in the helicopter. You guys are all fucking crazy. Do you know that God exists? Or do you believe that God exists? Sorry, Dave. Dave, we’re also sorry we didn’t hear you again. Go ahead. Do you know that God exists? Or do you believe that God exists? Let’s get rid of the words. What do you believe? Do you claim to know that God exists? Well, either God exists or he doesn’t. It’s not really about belief. Well, that’s the thing, Dave. Like, Dave, I’ve never met Jesus. I’ve never shooken his hand. I’ve never met God. I’ve never prayed and met God. And yet I go to liturgy, I go to my masses, I go to Eucharist, all those types of things. However, I have never, I’ve never had a conversation with Jesus Christ. I’ve never met Jesus Christ. That’s not something that I have done. However, do I believe in the spirit of Jesus Christ? Yes. Do I believe in the spirit of God? Yes. Do I believe that there is a God? Yes. I believe that and I walk that way. Unfortunately, I’m going to borrow Jordan’s line here. I act as if God exists because I’ve never met him and I’m terrified that he does exist. And therefore, all my actions will be held to account. So agnostic, that’s a harsh thing. I mean, where am I at? I don’t know. But I can tell you that I know, I don’t know, I don’t know what I don’t know, but I know how I act. It reminds me of the Panopticon. For some reason, you said that. Jordan Peterson saying, I’m so scared that if that guy’s real, I better act right. That’s like the concept of the Panopticon, like the one-way mirror glass at the prison in the middle with the tower and you can’t see if the guards are looking at you or not. And then the prisoners escape and get into the tower and there’s no guards in there the whole time. But they thought it was. Does that make sense? Sometimes I think, sometimes you have to act that way. Sometimes I’ll have to feel that way. But honestly, it’s like the real ability that I’ve experienced is far deeper than that. Now here’s something else though. I think that goes beyond my belief is you can’t prove you can’t, I can’t prove you that God exists, but you can’t make me not believe that it doesn’t exist either. Like that’s something that I’ve, and I don’t think I, and I don’t think I can do it to myself either, to be honest. I think it’s in a way by design. I think that that way, it’s that it’s that thing that we can’t define. It’s that thing that we can’t, and so yes, from a materialistic standpoint it just sounds like we’re all starting our hubbly googly gook when we’re saying like you know that, like I get what you’re saying. Okay. Which frame would you guys, which frame does your question exist in, Dave? Is it literal, ethical, spiritual? But here’s the thing, I want to answer something really quickly. You guys are all you guys are all talking about being in cars and tanks and shit, but you’re actually sitting in your house, and I’m the only one who’s actually in a car. He’s in a car. You see, so what I’m talking about here is it doesn’t really matter what I tell you or what you tell me. What is your experience? And there’s certain things that I had to pay attention to. Like, I couldn’t it dawned on me one day when I was like, when I really tried to follow the logic down to how does a seed turn into a blade of grass? And it’s impossible. And like, for me that’s like, that’s like me here right now. That’s me in the van right now. It’s not like some theory about a fucking van or a tank or a goddamn submarine. It’s like, I look at that and then I can see those patterns all over the place. There’s things that you’re paying attention that you cannot argue with. And call it Gnostic or not is it helping you to live and to live well? Because you’re going to live poorly no matter what. So there’s going to be a lot more opportunity for you to fall short in life. So what do you want to do? That’s the option. What do you want to do? Because really at the end of the day we could say, well, God will be pissed. But it’s like, yeah, but you’re the one who still suffers and all the fucking people around you. So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to live well? Regardless of what happens in the next life because where are you right now? And we can also take the next life into the material realm and say, when you’re dead everything that you’ve done in this life actually does matter because it affects people that you’ll never meet. So in that sense, the afterlife is real. Yeah, for sure. Just to get back to what Jesse asked me. Yeah. Basically the resistance of the front it means you know that something is real. If you’re an agnostic theist you know that God is real. Agnostic means God might be real but you’re not sure. You’re trying to stuff people into what they know and what they don’t know and that isn’t simply going to work in a lot of circumstances because we don’t know what we don’t know what we don’t know. Well, agnostic is a secret knowledge. Agnostic is like a secret knowledge. That’s what agnostic and agnostic means. Just to get How many religions do you think can get along? How many of them do you think can co-exist? For instance, I think Christianity, Islam, and pagans can get along. I don’t know. Even the Buddhist people. I think we can get along. All of them can get along. So where are the people that can’t get along? Why can’t they get along but other people can? Are we not just seeing different progressions in the religious experience? I mean, so we go from paganism and ancient Judaism and then it evolves into Christ using paganism to do like this weird trick on paganism. Like, it’s really weird how Christ uses himself as a scapegoat. Because of the way that he does that, he plays this weird occultist trick. It’s a retooling. I think the original pagan tool still exists and the Christian tool is a different tool. And I think people are using the tools, all the tools again. It’s a revival. I think Terrence McKenna was right about the archaic revival. That’s what we’re seeing. What Jesse said is so important. Keep going, Jesse, if you don’t mind. Because that whole idea of the occult, he turns the occultist thing right around. Yeah. And you can see it in so many ways. Like, okay, if I’m practicing voodoo or hoodoo or anything of the occult, I’m going to be praying in front of candles. I’m going to be doing this type of thing. I’m going to be focusing on different objects to imbibe that spirit and that. However, when I make Catholicism, I’m still praying in front of candles to icons. It’s a flip of occultism. Is it not? You’re counting beads. You’re counting this. You’re counting that. You’re doing all these things. It’s organized. It’s organized in a different way. And that organization is true. So you can say the pagan organization is less true than the Christian organization. That’s fair. Because truth is not a state of being. Truth is a state of relationship to something else. That’s what to be true is. So is occultism the chaos? Is occultism the chaos? Is occultism the order? And that we’re taking something chaotic and Christ turns it into an order? Yeah, but occultism is there’s an order to it. It’s so close. It’s not unordered. It’s not as true. Because truth matters. One takes more energy than the other. Exactly. And resources. And resources. This is Vanderklaas. Vanderklaas said basically polytheism didn’t work polytheism didn’t work because no one could pay there wasn’t enough money in the Roman Empire to pay all the gods to do what they were trying to do. That’s one way to look at it. Maybe that’s not the best, but it is one way to look at it. Economically, it’s unfeasible to have that many gods and that many temples. You have to consolidate them so that more people can cooperate under the same tent towards the same ethos or goal with the same contained We tried that and then the Protestant thing happened. Yes, the Protestant problem happened. We tried so would it be better to go back to the multiple gods? No, no, no. It’s the muscle where the humans are. We’re already in the multiple gods. We’re already in the multiple gods. Come on, what do you mean go back to the multiple gods? I’m just being explored. I’m just saying. Why is that in your own game? Go ahead. I’m just going to say, does it matter whether we can afford the gods or not? The gods either exist or they don’t. Whether we can afford them as humans makes no difference whatsoever. I agree with you on that too. I don’t agree that the gods don’t act as if gods exist. If you haven’t figured that out, you might as well go and drink. Well, gods don’t exist until people pray for them. That’s why Jonathan said that every pagan is dragging around the ancient gods. The person praying to the god wouldn’t make the god exist. The god either exists or he doesn’t. Whether you pray to them or not is totally right, Dave. I’m with you on that one. But, who is the one who’s god? Dionysus doesn’t exist unless people are in the church of Dionysus. Am I wrong? No, he exists. He would exist either way. If human beings didn’t exist. If the earth didn’t exist there would be no human beings. Dionysus as a god would exist either way. Yeah, exactly. Dave is totally right on this one too. This is where true matters. All the gods exist. The orthodox are clear about this. The question is is it more true to try to worship seven gods or the one that is above all of them? And the answer is it’s more true. So if you were sailing, if you were in a sailboat, the truth is what you travel towards. If it’s more true, we’re doomed. Why doesn’t god need a wife, do you think? No, can just there is no more true. Something is either true or it is not true. There is no more true. Well that’s a rabbit hole I’d love to explore later. Dave is talking boomy to me. Something is either true or it is not true. There is no more true. I agree. There is no more truth. We covered this earlier. This is the wrong definition. We’re defining truth, not true. Truth is how close you are. You said more true. Sorry. Truth is how close you are. There is no more truth. It’s not a this or that situation. You said more true. One god is more true. That’s not how Christianity works. I don’t think that’s how Christianity works. No it is. Does it not work like a tree in which you have lateral branches that are other gods but there is one central stem that is a leader that you’ll call inside of a tree, inside the tree world and you’ll have a top. The one that out competes all of its others and gets to the light. The one that is actually the closest to the light is the truest leader. The rest of us are distracted. Is god more close to a carpenter or a gardener? It is a dark costume. Something is either true or it is not true. You can’t have more truth. Something is either true or it is not true. You’re right. No, no, no. Look, look. Let’s go back to the Oxford Dix. We’re going to go back to the Oxford Dix. We have to start to get to the point. It’s back to the dictionary. I don’t care about Oxford. You’re using accordance with fact or reality. Accordance isn’t a state. Accordance is how far away or close to something you are. Accordance is about things like resonance. It’s not about whether or not this is a binary form. To Jesse’s point, it’s not a dialectic. It’s not a yes or no. It’s not a zero or one. A true friend is not somebody who’s either there or not. We never said that. We never said that. We’re just saying that there isn’t any relativistic closer or more true. Well, that’s not the claim of Christianity. That’s actually the definition of the word. That’s the whole point. Read your church father, St. Maximus would never say that in a million years. None of these guys would have. They would maintain it was the absolute. It’s the ground of being. The ground of being is not more true or closer. It’s the ground of freaking being. We’re talking about ethics without talking about ethics. Sorry? We’ve been going on this line for like really 17 minutes, avoiding the actual word, which is ethics. We’re using spiritual and political frames when we try to talk about an ethical problem. That’s why no one can build on anything and go forward because it’s going to constantly go back to dialectics. I think we’ve made a lot of good points and I like them myself. I got a joke guys. Very lovely talking to you all. See you guys. Good talking to you, man. Nice meeting you. Good to see you, Joe. This is a great conversation. Mark, your live stream is amazing. You get these great conversations going that are so important. I’m glad you like it. I’ll take all the St. Maximus references that you think where he’s using true in a binary fashion because I very much… No, he doesn’t. I didn’t say he used it in a binary fashion. I said he doesn’t use it in a relativistic way. I’ll take any reference you have because I don’t think any church, anything… Are you using binary? I’m not talking binary. I’m just talking about No, because we were talking about, you know, the Trinity and two and then I keep bringing up, you know, where’s God’s wife? Was she a ghost now? What happened? We’re talking about things that are true and things that are not. We’re talking about things that are true and things that are not. I know, but we’re not getting anywhere with that. I don’t know what we say about it. If you let me finish sentence, that might help. Go for it, bro. We’re talking about things that are true and things that are not true. Something is actually the state of affairs or it is not the state of affairs. No, that’s not what I’m talking about. I don’t think we can agree on that, man. That is what I’m talking about. Something is either true or it is not true. No, still no. I still reject framing entirely. I’m not using that. Something either is the case or it is not the case. There’s no probabilities in between. Maybe, but that’s not what the word true means. So I can agree that there’s a state like that, but that has nothing to do with the definition of the word true. Right, something either is, right, green is green, is that true? Dave, what problem are you trying to solve? I’m green. Dave, what problem are you trying to solve? What problem are you trying to solve or correct for? You’re making metaphysical claims with no orientation towards anything. No, physically I’m just asking questions. Are you being an individual? For fuck’s sake. Sorry, I’m trying to push the conversation forward. Otherwise, we’re just going to keep talking about either ethics or metaphysics without actually talking about the subject. And I can’t remain serious long enough to do any of that. I think Schaefer talked about true-true. So he was going in the same direction. You might like Francis Schaefer, Dave. He wrote a book called The God Who Is There and another one called He Is There and He Is Not Silent. And he was grappling with these same issues. He would be very much on your side. And he also said, he wrote a book called The Mark of the Christian. His name is Francis Schaefer. There’s a community actually, there’s communities all over the world. You can go and live there and study. You don’t have to be a Christian or anything. But if you’re interested in these philosophical things, you can just go to Labrie and study. You study half a day and then you work half a day and you have conversations. And it’s just really interesting. And yeah, Francis Schaefer maintained that in fact, there is such a thing as true-true. And so he was moving away from the relativistic way of seeing things. This is true. This is not true. This is true. This is not true. True. Not true. And it’s like, why does this look better to me? It’s like I can roll things down and it’s smooth. When it’s like this, it’s not true. Like I can’t relate to it as good. The story sucks. This character is retarded. I don’t like them. And then it’s true. And I like the character and I relate to them. And it makes sense. It’s a straight line. I don’t know. I tried. No, when you do the straight thing, that is true. When you do the curler thing, that is also true. At that moment, that is true. I can’t believe we’re having this conversation. Something is either true or it is not true. Something is either true or it is not true. It is either the state of the universe or it is not. That is a true guy coming to me. This conversation is not true because I don’t believe it. Richard, please enlighten us. Here’s a question that we can find here. Right? So Jesus says he is the truth. What does it mean for a someone like Jesus to claim that he is the truth? Does that mean that he is the embodiment of prophecy or the truth value of prophecies? I don’t think so. Something more like, I think it’s something more like Mark is saying about what’s the word I’m looking for. Like not coherence, but like the compatibility. The instead of the correspondence of a proposition truth value with the world, it’s like the idea of your mind fitting to the structure of the world. In a way that may come into contact. Like water in a vase. Is that what, like that? Yeah, sure. Yeah, cool. So I don’t know how to describe that in much detail, but that seems to be something like what Jesus is saying when he says I am the truth. It’s like I am the truth. Try and follow me. And that’s how you live in the truth. Right, but look, I mean, if true doesn’t include true friend, then what use is this word? Like a true friendship is not a binary. It can’t be categorized in binaries. It doesn’t work to say it either is or is not. That doesn’t work. It is. Go ahead, David. Yeah, something is either true or it is not true. It is a proper dark consummate. No, it’s not. I’m telling you. Something is either true or it is not true. No, no, it’s not. That is definitely incorrect in language. You’re just misusing the language and abusing it by ignoring the dictionary. The dictionary is very clear. It talks about the truth. I’m English. We invented the language. But arrow is true. What does it mean? No, I’m sick of Americans claiming that they know English better than I do. I am English. We invented language. I just read the Oxford dictionary. I read the Oxford dictionary, dude. It’s true. The English speaking is better than us. If you actually cared about the truth, you would read the dictionary and ignore the definition of the word true. That’s why Ian McGillchrist is so much better than Peterson because he’s British, man. There’s so much better educated over there. Can you see that the definition of truth that David is talking about is something like a consequence of Providence for a student? Say that again. That’s interesting. Can you say that in a different way? Well, before I do, before I do, does that make sense to you? Is that a question? Does that make sense to you? No, try it again, Richard. If you could set this volume up on streaming, I’d ask. Yeah, I might have to switch what system I’m going to use. Well, that’s better when you’re closer. Yeah, just get closer. Is the definition of truth that David is putting forward a consequence of Providence for a student? If that seems to me, what is it? So the reason why it’s straight from the dictionary is because we’re locked in to thinking of the word only in terms of Providence. Right. It’s a binary. It’s a false binary. But at the same time, we have to acknowledge the existence of the false binary. Good point. I acknowledge the bad framing that people have, and I smash it on my channel, Navigating Patterns, which is the purpose of the channel, is to destroy bad conceptions. So it’s in the Oxford dictionary. It’s in Miriam Webster’s. True is in accordance with something. So true is a relativistic term because it’s accordance with something else. Being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. And so it is a word by degrees. And truth is defined quite clearly as something which is in, which is true or in accordance with fact it’s accordance. It’s not a state. It’s not a this or that. It is accordance, which is how close you are to a thing. Like friendship. How true is your shot? No, but something either is true or it is not true. Would you agree that that is a dichotomy? Something either is true or it is not true. That is both a dichotomy and false. It is not true. The dictionary doesn’t have that definition. And the dictionary doesn’t make that definition. Okay, Dave, I agree for the sake of argument. I agree with you. Things are true and things are not true. Where do we go from here? Yeah, I’m just he seems to think that that’s the way he seems to think that that is not true. That is the ultimate dichotomy. We’re moving on. For the sake of argument, we’re going to agree with you that there are things that are true and things that are not true. We’ll agree with your dialectic. Where are we going? What problem have we solved? There’s no end goal. I just want him to agree that something is either true or not true. There’s no end. I’m not trying to build on that. Let’s try and pick up that dialect here. I think Mark can try and explain what you’re missing if you take that definition. I think that’s where you want to go with ethnic. I think we need to play the Johnny Cash song. Yeah, we do. Can you play songs on here, Mark? No. Why not? We should listen to the Johnny Cash song. I forgot. I’m so free over here in America. We’re here together to hash these things out. Music would help lubricate it a bit. Richard, your idea was great, actually. I’ll learn how to play it so we don’t get copyrights. I’m going to be live streaming. Get off of mine if you’re going to do this. We’re talking about attention, aren’t we? We’re really talking about where our attention is directed, that whole idea. And how where our attention goes is what creates our perceptual apparatus, which creates reality. I think that’s how we see it. At least I see it. We could go there, but I think one of the I guess I can try and say it myself is that if you limit the notion of truth to this kind of dichotomy, then it’s like it’s like you’re covering an eye. You’re losing most experience if you reduce the notion of truth down to the proposition of violence. Right now, I’m not very good at explaining what you lose. You’re still trying to work. It’s something like the ability to recognize the other kinds of knowledge that you gain that aren’t proposition. And so I think that’s where the ethics have to come in. One of the reasons why we can dispute your definition is because it seems to be indicated that we’re losing a notion that participation in the liturgy and practice are necessary for living in accordance with reality. It’s flattening the world. Whenever you create a binary, you flatten the world. You get a low resolution picture of the world. And the problem is we’re not living in a low resolution world. This is why when you try to understand something with politics, it fails immediately. Because politics is typically just left and right or liberal and conservative. Those two buckets aren’t sufficient in terms of detail to make sense of things. And that’s why it’s important to re-enchant the world, to re-enchant the world. And that’s why we’re trying to have this extra space where we’re not stuck in false dichotomies all over the place, or in any dichotomies, whether they’re false or not. Because there’s way more to the picture than yes and no. There’s way more to the picture than one and zero. There’s way, way, way more to the picture than true and false. These are not helpful ways to think about the world because the world is just trying to be individuals and trying to believe that we can rationalize and understand the world on our own by ourselves. And that is not possible technically. And we know this scientifically. So it is weird that all the science people try to claim that they’re going to be individuals and that they’re rational when all the science says that there’s no possible way that you’re rational for any length of, reasonable length of time throughout the day. It’s really not a significant part of your life. It may be the most important thing to think about. But the question that you’re asking is, how many different theories you make are rational? That’s possible, but you’re not rational most of the time. You’re barely even acting consciously with most of your actions. What is color theory and theology put together? Wow. The crazy, nasty mess? No, tell me what you’re thinking. I was wondering if you were going to say that or not? Is that what’s going on? Is this what you said? It’s a binary. Everybody’s like, great. Let’s get these fucking colors out here and run with them. Let’s see what’s going on. I see where you’re going. So I had an interesting discussion yesterday with a lovely person. He’s a lovely person. I have no doubt that he’s like a genuine, just awesome human being. However, being Protestant, he cast a bunch of things towards the Catholics. And I explained to him, the things you’re saying about Catholics are actually the opposite of what Catholics act out in the world on average. But they do sound a lot like what other Protestants act like towards Protestant denominations that aren’t theirs. In other words, he’s taking Protestant, Protestant oppression by other Protestant denominations and saying that’s the fault of the Catholics. Right up to and including ridiculous statements like, well, when you’re communicated from the Catholic Church, basically up until Vatican II, that meant you couldn’t be a saint. And I was like, no, the Catholics don’t believe anything like that. Excommunication is whether or not you can commune with your church. Excommunication has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not you’re saved. Or even whether or not you’re a Christian. You can be excommunicated in the Catholic Church and still remain a Christian. Because your ability to be a Christian is not determined by the Church. And the Catholics never thought this was the case. Never. And it’s not to say that some Catholics don’t treat people that way. But almost all Protestants treat people that way. Man, if you’re not in the Protestant Church of that denomination, they think you’re not saved and you’re going to hell. That’s very common. It’s not universal, but most Protestants actually feel that way. So you can see the way in which reducing things down causes a problem. Because excommunication in the Catholic Church really just means like one little thing. And it doesn’t speak to these other concepts. But if you don’t know that because you weren’t taught that, then you think excommunication means saved and Christianity and denial of your faith or something. And excommunication doesn’t mean any of those things at all. It only refers to whether or not you can go to church with these other people. That’s it. That’s all it talks about. Do you think that Protestantism is Gnostic? Yes. Protestantism divides into Protestantism. So what do you think the solution is? Burn them at the stake. That’s all the solution to everything else. That’s my first question. Where is your compass point true north, I should say? Where are you looking to? The true north, and like this is a common thing. VanderPly said this too and so did this person. What they said was I’m not a Protestant because I’m staying in the church that I was born into. But to leave the church that I was born into would make me Protestant. And I said no, the only thing that makes you Protestant is that you’re not in communion with the Catholic Church. And he said no, no, that’s not true. If I were to move to the Catholic Church, that would be a Protestant move. And I was just like I don’t even know what to tell you about how the world worked and how the world worked. But no, that’s just wrong. And this is the problem. And there’s two problems. There’s one of definition. But there’s a larger problem. And this came up on the awakening server. Which is you can’t tell somebody they’re wrong because everybody wants to be nice. And I’m like no, people need to know when they’re going astray. They need to know when they’re wrong. They need the negative signal. B.F. Skinner tried to prove that you didn’t need negative signals. That positive only signals would make good positive people. And he failed. And his son tried to reproduce his experiment and he failed. And at least a dozen people that I know of have tried that experiment. And the experiment always failed. Do you know why the experiment fails every time? Because it’s wrong. It’s really important to understand that some things are wrong. And that is wrong. You have to do both. You have to have the carrot and the stick to produce energy. If only that were written down in some book a couple thousand years ago. That would be great. Oh wait. I just said it. Let’s all write it down. Even if it was written down I bet no one would read it. And then I bet even if people read it they wouldn’t understand it. And I bet even if they read it and understood it, they wouldn’t act it out. Why? That’s the human condition. Those are the problems. Well you only usually need to use the stick once or twice then the rest of the time they’re running after the carrot. And I think that’s what B.S. Skinner was saying. He just left the first stick part out. That’s correct. He was a universalist. He wanted to do positive feedback only. And he tried that experiment. And we know this from the experiment. In the end I think it can work. But in the beginning it’s like it’s like you get to do a job. And if you don’t get fired it actually makes everybody worse. It makes everybody worse. Because everybody feels entitled. And then when they don’t get the thing they feel entitled to they get angry and resentful. And boy doesn’t that look like what’s going on today in the world? Yes it does. People are pampered. They’ve been pampered for too long. When the world, when their prediction of the world fails they get angry and resentful. When their political candidate gets into power because they think they’re off down powered from above works it fails and then they get angry and resentful. So I love this it’s gone on for a bit but can we get is something true or not true? I can’t. I can’t do it. I can’t. I can’t. Is it true or is it not true? I don’t know. To be or not to be that is the question. Do you exist? It is a true dichotomy. Is it true or is it not true? That is a true dichotomy. You can’t get any more true than that. Something is either true or which is not true. Do you exist or do you not exist? If you are saying not then you are refusing dichotomies. Yes I refuse all dichotomies. All dichotomies are false. I actually think that is provable by the way. All dichotomies are false because they do not represent the real world because in the real world there are no dichotomies. Right so something is either true or which is not true. You disagree with us. No there is a carrot or there is a stick. We have got that far. We have got that far man. We should hold that up. You know. Glorify that for just a moment. Is it true or is it not true? You disagree with that statement. Do you make compromises? Do you make compromises? Something is either true or which is not true. Your question is the last hour. Answer my question. Answer my question. Do you make compromises? It doesn’t matter whether I make compromises or not. Your question doesn’t matter. Your question doesn’t matter. Something is either true or which is not true in the universe. Your question doesn’t matter. You just answered your own question. If you don’t recognise you make compromises then your question doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if something is true or not true because you have to make compromises. Right. Something is either the stairs or the verse or which is not the stairs or the verse. Something is either true or which is not true. It’s a bad way of enacting in the world because you make compromises. You have to make choices. This lighter exists or it does not exist? Do you agree with that statement? Do you exist? Answer my question. This lighter either exists or it does not exist. It doesn’t exist. Do you agree with that statement? The lighter doesn’t exist because it has fluid. No, no, no, no. No, that’s not true because it’s not in your hand. You can’t know anything about it. You don’t even know if it’s an illusion. You have no idea. From our perspective the lighter doesn’t exist and it can’t exist worse yet. So what are you going to do now? It’s not true. It doesn’t exist. Now what David? No. Do you agree with this statement? The lighter either exists or it does not exist? I’m happy with both answers. No, no. I only agree that it does not exist. Right. But that’s… It does not exist. It does not exist because I can’t light anything with it. So it doesn’t exist. Yeah, but I can. So it clearly exists. I feel like this is a chapter out of Douglas Adams’ book somewhere. You can’t prove that to me at all. That’s the problem. You can’t see it? No, I see something. But those are photons on my screen. I didn’t see it light anything. You’re shooting photon torpedoes at us, bro. I don’t have any access to that lighter whatsoever. None. Zero. Yeah, but that’s a start. But you would agree that that is a die-cast and that either the lighter exists or it doesn’t exist. Well, I… What’s the point of you bringing this up? Why? Why does it matter? I’m just trying to get to a starting point. We’re off to the ricest? No, this is Schrodinger’s cat. I’m saying Schrodinger’s cat is dead. It’s always dead. The lighter doesn’t exist. No, that cat’s fucking alive, Mark. I’m saying it’s only in the pain of existence. I got that cat. Lives with me now. That’s not true. Don’t say that. Yeah, but you’re missing the point. No, you’re missing the point. This lighter exists or it doesn’t exist. No, no. It only doesn’t exist, David. It only does not exist. I’m not asking you for the answer to my question. Landru helps civilization. No, I’m saying your question is good. Your question is nonsensical because the lighter doesn’t exist. This lighter either exists or it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist and therefore you can’t ask a question about it because it’s not there. I can ask a question, Moethe. Can I ask a question? You might not get a bad limited object because as soon as that limited object doesn’t have lighter fluid, what is it then? This book. Right, it doesn’t happen that it’s a lighter. I’m just saying this book either exists or it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist. No, it absolutely doesn’t. I’m not asking you the question. Moethe, does that shoot your word either? To me, it does. I’m not asking the question, does this book exist? I don’t care about your answer. I’m just saying the question because it doesn’t exist. Let me finish! You motherfucker! Dude, why do you gotta be a dick like that, man? You know, you’re harsh in the vibe. You got a bad spirit about this whole thing now, man. And I don’t like that. I’m all Mr. Nice Guy until someone starts acting like this, dude. I’m not gonna tolerate that. Right. Why are you being that way for real, dude? I don’t understand. Shut up! It’s because people keep talking over there. Dude, we have been so patient with you. Like, that’s a joke, right? Like, are you comedians? No, you’re like a fucking comedian, bro. No, shut the fuck up. See what I’m saying? Save, I think we should part ways. Thank you. Gosh. Yeah, he’s gone. Yeah, look, I mean, it wasn’t that hard. If something doesn’t exist, you can’t ask an existence question about it. It’s that simple. Like, you can’t… Do you actually not take the… How would you phrase that? We answered his question seven different ways and he still didn’t like that. Look, guys… Sorry, Richard. Sorry. When you’re trapped in… inside of the opposition material, I feel like you’ve got to be more… No, no, Richard. Look, here’s the problem. Right? You can’t jump these people seven steps ahead of where they’re at. They have to have these concepts first. If you start talking about large containers that are complex and they’re stuck in a binary, they’re never going to understand what you’re saying. Right? If you whip out the Jesus, they’re gone. Their eyes glaze over and they hunker back into their little binary dialectic world where they have certainty and… What is it? Certainty and precision. Right? They go right back to their science. You can’t land the plane on top of their head and say, see plane? You need to introduce them to the concept of flying very slowly and carefully. Step by step and build it up. But we did, right? And for whatever reason, right? It doesn’t really matter. You have to go really slowly because they get… Well, you saw. They get frustrated with the fact that their way of seeing the world cannot work. Cannot. It’s not an option for it to work. No, but… Well, so I’m in this weird in-between space where I can inhabit our perspective. No, no, no. You can’t. Your status doesn’t matter. I see where you’re coming from, Richard. I think there’s a time and place for compassion. And there’s a time and place for the sword of truth, man. You got to cut people out. They will corrupt you and destroy you and bring you down with them while tricking you into thinking you’re helping them when you’re not. They’re just bringing you down. They’re destroying you. The fact of the matter is And like that guy, to be specific, he was destroying the vibe. Right. To be specific, if two people don’t agree to cooperate, the fact that you’re nicer than they are won’t help the cooperation to happen ever. There’s nothing you can do. There’s nothing you can do. You just have to accept that any strategy that you try is going to fail if only they have bad faith. That’s all that it requires on their side is bad faith. And the minute they become an bad faith actor, the conversation is done. And it doesn’t mean you don’t wait. Jesse was very patient. It doesn’t mean you don’t try. The minute they go bad faith and start doing false dichotomies, because we did, right? Jesse said, oh, grant you your false dichotomy. Now what? And he said, oh, I don’t have anywhere to go. It’s like, okay, good. Well, that’s a side. And then he brought it back up again. And again, why? Because he’s looking for accuracy and precision and no amount of tolerance or toleration or grace or being nice is going to change him into a good faith actor. That’s not going to happen. Now, I’m not saying that there is a tactic for changing him into good faith actors because maybe there isn’t. But look, you’ve got to take the L. Sometimes you’ve got the loss. You’ve got to take the loss, dude. Like, you can’t say if only I had been a better person, I could have changed this person. Now you’re playing God. That is not up to you. That is not up to you. And you can’t have that attitude. You have to know when to walk away. Freedom of association is a critical concept. Right. All you’re doing at that point, if when you fail to walk away at the right time and maybe we went on too long, I’m not claiming we did it any better. I think we went on too long. I was being too nice. You sour the well for them for longer, and maybe forever. And that’s actually a real problem. If people smother you with the Jesus or the niceness or the tolerance or whatever, all you’re doing is making them worse. And you’re not making them better. And you may feel better because you didn’t hurt their feelings. But that doesn’t mean you did good just because you feel better about your attitude about it. And that’s actually a bugaboo I have with Christians. Is that they do not know when to bring the hammer down on people. If you don’t do that, people will not know that they have transgressed. And they will be transgressing forever. That’s true. I don’t know where my picture’s gone. Is my voice there? Yeah, we can hear you. I don’t know what happened. Try to turn your camera on and off again. Oh, for heaven’s sakes, I don’t know how to do anything. But you’re right. You’re right, Mark. Maybe look back in. It would be an easier way. Oh lord. But guys, tolerance is not a virtue. But you guys, you gotta listen. Sorry. You wanna listen? Yeah. You guys kept interrupting them though. I didn’t think, I thought you were a little off. I’m gonna be honest. He kept making his point. He kept making his point. And then we’d say, okay, and then he would claim that he had more to say. But Jesse already established. We grant you your true or not true. Now what? And he stopped talking. And then he wouldn’t talk. You can’t have the whole thing revolve around him. And he was making it revolve around him. It was very rude of him to do that. But it’s also true that I think he probably was stuck there. Like, I just wonder if there was some way that he could have. That’s fine. I’m cool trying to help people stuck. But he was angry. Look, at some, give me a sec, Richard. At some point, you have to say, look, we had a bunch of good faith actors giving him all the space he needed to make the point he needed to make. And maybe there was a way, but maybe none of us or all of us combined were smart enough to enable that way. And we just have to give ourselves grace in that we were unable to make progress in that conversation. I don’t feel good about it because I spend my day trying to do just this with individuals. And every time we lose somebody, Manuel and I usually get upset about it, right? But we also go, you know what, I’m not going to sit there and say, oh, look at all the poor souls I lost because A, that might not have made any difference. And B, I don’t think that’s healthy. Like, you’ve got to move on from your insufficiency. You’ve got to accept that you’re an insufficient creature and go, you know what, maybe I just can’t pull that off. No, you’re right. Because it’s not, yeah, you have to practice. It’s a hard one. You have to practice exclusion sometimes. And that’s just what it is. Because otherwise, there’s no markers for people to see and they’re doomed. It’s just, yeah, for sure. There’s no question. But you don’t know either that you didn’t affect, but you don’t know that it didn’t affect them either, right? No, no, we’re not right. I’m not unhopeful just because I lose contact with somebody. You know, I’ve had people contact me later, like months later, and go, wow, what you did four months ago when I rage quit really helped me. That happens. So it’s like, you can’t even judge it in the moment. Just because somebody rage quit or left or was booted or banned or whatever, doesn’t mean that you didn’t crack them open enough that 10 months, 10 weeks, 10 hours, 10 years later, it won’t resonate with them and cause a positive change that otherwise might not have happened. You just can’t judge it in the moment that harshly. I’ve actually had a similar experience where I actually very mistakenly talked, there was a friend that was hanging around, a group of friends of ours, and I made a statement that stuck with him for almost 10 years. I basically said, look, we’re all creatives, you’re not. And that hurt him. That hurt him. And he brought it up like 10 years later because it was the truth. He’s not a creative person. He can do artistic things, but there is a certain personality trace, there’s a certain essence to creativity that he doesn’t possess. Creativity is a synthesizer. You have to get two different things and kind of put them together in an interesting way. And he’s… That’s Simon Cowell, right? Look, you’ve got to tell these people early that they suck because they spent their whole lives with their family going, you’re the most amazing singer I’ve ever heard. So a bunch of people lie to them and then they think they’re amazing. And then they get bitter and angry that they’re not the next Lady Gaga, although like who’d want to be after that video I saw today. And they’re not the most amazing singer in the world. And then it turns out that they shouldn’t have been pursuing that. They had another call. It’s very rewarding for people to watch that downfall for some reason. They laugh in unison. That’s one of the highlights of the show. We all like a good downfall. Although I would say the image going around Twitter today that I saw like nine times to my detriment of the woman literally vomiting on Lady Gaga’s cleavage while she played the drums was… What the hell was that from? It was from a concert. Jesus. Her finger went in her mouth and green barf came out of her mouth and all over her Lady Gaga’s breast. Just me. What Richard? Sorry. Did it happen on purpose or by accident? No, no. It’s part of the performance. Oh, it was on purpose. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just to be clear. It’s not like I purposely intended to hurt this person. It was a casual comment. It was a general observation. Ten people here and out of the ten people you are the least creative. There is something that brings us all together and we’ve included you. I’m just noticing the difference. And hurt. I was hurt to hear that when he went through a mental episode that actually came back up. I was like, OK, well, like you could bring it up in the next year or the year after that or the year after that and I could try and help you. I could try and point you in the right direction. But things do resonate with people and sometimes we don’t know the full effect of our words. I actually have to live with that. It’s not your responsibility. But you still have to be responsible for your words. No. People have to be responsible for their strengths. You can’t be fully responsible. There’s a relationship and there’s two people involved. I can’t be responsible for your misinterpretation of my language. So on the Awakening server, people are actually saying, you accused so and so of this. And I’m like, OK, where’s the evidence that that ever happened? Because they have no evidence because it didn’t happen. And then they get upset at me because I pointed out to them that, well, I didn’t do that. I think what you’re talking about, Jesse, is deference. And I don’t know if it’s the same. I wouldn’t call it the same. I could have really tore into that guy on here earlier. But out of respect and deference, this isn’t my channel, I was like, wait. Until it started to become an unacceptable statistically in my mind. I’m poking fun at that. The probability of people accepting me telling this guy off now is pretty high. Let’s say 90%. I was more into that guy on here earlier. But, you know, out of respect. I thought I was echoing, but I think we’re having until it started to become an unacceptable Now I can’t. Oops. There we go. You closed the wrong tab. We’ll get the right tab to close next time. Yeah, sure. Yeah, I mean, that’s true. And you could call it the elephant in the room problem. You could call it the problem of tyranny. It’s like there’s something hyper relevant to your goal whole life, out of purpose. There’s something hyper relevant to your goal. But that, if you identify it’s relevance, then you have to fix something. And that’s hard. Yeah, sometimes tyrants disguise themselves as victims. Right. I think that’s what we experienced. We were like, sure, at first. And then it’s like, oh, you’re like a wolf in sheep’s clothing for sure now. Like, I know. Yeah, I know. I think what happened there was he just rolled low in disagreableness. He was captured by publicist opportunity. Because I was in the same scenario three years ago. But I’m high in agreeableness, so I wouldn’t do that. Right. But the problem actually comes down to the simple problem of he was trapped because he couldn’t communicate with us because he couldn’t get agreement on his axiom. And even when he did get agreement, the axiom wasn’t useful. And so he couldn’t take it anywhere. And so he removed himself from communion with us. And we can’t, and I want to tie this back, right? Like, we can’t take full responsibility for people who voluntarily removed themselves from communion just because we have an insufficiency in ourselves. That’s not, we’re not being fair to ourselves, right? And so that’s why grace matters. And that’s why the grace it’s not, you don’t have grace. Grace is given to you. It’s revealed to you. It’s an emanation from above. And then because it comes to you, it’s your obligation to extend it to others. And that’s the sort of formula, the pattern that you navigate that holds the world together. And when you’re not doing that, and you can just look around in the world and see a bunch of people not extending grace or not being charitable or something, right? When you fail to do that, then the world falls apart. Like, absolutely. And it’s not the whole world, fortunately, although we might get to World War III the way people are going. I mean, if we all pull together, we can make World War III happen, guys. But I’d rather we didn’t. But that’s why grace is important because we’re not the arbiters of the conversations we’re in. They’re relationships. The other person has a great deal of say. The other people in this case. You can’t just sit there and say, oh, there’s a perfect conversation that I could have with this combination of people about any topic. That’s not true. There’s no freaking way something like that is reasonable. It’s not a reasonable expectation. So now we’re just dealing with, well, where are those lines and when do they change? When does somebody… It can feel that way, though. It can feel like you’re having like a really epic conversation, even though it’s maybe not the most perfect, perfect thing ever. You come away with that feeling that, whoa, that was really something. Sometimes it is. And when you’ve got a bunch of people like we’ve got here, then we can have wonderful conversations. Right? But that’s not always the case. And it’s also not the purpose because at a certain point, now you’re just you’re in a a mutual fan club. And I don’t want to be in a mutual fan club. So on the Discord server… You’re in a milk machine. Well, on the Discord server, I actually have a rule on the Mark of Wisdom Discord server that if you’re in agreement, you can’t stay. I’m not… We’re not here for that. If you’re in agreement, you can’t stay. It’s a bit of a joke, obviously, right? It came up today. Somebody said something on the server and he was just being horrifically disagreeable. And I was actually a little annoyed. And I said, well, now I’m annoyed and I can’t kick you off the server because the rule is you’re not supposed to agree. So you’re like the thief. But that’s why that rule exists, right? It exists to say the fact that somebody disagrees with you is not grounds for you to do anything about them on my server because the point of the server is to have people in who are going to disagree. The other day when we had the discussion with the Protestant about the Catholics, boy, there was no agreement there. We were going back and forth. Manuel was pissed. I was pissed. We’re like, why are you saying this crazy stuff, you nutty Protestant, gnostic bastard? At the same time, at one point I kind of sidelined the conversation. Not really, but I said, look, I said, I know you. You’re only from online, granted, but I know that you’re going to have it. I would never as somebody whose closest theological association is Catholicism, only because I grew up with it, although again, I never read the Bible. So what do I know? I believe that you’re going to have it, and I would never believe other nothing. Nothing about your theology is going to change my mind. Nothing. Because to me, that’s not a theological issue at all. Theology’s just playing the philosophy game on the other side of the register. It’s a waste of time. Not entirely, but it’s a waste of time for most people. And he stopped and he said, I really appreciate that, Mark, because to let him know, our disagreements here don’t change how I think you’re interacting with the ineffable. At all. And it’s nothing to do with it. The fact that we fight and disagree and that you know nothing about Catholicism because you were brought up in Protestantism and never opened a book or Googled it, literally, because that’s all I was doing. This isn’t what the Catholics believe. I didn’t think they believed that. It’s not a mark on your character. And the fact that I can’t help David and that Jesse tried and he couldn’t help David and that all of us together could help David. It’s mighty Socratic of you. Right. Because that’s the point. I think that is a very, very critical point. You have to be kind of in that Socratic dialogue. I think most of us here are in good faith doing that. Somebody might say something here or there, but you’d be like, ah, you know. They’re cool. They’re not. But you know, one, two, three, four strikes, you know. And it’s like, oh, I can tell you you’re not playing the same game we’re playing, having a good time making cool shit happen. Right. You and your books. We’re in the mall, Richard. You’ll be better off. Talk about Socratic dialogue. Why not? Well, like halfway, because I was listening before I joined, it was like this conversation or getting already getting pretty existential. So I’ll get my existential painting up. So I put up one book. The scream is in the back. The scream. It’s kind of ironic or symbolic to me that, you know. There we go. There it is. What is it? The scream. Monk? Monk? Yeah, Monk. It’s a foundational existential painting. It’s depending on. Norwegian. It’s part of a series called The Freeze of Life, which is a huge concept and different things. But yeah, it’s a pretty well known whole existential I mean, everybody feels that way Monday morning going to work. I mean, it’s a very relatable painting. It’s one of those paintings I have hidden away. I’ve got like 15 there and I’ve got another couple around different pieces. But yeah, it’s it’s one of those ones you bring on every now and then you’re like, all right, OK. All right. Well, what is it about it to you? What about that painting that pulled you to it? We have a you could say there is the scream of life in all of this trying to understand different aspects that tragedy of things sometimes. Sometimes you need a good reminder about that. Right. It doesn’t exist solely to be beautiful. Right. OK. And our life doesn’t exist solely to be free of struggle. Yeah. I wish I had my Horamans, Horonomous Bosch painting in here. It’s one of my rooms. I couldn’t deal with that every day. Well, you know, funny story, you know, talk about Gnostics and wizards and shit. I used to work in a bookstore and the bank would call us when they are like repossessing a house or they’re like getting the stuff out of there and they would throw the books away until they found out about us and they call us and be like, come pick up all these books for free. We’re going to trash them. And man, I don’t know what it was in this region, but there were so many like grimoires and wizard people and so we were cleaning out one house with the bank employees. They were getting like the gold candelabras and stuff and they were just letting us get the books out in boxes. And I saw all these Horonomous Bosch posters, like really high def ones in there. And I’m like, those are mine. I’m taking all of those and put them up because I’ve never really seen one of them in person. I kind of knew who he was and I looked at him really close. I’m like, what the wild blue fuck is going on in there? That is really crazy. What’s he saying? And then the paradise and then like normal earth and then hell, like the transition. The commentary on civilization and humanity itself was pretty heavy to me. I’m like, I need to put this up in my house. It’s a very magnetic frame thing to have pictures in your house. It’s a very new phenomenon. Art used to exist in a arena, in a theater, in a library. You go somewhere to view the pet. Because I guess they were difficult to reproduce. It was a fancy thing. Right. Yeah. Right. Now it’s a luxury. We get to experience a museum in our house, a museum of our choosing. Yeah, exactly. You want to see my images? Yeah. My images are Pokemon. Ah, sweet, dude. I got into the TGG. Mine is a painting. Oh, beautiful. It’s beautiful. Yeah, mine is the dragon in the background. I’ve got the dragon and I’ve got my artwork on my board. It’s terrible because I’m not an artist. But yeah, that’s how I roll. What is that? But that’s the spirit over there. The spirit in Appalachia is very rebellious. And so I would expect Toronto’s Bosch and Grimoire’s and all that. It’s very gnostic by design because those are the rebels. They don’t want any structure and they don’t want any government. Just the trees, man. That’s where you go. That’s where you go. You go to Appalachia to be to get maximum freedom. I mean, it’s right there in the ethos, for sure. Maximum freedom. It could be its own state. The state of Jefferson should rise again. They should do it. It might still yet. Stay tuned. Yeah, well then they can get rid of my ticket in Virginia that I think was unfair. I mean, yeah, we’ll hook you up. No problem. I know you would. You’re the best. My ticket in Virginia, Mike. Hey, they’re serious in Virginia, man. They got helicopters with radar guns and lasers. That dude over here five miles away speeding intercept. Yeah, but you’re going down a mountain, like literally. Like into a tunnel and they’re like, oh, you’re going over the speed limit. I’m like, my brakes are burning up, guy. I’ve been driving down a mountain for a long time here. I don’t want to. The guy next to me is going the same speed. Pull him over. He’s in a truck. Like, what are you doing? I hit a hundred and fifteen in two and a half. They’re telling me that. What’s the matter with you? It’s fun. Do you have speed cameras where cameras permanently set off? Sometimes. Only in a few states. That’s illegal in most of the states. Yeah. I got caught by one of those in Michigan, I think. Yeah. I think it was, was it Cedar Rapids or something? I forget where. But yeah, I got hit by a camera and I was bullshit because I was like, that’s not fair because in like in the New England states, I don’t think there’s any place on the East Coast that they can give you a ticket without pulling you over face to face. And that actually makes a big difference. It makes sense that you would have to do that. Well, in Britain, they’re all over. They’re everywhere. You gotta get your gun back, man. Get your guns back. You gotta get those muskets first and then work your way up to AR-15s, man. Then they’ll start listening to you guys. They’ll be like, well, how are they gonna vote this year? They have all these, all these guns. Oh my god. We better not fuck them over too bad. That’s not, that’s not how that works. But I, I, I like your attitude. Where are you at, Ben? Me? I’m in West Virginia, man. He’s in Appalachia. He’s in Appalachia. Appalachia. Yep, that’s me. Yippee-ki-yay. Absolutely. It’s a weird place. It’s very different from the rest of the U.S. I’ll tell you that much. I love it. It’s the best. It’s not the North, it’s not the Midwest, it’s not the East Coast, it’s the West Coast. It’s the Rebel Mountains. We ought to rename them that. The Rebel Mountains. Yeah. Yeah, that sounds awesome. Yeah, isn’t like Thomas Jones’ thesis that black game culture came out of like Appalachian art system? No, you know, do we want to talk about where that really came from? I don’t think we do because, you know, I like your channel. We’re not going to talk about that. There’s other things in the world to talk about like, you know, Lethal Weapon 5, which deals with that very same question in a lot of different softer kid glove ways. You know, I’m excited about it. What’s Riggs going to say next? I have no idea. It’s going to make everybody angry. I’m fundamentally not political. I don’t like political framing. I don’t like talking about it. It’s too small. You can’t understand anything in political or economic terms. You just can’t. It just doesn’t map to enough of the world. You can understand small specific things. But once you try to understand anything reasonable, it just fails. I will tell you that Lethal Weapon 3 is dog shit, though. I tried to re-order it. That’s true. That’s true. The divide between 3 is very… But what they did with 4, like, how did they pull that off? I don’t know. It’s not not true. It is true. So we can say that about it. Oh, that was frustrating. I was so many times like, hey, Mark, can we do a debrief after this? Because I’m worked up. How many solutions do you need to give to… Not enough, apparently. Lethal Weapon 1, Lethal Weapon 2, Lethal Weapon 4. What’s better? I mean, one. One. One is the best. One. I’m getting too old for this shit! Go on, man. Already? Yeah. When he’s in the kitchen, it’s the first time Danny Glover says it. And it’s just like, that’s his catch for it. It’s the first time for everything. Yeah, did you watch How I Met Your Mother? Because they did an episode on that. No, I’m not. How I Met Your Mother is one of the greatest serial little TV series of all time. Is it good? I didn’t really watch it. No, no, it’s absolutely… You have to watch it. It’s absolutely brilliant. But they did the Lethal Weapon thing in one episode. And so it goes off and like, he makes a mini bucket list, right? To do, because he’s like in his 30s or late 20s or something like that. He’s like panicking about getting old. He makes this mini bucket list. And he does all this stuff and it practically kills him, right? Because he’s too old to do, right? Whatever it is. And then he finally gets to the end and he goes, I just realized every time he says that, it’s not true in the movie. Right! That’s the whole point. So true. Right, right. It’s funny. It’s funny. Well, and that’s a good question. Is comedy true? If it makes you laugh, it is. Exactly. Why? In accordance with life in some way, that you can participate in. That’s what true is. Now, I have heard, you know, as I’ve told you, Mark, I’ve been getting way into comedy and I just did the thing not too long ago. What I have noticed studying stand-up comedy is there are several different types of laughs people give in live performances. Yes. And one stand-up comedy bit that I was watching, he was saying some really vulgar out there stuff that could be funny, but it just wasn’t to me because I was like, it’s like you’re brow-beating people with this material. And I heard something strange in the laughter of everybody in the audience and I replayed it and replayed it and showed it to my buddy I’m doing comedy with. And I was like, these people don’t really think this is funny, but they’re laughing. It’s like a nervous laugh. And they’re laughing because they heard somebody else laugh next to them. Like a mob nervous mob laugh. Or they’re all uncomfortable with the concept. Yeah. If you’re comfortable with the concept, your laugh goes one way. And if you’re uncomfortable, it’s a nervous laugh. Yeah. So then I noticed with other comedians, you know, like like let’s say Richard Pryor or something, you know, like one of the old school greats. Those people were really fucking laughing. Like that was like a belly laugh. He could get into the flow of the distributed cognition and really tie it into his act, right? Like he was in the moment. Yeah. I can’t do stand-up. I can’t do stand-up. Unless it’s improv. Improv I could do no problem. That’s fun. Yes. Right. But I could never do a stand-up because it requires all of this framing that I can’t especially now, man, my framing is messed up. I’m always trying to jump in other people’s frames and figure out where they’re at. So my framing is complete trash right now. But it’s very hard for me to organize. Because my cousin did it. He went to one of the comedy training schools in Boston for a while. And he used to do an open mic night with some stand-up comedian guys. And they did a great job actually. It was really good. And that was one of the things that was going on was he was learning how to do that. And so I was showing up watching the shows and watching them all learn, you know, as amateurs how to be funny. And it was fascinating to watch. It was really truly fascinating to watch. Jesse puts more effort into changing the way he does things. I love his paintings. I love his museum. He’s got anything in my house all week. Like you already exceeded my weekly allowance for work in my house just in that one little section there. You’re muted, Jesse. We can’t hear you. You’re going to come off mute, dude. Oh, thank you. Ooh, exiles. Who is it? Is it the Hare Krishna? Oh, there’s the man. The man, the myth, the legend. I just was like, what can make this poster better than putting Jesus Christ up at the top of the flying saucer? Turning on the chariot. I must say that I love the fact that Jesse thought it was the Hare Krishna. That’s true. What do you get up there, Jesse? You’re on the big screen now. Yeah, show us your art, bro. Oh, okay, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. Storytime with Jesse. All right. Absolutely. We got Matisse. Henry Matisse. Friendship Krishna. Nice. That’s good. I don’t spend much money. I just find good deals and frame things. My favorite. Oh, London. Van Gogh. Sunflowers. Sunflowers. Oh, we’ve got a little Rembrandt I’ve had for 15 years. It’s been everywhere with me. I love that. This is going to be slightly controversial, but Ooh, here we go. Very nice. We’re collecting a few movie posters. That’s good stuff. Oh, yeah. Monroe. Classic. Classic we’ve got. Network. Ooh, that’s a cool one. I like that one. Yeah, I like that one. But that one’s okay, too. This is a foundational image. That’s the US, man. That’s the whole United States. Yeah. We’ve got another Matisse. Another Matisse. Another French. Into Wool. Why do you keep talking about my teeth? We’ve got Henry Conabenson. I’ve never seen that before. I don’t know that one. If you want to know what photography is, you just study this painting. Okay. So it is a painting. Sorry, sorry. This is a photo. Study the photo. So that’s in the background. You’ve got triangles. You’ve got subject manner. You’ve got like formal, informal things going on. It’s also timeless. Until you know the actual date. I’ve got it somewhere. Right. But that’s the ethos that we no longer have. Like people usually go to the terminals and they would watch the ships go by. And yeah, you know, there was this whole thing that we don’t do anymore. That’d be cool. Get drunk watching the ships go by. Grand Central Station. Oh, beautiful. This is I’ve been there. They’ve all got somewhere to go and they’re in a hurry. Yeah, they had just redone it when I went there. It was absolutely gorgeous. Yeah. Have me to the US. We’ll eventually get there. Oh, I hope so. Yeah, you gotta come hang out, man. We’ll go visit you or you can come visit us. Oh, more Van Gogh. Okay. Oh, thank you. Another movie Another movie post-op. I want to keep going. Love it. The best film ever made. You can’t beat this film. This film is unbeatable. Yeah, I mean, the bone turning into a spaceship makes it. I haven’t seen that, guys. You’ve got it. I don’t know if you can make a better film than this. I don’t know. I don’t know. I really need to. You can make a better genre maybe, but in terms of film, I mean, if Jodorowsky would have made Dune, maybe it would have maybe. I actually think the documentary of Jodorowsky is better than the product he would have made. Sometimes the story about the art is better than the actual art. Yeah. Yeah, I watched that. It was a wonderful documentary. A Scab dish from the side of the road. This is Monet. Oh, that’s beautiful. I love that. We can simply frame this. Keep going, bro. I mean, yeah. Keep flowing. I got some other See, I’ve got too many to deal with. Here we go. I got a Goya. This is, yeah, another 18th century. The Sleep of Reason produces monsters. So this will be going in my new studio. We’ve got one of my favorites, William Blake. Oh, there we go. Now you’re talking my language, buddy. Yeah. William Blake’s great. I’m slowly developing a Japanese art. It’s a cat. This is me. Yeah, I love this. Is that not a cat? It’s a spider. It’s a spider with a mustache. Oh, fuck no, man. Nah. Nah. I’m glad that guy’s going to fucking kill it. What is yours, man? What is that? When did this come out? This is Yosh. You can try and pronounce that. Okay. Yasutoshi. This is Blake. Blake is the correct last name. 19th century. Melancholia. I don’t know. Melancholia art? I don’t know what that is. Yes, it is. Or is it a weird movie instead? Melancholia is a great movie. In my opinion. I’ve never heard of it. It made me sad, but that was the point. That’s the point. This is another thing. This is an Australian painter. Not any freshness. Australians can paint? Really? Yeah. Well, she’s slightly British. So, I guess. They turned all those tattoo needles into art brushes. Aren’t you all just British? The Brits didn’t want all that. We’re all convicts. We’re all convicts. Do you want me to keep going? Do you want me to keep going? You can go as long as you want, buddy. Alright. We will keep watching. I’m down. We bought a bunch of these Japanese postcards to frame the series. Awesome. Yeah, I love these. I like that. Yeah, I’ve got a bunch more. Here we go. I love Japanese art. It’s really good. The lines, the color, the style, the subject matters. Yeah, the styles are amazing. Well, you know why Japanese is considered high art, right? They basically isolated themselves from the… Oh, yeah. Fiddle, fan, is that part of it? Well, yeah. It was called something else, though, wasn’t it? You probably have to stream that whole period. That would be an interesting topic. No, wow. I love the warriors. Yeah. Bunch of different archetypes is what I want around the house. Oh, cool. I asked them, like, if they have the images right, I’m like, can I just get them as an A4? They’re like, no, we made postcards. But you have some of them as A4s, why can’t you just print me more? They’re like, no, we’re not doing that at the time. I’m like, just print them. Just have a printer there. And then just click the button. And then I’ll buy them. And I can go home happy instead of having this argument with you. I’ve got three more. Do you want me to go get them? Yes. I am so out of my way. I don’t know how to appreciate it. We’re trying to civilize you, Richard. Stop being rebellious. No. I can do classical music. I am a very cultured appreciator of classical music. Well, stop rebelling and start appreciating. You said I’m rebellious, Mike. I did. Didn’t you hear me? You want me to hear you? I lied. It was actually full on. Excellent. So we don’t need you lying. Oh, wow. What is that? A batiste? Yeah, Henry Matisse. So this is painted on the eve of the Second World War. The eve of destruction. No, sorry. The eve of the First World War. 1914. The beginning of the disaster. The beginning of the Great War. Yeah, the beginning of the end. For the West, maybe. And this is maybe a little bit controversial, but this is 1951. It’s classical. It’s not classical. It’s not. It’s not. Hey, you know, you’re surrounded by men of culture here. We’ve got another. We’ve got another. Oh, wow. 1919. Whoa, dude. That dude is booking it. This is on the eve of the Second World War. So yeah, that’s. And then we’ve got another. Oh, gosh. Host. Oh, love. Oh, look at that. Action. Like most of Robert’s photography work, it’s completely staged. And once you see it, you’re like, of course, everything in the background is blurry. Everyone’s standing still. You’ve got all the photography. You’ve got all the people. Everyone’s standing still. Photography methods like, of course, at stage. But it feels so authentic. And that’s what matters. It’s the first cover of Vogue magazine. Oh, that’s true. Yeah, it’s definitely true. I’ve got a lot of. Sally Jones. There’s so much need for wall space in this man. Like I just was referring to you. You just need you need wall space. Yeah, well, we’re ranking this place at the moment. So, yeah, it’s been where when we have ability to hang things, it’s a pain. And then, yeah, I don’t want to put one of them loft apartments over there, even though everything’s super expensive because you have a fake lumber crisis. Well done, Australia. Did you guys see the image going around Twitter of the. I mean, he had 70,000 books in his attic. I don’t know if you want to Google that or something. He had them all basically as separate insulation in his house. It’s all like, you know, fully fully restructured his whole house to fit his book collection. It’s a has has has power and got his record to. Oh, gosh. Yeah, I want to talk to them. Where is Georgia? Yeah, Georgia. But yeah, he said he was trying to get all of his records. He has like five, I mean, like five thousand records. Probably everything collecting since the 70s. Holy. Whoa, Jesse, I got up. That’s impressive. Can you share it? I don’t even want to. It’s too glorious to be shared. I mean, a sec, I got to find a picture. Well, holy wow. Oh, yeah, this is nuts. Let me see if I can make it full screen. I don’t make it full screen. You won’t you won’t be able to see it. This work. Why can’t I manipulate the universe to my whim? Because you’re not a Gnostic. That’s true. You’re not a wizard, Harry. I think I think I want to see that movie, the movie where like people go around. No, you’re not getting into Hogwarts. No, every episode. No, you’re not a wizard. No, you’re going to space instead. I always wanted to see what would happen, you know, with the wizards and and the dudes with phasers like who would come out on top? How would that work out? Don’t know. It’s cyberpunk. I guess so. Right. Especially if Japanese anime is very, very progressive and very transgressive called a certain magical index. Essentially does that. Sally, you could even listen to 5000 records, but that’s because she has been single long enough to realize that that is well within the realm of possibility. And that wouldn’t even take that long. I have almost 200. That’s it, you wimp. Guys, I have, I thought my Spotify playlist was so long. Then I looked at my friend’s and found he has like 10 playlists with 70 hours of music on them each. I’m sorry, how new is this? Is this my favorite? Oh my goodness. It’s interesting how easy the electronic ages made the question to me. It’s so easy. You just drown in it. You can’t exhaust it. You need a boat at that point. Yeah. Yeah, there it is. The map. That’s the picture I was looking at going like what the heck is this? This is amazing. There’s another angle of this where it’s got this really old decrepit chair in which people would be like, yeah, sums up the photo. How are these two different things? Yeah, it’s called the straps. There’s wooden straps holding the books to the ceiling. Yeah. Oh, got it. Just waiting to kill somebody. I thought that was the base of the chapter. I mean, it’s a cool idea, I guess, but I wouldn’t hang out up there. I mean, I would have made those straps out of metal, but that’s just me. Yeah. I think they’re out of wood. I know, yeah. They’re just wooden traps. That’s insane. The whole thing is crazy. Oh, yeah, they got more pictures. Yeah, I like this other one. It’s got a tower of books in it. It’s got a little bit of a And his entertainment center and these couple of chairs and that’s, yeah, that’s nuts. I can’t even. I can’t even. He’s got chairs made out of books. No, they’re not made out of books, but he’s got chairs in with them. Missed opportunity. It’s, well, maybe. It’s pretty nuts. It’s pretty. Make a couch out of books. I mean, why are the Dutch upside down? I mean, I’m not sure. I mean, I’m not sure. Why are the Dutch up so late? The Dutch need to go to bed. I’m just saying. They got to get all those ovens going, man. The Dutch ovens? Yes, they do. Very innovative. That’s all I know about the Dutch. I know they have good chocolate, too. You don’t know anything about the Dutch. Okay. The pattern that’s playing out, though, with people who are, you know, like poor David there, who are, they’re just so stuck in their worldview that the minute, you know, the minute they can’t find communion, they get, they cut off intimacy completely, right? They’re just gone, gone from the world. Some people are intent on it, you know? Some people are trying. I don’t know. I just didn’t get good vibes from that guy that that was even a goal at all, you know, at all to do anything. I don’t know. I think Mark put it well when he called it an axiom. And I think we were poking him in one of his fundamental axioms. Poking him in an axiom. Yeah. That’s not where I’m comfortable with him. Well, I think that’s the poor problem. Like at some point he needed to be in that dialectic frame, that binary, right, in order to proceed with his worldview. And so he needed to put us there in order for him to keep going, even though, you know, Jesse got him there and he wouldn’t keep going because he didn’t, at the time he didn’t have anywhere to go. Yeah, yeah, four times. Yeah, yeah. More than four times. Yeah, and that’s where he becomes tyrannical. Right. Well, he was always tyrannical, right? Yeah. He was always trying to get us there. But then when Jesse let him, fine, we’ll give you that. Now what? He didn’t have a now what? Yeah. But when the conversation went somewhere that he wanted to refute, he needed that axiom and he couldn’t get back there. And that’s why you know it’s wrong, because if you can’t reverse into the axiom, it’s a false axiom. So that’s probably another, I’ll put that in the notes here. I think he was drunk too. I think he was piss drunk. He just did not seem, you know, coherent. I think it’s like, go ahead. Yeah, I’m trying to think of how I would respond to that. Something like that, like that axiom is true. That’s the only response I can think of. Like make sense of it. You would end up being super nice to them and then they’d be mean to you and then I’d get mad and yell at them again. So that’s what would happen. I’m trying to think of how he could have responded to Jesse’s challenge. But at a certain point, that’s not a useful experiment. It starts hurting everybody. It becomes like radioactive, you know, because as I said, you would be trying really hard to do the right thing and be a good person. And then they would try to hurt you and that would make me mad. And my disagreeableness will come out. And then I’m going to start yelling and it makes the whole thing just blow. It’s just all bad. Yeah, exactly. No one’s going to be able to mess with you with us or Richard because we all jump. I think the problem is, look, I’ve got decades of doing this with these types of people. That was nothing new for me. And look, there was just no way to do it. Like, you know, and no offense, Richard, but you’re still young, dude. You got a lot to learn about how bad people can get and how hard it can be to get them unstuck. But that’s the I mean, that’s the project. That’s the Mark of Wisdom project. That’s the whole that’s what we’re working on all the time is how do we identify stuckness and get people unstuck? And what do we do about that? Right. And it’s just been real hard. And this week’s been bad just because of the awakening from the meeting crisis, server blow up and all the ridiculousness that went on there. But what if we walk? Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, they destroyed it. They destroyed it. They destroyed it in spectacular, quick fashion. What happened? I’ve been on this one. They removed they removed the organizer roles from Manuel and I. Which was fine. They could have just told us, but they did it in an announcement without telling us first. And the announcement is full of falsities, contradictions, contradictory falsities. Right. Because they didn’t ban us from the server, but they told us we weren’t in line with the community. And I went, well, if they’re not, we’re not in line with the community, just ban us and be like, get us off the server. Like, why would you leave us on the server and take away our organizer rights when all we’re using our organizer rights to do are John’s practices? It doesn’t make any sense. Yeah, to shame you, to be an asshole. They were using the practices and our misalignment with John as the reasoning behind removing the organizer role. And I’m like, no, no, no, no, that’s a reason to keep the organizer role because you’re still doing John Verbeke’s meditation and we’re still doing the Lectio Divina practice based on John’s work. And we’re still doing the listening parties and the book clubs. We were still doing all that stuff. And that hadn’t changed in nearly three years. So why all of a sudden are you taking away our power to do that? But leaving us on the community while telling us that we’re not good for the community. If we’re not good for the community, just get rid of us. Like, it’s not that big a deal. And I wasn’t, I like, I don’t care. Like it’s his Discord server. It’s like the equivalent of sticking you in the stockades in front of everybody. Right. But exactly. And what happened was they created seven or eight new threads on the server. And one of the threads was talking about the removal of our privileges. And that just became a pile on. And then the guy who manages the server was like, oh, oh, please stop piling on. And I kept saying, you guys are making accusations that are unfounded. Like, I get that you’re upset, but you’re accusing me of things that I didn’t do. And more importantly, you’re accusing my friend of something he didn’t do. And I’m not having my friends slander. That’s not happening. It’s kind of like. You come here, me and you slander my friends. You’re done. I will take you out faster than you can say, boo. You can slander me all day. I really don’t care. You’re not important, but you don’t slander my friends that that I don’t know. That’s a no. That’s a hard no. I don’t let that stuff go on. That’s right. Me neither. It’s a lot like, you know, evil just has to gloat like they did with you. Put you in that. It’s like, you know, I just watched. The wrath of Khan with William Shatner the other night. I got to tell you all about that. That was really cool. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway. Yeah, I did that. Yeah. A few days at Wednesday night. Yeah. Yeah. Finish. So anyway, so the wrath of Khan, it’s fresh in my mind. So Connie comes up and cabinet Kirk doesn’t raise his fucking shields. Like, what’s he doing? And it’s about he blows him up. He goes around and starts to. Took his warp drive out, took his warp core out, you know, made it to where he couldn’t see anything. And then he’s about to finish him off. And what does Khan do? He fucking FaceTimes Captain Kirk. He’s like, I wanted you to know who beat you. It was me. Yeah. And they’re all like, God, you son of a bitch. But it gives Captain Kirk and the good guys just enough time to punch in those command codes to get them to lower their shields. And he blows up his fucking impulse crystal and they got to, you know, so this evil people just have to fucking blow. They need you to know. But it’s their greatest weakness. It undid the whole thing. It blew up the whole son of a bitch. Yeah. The Genesis device. It’s the Ahab syndrome, you know, you can. Yeah. And also, as well as make sure the whale knew it was him and it cost him everything. Well, and what’s interesting is, you know, this is what I think. I think it’s the. I’ve always talked over why he does that. Yeah, it’s the ego. The ego gets you every time. Right. Because they’re all ego. And so what happened on the server was a bunch of people come into the into these threads and say, yeah, Mark and Manuel are big meanie pants. And then they reduced us to Eminem. They wouldn’t refer to us as by name anymore. They just called us Eminem. It was so they’re dehumanizing and accusing and being mean. And it’s all new people for the most part. And they’re all just making stuff up that never happened. And they’re dredging in all of this stuff. You know, almost all of it is complete fantasy. And I’m just like, well, just show me the evidence and, you know, whatever. Like, we’ll go from there. Of course, they didn’t have it because it didn’t happen. And then they get upset. Right. To some extent, it’s an unfair fight. Right. So there’s a dozen of them and there’s one of me and the dozen of them. Their collective intelligence is no match for me in this game. Right. Because I have the truth on my side. When you get the truth on your side, like all the intelligence of the world is not going to avail you. And that’s the problem is they couldn’t they couldn’t make their case. And I was like, well, you can’t make your case because you’re wrong. You know, we’re doing good work and we’re doing we’re doing John’s practices. And yeah, we don’t agree with everything. But, you know, you guys aren’t in the meditation either. Do you really believe in John’s work if you’re not doing the meditation? You know, you can get into that game. Right. Well, enough of the Gnosticism. That’s the emergence is good problem. Right. Oh, flow state is good. Oh, practices are good. Oh, if you do this ritual, it’s good. It’s like, no, that’s not what good none of that has anything to do with goodness. But tell us tell us about watching with live with Shatner like how was. Oh, dude. Yeah. So that was really wild. I’m not sure. I have a lot to say about it. So if I go on too long, you tell me shut up about Captain Kirk. But anyway, so, yeah, we went there and it was a full house, man. I was not expecting that in West Virginia. It’d be like a full house of Star Trek fans, all these trekkers everywhere, man. Some people was dressed up and there was all really cool. There were lawyers there. There were like business people. There is, you know, holler people. There was like, you know, people who were like, you know, holler people, you know, there was just coal miner people. There’s all kinds of different people there. It was really cool. And so anyway, had to find a seat. The coolest part of it is they were they were running out of seats. And so the only seats that I could get were box seats. And I had never sat in a box seat. And the only thing I know about box seats is the Muppet show and those grumpy old dudes that sit on top throwing popcorn and talking. Yeah, exactly. And I was like, I love this. I got to be like those two old dudes in the Muppet show. And I totally was. And so my box seat was like right here. And like here was the stage. So when Captain Kirk walked out, I could see the white in his eyes. I could see him and it was really cool. It was either that or way up in the nosebleeds. And so I paid the extra money and bit the bullet. This is the only time he’s coming to West Virginia. I got to I got to see this guy as close as I can because the VIP things were like four or five hundred dollars. I’m like, no, I’m not not doing that. Just to get an autograph or some shit. No, I’m not doing that. But I’ll do the box seat. So anyway, long story short, on this big giant screen in this fancy like opera theater, we watched the Rathicon and it was really cool because it was the extended cut. I’ve never in my life seen that. I just had it on the VHS. It was like 20 minutes longer, dude. And dude, yeah. And I’m going to tell you what, man, Scotty fucking stole a show in that whole movie. Like they cut out some of his best acting he’s ever done. James Dohan, the Canadian actor. Dude, he was fucking killing it in some of those scenes. Like his the authenticity of his his emotion is he had the most cathartic acting I might have ever really seen. And because you know that that kid that dies that he’s holding in the turbo lift. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s his nephew. And they cut that. Yeah. And they cut that out. It’s his sister’s son. And there’s all these scenes where he’s like training him. He’s taking him under his wing. You know, he even tells Captain Kirk off, you know, his little nephew. And there’s all this cool shit that they left out. They cut out a lot of Scotty parts, you know, and dude, all the fucking bullshit. You know, when Con hit the enterprises in engineering section where the Warp Corps is, they went a lot deeper into all this shit. Scotty had to go through to get it working. And you just feel so bad for this guy. Like I didn’t realize how much they cut out. And but anyway, long story short, it was wonderful. And then after the after the movie ended, you know, Captain Kirk comes out and this was the weirdest thing. And I got to mention this because because of, you know, what happened earlier with that guy and some of the other things. So the guy that put it together, the guy that moderated it or whatever. Yeah, he had a really weird vibe, man. And I just I just really hated hated to see it because, you know, here’s Captain Kirk. He’s 91, almost 92 years old. You know, he shouldn’t be expected to like carry the whole show. Right. So this. So this guy and him are up there in two chairs. And Captain Kirk is just telling a really interesting story about something. And this guy has these cards and he doesn’t know what to do other than look at the cards and stick to the cards. Right. And at first I thought, you know, this guy is kind of nervous or something. I feel bad for him. But then I started to see this guy get mad at Captain Kirk because he didn’t let him do his card talk show host thing or whatever the fuck he had in his head. Right. And the audience started to notice this and Captain Kirk, you know, William Shatner, I don’t know. I keep calling Captain Kirk, but William Shatner noticed this. He was like, this guy’s kind of got a weird vibe. And so he would get up out of the seat and walk around and just tell a joke and do this thing and do that thing. And that guy, the moderator would laugh and everything like, haha. And then right immediately, he would go. Just his face would change. I’m like, what’s with this guy? He’s got he’s fucking weird. Like what’s tripping over? What’s he upset about? And the longer the more Captain, the more William Shatner was up there like talking and being fun and energetic. And again, this dude is 91 years old and he’s like bouncing up and down laughing and talking and doing all kinds of stuff and making the audience laugh. The more that moderate that dude got angry and I was like this what’s happened? Is he going to like so it came to a weird point where he was like, all right, you know, Bill, we need to get some of these questions. And he’s like, OK, if that will make you feel better, we’ll do you think it’ll make him feel better? And then he was just like, oh, yeah. Yeah. And thank God. But, you know, I felt bad because, oh, this is what it was. Oh, dude, this made me feel so bad. Like I just wanted to go down there and talk to William Shatner like a like a human being and and be like, dude, I hear what you’re saying. He started talking about friends. William Shatner started off talking about friends and best friends. And he’s like, you know, I don’t think I have a best friend. He’s like, what is a best friend? And I was like, what are you talking about? Is he being serious? I feel I feel so bad if he’s being serious. And then he was talking about so, you know, it was James Spader’s birthday recently. You know, we did this show. No big deal for five years. You know, Boston Legal. Well, we became really good friends. You know, I thought I thought we were best friends. I texted him for the past seven years every day, every year for his birthday. Happy birthday. I love you, man. I hope you’re doing well. Never texted me for years. And then all of a sudden he texted me back. I sent him a happy birthday. Text me back. He said, hey, Bill, how you doing? Thanks, man. So how was space? Are we best friends now? And I was like, is this dude being serious? Like, I feel awful if he’s telling this is a true story. And James Spader is treating Captain Kirk like shit like this. This is awful. This is awful. Like, this dude is just going to find out, like, oh, we were starring on this show together. Maybe we should maybe we could communicate and be friends. No, no, I’m not friend. Don’t I don’t want you fucking talking about birthday. Oh, you went to space. It’s fashionable for me and my friends here at my birthday to ask you about it. Like, oh, and so here, here, William Shatner is trying to, you know, be a human being and tell the story, you know, about, you know, being older and how it’s hard to have a friend. And what does that even mean? And this dude’s just like, so we’ve got a question here from Ashley. What kind of underwear do you wear? Boxers or briefs? I’ll shit you not. There’s a real fucking question that that guy asked in light of that. So I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you something near him because because I’ve been throwing around this idea. I actually had to. It’s such a funny story. There’s a there’s an incubator down here and the woman who runs it. I met her about three years ago at the other incubator that’s in Columbia, South Carolina. And I was I was trying to pass this idea by her and she was like, can you do it in like, can you do a pitch video? And I’m like, well, that’s really not my thing. I work with people and do their pitches. Right. But I don’t do pitches like I’m not. Yeah. So I did a pitch video, but the pitch is basically this part of what’s wrong with the, you know, with the with the interaction. We grew up on like Ted Talks and and then we sort of migrated to the to the YouTube conversation style. Right. The Joe Rogan. Right. But what you really want is you want a live stage thing and you can talk to people on the Internet. Right. Maybe a screen or something. Right. So you can bring in one or two remote guests. But then you have questions to interact with. And the key to that is to have somebody else who’s not on the stage, match the video. And help people to ask their questions better because we’ve lost that skill set. So I’m trying to find investors, by the way, to do that project. It would be a great project to do here in particular for lots of various reasons. But yeah, I mean, people don’t want to ask questions and moderators don’t know how to moderate because we just don’t. Everything’s so flat. We don’t have a sense. But there’s a producer in the back and there’s somebody managing the audience. And then there’s the presenter doing the presentation. And then there’s the speaker. Right. With the speakers. All of these roles are different roles for a reason. So people focus in and be really good at them. And we don’t we don’t have a way to ask good questions anymore. And one of the things that happened was years ago before the fake news virus scam garbage. I saw Jordan Peterson in Charlotte, North Carolina. It’s not that far from my house. Right. It’s 80, 80 miles from my house. So I go see Peterson and he gets up on stage and they tell us about this app and they’re like, Peterson’s going to come out and then at the end, he’s going to answer questions from the audience. This is like a five or seven thousand person theater. It’s pretty large. And I was kind of like, well, they’re going to manage that. So you put your questions into the app. They go through the app. They go to the app. They go to the app. They go to the app. So you put your questions into the app, they go through them, rank them and ask the top 10. And I was like, that’s fucking lame. Well, no, but that but that’s better than you’d get otherwise. Like, how else are you supposed to get good quality questions that people just people just heckling in the crowd and saying funny stuff and everybody laughing because that’s what happened at the show with William Shatner. And it was fun. When Peterson talks, there is no sound in our choice at all. It’s amazing. I was just like, what the ever living hell is going on in this building right now? These people have such reverence for this man that they are completely silent. It was someone needs to tell a fart joke. No, that wouldn’t work. I want to address. I want to address. I want to address Benjamin Franklin. Right. So he says, I have a question about the subject of quote, being is good, end quote. All right. Don’t put things in quotes. I’m getting tired of that. If you actually mean the thing, you don’t need to quote it. Being where is good. Okay. You’ve inverted the language in a way that doesn’t make any sense. Benjamin. Sorry. Is the is being in the universe good? Well, yes. Being implies being in the universe. So being as good is the statement that being in the universe is good. Was the guides David’s being in a particular place in the universe good? I don’t know because you’re qualifying it and we’re not qualifying it. Right. So the statement that being is good is unqualified for a reason. And that is because the the act of being right or the state of being always has the potential to manifest good in the future, which is usually where people get hung up. And therefore being is good. Like that’s the Christian assumption. The alternate assumption, as I said, the Gnostic assumption is emergence is good. And that’s definitely can’t possibly mathematically be true. But all these wicked smart people don’t do basic mathematics, so they don’t understand something. So I love that both of them actually just came out. Thank you. Things can endure if they’re not funny at all. Yeah, well, joyful maybe. Yeah, like, OK, Jordan Peterson, for example, like, where’s the fun? Where is not a lot of fun? It’s all people. It is. It is. He’s funny. He makes jokes. Well, there’s a there’s a spirit in the Peterson event. The level of the suit with the suit, like there’s a level of reverence there. People were dressed up. They took it very seriously. They were quiet. They were. It wasn’t it wasn’t respect. It wasn’t respect. It was reverence, which is one step beyond respect. It was really an amazing thing. It was it was strange, too, because my buddy, when he was he moved back up to Boston for reasons which will never make any sense to anybody because they’re completely dumb. But he was living down here at the time he was living in Charlotte, actually. So he joined me. Right. He joined me. And he was like, wow, you really like on to this Peterson thing. And I’m like, no, no, Peterson’s the next big thing. And he was big at that point. But I’m like, he’s going to get a lot bigger. Right. Because I just see this stuff. It just comes to me. I’m like, oh, you think that a thing like this has happened or do you think he’s just like another Plato or Socrates or what do you think this is exactly the next big thing? What do you mean by that? The problem with Peterson, I think it’s you’re a little sagely there, too. And this is why I love you, man. Yeah. The problem with Peterson is that he is more like Socrates than Plato. OK. And I would say both are insufficient. Right. Because what you need is you need participation and you need leadership. So leadership, the act of leadership automatically creates a level of participation that is otherwise unavailable. And that’s the problem that this is the gap. So when Vanderclai talked about this a few weeks ago, maybe a month ago, he basically said and he admitted, which I already knew, but whatever, Paul’s a little behind on his own thinking. But that’s OK. Right. He said Socrates didn’t. Yeah, you’re right. They didn’t. Jordan Peterson’s doing it. He’s doing leadership. Right. But Paul identified that there was a gap in leadership from Peterson. Right. And he wants to fill that gap because he wants to fill the gap between Peterson and the church. And like, fair enough. Right. That’s that he should. He’s a pastor. That’s his job. Literally his job. Right. Yeah. But he admitted even in that talk that he wasn’t willing to take the leadership. It’s like, well, this is the problem with for Vagie. This is the problem with Peugeot. Although I love to show what you’re here and there. And this is the problem with with Peterson. It’s the problem with with Vanderclai. They don’t want to do the leadership thing because the problem with leadership that people do not understand if you have not led something is it is a sacrifice. And it is a big sacrifice because when you’re a leader, he’s doing it. You can’t. No, he’s not. He’s not. Well, he’s telling people what to do now. You know, and that’s a shame. But you need interaction. You need the right level of interaction. Interaction. It’s personal interaction. He does not. Well, he’s more of a shepherd than a leader. Can a shepherd be a leader? No, no. Right. What do you think of the conference? You don’t think he’s a shepherd. What, Richard? What do I think of what? The conference is organized here in New Orleans. Did you watch him on Rogan? No, no, I didn’t. So, so Peterson is here and I think he he announced it on Rogan. He’s organizing a conference in October. Yeah. That is a counter conference. Oh, yeah. But he’s not leading. He’s not. He’s not saying this is my conference and I’m going to dictate what happens. He’s starting a roundtable. He’s starting. Exactly. So, so again, and we’ll go back to the to the start of this, right? You can describe someone like Vervicki’s practices as everyone gets around in a circle and they follow a procedure, the same procedure for everybody. And they say a bunch of words and something’s supposed to emerge. Unless there’s a K.R. It’s actual occultism because no one’s taking responsibility for the emergence and saying this is good or this is bad or steering it in a direction. This is why community is important. This is interesting. What do you think the story of King Arthur is then in the point of the roundtable? Do you think it’s important? I asked Pijot. I literally asked Pijot to do a video on that. Huh? Well, I think that roundtable can work if you have a king because he breaks the bullshit. Well, well, yeah, that’s what I do. The scourge. I think that’s the answer. The answer is roundtables are fine with the structure. But if you don’t have the larger structure because you don’t have a leader, a king, then it doesn’t work. Like I said, roundtable has to be in the castle. Right. And the king is the head of the castle. But the castle has the roundtable. Yes, exactly. OK, because I like roundtable. That’s kind of what we’re doing. But, you know, you know, it’s your stream. You know, there we go. No, no, that’s not what we’re doing. What are we doing? This is my stream and I had to ban David and I had to ban David because this is my stream and somebody had to do it. I know you’re King Arthur at the roundtable here. But but but it’s not a roundtable. I’m explicit about that. This is my free stream. And if I don’t like something you’re doing, you’re gone and I’m not making excuses. I’m saying, you know, and if you want the rules up front, you can stick it. I’m just going to get rid of you when I feel I should. And and there I am stating up front like I do on my on my Mark of Wisdom Discord server. Right. There’s no warnings. There’s no procedure that you have to violate. You just have to piss off one of the mods and you’re gone and there’s no explanation. And that’s just the way it is, because that’s what true leadership is, is taking responsibility. Right. Even when you’re wrong, like leaders take responsibility when things happen that are out of their own control. They take responsibility on behalf of their team members who screw up. Right. So and I’ve been in situations like this where where somebody will screw up and the leader will say my bad, even though the leader told that person not not to do the thing they do that caused the screw up, because a good leader takes responsibility and protects the team. That’s the whole purpose of leadership. It’s not the whole purpose. Perhaps Peterson is slowly trying to. He’s trying. But Kenny, he’s coming. He’s running into the problem. And the real problem is these guys, I love them all dearly. They’re all postmodern and they’re allergic to charismatic leadership. And because they’re allergic to charismatic leadership, they cannot manifest what they are trying to manifest because charisma isn’t bad. And charismatic leadership is required because charisma is not going away in the world. So you can think of it as a perennial problem. And because charisma is not going away, if a good charismatic leader doesn’t come along and lead a bad charismatic leader will. This early stage was a charismatic type of leader. He’s kind of dropped the ball. I can talk about my experience with the man. Yeah, yeah, it’s very show off. Hold on. I want to. Sorry, sorry. I’ll put that back up before Manuel talks. Now that you’re big, I want to make you look at that. You show off. What is wrong with this? Show offs are not welcome on my stream. Sorry. I only did the first photography. I only do photography. Very nice. So I followed. So I got the gig to follow Peterson around taking photos of particularly they wanted people. Yeah, yeah, I did all this. Followed everything. Sydney to events. Then in Melbourne. Then in South Australia. No, but in. Four or five events in 2018. So I saw like it’s a strange thing to be at the time I would have considered him. I still consider him a bit of a hero, but I was, you know, you know, elevated with him at two o’clock in the morning. I’m like this far away from the man. I’m like, what is that? What is reality at this point? Yeah, it’s happening to you. That’s awesome. We can’t be friends anymore, but that’s great. Like I’m never talking to you again. Like I’m not even worthy now. He was with the great man himself. We’re not worthy. We’re not worthy. I met a few people accidentally. Didn’t know who they were at the time. I was just like, OK, I’m here to take photos. I got this gig. I eventually the way I got it was that I offered to do it for free for Sydney. And then the organizers said, can you come to Melbourne? I was like, sure. Can you just pay for the flight? And they’re like, OK, if you can come to Melbourne, I’ll pay for the flight. I was like, sure. Can you just pay for the flight? And they’re like, OK, if you can come to Melbourne, can you come to Brisbane? I was like, sure. Why not? Can you pay for that flight? Sure. I got there and he’s like, what if I pay you? I was like, that’d be great. So then OK. So that’s a secret for creativity, by the way, is trying to leverage as much as you can. But what I can say from him being a leader is a type of person is necessary to meet, I think it was 500 to 600 people per night in the original book signings. So he was there after the show. You do the two hour show and then he would stay two and a half. One night was three hours and chats were for the second. And he would sign the book, meet them for a minute, greet them, try to spend more time with some people than he did with others. But that was that was a certain amount of charisma there that you can’t deny. Work ethic, for sure. Oh, yeah. Right. But he won’t use the charisma for his leadership in the same way. John Verbeke, who has much less charisma, I think it was. I think it frightened him. I think he’s success frightened him out of that type of thing. Of course. Because there was no charisma. It’s enormous responsibility. But I think there’s more going on. Like he’s not afraid of charisma only. Like he just doesn’t know what to leave because like they don’t have the good and they don’t have the justification for what their action is. I think he might be stuck in the political branch. There is that aspect to his path. He’s selling those bull and brand sheets now. No, no, no, no, no. Look, look, look. He is going to be in power. It’s not how it works. He doesn’t have a frame. And so he ends up in an existing frame like political or economic. And he’s straddling the two right now because he doesn’t have the higher frame. Like this is why all the Christians, like all the Christians that I’ve talked to about him, basically, whether they realize it or not, what they’re actually saying is, well, we hope Jordan Peterson will go into the church and a bunch of people will follow him. And I’m like, that is going to happen. That isn’t going to happen for lots and lots of reasons. And Peugeot doesn’t. Right. Right. But Peugeot is a different case entirely. Like you can’t you can’t mix them up. Right. So so that’s how they think. Peugeot is a different file. But but but that’s not how it’s going to play out. If Jordan Peterson goes into the church, he’s just going to lose the opportunity to get new meaning crisis people. He might grab a few faith crisis people for sure. But the meaning crisis people, that’s not going to it’s not going to happen. The crisis of faith people. Maybe, maybe not. But he’ll be once you’re in the church, you’re going to become part of the church. And look, I mean, I’ll show up. I’ll show up my favorite my favorite little booklet here. Right. Which is he keeps trying to take my stratum away. Here we go. This is Sally Joe’s little dog headed book. Right. So the video of this that I narrate, by the way, because it’s the world’s best narrated book. There’s the little dog headed there. And the thing is, dog headed matter. But they’re outside the church for a reason. And I don’t think that the Christian ethos really understands why that’s important. But it is important. You had the fire in the early church who were monks who were missionaries. Right. They were monastries. Right. You had a lot going on in the early church. Right. You had monasteries. You don’t have those anymore. They’re pretty much gone. But then the important part is that there were people called fliers who went out to talk to the dog headed people. And I mean, I guess we have that. There were plenty of open outreach efforts. But they’re materialist, Richard. It’s not going to work. Yeah. But this is the problem. This is the problem. Right. VanderKlaai actually said this. He said this. He put up a video title where he said the Jordan Peterson revival. OK. The problem is what Jordan Peterson is doing is not a revival. It’s not. That’s a Christian idea. He’s not a Christian or not a Christian enough to have that concept. It’s just not the way things are happening. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Right. So they don’t understand what he’s doing. And I keep trying to help them. And they don’t want to understand what he’s doing. It’s like, no, I mean, that’s why I did three different videos on Jordan Peterson and what he’s up to, because they’re not seeing how he’s actually able to get away with what they should be doing. But they can. And that is because, look, when you’re dealing with somebody like David, like we were dealing with earlier, right, like his frame is so far away from Christianity that you shouldn’t be mentioning these concepts that are only Christian and Christians because they’re Christian don’t know that other people don’t. So I didn’t know. I was in the right. I wasn’t reading the room. You have to know. Look, look, look, this is nearly impossible for Christians. Like, actually, like, I would be amazed if any Christian could do it because they have framing to talk about the thing. And so that for them, it’s the water they swim in. So how do you reject the water you swim in in favor of the water these people are swimming in where they don’t have the it’s not that they don’t have the words. They don’t have the concept. When I when I say, look, being is good implies creation and emergence is good implies middle out thinking you’re ignoring creation. You’re just assuming that it’s a baseline condition. You’re not starting at creation. You’re not feeling after creation. And then you’re trying to make something come up from that thing that you didn’t start from. That’s what you’re doing. So you’re drawing out of the middle of the story something. And because it’s the middle of the story, you don’t understand that it could be bad. You just it never conceptually. It doesn’t enter your mind because honestly, John Verbeke, Jordan Peterson and, you know, who and possibly a bunch of Christians because this is a Christian problem. Haven’t started with the creation. They have it even if they’ve read Genesis, they haven’t started with the we met a Christian like that the other day. This question we’re arguing with a Christian. He’s been thrown out of several churches. Right. But we’re talking to him. And he and I said, well, knowledge is revelation from above. Like, it’s revealed to you. That’s that’s how long. And he said, well, that’s an interesting that’s an interesting philosophical topic. I was not a philosophical topic, but whatever. Right. And he said, how did you come at that? And I was stunned. I’m like, what are you talking about? So so I told him and I wouldn’t say this if I were having a philosophical argument with a non-Christian. I told him because it’s a totally different line of argumentation. This is what the Christians don’t realize in the Christian frame. The correct argument is Genesis. Just read the first three or four chapters of Genesis. It’s right there. Right. Effectively, and I’m going to paraphrase, I haven’t read Genesis. Forgive me. Effectively, what I said was God gave us dominion over the animals. That’s discernment. Right. That’s that’s where I gave us discernment. And then with that discernment, he commanded us to name the animals. And the discernment comes first. And he kept getting caught up on naming and then he got caught up on key. But I said, read Genesis. And you know what he said? No. He said, wait a minute, you’re a Christian. You’re asking me for a justification for Reva for knowledge being revelation. I’m giving you that. There we go. There’s a book. I’m giving you the answer. The Christian answer is in Genesis. Just read Genesis. And he literally refused for like 20 minutes to even read it. Well, well, that’s that’s a type of brokenness. Right. And he’s got a rejection in a Christian of an obviously 10 second answer to a very easy question. I think it’s because that Christian is is actually in the same framework as someone would say. He’s stuck in materialism. That this is why I keep saying it’s not majority, not majority is materialism. If it’s not a revival, what is it? It can’t be a revival. OK, what is it, though? What do you think? Let me let me let me. What could be universalism? Universal. OK, well, no, I don’t I don’t think so. I think I yeah, I but let me let me fix one thing. OK, in order for it to be a revival, you would have to have been in the church. OK, you can’t say that you’re reviving something that never existed. That doesn’t make any sense. Like this is a language. It’s a new thing. So right to them, it’s a new thing. So what is he doing? And again, I go back to Peugeot’s quote in Exodus, episode eight. Right. He’s building up step by step for people who never had the concept. They were born into a world where they didn’t have to interface with the concepts of religion. They believe that they know those concepts and understand those concepts and have those concepts. And all you have to do is ask them, where did you get that from? Literally. And they don’t know. And the reason why they don’t know is because they don’t have them. And everybody will go, oh, no, it’s in fear. You’re being just building the framework. But I’m telling you the truth. They do not have these basic concepts for real. Actually do not have them. In the same way that when I was in my Catholic school, and I think it was the first or second year of the new state law, where they said I could take ethics and I took ethics and they made me read the lion, the witch and the wardrobe. And I get to the end of the book and the guy running the ethics course says, well, what about the lion? What character does the lion represent? And I went, what are you talking about? The lion is a lion in a fantasy story. And he said, no, no, but what character is the lion like? And I’m like, you’re not asking a question that makes any sense to me. OK? The lion is like the lion. I don’t know of another story with that theme in it. Do you hear what I’m saying? I do have another story with the theme of the resurrection. I had never heard, I’m not joking. I had never heard a story like that before. I had nothing to relate it to. So telling me as land is Jesus doesn’t revive anything because there was nothing there to revive. OK, that’s not it doesn’t work. The way you get a crisis of faith person back into the faith is fundamentally different from the way you get somebody who’s never been in the faith into the faith. It’s a totally different process because the concepts need to be built up slowly over time, one axiom step at a time. So the way I think of it is you can see yourself, right? Like when you don’t have right relationship with something effectively in your mind, you’re grabbing into the darkness. Right. And so when you’re grabbing, you need to have a direction of your hand. Right. You need to have your fingers in a certain way. You need to have points of touch where you make connection. And so what Peterson is doing is he’s using a scientific framework to create connection points. Right. Now, you could make a really good argument that the crappy connection points because I think they’re crappy connection points because they’re materialist. Right. And they’re they’re only half points. Right. Like they’re not they’re not true points. But it’s the same thing for a religious person. Like when you grow up, like you go into church and there’s all this stuff going on. You have no clue what what is going on. And what you need to do in the church is like based upon fate is like, well, if you hold your hand like that and you put it in the dark room above you, then things will happen. And you just keep doing that. And then at a certain point, things will happen. And you’re like, oh, that works. I was like, OK, amazing. But if if you don’t have someone that says, hold your hand like that and put it at that place in the dark room. No, no, not says it’s you just mimic the people around you. There’s no speech required for any of you guys have to get off the speech thing. Zero talking works way better than talking. This is actually well studied and well known. You got it. You got it. Dampen down the propositional because I think the problem fundamental problem is ethics cannot be understood outside of participation at all. Ethics is that is has to be learned by participating in the world reality. What was that? I said, don’t talk about it. And not just be about it because you can be hidden. And that’s a big problem. You need to be about it in a place where people can see it because if they don’t see it, they can’t mimic it. And everybody. Right. If you’re not out there being it and if you are out there being it, the lions might eat you. Yes. Yes, they might. This is dangerous. I’m not saying it’s not dangerous. It’s extremely dangerous. But if you’re not out there, we’re not spreading that you’re not spreading the word, even though it’s not a spoken word. You’re not spreading the word. If nobody knows you’re doing good deeds and nobody can see you doing good deeds, they won’t know how to do good deeds. They won’t know what good deeds are and they won’t and they won’t do them and they won’t ask you about your faith because do you remember that Babylon five episode when when Jack the Ripper comes to Babylon five episode? Not the top of my head. OK, it’s it’s it talks about this exact thing you’re talking about. You know, they got the whole shadow war going on and he’s like torturing the land like what if nobody ever knows what you did and you die forgotten? Are you still going to fight the evil? And then she’s like, yeah, I’ll do it. And he’s like, you’re lying. You’re lying. I can read your mind. And she’s like, so what if I want a little recognition? I’m doing it for everybody. He broke her down like kind of what you’re saying. You have to do it in front of other people. You don’t want to lie to yourself because when you’re in your darkest, most fragile moment and you don’t know the truth about why you’re doing it, you won’t make it. And that’s what his point was. You won’t do things that you don’t believe. Like you believe is what you do not. But you say people get confused. Right. That’s why you need to reduce your risk of being a bad person. And I can do it forever. I can. Believe me, I’ll do it. OK. That is going to change anything in the world. It’s not going to help the relationship. It’s not something that you can’t do. And you can’t do it forever. But you can do it. You can do it forever. You can do it forever. You can do it forever. But you can do it forever. And you can do it forever. And you can do it forever. It’s not going to help the relationship. It’s not something you can build upon. It’s just a stupid proposition that is unhelpful. It’s not. I’m not even saying it’s untrue. Right. It’s true in my head. That’s true enough. Right. But it’s not true in a way that other people can participate with. So I had an interesting experience recently where I’ve been going to orthodox services for four or five months now. And two weeks ago, I brought two private friends of mine. And then I also brought a mother who went to Roland Casper Christy. OK. So I bring them and then I’m talking to them afterwards. And the price is just there again. They don’t get the purpose of all of the purchasing authority stuff that Roland Casper got. Now, my question is, on my end, what has started to reflect on what prepared me to be able to see the value of the purchasing authority stuff in the orthodox service was basically Pearson and Pedro. And that was all on YouTube. Well, look, let me propose a counter narrative to the narrative you told yourself. OK. Because I think this is where people are confused. Like, people will make up a story about why something happened. OK. And what I can tell you is that all the propositions in the world won’t make you do something. It’s not viable. OK. What will make you do something is being opened up to curiosity, being opened up to fear so that you’re going to move out of where you’re at. Right. That works for nihilists. Being opened up to the possibility of awe and wonder. Right. Beauty. Beauty draws people out. That’s the purpose of beauty. Right. These are the things that move us. The things that don’t move us are the words that people say. That doesn’t move us. The words that people say can cause us to reflect in such a way that we move. But what moves us is not those words. And that’s where we get confused. So the words are a way to open us up to the things that get us to move. But they are not the things that get us to move. And that’s why telling somebody something like being is good and then never talking to them again could make them, you know, have a wonderful life or get them out of depression. I don’t know. Right. Being is good outside of any possible context doesn’t make any sense. However, just saying it to them and that being in their memory means that they could put their attention to it more easily next time. And next time may not be when they hear about it. It may be when they need it because revelation, knowledge comes from above. And who knows if you try to direct somebody towards that concept because that’s what the ineffable did. And that concept was never put in your head. Maybe that’s why it doesn’t work. Maybe that’s why we have an impact on the world and it matters what we do in the world with each other. And it doesn’t matter quite so much what we do in the world by ourselves alone on our own. So is it? Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead, Richard. I have a lot to say. But yeah, you go ahead. Sorry. Sorry. Well, I tell I are the words propositions or could you say that the words are something like the words work if they are. They can provide a story. Because a story. No, no, no, a story. A story is a poetic telling that may or may not be true. A good story is true. A bad story is not true. Right. And and the thing that makes it that way is your ability to to participate in it. That doesn’t mean that the story can be participated in. And just because Jesse can participate in a particular story doesn’t mean that you can. Right. And so it’s not that straightforward. I mean, this is where you get into trouble is that you’re like, if we can just tell the perfect story, it’ll will get the person. But that’s that’s not true. And I don’t think you even need a story because all of my tools don’t rely on giving people alternate narrative. Not to say that a different stories appeal to different people. But right. Well, that’s that’s part of the problem. And you don’t get a database of stories and people and stuckness that’s going to resolve that issue. That’s never going to happen. And so instead of all that, what you need to do is you need to act in the world in a way that people go, huh, I’m interested in how that person’s acting. And then if they engage you, like what makes you what makes you spend all this time, you know, you know, working for the charity? What makes you spend all this volunteer time helping the homeless or what makes you do this? Right. Then you can appeal to, oh, well, my faith, which is orthodoxy. And then you don’t have to say anything else. You can you can let them explore or not. And when you give people the option to explore and you say as little as possible, because this is all over the wisdom texts, right. Speak less, speak less, no matter how you speak. Speak. I tell you something. This is a lovely book. OK. And Sally’s awesome. Sally’s wording on this book was ridiculous only because and not because Sally can’t word very well, which is also true. But the reason why was because she had all these extra words in there, particularly particularly these and and and and on and things like that. And I told her, I said, take all of that out. Just get rid of all of it. Get rid of every extra word because why you’re leaving more space for the art. Right. But the ambiguity introduced like the back page. So the ambiguity introduced in the middle of this story. Prepares you for the ambiguity of the back page, because the back page of this story is powerful. And if you haven’t checked out Sally Joe’s site, you should. I’ll drop a link somewhere. Yeah, yeah, I’d like to check that out. No, no, it’s good. Well, she’s got there’s a short that I that I produce, which is the short of me reading the book with flipping it open and all that. It takes about 58 seconds if I remember correctly. But yeah, that’s actually really important is that is that leaving that extra space and leaving out the specificity of the words allows the poetic potential to be manifest. And the way you manifest poetic potential is you remove propositions, which isn’t to say you never use any proposition. But I but I will say there are lots of instances where you shouldn’t use any propositions and things will go better. Right. This works in music, too. Yes, based around the notes helps the notes resonate more. When you have more complexity like the jazz, it’s hard to. That’s what I was saying about color theory and theology earlier. Yeah. Well, I get another example, too, is with cinema, you know, with a good movie, it’s probably only about four or five scenes that actually matter in the movie. Yeah, just build those particular moments. The characters, they do this and that could be the entire movie. And why are some movies what translation goes all the way until what does he say to her at the end? That’s the entire movie. There’s nothing else to the movie other than the last three minutes. Right. But that’s great. One more great point that you’re bringing up here. Movies. OK, so I’m going to I’m going to bring up I’m bring up Star Trek again, because some people like the motion picture. Some people like the search for Spock. Some people think Star Trek six is the best, but everybody can agree that the wrath of Khan is like the best movie ever. Is like the best of all the movies. Why? Why the hell does everybody say? Why did William Shatner pick the wrath of Khan to watch with everybody? Because he knew that’s the movie everybody agrees on. So how do you do that with religion? How do you make a wrath of Khan for Christianity like that? Everybody can agree on this is the thing that around and we pick it. Not everybody, but for the most part, this is the movie we’re all going to sit down and watch. Well, but the but the problem is has nothing to do with that. Like you can’t I can’t tell a universal story unless I have a universal common good. It’s not possible because you’re just in rebellion at that point. Now, whether you’re an active rebellion or you’re in rebellion by virtue of trying to be an individual and cutting off intimacy and therefore not cooperating or not being able to cooperate with people, it doesn’t matter. Right. You need to build this by saying, no, you can’t just use the word race however you want. No, you can’t just assert that true is a binary and a dichotomy. You can’t do that. You can’t just think of the world in a political frame. That’s not an option. You have to delete the option from the people and let them choose. You can be isolated in your boat in your silly belief that can’t help you. Or you can come and play with us because we have a rich, enchanted language, which is scary. Right. Because it’s one of the things where Vicky says it’s brilliant. There’s an axis between horror and all. Right. So horrors down here. And when you get cracked open, you can go to horror. Like you can see the abyss because potential is an abyss. It’s endless. Potential is technically endless. Why do you think everybody picks one from the other? Let me finish. If you’re well-framed, you can go to awe. You can go to awe in mystery. And it’s like, oh, that’s a positive. But you’re not. It’s only positive because of your relationship to it. Nothing in the in the in the landscape and the axis of awe and horror is different. That axis exists. So in order to go towards awe, you need a framing that enables you to go towards awe. If you don’t have a framing, being in that same position will send you towards horror. Correct. Your engine in the frame, it’ll collapse. You’ll die. If you turn the if you start the engine and it is on an engine stand, it will fly apart and kill you. Yes. Yes. If you have a car and I give you an engine and you put it in the car and start it, that’s awesome. Because it’s awesome to have a car that starts and runs. Yeah. Yeah. I’m with you. OK. That was the best moment. That was the best moment when he brought up that car and metaphor. I was like, you can’t explain it better than that. I’m trying. No, you’re doing a great job. Well, that’s why I need this is why I need all y’all. So thank you. It’s a team effort. I love it. Thanks for having me. You can’t flood the engine, right? The engine has to have space in order to go somewhere. Yeah. A road. It needs a container. It needs a container to direct the energy to the wheels. Because look, I mean, if you leave an engine running on an engine stand, it’ll blow up. It really will. The whole thing about the lighter too, like where does the lighter, Mike, it’s only a lighter, the liquid in it, but even then, does it matter if it’s lighter or not? Because it’s just a limited object. But the way to engage with it. So Jesse, part of the trick, and I’ve done this many, many times. You threaten to disengage with the person. And because they’re so intimacy starved, they panic and they do anything to come back. And then that opens them up because they’re the ones begging you for the connection. So you deliberately, but very politely, but very deliberately disconnect. And so that’s why I said, no, the lighter’s not real. The lighter’s not true. Why? Because it doesn’t function for me. Now, now there’s a problem because it’s true for him because he has it. It’s not true for me because I don’t have it. So now he doesn’t have the bridge anymore to bully me into his dichotomy. But he wants the connection. Like he still wants the connection. Like fair enough, I want the connection too. And then all the time people say, Mark, you’re being dismissive. And I’m like, maybe, but it works. Yeah. It’s like you’re being a bit deceptive. No. No? How? Because you said, what was the phrase you used? The lighter is not available to me. No, no, no. The lighter’s not true because I don’t have it. Because you. Like what is available to me? It’s supposed to be pixels on the screen. The fact that my mind says something. And they might not be real. They might not be representative of his reality either. I don’t know. I can put a lighter up on this thing right now that I don’t have. I can do that. I was dishonest of me to say that the lighter is true. That would be actually be dishonest because we’re on a freaking computer screen with each other. I don’t know. Jesse’s art could be a complete fantasy. Maybe he’s like planned this for months. But how? I don’t know. I feel like if you two were face to face, the logic is. We’re not. It doesn’t matter. Yes. Hypothetically, if we were face, I wasn’t face to face. I want to deal with what happened. I don’t want to deal with hypothetical. I don’t even. I’m not proposing a hypothetical. No, but that’s the whole point. If you stay out of, they want you in the hypothetical because in the hypothetical, anything is possible and they win. You can’t win the hypothetical game. It’s not a winnable game by anybody. You want to play hypotheticals with me, you’re going to lose every single time. Every single time. I’m not. I’m telling you not to drag yourself into the hypothetical space ever with anybody ever. Don’t let them do that either. So are you calling this a hypothetical space? No. I’m. No. I like that. That was heavy. So this is my trouble. Okay. We have two assumptions. Or maybe, so what assumption would be I assume you exist. I don’t do that. But an assumption is a hypothetical. So what’s the alternative? You don’t have to go there. The alternative is to talk about cars. No, that’s right. The alternative is to keep it concrete. You’re keeping it abstract. Listen, Richard, no offense. You’re not going to win an abstract argument with anybody because they’re not winnable arguments. You cannot win an abstract argument. It’s not actually technically possible. You can browbeat and bully the other person into giving up. But you play that game with me, you’re never going to win ever. I know the formula that guarantees that you will never win an abstract argument. I don’t need to be abstract. Picasso sucks. He’s not even an artist. What’s the formula, Mark? No, the secret is not to get into abstracts and appeal to the materialism that they want you to appeal to. Just don’t do it. If you don’t play the game, you don’t lose the game. It’s that simple. There are some games you can’t win so you don’t play. You don’t have to acquiesce to other people. You can force them into your frame because they want a connection. You want a connection with me, you’re going to have to negotiate. I’m a hard negotiation person. Okay? I’m happy to open up and let you in and get you started, right? But I’m not going to let you dictate how that goes from that point forward. At some point I’m going to draw a hard line and I may give you many chances as we did with David, right? But at some point I’m not letting you go there anymore and you’re going to have to come towards me. And if you can’t do that, that’s fine and I lose you and that’s terrible and that’s horrible. But also that works because they almost never want to disengage. Sure. But being in a frame in which I… Being in a frame in which I… Richard, is this a car? Is this a car? I bet I could fit into that car if I wanted to. It’s a dumb question. The question is mute. The question doesn’t… It looks like a car. It doesn’t go anywhere. I’ll go as far as it looks like a car, Jesse. No further. Sure. Sure. So, Jesse, I’ll agree with you that if we had no QR to that question, it’s an irrelevant question, right? I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… I will… Is that what you kind of appreciate? There’s actually a famous existential painting on this called This is a Picture of a Pipe. Go look it up. YouTube, you’ll get your answer there. It says it’s not a picture of a pipe. Six hours stream, man. Oh, come on. That’s the kind of shit that’ll short-circuit Landrew. One… Well, it’s too… It’s too… It’s short-circuited me. Yeah. Because I… Well, that’s the problem. Like you’re stuck in the materialism in the propositional frame trying to solve it propositionally when the correct answer is not to get into these hypothetical abstract, ritual-radical, ridiculous conversations and keep people grounded in the relationship in the moment. Yes. Because the way you communicate with people is by having a relationship with them. That’s what conversation is. It’s a type of relationship and you can’t force it, which means if somebody comes into a conversation in bad faith, and I’m not accusing anybody of this, but if they come in in bad faith, there’s nothing you can do, literally. Look, one of the complaints on the Awakening server was the following. No word of a lie. This is what this guy said. Okay? And we’ve already established after… Well, before I found out about this, but after this incident, he jumped into a listening party one day, and it was his first listening party, and he relayed the story on the server that when he jumped into the listening party, he didn’t know what was going on, and he was very confused as to why we were stopping the video and having a discussion about it. And I was kind of like, well, I don’t know what you think a listening party is for, but if you’re not going to stop and discuss things, you’re just there watching something together. It’s not very intimate, right? It’s not very connected, not very relational. And so we’re doing distributed cognition that, again, that requires stopping the video and engaging. Okay? He said his heart raced, his breathing increased, and he started sweating. And he cast all this as some bad thing. And this was his story for justification for why we should have been punished on the server. Now, that sounds legitimate until you consider that not only did he stay for the whole damn listening party, but he came back for two more. Okay? So at that point, it’s like, all right, so you’re complaining that your first interaction with a new thing was stressful and then blaming us for that. That’s ridiculous. He didn’t engage with the new thing. We didn’t force him into the listening party. And he came back. So it obviously wasn’t so traumatic that he didn’t want to do it again. So that’s the problem. Like, you know, they’re claiming they’re traumatized that they’re coming back. How traumatized are you if you’re coming back for seconds or thirds or fourths? Do you believe them when they say stupid things like that? No, I’m not saying that we traumatize them. No, no, no, no, no. But that’s not my point. My point is, my point is simply this. If you believe their propositional statement of what happened, the world won’t make any sense because their behavior doesn’t match their statements. Okay? So that’s why you can’t rely on propositional from people or to people for anything. What you rely on is the connection, the relationship, the intimacy to carry the day. Now, part of the intimacy, if you’re a Christian, and I’m not proposing this because I’m not a Christian, but I’m proposing that Christians should think about this, especially when talking to other Christians, but not when talking to non-Christians because that’s a different thing is to get the intimacy that you’re with in the moment into the frame of the intimacy with the ineffable or God. Right. Right. I found out what it’s called, Mark. What you’re talking about is they call in Star Trek, they call it Kirk’s induced self-destructive arguments. He argues with the computers and shorts. I get to look it up about Landrew computer. That’s why I kept saying Landrew because that dude was just like going over it. Like Andrew cannot hurt the body. Landrew’s hurting the body. Landrew must self-destruct. And then it’s oaks and beeps like, no, Landrew good. Landrew. So what do you, what are you learning? Right. Because this has been a big topic over the past few months. It’s in the moment. Kirk can be in the moment. He’s like, what about this Landrew? And what about that? The computer can’t keep up with it. But, but, but, but, but, you know, cause again, like people have been asking me like, you know, Mark, where’d you get all your philosophy? If you haven’t read any philosophy books, I got it all from science fiction. That’s where I got it from. I got it from classic Star Trek. I got it from Babylon five, right. And drama, if you haven’t seen Andromeda, Andromeda is Kevin Sorbo kills it, man. He’s good. Act full, right. He does kill it. And, and I got it from Blake seven, which is the greatest science fiction show in the world. And I got it from the show. And I got it from the show. And I got it from the show. Right. So, so, so the question is, what, what does classic Star Trek in this case teach us? Although it’s in almost all science fiction. It’s very clear. It’s, it’s a recapitulation of Zeno’s paradox and Zeno’s paradox. Basically the same capitulation, which is materialism whose tools are logic, reason and rationality cannot get you to the wall. They can’t make the action. They can’t complete the action. They can explain the middle part of the action. They don’t explain the starting point of the action and they don’t explain the ending point of the action because Zeno’s paradox says you can’t get to the wall. Captain Kirk says logic has its limits and here they are. Let me demonstrate them to you. The action as the result of logic is self destruction. If you are a logical, rational, reasonable being and that is all you are, you will self destruct. That is nihilism, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, whatever it is, that’s what’s going to happen to you. You can’t be stuck in the propositional frame. You can’t be stuck in the materialist frame because you only have three tools, logic, reason and rationality, and they cannot contain the world. They don’t explain the world. They may explain parts of the world. They may explain a lot of the world, but they don’t explain the most important things in the world, a la Zeno’s paradox. How did you start to go to the wall and how did you get to the damn wall? Because you can’t get to the wall if you measure. If you measure to the wall, you will never get to the wall. That’s what Zeno’s paradox says. I think all paradoxes, especially in ancient Greek philosophy, which is true philosophy, which is utter garbage, you should ignore. Ancient Greek philosophy used paradox to show you the limits of your thinking, to break you out of the box, to tell you if you see a paradox in the world, that is a falsity and that is a limitation on your thinking. You need to change your frame in order to fix that. You can’t. You can pave over it. Yeah. You can move on from it, for sure. Guys, I gotta go. Take care of yourselves. You too, man. So, Richard, the thing that I’ve been, well, we’ve been railing against for a while is amputees. In some sense, amputee is the stepping into the frame of the other. But when you’re stepping into a materialist frame, you remove capacities. There’s a move set that’s not available to you. That’s, I think, always the move set that you need to appeal to. And so, like, it’s not generative to step into the frame. And what happens is when someone shows the car on the screen, it’s like, well, I’m not going to accept your framing until I know the purpose of your framing. Right. Yeah, that’s why I said I’ll go as far as to say it looks like a car. Is it a car? Can I get in it? Does it have a motor? No, but it looks like a car. Right. Well, that’s Peter’s point about tell us determining objects. Right. If you want to see it, you’re going to see a seating space. You’re never going to see a stump. There are no stumps in the woods where you hide. That’s not how the world unfolds to you. They’re falling over logs, though. And that’s clearly a seat. Yeah. Only if you want to sit. Yeah. And I agree. I found a very significant passage in Rasmussen. It is a classical philosophical point. Yeah. Whatever you identify an object as a discrete object, you can’t account for that purely in a material way. Because every other object is the same as every other object. It has a significant number of similarities and differences. That’s a combinatorial explosion, John. Well, more than that, like they’re all like computer-sense. When you look at a table, right, what makes you so sure that that table is distinct from the ground that it’s on, from the earth, from the solar system, from the universe? Why are you so certain? Right. But that’s the statement that it has an infinite number of properties in common with other things. Yeah. That’s a combinatorial explosion that gets you all. Well, how do you resolve combinatorial explosion? Well, if you’re a Christian, it’s in the Bible. God gave you dominion over the animals. That resolved the combinatorial explosion of animals. It’s done by God. It’s not done by you. That’s why revelation comes from above and gives you knowledge, among other things. But knowledge comes from revelation. If you’re a Christian. But you can’t use any of that framing. Like you can’t refer to Genesis to somebody who’s never read Genesis and doesn’t want to read the Bible. So you need to use their language to show the insufficiency of their system. Right. That’s why you can’t let David define a false dichotomy. And yet, look, you can be angry, as I know Elizabeth is, about… Oh, I’m not angry. Well, not right now. About interrupting… I wasn’t angry then. I wasn’t angry then. I just don’t agree with you. I don’t really see your point yet. But anyway, I’m listening. Yeah, that’s fair. But the reason why we interrupt early is because… And I want to do a video on this. I just haven’t gotten around to it. The reason why you need to interrupt people early is because when they’re telling a story and they’re coming up with a false axiom in the beginning to start the story from, right? Or a baseline axiom in the middle of the story, because people do that trick too. If you let them continue, they will finish the story. It will be wrong and they will be hard to convince that it’s wrong because you let them… You didn’t stop them when they made the first mistake. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And they… Effectively, what I’m saying is they enchant themselves. And once they’ve enchanted themselves with their own idea, it’s very, very hard to do anything with them from that point forward. Very hard. And so, I’ve had many conversations where I’m interrupting someone and say, that’s false. You started with a false statement, right? And then they start again and they repeat the false statement. And it’s like… And then I interrupt them again. I was like, no, I want to finish my story. And I’m like, yeah, but you agreed with me that it’s a false statement. There’s no disagreement about the falsity of the statement. There’s actually explicit agreement. But somehow they have this thing in their mind that they need to repeat the false statement. Yeah. Well, that’s the end of the story. Yeah. And it’s like, well, are you really having a relationship with me? Because it doesn’t sound like it. No. Yeah. Yeah. If in the case of David, the false statement is truth is… things are either… How did he put it? Things are either true or not true. Untrue. Yeah. Or untrue. Yeah. So that’s the false statement. Right. He said, what is true and what is truth, right? That was the confusion. No, no. The confusion was true, true and not true, or true and untrue. And the problem was, right, he claimed British supremacy on the language. And I said, that’s not the definition of Oxford Dictionary. It’s just not the definition of the Oxford Dictionary. I’m sorry. Like, it’s not the definition of Merriam-Webster either. It’s not in the dictionary. So I understand that you have a false definition for the word. But I can’t talk to you if you’re going to use a definition different than one we can agree on. It’s not that I won’t talk to you. It’s that I can’t talk to you. It’s not an option. And the person that’s cut that option off is the person who’s rebelling against the authority of the dictionary in favor of their own authority because they happen to be British. Well, I think you’re misjoking a bit there. No, no. I think he was trolling. No, no, no. I think so, too. I think so, too. He was making a legitimate appeal. No, no. Something was going on. Is that appeal a troll? Yes. But he’s not trying to troll. That’s just what happened. True. True. I don’t know. He’s just being mad. It’s a form of insanity somehow. It’s a form of insanity, but I can’t believe that. It’s like this, right? He’s trying to move on, right? And you remove the ground under his feet. And he’s like, I want to walk. And it’s like, well, then I need to reestablish the ground under my feet if I want to keep walking. And then it’s like, well, you’re not going to let me walk. And now I get upset at you. Like, that’s what happens. Yeah. But we moved on way away from it. And we were having a good time talking about other stuff. You know, like it didn’t matter. It was strange. That was a strange hill for him to die on. It was weird. But he needed it. He needed it dramatically to prove his worldview. And we had endangered his worldview. You guys are way more understanding than me. I’ve just… No, it’s exactly the correct hill for him to die on. Like, it’s not a strange hill. It is the hill where he dies. Literally. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and to put it how he would see it from his perspective, is that defining truth in any other way is absurd. That’s what you think when you’re… When you’re thinking about rationality, logic, and criticism. No, rationality, logic, and reason. Those are the three things. So when you think those are the only three things that exist, you think that anyone who defines truth in a different way than he defined it is absurd and stupid. Well, and to some extent, that’s not really it. It’s whatever he has that relies on that particular binary. It could be another binary. Like, a lot of people could say, oh, yeah, truth is a cordon and it is a spectrum. Right? The arrow is true to the target to some extent. It’s not a binary. Right? It allows for leeway. That’s what true means. Like, it’s a cordon. It’s not a binary. And so it could be a different binary. They might acquiesce to that one and pick a different one. It all depends on and I don’t know his end result other than to defend his materialism. And you need binaries to defend materialism because material has to either be there or not there. Otherwise, you’re screwed. One one zero zero one one. Yeah. Richard, like, no, no, like, like the move that you’re making. Right. It’s like he there’s just two ways that you can deal with it. One I would call good faith. And the other one is I would call bad faith. Right. So you can you can say you don’t you’re not playing by my rules. How interesting. Right. Like and then have a reciprocal opening. Or you can say you’re not playing by my rules, but my rules are better. And then you engage in conflict. And so they employ your yeah. Yeah. So if it’s not that in that perspective, what Mark is saying is absurd because most of the people I talk to, they have the participatory experience. They just don’t have an interpretive framework. Right. Relates. Right. So it’s not the issue of absurdity that that is at fault. It’s how is the person engaged? Like, are they engaging in good faith or bad faith? Like, that’s all there is. Because, like, I can have all the conflict I want with you. Right. But if I’m still in good faith, I can just shake your hands and give a hug after. Like, like, there’s no problem for me holding these two things separate. The problem is when you start identifying with your position, which is we have like maybe we should call it an identity crisis as well. Because because there’s there’s this whole point where people get upset. And I’m like, like, yeah, it’s not you that I’m arguing with. I’m arguing with you. You really are. So here’s my problem. I think I see. But we agree that we can, because it seems like that axiom for David is functioning like a religious axiom. Yes. So it’s religious. OK, good. OK, great. So if we have two people who hold the same axiom and one is higher, is more open, is hiring a great woman and the second person is the opposite of that. One you would call good faith and the other you would call bad faith. But I don’t know. Hold on, hold on, hold on. All right. Sorry, man. It seems like the defensiveness is a fun the defensiveness is a function of how fundamental the belief is, not a desire to. Engage in bad. I don’t know. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. The fundamental of the belief is the same for both persons like that. Yeah. Well, then that’s not a function of the fundamental of the belief. Right. Look, look. So, so, so, right, right. So if they function about the fundamental and the person’s open to be checked. No, no, it’s not. It’s nothing to do with either of those things. Look, here’s a here’s a simple example. So the guy I mentioned earlier who was sweating and all upset about about the first listening party that he then went to two others, right. He’s using this first one as reasons why we should because of his phenomenological experience in the moment, which we had no way of understanding or knowing about. He was a bad faith actor. He’s not capable of having a conversation in good faith. And the reason why I say that this is this is he these are his words, his words. I am always skeptical of statements that other people make, and I am never skeptical of my own statements. And I was like, well, then you can’t have a conversation with somebody. Yeah. What they call solipsism. Yes, it’s a ridiculous level of solipsism where you’re preparing your own views to the exclusion of all others. And at the same time, you’re automatically rejecting all other views out of skepticism. And so he’s not capable in that structure. He’s not capable of acting in good faith. You know, I think it’s available to him. And a lot of these people, the way they’re getting around this. And we had another guy who made this more explicit, although this guy’s doing the same thing, telling us, oh, I’m having a good conversation. I’m like, I’m very sad about this conversation. And he’s like, why? I’m like, because you told me and it’s evidence from the conversation that you are interfacing right now, not with me in the moment, but with a model of me that you made in your head. You told me that you told me that. So the individualism causes them to make a model of the outside world that they don’t need to make because they have direct access to the outside world. And they’re having that relationship with the model. And then they’re thinking they had a good relationship with me. Meantime, I’m going, this is awful. I’m sad. Explain that some more. What do you that’s very interesting what you’re saying there. This is what the guy now. Now, this is what the guy told us. Right. I don’t trust people’s reports. But it’s very clearly what he was doing. In the conversation, Emmanuel was there. You could tell this is what he was doing. And he told us, I’m creating a model of you, including your worldview in it, which is impossible, by the way, because my worldview is so much bigger than his. He couldn’t contain my worldview. It’s not an option. And he said, that’s what I’m having the conversation with. And I’m like, yes, but I’m here now. You can just have the conversation with me. You don’t need to anticipate what I’m saying. That’s weird. It’s weird. Well, there’s lots of people doing that. Yeah. That’s that’s what it’s all about. That’s exactly what it’s all about. That’s the intimacy crisis. They only had never thought about it like that, man. That’s fucking creepy. No, it’s always the case, I think, are almost always the case. So I mean, not for everybody. Well, yeah, yeah. People high in openness don’t do that ever. If they have an intimacy problem, they do. They absolutely do. And it has to do with identity as well. Right. And so and so it’s and it also has to do with sanity and insanity. Because if you’re doing what you were describing, Mark, that’s insane. You’re not in reality like we’re talking about reality again. You’re not in reality. I don’t think I don’t think the fellow today, Dave or whatever his name is. I don’t think he was in reality. I think his identity was so shaky. Right. He can’t he can’t. He wasn’t even really. He’s not any fun. But he’s not. He’s really wobbly. He was very, he was really in a crazy space. Yeah. The fact that the propane. Yeah. I think you have an opportunity to have a good time with people and laugh, or you can argue about your fucking lighter, you know, all day. I know, but you guys also, you also have a blind spot, but I don’t think you want to hear it. So that’s cool. I love hearing blind spots. Let’s let’s talk about the blind spot. No, I already mentioned it. You don’t, you don’t. I don’t think you see it. I don’t think. Well, it’s a very, the Brits are very different than the Americans culturally. Oh, yeah. You guys. I don’t have any tolerance. I love you Americans. You Americans are great. But I know lots and lots of Brits. It was a really weird dynamic because he was obviously what he really needed was somebody to say, you know, you need a cup of tea or something because he just he was he was in a very strange space. And so he was, I mean, even at the beginning, maybe it would have been because because you guys kept interrupting and he couldn’t speak. He wasn’t being interrupted. He was. Yeah, you guys interrupted him. It was horribly rude of you. Finishing his stick. No, he kept finishing his statement. You wouldn’t let him talk. But I can listen to it guys. I will. I’m a retired teacher. I know when kids interrupt. And then we were jumping in to answer the question that he just asked. And then he said, I didn’t finish my sentence. And I’m like, you ended in the question. You finished your sentence when you end in a question. So that’s just false. Like, like, like, it’s always good to examine oneself to write like it’s always good to examine oneself. You guys were interrupting him a lot. And I think I think that’s a bit of a problem. I’m just saying that. No, my problem. The fact that it was off from the beginning maybe shows that it wasn’t connected. There wasn’t any connection. So maybe that was the point to stop it. Right. Right. You’re exactly right. And so what you’re doing, and this is a thing that I see women do all the time. Right. Like they they want to reestablish the intimacy. Right. Because that’s what giving the cup of tea is. Right. It’s it’s trying to find the right time to do it. Find a new way of having a connection outside of the participation that’s currently happened. And that’s amazing. Right. If you do it one on one and you have the time. Right. But when you’re joining a stream with a group conversation, no, like this is what Mark is saying. Like, no, like you’re coming to my space. It’s my rules. And I like and that’s the thing that people don’t get. Like when you waste five people’s time, it’s different than you’re wasting a person’s time because the person has the choice to commit to it or not. And when you have five people, they don’t have the choice. All they have is they have to leave. And then you’re enabling the narcissistic bullshit that they’re following. Like I’m like, I know I hear you. Yeah, I hear you. OK. Well, then. Interrupting is going to be more common in these online channels because you can’t have or just the way the audio. And it’s not real time. Yeah, there’s too much lag. You have to. There’s too much lag. So you have to interrupt more for the conversation. And that’s I don’t know. I think the guy triggered stuff in you guys, but that’s OK. You don’t have to see it. I mean, I’ll admit it. I won’t words at all. I mean, the guy pissed me off thoroughly because I felt like if any one of us would start doing that and then it would just devolve into that to OK. Yeah, too much kindness will kill you. You know, too much kindness. You know, and I started to feel like everybody in the group was just being a little too kind and forgiving. We were trying to do something. He was interrupting, which is fine to a point. But, you know, when we had moved so far past it and we’re having a good time talking about their nice thing and say, yeah, but what about my lighter? OK, maybe I’m being a little bit, but that’s how I felt. The guy was like being like it was extremely he was bullying. Maybe from the very beginning. That’s just what I’m wondering. So maybe maybe it was just like could you guys tell it was off at the beginning? I didn’t see it. But maybe you could read it. Strange thing to bring up about, you know, true, true this, that, you know, and just to know I knew I knew I knew right away that he was in trouble and that he was looking for an answer. What I what I never know is whether or not that’s something we can make progress. And again, look, it may be two years and he may be down on his luck and in a hard time and remember. And who knows? Like, I don’t know. I hope so. Right. I think about these things often like, wow, I hope that person, you know, straightens up the same way. I hope everybody on the awakening from the meaning crisis server stops being angry, resentful and scapegoating other people, you know, to get around their own problems and actually start spacing up to their own issues instead of blaming everybody else for why they’re unhappy. Right. It’s the same. It’s the same ethos. You want them to do well, but you can always tell when someone’s in trouble when they join based on how they join. But I don’t discriminate because, well, first of all, there’s the personal issue of personal and professional pride. Right. Like, I don’t want to be the one who’s just mean to somebody for no reason. Like, that’s not my I’m not trying to be mean to anybody ever, which is not to say I’m not going to or I won’t do it because I will. I absolutely I will be deliberately absolutely mean that that will happen if I feel like you’re bullying, like you’re going to hurt somebody’s reputation. Right. Like I’ll take again, I’ll take a lot of me. I don’t care because I other people’s opinions just really don’t register on my board at all. Like, you know, if if if Manuel says something, that’s it. But if Richard says, you know, Mark, you’re a blue meanie, I’m going to be like, whatever, Richard, your opinion about about my behavior means nothing to me. Sorry, Richard. It really does. Right. So so it’s a different set of circumstances. Right. But it depends on on on having that initial engagement and trying to trying to see if there’s something there because Manuel and I did a stream a while back and this kid came on and he was smashed. He was talking about cocaine and MDMA and all this stuff he did. And we were kind of like, hmm, do we just kick him off because there’s no hope for him? And it’s like, no, we don’t. We put up with it. We suffered through literally suffered through it because I was suffering. I shouldn’t speak for Manuel, but I was really suffering talking to this kid because it was just terrible. Just even listening to his story about how he was abusing himself was horrible. Right. But we didn’t we didn’t kick him out. We stayed with it as long as we could all the way to the end. This is really interesting. Could you tell those Mark and I forget your shroomy boomy name, whatever it is. I love the way you say it. Keep saying it the way you do. I don’t know what I’m saying. But could you tell I’m just really interested. Could you tell fairly like once he came on that it was going to go bad? Like, could you see that? I couldn’t see that for you know, usually when people join a group, they try to join the conversation. They don’t try to dominate it over and he tried to do that off the bat. Yeah. So it’s narcissism. I guess it’s narcissism. Like, like, like, you know, either. Right. Like you just match the person. That’s what I do. Like, like if someone escalates, I escalate with them. And if it de-escalate, I’m like, OK, I’m back at zero. Yeah. And people don’t get that. People think I’m upset or whatever. Like I’m I’m matching you like. Yes. I should do that more often. I don’t do that when I’m guest places, but I usually will do that on Discord for sure. What’s the point manual of matching people with? Because you have the opportunity to de-escalate. Yes. That be a mirror. Like, look, this is what you’re doing. That’s what you’re getting back. You want to keep going. It’s going to be with an equal force. Tony Robbins talks about this. It’s called mirroring. Right. And it’s called mirroring because it’s all about the mirror neurons in your brain. This is the mimicry and stuff I was talking about. You match someone’s tone and then you tone down your tone and they follow you. It’s not flawless or anything, but that’s actually the way you do it. And it depends on the purpose. Right. Like this is the thing that on the awakening of the meaning crisis server. Right. It’s like, well, we are having a philosophical argument. Right. And then people get upset. And I’m like, yeah, but I’m having a philosophical argument. Like, I’m not going to deal with your upset. Like, I’m sorry. Like, they take it so personally. The, the part taking it personally is the weird part about it. Um, when somebody says to me, Hey, near, that’s kind of like a stupid idea. I’m like, Oh, really? Like why I’m not like thinking they’re calling me stupid because I can change my mind, you know, it’s not, I don’t understand. It’s a disconnect for me, but I notice it everywhere. So actually like it’s just, it’s kind of contrary to the way we think maybe, or the way society thinks. If someone is, if someone is, is that self-absorbed, they’re in trouble, in fact, right. So you’re actually doing them a favor to, to, to show it back to them. Yeah. Yeah. Because they’re in trouble. So they know unconsciously that they’re in trouble and they’re engaging based on that. And so that’s why you stick with it because they, they come to you. They’ve come into your self-absorbed. They’re in trouble. They’re in trouble. They’re in trouble. They’re in trouble. They’re in trouble. They’re in trouble. And so they, they come to you. They come into your space, whether they acknowledge that or not by their behaviors, a totally different issue because maybe they don’t have coping skills where they can submit. But I did want to address this because Ethan sort of called it out. I think, I think Ethan’s upset with me. Not really Ethan, but it’s fine. Is it, is it a good project to try to build bridges between opposing points of view? And that was the section that, that needs addressing. And I kind of already addressed it in the comments, that you don’t have to be a leader. You don’t have to have a leader. You don’t have to be a leader. And so the first thing that you do is you, you go and you have to be a leader. Effectively. No, it’s not. And let me tell you why. You really only have two options. One is adopt the other person’s perspective, sympathetically to the best of your ability and draw them into yours. Okay. And the other one is standard ground. Now, obviously I use standard ground. That’s what I use. You don’t have to use that. I’m not telling you. It’s the right answer. I’m not telling you over for you. Can we drive past each other though? Yeah. Like, like, you know, I, I might agree. We can’t live in the same neighborhood, but can we drive past each other and maybe go to Walmart and not kill each other? No, no, no, no, no, no. That’s a good question. But this is my point. Like the reason why you can’t build a bridge is because that creates a middle ground. But if your, if your perspective is right, so let’s just say you’re, you’re a Christian and so you have the right story. If you’re leaving your story, even just a little bit, it’s no longer the right story. So if you meet them halfway to where they are, and they could be a long way from Christianity, now you’re both screwed. You can stand in the middle of the bridge together and be lost. You’re screwing with your own perceptual system when you do that. There’s no question, right? You’re, you’re mucking your own life around. It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s not the way, the truth and the life. That’s for sure. So how do you have the, how do you have, so do we have to just stay in separate countries? Like, what are we saying? I know. I’m serious. I don’t know. If you read Paul, like when, when Paul preaches to the Greek, you can tell that he’s pretty, he’s versed himself in Greek culture. And Mark, can you say it yourself that you, there are two ways to do it. The first, the first way was you sympathize with their point of view. Right. And draw them in. Right. So how is that, can you distinguish that between building a bridge? Yeah. Bridges are evil. Okay. Don’t build bridges. Just stop. Right. Like that’s ridiculous. What you want to do is you want to go to where the person is sympathetically and lead them to where they need to be. Now that may not be where you were or are or want them to be. This is where the confusion comes in. Christians want them to be in Jesus or something, whatever. Right. It’s, it’s this, that’s where they want to be. Right. And so the trick is you need to draw them one step closer and not 10 or five or two or all the way to where you want them to be. You just need to get them to one step closer. Sure. But that doesn’t mean you have to go out. Right. One option. That’s one option. No, no. Like, like, okay. So, so I think we need to confuse, not confused to tracks. Right. Sure. So when I was talking about a philosophical discussion, right, like that is a propositional framework, necessarily. Sure. Right. And like, you’re not going to win there. Right. Cause like, I know the rules and therefore, right. But, but in the propositional framework, there’s, there’s certain things that I can do to you, right? I can show you things. I can, I can say, well, look here. And then like with the, with the paradox, right? Like, oh, like deal with the paradox. Cause now you have to figure out like what’s wrong. And then there’s the emotional thing, right? Like, cause, and this is where the feminine part comes in. Like there’s an emotional track of the conversation, right? And like when, when someone says, well, go drink a cup of tea, that means that I want to re-engage with you on a, on a level of emotional connection, right? Sure. But in an emotional argument is completely different than a propositional argument. Right. And that’s where empathy like goes. But like, like when, when you’re in that frame, like you, you can’t appeal to reason. Like you, you can’t appeal to anything. Like you, you can just hold someone’s hand and take them with you. Right. But, but when you’re holding someone’s hand, do you need to step into the hole with them? Or can you just like reach down the hole with your hand because you’re standing on solid ground, like that’s the question. And, and so, so when you’re in that game and like, like I fully admit, like I’m, I’m not good at that. I’m like, I don’t think I should be good at that. And the thing I’ve been realizing is about women, like, like where are they supposed to apply their skills? Well, from zero to four year olds, right? Like that’s, that’s where women shine in their relationship, right? Like completely dependent beings upon your grace. Oh, no, that’s not true at all. Like women are most important for men when they’re, I don’t know, from like eight to 90 for sure, because women, no, women are actually, no, no, women are, are women die without, without mothers. Yeah. Well, yeah, men die too. How many, how many guys do you know who just die? Like they just, I’m not saying women aren’t important afterwards. Like I’m not making the claim. I don’t, I don’t believe all that nonsense about that Peterson nonsense about the zero to four. It’s so, it’s so silly. And he goes, it absolutely, I mean, it’s true, but that’s all he talks about. Like he needs to widen his scope of what the feminine is. I agree. And if you know Jacob’s, he talks about, so what Manuel was talking about is a function that women can feel. Another function is scolding. And there are more functions, but scolding, you can see, is something that a woman has more positions to do that is necessary throughout, throughout life. Right now I am not very articulate at describing exactly what scolding is. Well, that’s a good point. Yeah. But when Jacob made that example, oh yeah, yeah, totally. And like you said, women are very necessary for men, it’s not. Thank you. But they’re necessary in a different way than they’re in caring for. Yeah, I can, I can point out. We all need it. It’s a team effort. Yeah. That’s why I keep saying, why doesn’t God need a wife? I that’s what was revolving for me. It was like, oh, you know, it’s, he’s a guy. He’s got his, anything in the whole universe, which is, which is strange to me. Really? He needed Mary. Like what are you talking about? That’s what it’s a human, you know, it’s having an earth, right? Earth is the matrix in which things are born. Father sky and mother earth. Well, it’s the masculine acting on the famine. And yes, but they didn’t actually, you know, it’s a virgin thing. You know, it’s not a, like a rain in the hitting the earth kind of thing. You know, it’s a virgin. You guys have missed Sophia though. Shroomy, roomy. Like you, you got that. There’s no Sophia in North America, you know, that the ancient understanding of the feminine wisdom, it’s just totally sucked out of. Okay. So, you know, in the, in the theme of Mark’s Gnosticism thing, I heard these concepts of Jesus was supposed to marry Sophia, but you know, she didn’t. And then he got crucified instead. What did I hear? What kind of Gnosticism talk? Right. Well, look, that’s why I think that. That, that, that, like the Mark of wisdom project. Okay. So be like that. Right. That’s the whole point is that we know we’re missing wisdom. That’s why Verbeke says, when you go for knowledge, where you go for this, where you go for wisdom. Oh, it’s an open question. Right. Well, we need wisdom communities so that you can go there for wisdom. Right. This isn’t a difficult equation, but that’s my project. But like note that the wisdom is feminine and the way you get this in Christianity is in, in the books of the Kings for the kingdom of Judea, but also sometimes for the kingdom of Israel, they list the mothers of the king because the mother was a key. Yeah. It’s a matriarchy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The mother was a key advisor. Yeah. Right. That, so that gets transferred to Mary with Christ. Yeah. You get that in. Yeah, but Richard, but Richard, you’re not leading us anywhere. Like, I don’t care. We’re not there anymore. Right. The problem is feminism has removed femininity from the world and masculine project. Okay. Yeah. It’s gone right now, just to a large extent for whatever reason, I don’t even care. I don’t care about starting point. I don’t care about the fix in the past. I don’t care. Not relevant. What’s relevant is what do we need to do to re-enchant the world for the people who are living in a, in a disenchanted world in a way that allows them to engage with the project of wisdom. Because when they engage with that project, then everything changes. And I think, look, if we have a lacking in our project, it’s not art, because sadly Joe’s awesome, right? But it may be, you know, elements of the feminine are not in our documentation because women aren’t reading our docs and helping us out. Neither are the men either. Right. So, tell me more about this Sophia lady. What are you talking about in the context of that? Sophia is just, is just lady wisdom, right? It’s just the female representation of wisdom and lady wisdom. I’ve never heard of that. That’s very interesting. It’s the feminine archetype, which it, which represents wisdom. Yeah. It’s in the, in the Greek Sophia is right. Okay. Of course it’s a feminine noun. What, what’s all this Gnostic shit I hear about Sophia and Jesus? Where am I getting, where, why is that rattling around in my brain from somewhere from years ago? Because the Gnosticism, evil Gnosticism is infected your otherwise pure brain. And you just save yourself from evil Gnosticism. I’m not sure where it is from, but it is probably from a Gnostic gospel somewhere. Okay. Right. But it, but the problem is the ethos of caring about that. We’ll say the ethos of even looking at that, not, not the Ethan, cause that’s different, but the ethos of looking at that is that you, you are buying into the Gnostic idea that the God that you’re able to interface with is an evil God. Right. And that’s why he married, he didn’t marry wisdom. And so if he only married wisdom, you’d have access to the forbidden knowledge. It’s all like, you’ve already bought in all these story goes that I heard is she didn’t marry him and she betrayed him. And then like a thousand later, she would marry him and then they would be a King and a queen together. Is it the story? MGTOW incels would say that. Yes, that’s true. Okay. Okay. All right. The problem is though, that, that in, in the North American world, it’s, it’s fundamentally Protestant, right? You just don’t have, we don’t have the, we don’t have the Mary. We don’t have her everywhere we go. So we, it’s gone. So to Mark, to Mark’s point, if you don’t, if, if things aren’t embodied, well, we don’t embody Maria. I mean, we don’t in North America. And so, and so there’s, so it’s like your story about Oslo and Mark. If you don’t, we don’t have that in our country at large, we can’t see, we can’t. I mean, I act like Beatrice everywhere I go and everybody like nobody knows the story. Who are the women emulating? Where is there, where is the thing that the ideal for them to mimic? It’s not a Protestantism because they deny the feminine entirely. They don’t have, they’ll say, oh, we do have the feminine. No, you don’t, you don’t have it. It’s not anywhere in there. And the damn Catholics are too busy packing up shop and giving up and selling all their churches to actually do any good in the world. Cause there are a bunch of wussies. They don’t understand they’re for lions and they should just suck it up. I just had this conversation with somebody tonight. It’s how, so I just, I, I went to a meetup, a local meetup kind of, it wasn’t an estuary, it was just a bunch of people meeting up. It was at an Orthodox parish, you know, not, not as service or anything, just a hangout, you know, and they, you know, one of the parish members invited us. They said, well, maybe, maybe a good service for you to come to is the Wednesday thing, whatever it is that they do. I don’t remember what it’s called, but it’s just a, is that what it’s, it’s a, it’s a veneration of the theotokos. It’s like, it’s short, 45 minutes long, but every Wednesday they venerate. It’s this whole service is dedicated to the theotokos. And I told her, I said, that’s actually one of the reasons that I’m here is because. Apart from everywhere, but here and in Catholicism, too, they. This there’s something that has been pushed out of the world, completely pushed out like we, I don’t know. I mean, track it back to whenever it happened. You know, you probably comfortably say, like after the scientific revolution, you know, we started really did like it start to worship reason who we were talking to Adam this morning, right? It was like the cult of reason. You know, we’re talking about the Enlightenment and stuff. And, you know, I know that’s touchy, but like Enlightenment gone wrong. It’s like we usurped we usurped God with reason and. Yeah, a reason. Because the last or the second to last Holy Roman Emperor basically screwed up the world. I didn’t. By the way, I’m just problem with the you know, what’s wrong is that the Joseph the second is is mostly known as being a patron of Mozart and not mostly known for destroying the world. Yes, yes. Exactly. Yeah, like you like. Anyways, it’s like after this, so we started. OK, I don’t know. Like I’m kind of like Jordan Peterson has this whole thing is like, oh, science came from alchemy and was like, what the hell were they doing? What were these? It’s all it’s this Gnosticism. They were they were experimenting. They were trying to find something in the world to elevate themselves and give themselves power. That’s what all of this came from their own. Alchemy is something you do by yourself in your lab. It’s not something you do with others in a in a space, which is where those things belong. You want to elevate yourself. You need the help of other people. Full stop. You. Yeah, it’s a difference between Salomon and Gandalf. You know, Sarah, one’s in that tower fucking around, weird, Sigeon orb, you know, and he’s going himself crazy. And Gandalf’s in the valley, you know, with his little pipe when the hobbits shooting off fireworks, he’s with people and with people, right, and interacting with them and interacting with with Radagast and interact with him and because he’s not as crazy as Radagast, he’s in the middle, right, right. Because he interacts with Radagast, he’s able to talk to the mob to send a message to the. Yeah, he’s not able to do that. Sarah would be able to do that in a similar situation. He’s in the damn tower. It’s because of his engagement that allows him to do all that. And look, I just I just want to point out, you can always tell if you’re in an orthodox ceremony of some kind, because they say the tocos every other word. They got all the I swear. So the tocos, but if you think about this in terms of flattening of the world and these false, binary, false dichotomies, it’s binary thinking and all that. When you flatten the world, you flatten masculine and feminine. And when you do that, women and men are competing on the same plane for the same thing, it’s postmodern power narrative again. That’s why when you re-enchant the world, all of a sudden that fixes that problem because now men and women can cooperate to be better together because women have certain specialties on average and men have certain specialties on average. And that when those two get together, they’re greater. There are sacrifices on both sides. Women are annoying and no one can understand them, at least if you’re an odd. And men are just dumb and women shouldn’t have to put up with that bullshit. But it is what it is. That’s cool. Jonathan, I love it. It’s this. Yeah, it’s in San Clemente in Rome. It’s this incredible image. It’s hard to see, actually. San Clemente, I think there were three churches, one built on top of each other. And when I saw this image, it’s just like this woman. There it is. Like this is what you see constantly. And so it changes you. I mean, it’s changed me as a woman for sure. Yeah, she’s got an old man as a baby in her. Yeah. I switched this. Oh, sorry. There we go. Got you on the beat. I think it’s so beautiful. Look at her. Look at her. She’s integrated. She’s wow. There she is. And she’s beautiful. Yeah, I was going to say this earlier. I was going to say this. So something that might help you, I remember. Anyway, thank you for enjoying it because it’s special for me. Something that might help is go read John one, the theology of Christ, and then look at an image like that. And you’ll like that will invite you into insight. It’s just that’s it’s it’s how OK. It’s very difficult to talk about these things. And maybe maybe it’s inappropriate to talk about them. We have logos, the concept of logos and logos is logos. And you have that in that image. It’s how creation is brought into the world or how the world comes into being. And you have the world, you have being, you have creation. And then you have this thing around it that’s bringing it into the world. It’s a very weird thing that it’s that it’s very ineffable. You can’t. Yes, it’s the container. Like I wanted to talk about this a while back. So I’m going to do the try again. So what does the mom represent? Like first, she’s she’s the actual world. Like she is that which brings life to the child. And then the child is outside, but it’s still connected, right? Like with the breastfeeding and the holding and taking care. And then what slowly happens is for Vicky, like it’s bringing a person into being in some sense. Right. So there’s a separation from the identity of the mother and the dependency upon the mother and and and the generation of of its of the own identity. Right. And then like I like this thing that you brought up with the scolding. Right. So the scolding is presuming like there’s a presumption of integrity. And I think I think I think this is where where all this this postmodern thinking, this progressive thinking goes wrong because they’re assuming that the integrity is there. And then if there’s something emerging through the integrity, then it’s good. Right. But like if the integrity isn’t there. Right. And I think that’s the role of the of the mother. Right. Like you’re not being your integrity isn’t isn’t correct. Like you’re transgressing. You’re outside of the bounds of of who you should be as a person. And but but but you need to have a person. Right. You need to have a entity that can be responsible. Because if you can’t respond, if you can’t hold hold that burden, you’re going to you’re going to be crushed by it. And right. So that’s that’s the two aspects of the model. Right. Because when the when the mother is holding the child on her seat. Right. Like she’s she’s providing the place where the person can be generated. Right. And then the child goes out into the world. Right. Like he leaves and then he’s scared and he comes back. Right. And so so that dynamic is the thing that allows for the contrast, for the dynamic creation of of the person. Do you guys think that the virgin birth and the Big Bang theory are metaphorically saying the same thing? What? In some sense, yeah, I don’t know why. Just hearing you talk made me think of that. Like what Ethan said and how you followed up just made me think of that. Put those two things together. I don’t know why. There’s a I recently learned that the Big Bang theory is was invented by a monk like like that was his thing. Yeah. Account for creation. So, yeah, interesting. Yeah. But I really like what Manuel said about the integrity of the feminine, because you remember Shermie Rumi when we were talking about what Mary and what it would have been like for her when she realized when the angel came and told her, told her, yeah, they’re the Christ child. But and I said that she was already there. She was already in that position, place, already that Manuel was referring to. Really, you know, maybe that was a weird question, but right. How did they know to pick her or did they ask other women first? And then she was the one that said yes and or are these stupid questions to even have are you asking how God knew how to pick Mary? No, no. Because see, you know, if he already knew she was going to say yes and was down to do this, then, you know, is that picking anybody? No, no. Stop thinking about already knowing God is is is giving a proposition. Right. Yeah. Like for all you know, every woman gets this proposition and they’re completely blind to it. It’s a negotiation, too. It’s not OK. It’s not a top down power from above. It’s a negotiation. And she has to have eyes to see and ears to hear in order to engage with the negotiation. That’s the way to think about it. Yeah. OK. And in order to have the eyes to see and ears to hear you, you need to be pure in some profound sense. Yeah. Pure of heart. Right. Really. And that’s why the Catholics go so far is to venerate Mary and talk about immaculate conception and all this crazy stuff. And the Protestants who just, you know, whatever are defective. Don’t don’t like me. We’re like, what are you talking about? And they don’t like. I want to talk about the big bang instead. They’ll do anything to get around that. They just think it’s the worst idea ever. And it’s and they’re like, it’s not a script. Maybe that’s the problem with Protestantism. Forget this enlightenment thing. Maybe we need to go further back and look at. No, but seriously, like this this loss of the of the of the story of the feminine. We need to touch grass. Like I mean it quite sincerely, because I agree with that to some extent, Elizabeth, except there’s a couple of problems with it. Right. The first problem is it doesn’t match the timeline. All the badness. But the way I frame it is that. Protestantism is the thing that allowed the Enlightenment Lab League. And the Protestants don’t like that at all. But that’s too bad because it’s still it’s still funny and true. So that’s still my appeal. But that’s true. All the problems happened much more recently. So the question is, it can’t be the Enlightenment. It can’t be Protestantism because they weren’t problems until extremely recently. Past two generations. That’s when this started two generations ago. Well, you know, it doesn’t go back any further than that. You get in nature of this sounds like. No, you don’t know. Not only is the most Protestant country in the universe. No, Nietzsche smells like dirty hippies to me. Exactly. Which is ironic, because you look like a dirty hippie. I love you anyway, though. I’m just saying you’re a long haired hippie freak and you live in hippie country, dude. You know, you know what? Go ahead. They people had long hair long before hippies. OK, I’m just saying they long hair has a long history. Hey, you have you have no place you cannot talk about. Hey, I have long hair and spirit like in my Holy Ghost. I got hair. Well, it’s what’s what’s actually causing the loss of the divine feminine is the lack of the access to the ideal and what causes the lack of the access to the ideal. It is not memorating every Tuesday. Maybe not just the icons and not just or even Friday. Well, but not just the icons and not just and not just the propositions and not just the flattening of the world, because that’s insufficient, but when you no longer have access to the full force of the nature within a woman, say, because you change her hormonal, disrupted her hormones somehow, then everybody suffers because men don’t get the full force of women anymore. And young women don’t get the full force of mothers. Here’s the hypothesis. And so I’m in a class called adolescent American adulthood. And one of the trends that I had no idea about was in the West, you see this massive decline of the age of the beginning of puberty. From 17 in 1840, and now it’s down to like ten and a half. And so what that gets you, there’s actually a graph I can find it if you want, is there’s two bars for every 50 years. And one bar is the physical maturation and the psychological maturation. As time goes on, they start to separate. The physical maturation happens way earlier because of the bar I could go into. It has to do with better health care, better nutrition. Yeah, whatever. It doesn’t matter. Yeah. And the psychological maturation gets later because of Yeah, but what’s your theory? But so this theory would be that because you get this radical separation of physical maturation and psychological maturation, there’s a total loss of wisdom because you become an adult physically before you have the maturity to be an adult mentally. Does that make sense? Yeah, but I mean, that wouldn’t cause any of what of what we see. But I mean, it certainly contributes it. It just it’s not causal with anything feminine. Well, I think you certainly would get the loss of wisdom. You certainly would get that. Yeah, but we had the loss of wisdom before and it didn’t affect us. That’s my point. Like all these things everybody points to, including for Vicky, are too far back or too prevalent before and after to worry if they can’t be proximal causes, they can be contributing factors, but not proximal causes. What are you saying that you see the loss of wisdom as in the past? I’m not I’m not identifying the loss of wisdom as anything interesting that happens all the time. It’s just not interesting. OK. Pre enlightenment, the loss of wisdom. Sure. Right. That’s the discovery of the wisdom. But there was nothing wrong with them with the so-called dark ages. They were dark. They have to be dark. If the dark ages are not dark, the enlightenment doesn’t make any sense. Well, the Romans just really started to suck. Maybe the dark ages were better. Yeah, well, yeah, they were. We’re an improvement upon the decay of Rome. Yeah, it was an improvement. They were all farmers, man. They’re having a good time. But if the dark age, I think, if the dark ages aren’t dark, the enlightenment doesn’t make any sense. Well, the enlightenment was, I think, a burning off of the deadwood. And they like were like, what can we say from what they were trying to do? No, no, no. Enlightenment was a rediscovery of Greek and Latin texts. Exactly. But not by the upper class, right, because now everybody had access to them. So that caused a bunch of new thinking in the middle class, which was an emerging thing, the merchant class, right, and that had long lasting effects. The problem is they were all Christians. Don’t believe the lies out of Wikipedia. They were all Christians. They were all embedded in the church. And as long as the enlightenment is embedded in the church, there’s nothing wrong with enlightenment ideas whatsoever. They’re perfectly fine if they’re if they’re if they’re the handmaiden to religion, which they should be. Yeah, yeah, OK, that’s a good point. They didn’t have all the weird Roman stuff that made it get all fucked up. It can’t be the enlightenment. Nice, nice. That’s good, Mark. Thank you. Yeah. But doesn’t the revival of of Greek and Roman thought leads to the scientific revolution? Which is all that? Which leads to the abandonment of religion? What’s the height of scientific discovery? Is it the 1960s? And it’s interesting because those things were a product of a very immoral civilization, yet we cling to it. No, hold on. OK, the height of science in the West, is it the 1960s? Is it the 1980s or is it the 1930s? Because it’s the 1930s and in the 1930s, guess what’s going on? 80% of the population of the US identifies as Christian. 80% of physicists and scientists of all type identify as Christians. It’s the same. The ratio is the same. It’s not different. The science people aren’t rejecting religion in the 1930s. That didn’t happen. OK. The last great set of discoveries, irrespective of when they were actually utilized, because you can argue that the transition wasn’t whatever, I don’t care. All those principles were discovered in the 1930s. Yeah. Fundamentally, most of science didn’t move as fast as it did from the early late 1800s to the 1930s. That 50 year period was much larger gap in science than from the 1930s up to today. I don’t think there’s any way to even argue that. I would be surprised if any war happened. You know, something I guess something happened. No, no. Yeah, that’s burn power is partially correct. Like there’s there’s trauma from the war that we’re resolving. But something happened in the 1960s. That’s when things went wrong. The kids rebelled. So it’s the kids rebelled. They said, fuck this. It’s not it’s not the rebellion. That’s the introduction of the birth control pill. And the birth control pill doesn’t take effect right away because it doesn’t get used right away. But what’s happening is when you disrupt the hormonal system of a female, you don’t get the full force of female in the world. The feminine archetype is dampened. It’s lessened. It’s flattened. So, Mark, what I talked about explains that because that split between psychological and physical maturation. Damn. It’s happening. That doesn’t affect that doesn’t affect the full force of femaleness. It doesn’t have any effect on it at all. It has the opposite effect, actually. What do you mean by the full force of femaleness? It means we like chemically spayed women and they didn’t realize it. They thought they were getting a good deal out of it. And they did the part of the reason why, in fact, the primary reason why people like women went on birth control was to not have such big swings in their in their moods and in their. Oh, sure, sure. Well, that’s what you know, it’s all utility. There is no utility in these mood swings and these cycles. They lost their their their connection to the whatever you want to call it. The moon, the moon, the moon, they lost their intimacy because they said we saw no utility in it. We started worshipping this god of utility. For sure. Gilchrist talks about this, Eliza. And we flattened it. We flattened everything. That’s the issue. No, people want no, no, no, no, no. But women wanted the pleasure of sex without the consequences. It was that simple. And so they had period. It wasn’t just it wasn’t just. It was casual sex with many people. The motivation, what people wanted, all my friends were on it. Motivation, the motivations are completely irrelevant to the argument. Motivation are irrelevant. It’s the adoption when the adoption. Yeah, I’m just saying. It doesn’t matter. But I don’t want to get into this game of how many motivations to women have for taking the pill. That’s ridiculous. I can’t list them all. I don’t care. The fact that they took the pill, they dampened the cycle, they dampened the cycle. They disconnected themselves from the lunar cycle. Right. They dampened the cycle. That in and of itself is not the end of the world. But the end of the world is when the second generation has loses access to the full, full force of femininity as such. Right. What happens is the male and female children of the women with the dampened cycle never see that cycle and they don’t know how to deal with it. But that’s the same cycle. If you put too much water in the ocean, it stops the waves. Right. Right. So what happens when you’re on the beach and there’s these controlled waves is that you’re only used to small waves and then a tsunami comes along and you don’t even know what to look for, right? Because there are no waves that big. I’ve never seen a wave that big. I didn’t know there were different sized waves and all of a sudden a big wave comes along and I’m like, I don’t know what this is. I mean, I know it’s a wave, but I’ve never seen a wave. What do I do? Right. Well, what I’m saying is like a birth control, like the birth control is like pouring cornstarch in the ocean. It will kill everything. The moon won’t be able to move the water because it’s too thick. You fucked up the consistency of water in the ocean. And then and you’ve dampened everything. You’ve dampened it. Right. No way. Women who are daughters to women who took the birth control pill, they never see their mothers dealing with the swings and then they get the swings and they don’t have a way of dealing with them. So then they need to be on the birth control pill because they need to be on hormones. That’s like, no, they need to be on hormones and stuff like I think that’s. Well, whatever. No, no, like, no, that’s that’s a natural conclusion, right? Like you’re on birth control, right? And you don’t know what the thing is. And it’s like, well, like, I’m not a woman. Like, I can’t identify as a woman because like these swings are not a thing that I can’t happen. But that happens. That happens later. That happens much later. The point is the second generation, the boys and the girls are not exposed to the full force of nature through the feminine archetype because that’s what she’s connected to. Women are more connected to nature. Men are like, I’m going to chop down trees because I want to build a house to my family. Women are like, no, don’t chop down the trees. They’re friendly trees. And the man’s like, yeah, screw that. You need a home. We’re going to chop down trees. That’s the negotiation between men and women. But that that negotiation between dealing with the full force of a woman, right, and dealing with nature is important because you lose both because we fundamentally interface with the world through personification. When you when the personification is not there, we don’t know how to interface anymore with nature. We’re losing connection with nature and with each other all at the same time. And that’s because of the second generation of birth control. What’s the second generation of birth control? We’re screwed. It’s a downhill thing. And then to Manuel’s point, they get more stuff. Well, I’m not a woman because I don’t have these cycles. So I must be a man. And now they’re all rushing. And I read it absolutely. I couldn’t read the whole thing. Absolutely horrific story of a whistleblower, one of these clinics. It was just terrible. Like, I like these are war crimes. These are fricking war crimes. People this this is like sound the alarms and like break out that like gun ownership is a good thing. Let me show you why these people can be abused horribly. We need public execution because civil disobedience, man. That’s what we need. Sorry. Go ahead. Even that that podcast or the talk you guys did in combination with the podcast that Dan Carlin did with and public execution, the thing is, is like our education is so it’s so it’s the work, I guess, I’ll just say biased, but it’s so enlightenment bias, I’m sorry you, you know, whatever. But it’s like, oh, all this shit that we’re doing in the medieval times, it’s just horrible. They were breaking people on wheels and blah, blah, blah. And then I listened to Dan Carlin’s podcast. He’s like, oh, I did some research and these public executions were actually ritualistic. And the people in the crowd are singing with the person being executed and executioners participating in like the executioner has dinner with the person they’re executing with the authorities that exacted justice, whatever, gave the sentence like it’s all this communal ritualistic thing. And it’s like it’s almost as if like it’s a body reading itself of a parasite. Or the community. And it was very, very it was religious, very less. That’s what Carlin said. It was a religious ritual. And it’s like, wow, if we did that, like, how would that like the fact that we’re not doing that anymore, how is that affecting us? Like, I don’t think that like these large cults of parasites would never have been allowed to exist in the medieval era because. Why are they existing now? Why are we? We need civil disobedience. Like it’s driving me nuts. All these all of us who have some orientation towards the good. Why are we not having public executions? I’m sorry, but why are we not like that? But I won’t. Well, I will say it. That might be a better thing. We’re all sitting in our homes. We’re all watching these horrors and nobody’s doing anything. I don’t understand it. It’s because the police will come after you and they’ll they’ll shoot you. No, no, no. Yeah, the Canadian police might. I was listening to a podcast and they were talking about how the die death has been removed from the home. Yeah, you used to have a person in the living room or whatever, right? They were dying and you like go there multiple times and you have to deal with the person. But you’re also grieving while the person is alive. And so what we’ve done is we make all of all of the pieces of our life. We cut them into into pieces. It’s like, OK, like we deal with the dead people in the hospital, right? The death of the sick people. And then we don’t have to have them in our home. And we we we deal with the crazy people in the asylum. We deal with that over there. Like like now we have this this pure life where we’re not confronted, right? Like we we deal with the women by putting hormones in them so that they’re not doing crazy things or whatever type of. For sure. And we mean we’re talking about flattening the world, right? We just like we castrated, right? We circumcised our experience. No wonder. Maybe that’s why there’s no meaning. We need public executions like really seriously. Well, I think we need. We need to bring the walls back. We need contrast from the world. We’re not seeing things because we’ve compartmentalized it all off to Manuel’s point. And so that contrast is lost because you don’t see it. And so now you don’t know how to deal with it anymore. I think so. I know your term that narrows your world, right? We reciprocally narrowed ourselves. Yeah. Modern world so that so that we can focus on other things. But those other things are not good things. They’re bad things. So we have bad skills for dealing with nature. People don’t know how to grow things anymore. No one understands how our food supply works. There’s a guy, Brian Moose, who’s excellent. I love Brian. He’s out in South Dakota. Sorry, Sal. He’s on the other side of the river. He’s East River. But he you know, he runs a farm and he shows everybody how it works. And the number of people on platforms like Clubhouse and Twitter and Instagram that are like, you know, what we need to do is fix the sick cows. And he’s like, no, you don’t understand why and how cows get sick and how to fix them like you’re a lunatic. That’s not the problem. They don’t understand how food works. They don’t understand that. And they don’t the people that do understand how it works. I mean, there are a tiny number of people that understand it. There was a guy that used to go into the Clubhouse room that Brian would run and some of the other farmers would run. And he said, it doesn’t make any sense that these people are raising cattle and then giving them up for food because they love their animals. And I was like, what kind of a lunatic are you? They’re raising the animals to be eaten. They know this. This is their purpose. They’re happy with it. And he’s like, no, it doesn’t make any sense. We all need to be vegetarians. He doesn’t have the skills to understand the world. He sees a conflict where there isn’t one. He’s making a problem that doesn’t exist because he’s not able to interface with nature properly. But why is there no Rosa Parks who wouldn’t give up her seat in the bus? Where is she? Like, where is where are those people right now? Well, that was all hijacked. You don’t know the story of Rosa Parks. Whatever. That’s my story. Well, there was a there was a network of people waiting for that to happen. And they didn’t know who was going to be the first one to have a big deal made out. Well, that wasn’t my point, Mark. My point is, where is that person? Where are the people? I think she’s out there, but no, no, no, that was staged. And the problem doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. Say, Mark won’t play by his own rules. Did you catch that, everybody? No, the T. Lowe’s actually matters. The T. Lowe’s actually matters. The problem with Rosa Parks is that the story is a fantasy story because it was contrived. She wasn’t standing on principle. This was a planned event. And they were just waiting for something to happen. And they have since used that same methodology for BLM and for all the woke causes, that’s what they’ve used. So this is happening all the time. We’re already in a state of constant in the United States anyway. Yeah, Harriet Tubman might be a better example. Well, whatever. It’s like the Auslan Jesus thing, only it’s like Rosa and Harriet. But it happens all the time. Like, how are you supposed to? How are you just learning? Right. How are you just turning where where that Kairos moment is? Right. Because I don’t know, because people are doing that. The Rosa Parks thing constantly now. Yeah, like it’s Brad Weinstein, like like Jordan Peterson, like the lady that did the thing on the on the trans center, like they’re all doing it, like they’re all stepping and it’s like, I’m going to sacrifice my living or whatever for my principles. And I’m going to go out there in public and I’m going to like get all the flack. I don’t want to know what what these people get sent at them. Like Tim Poole is completely upset about him. Like they don’t they never like what he does. Right. Like either it’s too little or too much. And it’s both at the same time. Right. Like Tim Poole. Yeah, but like it’s not a position that you can be in. And also, like we were talking about Jordan Peterson’s leadership, where it’s like, OK, so like you do the thing, but you need to keep it alive. Right. Like now you need to be the head of the body. And like, like I just read Tim Poole’s thing. And it’s like, I’d be a Tim Poole or you can be an Adam Krigler. And I could resonate with Adam more than Tim Poole. Now that Manuel finished, he’s about to say something very important. OK, go for it. It’s about it’s about the leadership. Right. So they’re all in that position. Right. Like Tim Poole says, I don’t want to be a leader of this movement because I’m not the leader of the movement. Like, so he’s not the leader of the movement. So there’s no movement like I’m the statement. OK. Tim Poole is just inseparable to me. No, because it doesn’t matter who it is, but it doesn’t matter. They are denying that this needs to be led. They are denied because they’re all gnostics. It’s emergence is good. So they will lead it. And because they won’t lead it, it won’t manifest. But what will manifest continually is more chaos because that’s what emergence causes. It’s more chaos. It doesn’t lead to more people, you know, basically cooperating. That doesn’t happen. It just keeps emerging and crashing and emerging and crashing and emerging and crashing. That’s what that’s what happens with emergence only approaches. And then if you keep doing that long enough, like, I don’t know, the Weimar Republic, eventually a charismatic leader will come up and take over and they will be bad. But if the good people won’t stand up and take the leadership charismatically, what do you think is going to happen? There’s no other option. That’s what happened in France, right, with the yellow shirts. Like they’re just going out there causing havoc and they’re all upset and it’s like, well, there’s no leader. There’s nobody to talk to. There’s nothing to negotiate. It’s the same with Occupy Wall Street. Like it’s all mobs without a head. And if there’s no head, there’s like something’s going to assume that head. Yeah, Wall Street didn’t have a head as far as I know. They didn’t. They couldn’t deal with it. They couldn’t deal with it. The bankers went out and basically tried to buy them off and say, what do you need to go? We’ll give you whatever you want. We just want you to be happy. Literally, that was the bankers approach. And when they went out to negotiate, they asked the people that were kind of leaving it and they didn’t have an answer. What would make you happy so that you stop protesting? We will make that and we will find a way to make that happen. And they didn’t have an answer because they didn’t have a purpose. They didn’t have a tea loss. They never had. They didn’t have a leader. They were just running around creating havoc for the sake of creating havoc. And that’s the problem. So the civil disobedience approach doesn’t work without a leader. You can’t just be civilly disobedient randomly. That’s not that’s the hell we’re living in now. Yes, so maybe. So that’s another problem. We need a few leaders. Right. And good people don’t want to lead that. Good people don’t want to tell other people what to do. Usually, I don’t think I’m to get over. I don’t think they’re good people. Like, that’s the problem. Like, I think they’re all materialists and they can’t be good. Yes. Oh, you mean that group of people specifically? Yeah, I don’t think Paul can. I don’t think for Vicky can. I don’t think Peterson can. Like, I don’t think Vanderklay can. Like the abdication, the abdication of the responsibility of leadership means you’re not a good person because leadership is good. You need. But what would you think if someone like Donald Trump invited Jordan Peterson to figure out world politics? That doesn’t think it could work. Anything. Well, we’re polite. Why? The problem. Like if you have a leader, but you have Jordan Peterson’s roundtable, let’s just call it, could you get anywhere then? No, no, no. Tables are evil. Trump is more good than anyone else. That’s why. Because you’re a strong leader. That’s all you need is a strong leader who’s good. Like I was I was listening to Peterson do his thing and I’m like, like, what does he want to do? Right. Like he wants to create this alternative narrative so that we can have more war. Yeah. Yeah. Like, no, that’s that’s literally what he’s going to do. Right. Like, yeah, I thought the same thing, but there is a there is one. There is something spooky about it. What are you guys talking about? What? He announced it on Joe Rogan. But there was one point during that time where he’s like, well, there’s why we’re doing this thing. And they basically essentially said that they they identified with the being and they and they tried to orientate themselves towards being as like, OK, if that’s what he’s doing, that will work. But if he’s just simply just trying to do what these guys are, if he’s just simply trying to not do what these guys are doing over there, it’s going to. God knows what’s going to happen, but it’s not going to be good. Well, what? Up what we could teach is five questions. Well, are those questions good questions? What are they? You mean the statements about energy production and family and stuff? He had five focus points. Yeah. And questions he’s like, we’re going to try and do this. Love was like. Who’s how is that? You need a. I don’t know. I don’t know. Like there was that one time he’s like, he’s like, what we’re doing. He talked about what he was doing. It’s like what the Israelites were doing when they realized this. You know, so no, no, no. Right. He’s trying to enact the pattern from below because he’s a materialist. He’s trying to emerge what he wants in the world through materialism. Well, he’s not that isn’t going to work. Like, I don’t know what else to say. It’s not going to work. It’s not going to happen. It’s not a thing. Don’t do that. It’s bad. It’s more chaos and more war. Don’t contribute to that. You’re better off hiring Donald Trump to run the world. Right. Make freaking decisions and be done with it. Right. Right. And with it just really sounded off to me. When I heard about it. Yeah. So in direct contrast to that, I’m pretty sure he said that he wants to be decentralized. Right. He said he wants to. Yes. Yes, they all want decentralization because then they don’t have to lead it. OK, let me explain something. The reason why all the attempts in history and there have been many for thousands of years for a decentralization fail is because it doesn’t work. It’s that simple. It’s not. Won’t let anybody lead either. It’s not going to start working magically tomorrow. But it will let people lead. Let’s have them lead. No, no. Like even if somebody was rising up to lead their thing. They I don’t think they let them. They’d be like, excuse me, you’re you’re being a little rude. You can’t, you know, I feel like that would happen. You’re right. You’re right. For me, that’s right. Some people won’t do that. The right people won’t do that. The idea of decentralization just for the sake of decentralization, it doesn’t work just like this. Anything for the sake of anything doesn’t work unless it’s. It’s good for God. So like this is exactly what Joseph II was doing. He was decentralizing. We had this authority up here and he was trying to democratize everything. He was flattening the world. He was giving authority to the common people. You know, this sounds really bad. You know, some people might get offended by this, but that’s what he was doing. He was trying to flatten the world. He was trying to equalize everything. That doesn’t work. Trying to make everything universal. And then it’s like, oh, they literally like the wall bordering Vienna was like this tall. And then like a generation later, Napoleon came over. He’s like, oh, cool. A free Roman Empire like stepped over the six inch fence that that Joseph II had deconstructed into. It’s like you can’t. It’s like once you usurp the supreme authority, which pick your language, God, you know, that’s traditionally what we call it. Once you usurp God with anything else, whether it’s like the next thing below God with reason, beauty, you know, truth, whatever the hell it is, the second that you do that, everything entropy ensues. Yeah. Yeah. What do you think the gun is? Like with that, because they call it gun, the great equalizer. It just popped in my head. I don’t know why. Is the gun the ultimate Gnostic technology? No, not at all. No, no. OK, no, because. It you you all people don’t realize in history, equality was the norm in terms of power. OK, only becomes not the norm when scale happens. Right. In other words, if you can’t outfit an army, everybody has equal access to equal weaponry, because you can all make whatever a person can make. Yeah. When when you scale up to like a village, maybe they can afford to have special weapons made and special training for special people that you can’t do that without a village. And then maybe when it’s multiple, right, it just scales up at points of scale. Everything changes. The problem becomes and this is what people don’t understand. It’s like, oh, well, you know, if you just would build the government, we’d come and shoot you. And I’m like, no, they wouldn’t, because they just don’t have enough people in the government. No, people. And and and if the government shoots the population, they’re not a government anymore because there’s no population to govern. Like, you know, it’s not that straightforward. It’s always a negotiation, always. And that’s why we find things like like, you know, a genocide so boring because we realize that’s the end of the game. Yeah, right. You should talk about a meta game. And I don’t particularly like that term, but whatever. Right. The ability to keep playing, irrespective of if you’re a total loser and can’t ever win, right, and that’s genocide is the is taking somebody out of the game completely, the game of games, they can’t play any more games. That’s why we find it a boring. I think that’s totally fair. I think we were on some good things earlier with the with the feminine before I completely derailed the conversation into public execution. Now, hey, let’s get let’s talk about chicks. I’m down. What do you think? What are we doing wrong? Yeah, I think Manuel said some really good things. Yeah. With this, this, this ethic of utility, I mean, we evoke these things, the ethic of utility, and it’s like, you know, maybe it’s helpful to talk about it in that in that way, but we can’t really trace it back to anything. Mark seems to have a he’s pretty confident on this, this birth control invention as a as a Kairos moment. But it’s like what what that pill wasn’t invented in 1850. You know, it was invented in 19 or whatever, 60 something, whatever. Like, you know, it was invented at the time that it was invented. You know, so like there was definitely an ethic in place that allowed this pill to be developed, researched and developed. It was you. I don’t know ultimately what it was for. Was it was it actually for birth control or was it for like utility? Was it for to was it to flatten the cycle? Was it to flatten the cycle? Was it to really give people the ability to have sex without, you know? I’ve never met one woman who who took it to flatten the cycle. I’ve only known women and young girls who take it for first two. So they don’t become pregnant. I’ve never heard of the other, to be honest, just my experience. It was definitely for free sex. Come on. It was the 60s. It was for free sex. It was pleasure. It was pleasure over over commitment. Absolutely. That was the and I think it was a reaction to the 50s. The 50s were like this, the you know, the Stepford wives. And that was a reaction to the trauma of the World War of World War II. So, I mean, it’s it’s stability. It keeps going. Right. It just rolls into dysfunctionality and a reaction to the dysfunctionality. That’s what the what it was all about. There’s a suburb, right? Like Marjole talks about. It’s no, it’s Margaret Sen or again, our favorite evil person. Right. Proposed pill. Right. She propelled the research that led to the creation of the pill. So so the the telos of birth control was bad from the beginning. Poison from the beginning. What year was that? Nineteen sixteen is when she because she’s the one that started all this nonsense about making sure we didn’t have babies of a certain race. Like that was her thing. He was a horrible person. Everything about her was absolutely terrible. Wow. Wow. See, this is what I’m saying. Like we used to. We used to purchase those of these things, and now we just say, well, well, used to call them out, right? People call them out and ostracize them. Somebody like that, if you were in the little village or where. Yeah. Now everything is just like, man, like you just got off, you know, like that’s what I just had a crazy thought. And I don’t know where I’m going with this. Tell everybody to f off, right? But no, no, no, no. What if what if the pill that they created instead was one that a woman could take and it made her pregnant without having sex? No, they wouldn’t want it. Well, I know, but I’m just saying just theoretically, that crazy ass thought, right, role playing now. Yeah, we’re playing, you know, I’m just let’s play straight. The future already exists. I don’t know why you’re no, just it’s just a pill, the convenience. Like, I want to have a baby. I don’t need any man. I don’t need it. There’s this thing called in vitro fertilization. I was just going to say we’re there. No, beyond that, I’m talking about like a virgin. The same thing next week. It’s coming. Don’t worry. The thing is, we took the birth control first and we went like this. And now we’re trying to recompense that with this in vitro fertilization. It’s the same thing. You know, she’s right. It’s in vitro fertilization now, which means like, OK, you get injected and it makes you much more likely to conceive with your husband. But tomorrow. But the thing is, you have to look at it. You’re going to like this. Tell us, right. The tell us is, I want to conceive now. I want I want to conceive under my terms. And that’s what that in vitro fertilization is. And that’s the tell us. So tomorrow the technology is the incentive is there to develop that further. So tomorrow it will be a pill that doesn’t require a partner. Or will you just be able to take it and you’ll be pregnant? It’s the same exact thing. You have to look at the spirit or the tell us. Yeah, the spirit. OK, exactly. So the spirit would be like the Christians were like, we have to make all the women like the Virgin Mary, we have to make this pill because it’s the best version of like, I know it’s a crazy thought. It just pops into my head. But it’s actually literally the opposite, right? It’s like the Virgin Mary had to be pure. Like when you’re doing your own insemination, that’s like the complete opposite. Yeah. But what if it was an idea that took over us? You know, like we must endeavor to do this thing instead of the opposite thing. That is the gnostic idea, which is what we did. Having control over the absence of children. Let’s just let’s just agree not to talk about the conception of Mary. It’s not my this isn’t my thing. It’s not. It’s not stick because it’s control. Control is bad. You need to leave it up to a higher power. And one one very basic point you see this is like the fact that women have access to I forget what it’s called, but like the medicine to make your pain in childbirth go down. Yeah, and a girl. Yeah, I was reading a book. Recently, we talked about the positive. Or the immense significance having an unaided birth. Hmm. Yeah, because people hate it. There’s this there. The thing is, is like people don’t understand this. It’s like there there are higher things at play here that are gripping people. People like you’re going to think a lot of people think I’m will think I’m crazy. And saying this is but we hate children and we hate giving out. We hate bearing children. We hate childbirth. We hate everything that has to do with that. That’s why we’re coming up. We’re developing technology. We’re developing technology that refutes all of that. We’re developing birth control pill. We have these epidurals that people go like this is a thing. This is a thing. Scheduled C sections. That’s a thing. Because they hate child. They hate the idea of bearing child bearing children. Right. This is the categorization problem. And you always pointing out before it’s uncontained and unrestrained and we and it’s uncontrolled. And we’re trying to control it better. And that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to put it in a box and control it so that it’s the way we want it to be. It’s very Tower of Babel. And at the same time, you’ve got a bunch of individuals and the individuals are like, well, I don’t want my life inconvenience. So and everything else is contained. Why can’t we carve this up into into sections and contain it? And it’s like, well, you’re losing the cyclical nature of the reality in which you exist. You’re losing the patterns. You’re turning something continuous and nonlinear into something discreet and linear. That’s the conversion of the natural to the scientific. Yeah, you can’t do that. That’s bad. And there’s also this assumption, right, where it’s like, well, there’s a good good way to use it. It’s like, yes, there is a good way to use it. Right. But like, are you going to say that it should be used because there is a good way to use it? Because that’s the question, because you end up normalizing it. And then you also enable the bad way. And it’s like, is there a good way to discern when there’s too much bad way and too much good way? Like, no. And that’s like this is the slippery slope argument. And like, yes. Like at a certain point, a slippery slope is ridiculous. Right. Like not everybody is going to transition, but there’s way too many people, like way too many people. And like at a certain point, that’s just not OK. Like, that’s not OK. And like, where is that point? Yeah, it’s just Genesis three all over again. It’s oh, hey, it’s good. Because it’s like it’s good when it’s good. It’s not good in and of itself. It’s good when it’s appropriate to be good. It’s like there’s this OK, like the C section thing. It’s like we you have the opportunity. You’re your the mother of your family is going to die and the child she’s bearing is going to die. We have this technology that allows us to save both of them. But when it’s a. I’m going to schedule a C section because I don’t want to go through the experience of bearing a child like that’s that is picking the fruit off of the tree. That’s you misappropriating the technology, the knowledge. It’s like you think you think like if we were about to like if it was like some sort of crazy thing happened, some a flood. And it was like we have some there’s all kinds of science fiction with this. It’s like something happened with Earth and we have an arc, right? We shoot it off into space and it’s going to go countless science fiction, you know, like goes off orbits, whatever waits for the radiation to go away and then it comes back and implants itself. It’s like we have one bit of information that we can give to these people. It would be something like Genesis three highly condensed story like that, like it all goes back to that, like things that are misappropriated, that are taken out and used inappropriately, you know, taken in and of themselves separated from the higher purpose. Like if you I mean, there’s a million different ways that you can. That’s why it’s so powerful. There’s a million different ways that you can frame this. Like you’re taking Telos like capital T, Telos and reappropriating it to Telos, my Telos. Like I see Telos. I create Telos. I use my own means. I’m creating means. I make the means instead of the means, the means of means, the being like the thing that everything rotates around. Yeah. We’re so far. We’re so far away. I mean, it’s amazing. Any of us can even speak, in my opinion, right? Because we’re so detached from everything. It’s a miracle. It’s a miracle that we’re talking. We can’t. I mean, this is actually happening now. Manuel and I are having conversations with people and they can’t speak to us. They literally can’t speak to us. Or David. David couldn’t speak to us. He couldn’t do it. We’re too far apart all of a sudden. And that’s because people are too individualistic. They want to be their own person and they’re just they’re trying. But individualism is just rejection of that which intimately. Well, it’s rejection of a copy of a Christian agapic love. It’s the rejection of the intimacy. It’s the rejection of the connection with others. It’s a rejection of the sacrifice required to make the connection with others. It’s rejection of all of these things. It’s just pure rebellion. So I want to. That’s the wrong one. I want to go into this a little bit because I think he’s a professional troll or something. No, no, no, no, no. I think it is a completely valid question. Right. So like the way I see it is and I’m going to use neoplatonic framing because I think there’s some value. I kick him out of the stream. You can have God on top. Right. And then you have the space by which God communicates to us, which is effectively angels. Right. And so so then we are as a receptive. Right. So we’re relating. We’re relating to what is above. Right. And so either the thing above is pointing towards God or is in relation to God. Right. Or it’s it’s not right. It’s like. Right. But I think it’s still above because we’re being subject to it. Like, there’s also a different way where we’re not being subjected to it. And it’s from below. And that would be evil. Like when you are evil, you’re you’re taking the spirit from below and you’re trying it to manifest. And when you’re just enacting the bad, it’s coming from above. Right. And you’re just being subjected to it. But you’re not realizing that it’s not connected to God. And I think I think that’s that’s the distinction that we need to hold in our minds. Right. It’s like, OK, and this is the thing that I wanted to talk about a lot earlier. It’s redemption. So when we do these executions or whatever, right, like when when we’re having the person die in our living room, what are we doing? We’re trying to redeem this thing that is bad. Right. Like, OK, like a person made a transgression or where there is a a being that is no longer going to be at a certain point. How are we going to integrate that, make it partake in the whole in a generative fashion? Right. And so so all these patterns they’re privileging how the thing can participate in the more like I’m having this discussion with this with this girl I’m helping. It’s like she always makes drama of everything. Right. That’s like, well, if you if you see the thing right, it’s like, no, I cannot do the other thing. Right. Like that’s literally what happens. Right. Like in our mind, it’s like, oh, there’s this this this disconnection, right. Like, like there’s there’s a vision about or an expectation about how things work. Right. And then there’s a disconnection from the expectation. And then there’s distress as a consequence. Right. And what’s the resolution? Well, the resolution is how can you lift it up? Right. Like this is effectively the same as being as good. Right. So there is a being or there is a participation that you can start engaging that is pointing to the negative. In the good story. Right. And so that is that is redeeming the world. And if you participate in that process, then you’re being a good person. Right. Like, no. And then we can have arguments about how to do that better or not. But that’s a different point. Right. Like you fundamentally need to be in that process first. And then you can get a participatory understand. Right. It’s like, OK, like, is the spirit that I’m dealing with actually coming from all the way above or am I deluded? Right. And and that discernment is a thing that you need to develop. And if you haven’t developed it, you cannot be good. Like you cannot be good. It’s not an option. Yeah. Which is, man, I realize that it’s like, oh, I need to have discernment of what I’m receiving, like what I’m giving my attention to, because what I’m giving my attention to is being embodied in me. That’s a terrifying thing. The the the priest in our class yesterday, he’s we’re going over this concept of noose, you know, in the way that the orthodoxy is there’s noose. And then there’s I think whatever is below it. Right. And the noose is your first point of contact with the divine. I remember him saying, like, the noose is how you how you come to know God. And he casually says, how you come to know God or other things. Just casually said that, you know, the thing is, is like, emergence is good. You know, like we think that, like, you know, we talk about how we make fun of it. Emergence is good, but we have to caution ourselves and we can’t we can’t fall into this trap of, oh, if emergence isn’t good, then it must mean that eminence is good. We’re going to fall into this trap of thinking that eminence is good. And then you’re just going to think anything that’s emanating onto you is good. Manuel’s right. A little bit different of like, you know, coming up from from the bottom and then coming up over over top. Yeah. But still, it’s like, oh, eminence is good. So you’re just going to look up and just take anything that you see, you know, and embody it. And well, that’s as much as the whole dichotomy. Right. That’s the over reduction of the world into a binary. The world is not a binary. And what you’re trying to get around is the hard work of discernment and the responsibility of judgment, because discernment is the first step and judgment is the second step and action is the third step. Oh, yeah. Around that, but you can act without judging and discerning. But now you’re just acting kind of randomly. And that’s why I posted the I posted the Sam Harris Highest Value video from Navigating Patterns, that Sam Harris doing that. He can’t enact the good. He can only narrow in on his own, you know, on his own. And that’s what happens. Yeah, he’s not struggling towards the good. He’s not using discernment. He’s just saying, no, no, no, no. Knowledge is really important and screw everything else. And knowledge is good. It’s like, no, that’s not true. Right. He knows the difference. So he can’t help but stray into evil. He can’t find a way for him to do anything else. These three degrees, discernment, judgment and action. That sounds very reminiscent of what this what this this author is saying in this book that we’re reading in the class. And she made something. She said something really that struck me. And it reminded me of what what manuals got going on with this sacrifice versus. What there he’s got these two things. He’s got sacrifice versus just an implicit part of your being. And the author is saying that virtue is actually a willful thing. So like, like, it’s not something that you passively do. And what you just said, these three degrees, discernment, discernment, judgment and action, that’s actually what virtue is. And like that it’s it’s that level of agency. Like that’s that’s what this whole thing comes down to is that level of agency. I’m sorry, Elizabeth, but you hate that that that word level is forgive me for using that language, but sorry, you can’t be virtuous without action. And therefore you can’t be ethical without act. Ethics doesn’t exist in philosophy. Ethics doesn’t exist in theology. It’s not there. Ethics exists in action in the world. It’s participatory only. It has nothing to do with the words you say. Nothing. You can say all the words you want. You can talk all day long. You can be a silver tongued you know, a progenitor of evil like Sam Harris all day long. Or you can be a silver tongue idiot like like Karl Marx and cause millions and millions of deaths. You can do that. OK, the problem is that that isn’t ethical because nothing about words resolves ethics. Nothing. Only a little bit of ethics is in participation in the world in action. That’s it. You cannot know ethics without taking action in the world. You can know of ethics. You can theorize about ethics. You can have a framework for thinking about ethics and talking about ethics. You can have a language for talking about ethics. But you can’t actually do ethics without action. It doesn’t make any sense. You’ve pretty much summed up the thesis of this book, which is the material of this class that we’re doing. I dub it accurate and useful. She’s just beating the same thing over and over and over again. Alive truth independent of my structures and therefore it validates both of us in our truth, the trueness of our of our expressions. Well, discernment, judgment, action. Wow. That’s that’s the line. That’s the line of agency. And that’s what makes us human. That’s what man is, is his agency and his will is this the structure. Like she makes this really good comparison. She says an atheist can do like, OK, here’s the virtues, whatever she lists off a bunch of virtues written down and says, OK, these are only virtuous. She says an atheist can do all of these things and they’re not virtues because they’re just copying. They’re just they’re copying something. They’re but what makes it virtue is the I don’t think she used the word struggle. But what makes it virtue is is I think she actually did use the word struggle. But in the context of what we’re speaking is. What makes it virtue is the discernment, the judgment and the action qualified by Christ. That’s that’s what she’s saying. That’s what makes it virtue. And then, you know, the atheist, there may be they may be acting the same thing. They may be saying the same words, repeating the same words, but they’re not doing this. They’re not doing this thing. They’re not exercising their agency and free will as a human. That’s what a human is, is is is their agency and affecting that. That is so that is such a good point. The discernment, judgment. Yeah, you have to write that down, Mark. No, but really, that’s it’s so important. The notes that’s all your your guys, five hundred page virtual document of notes that you just keep adding to the one. The one notes we don’t just keep adding to it, but we do need to get to get back. And if you hang out with these guys long enough, all of a sudden you’re like, oh, I’m going to add that to the notes and you hear I’m typing. It’s like this five. Virtual. We have well over 500 total pages, but the one document is only about 350 pages. Don’t do 350 page documents and Google Docs. It doesn’t work very well. But yeah. Yeah, we it’s it’s noted a lot of more stuff is noted, too. And I added to the Mark of Wisdom Community Doc today. So so that’ll help. But yeah, you know, we’re we’re we’re working on this stuff for this reason. I mean, the reason why we’re able to talk about this is almost three years of note taking, like it’s not it’s not like I just like I’m in the 19th. No, this is all based on three years nearly of constant discussion around John Verbeckis were Jordan Peterson’s work, Paul Van der Kley’s crazy Christian Gnostic nonsense and conversations and an actual interaction with people who need help, who are stuck, people who got help and got better. Right. All kinds of things have happened. This is not out of the blue. There’s a lot of stuff going on behind the scene. We did Clubhouse for many months. We had a bunch of Clubhouse talks, which I really should post this podcast somewhere someday. There’s all kinds of stuff. Yeah. And you were saying earlier at the beginning of your stream, you went on a couple of rants, whatever you want to call them, I think they weren’t clipping what you were saying about. You just you went on about how you’re talking about how Verbeckis gave you language, enabled you to talk to with Manuel and talk about these things that you couldn’t talk. You couldn’t. You didn’t have the tools to communicate with other people. Like it’s like this is the goodness that you found in Verbeckis. And I don’t know. And then they just. But I don’t know, I just think that more people need to see that. And it’s. I don’t know. Well, OK, like I want to go back to you because you called out what I’m talking about, right, so I’ve been I’ve been constructing with this because Mike is like, well, everything is sacrifice. Right. And I have this idea, right. When you identify with with the higher, right. Like when with a bigger body, you write, like, for example, like if I if I clean the toilets at church, right. Like, always toilets. Yes, yes. I’m cleaning. It’s the purity. I think in terms of toilets. Sorry. Keep going. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. If I do that right, like, like I can see that as a sacrifice. It’s like, oh, the damn church or it’s like, no, I’m enabling the bigger body of church to function, right. And there’s the house of God like there’s there’s a there’s there’s a way that I can make it be set apart, right. I can have have the spirit that it needs to have. Right. Like I can have that participation. Right. And then it’s then it’s no longer a sacrifice, right, because because in some sense, your your sacrifice is being redeemed and like it’s subsumed in into the higher thing and the higher thing has primacy over the identity over your lower identity effectively. It’s almost like there’s two things. You have two interests. You have you have the overall interests of the kingdom of God. Right. And you also have the interest of your agency. And these things become once they become implicit in your being and your, you know, you’re cleaning the church and it doesn’t even phase you. It’s like, yeah, it’s Wednesday. We’re going to go clean the church. And it’s like it doesn’t seem sacrificial to you at all. But your interest in the kingdom of heaven, you know, or the kingdom of God like keeps you doing that, like the fact that it’s it’s not like, oh, this became an implicit part of my being, so like it’s no longer a part of my agency. It’s no longer virtuous. So like I don’t care about it anymore. It’s like you still care about it because like you have an overall interest in in in affording or affording or cultivating this. You have an interest in the kingdom of God instantiating itself. Right, right. That’s that’s what the early Israelites were doing, right? Like they were doing all sorts of crazy stuff. And it’s like, like, why are you doing all of these rituals? Well, to keep the patterns pure. Right. Like that’s literally what they’re doing. Yeah, yeah. Exactly. They were doing these things like awarely, but like they weren’t sacrifices to them. Yeah, you’re right. They were just doing it. It’s like, yeah, I don’t eat. What are some things like they I don’t they don’t eat pork, right? That’s not a sacrifice to them. They just don’t do it, you know, but they’re they’re keeping this thing going. But then the danger is that you lose the heart and your heart falls out of the action, right? And so God will say to Isaiah that your sacrifice means nothing to me. I want your heart. Maybe. Yeah, but that’s not that’s false because you’re presupposing the heart. And I don’t think you can presuppose the heart like I don’t think you have the heart. Like you’re not born with the heart. Like that’s the thing that you develop. You practice it. You’re making it. You’re creating. Right. Yeah. But also the whole idea of cleaning the toilets is actually such a gift. It’s like my my icon, Ethan knows about, right, with George of Antioch, the great Syrian admiral to the Norman Kings in Sicily with the depiction of him. And he looks like a worm on the ground. And there’s the Madonna figure. She’s magnificent. And there he is. And he literally looks like a worm. And that’s the beauty of it all. It’s actually a gift because you get to slice off the possibility you could be a horrible narcissist and have a horrible life. Right. Like that really is the freedom. It’s the freedom. So it’s yeah. And and and and then and then it puts you it alters your perceptual system in that way. Like it can’t I don’t think it can be overstated. Just the act of humility. I think I think the Catholics have it right in a sense that that you know, prostrating yourself as low as you can be. And that’s the key. Everybody talks about, well, I have multiple perspectives. And it’s like, well, have you ever cleaned the toilet? Have you ever washed somebody else’s feet? Like, have you ever lowered yourself voluntarily to get active? I have. Richard, this isn’t this isn’t this isn’t a signal, it’s not a signal. Relax. Right. But they they talk paradoxically. They say, oh, I believe in different perspectives until you say, well, have you ever been of service to somebody? Right. Have you ever lowered yourself to get that perspective? And then all of a sudden the answer is no. And it’s like, well, do you really value other perspectives? Because I’m a little confused now, right? Because and that’s how then this is what I mean. But I don’t believe what people tell you. People will say that all the time. They’ll say whatever you want to hear, because people try to please other people and be in communion and get intimate connections to language, but you’re not going to get an intimate connection to language because, A, you’re probably lying to yourself. And B, you’re probably lying to other people just to get that connection. Now it’s a fake connection. Yeah. You cannot focus on the language. You have to focus on the actions in the world. We did not say language is evil or you can do without it entirely or anything. Although in most cases, I think you can do entirely without language and you’ll do just fine. Right. And that’s the thing. Some of the most devout people in the world don’t speak or don’t speak much. Monks usually took vows of silence for a reason. Right. So generating, generating speech and talking and all this is obviously wrong. We know this. We’re pretending like it’s not wrong because we’re so good at it, because we’re all focused on it. We’ve all been, quote, educated to speak well. Yeah, that’s not working out. The more we talk, the more differences we find. That’s mathematically certain, by the way. So you can go into you. But I think I think there is a good way of speaking. And I think it’s preaching. But I think I think beyond that, no, but there’s a way where you’re you’re communicating the word of God. Right. And so you’re speaking from authority. And I think that justifies the speech. But like that, like you can do that in action as well. So it’s like not a speech thing, but like I think speech is a tool that can be co-opted to to manifest that. Do you think that Stanley Kubrick was doing with the bone in the spaceship? That scene with the monkeys, you know, now you don’t think that’s what he was doing. Stanley Kubrick’s a crazy Gnostic who made really good movies. But he’s still a crazy Gnostic like, you know, I don’t know. Are Gnostics just supposed to be musicians and artists to entertain us? I know I don’t think so. I think the best entertainment comes from art done with with with the telos of the ineffable of the highest. So it’s it’s it’s Peterson’s point. Why are these paintings worth so much money? Why are they worth so much money? And the answer it turns up, do it again, Ethan. I’ll put you back up. I don’t know. Just this was just was kind of on a whim. But like speeches at the bottom part of the triangle. Like, yes, in the flat world as we did. OK, so you talk about it’s the same thing with the theologies, like why it’s not good for theology to become a universal thing, because what theology is, sorry, theology, you see these theologians and their their wheel, they’re using these things down here at the heart of this triangle called reason. But the reason is supplementing this higher thing with the orthodox, what called noose, you know, and they’re using these things. It’s like a house builder. I’ve got a really nice hammer. I’ve got a nice skill saw and I’m building a house. And like you I go look at that person that builds a beautiful house and, oh, they’ve got a skill, a really nice skill saw and they’ve got a really nice hammer. I’m going to go buy a really nice hammer. And I’m going to go buy the same brand of hammer and the same brand of skill saw. And I’m going to build an equally beautiful house. It’s like that’s not that’s not what a beautiful house. That’s the materialist approach. I’m going to buy the best tool for this. Right. I’m going to buy the best tool for this. Or I’m going to buy this guy’s tool because I want to be him. And the material is not going to make you into that person. That person is that way for a different reason. Yeah, exactly. And so I think you flip the triangle and say that the point on the bottom because speech is so narrow, you’re condensing the world when you try to get to it. And then once you move up the hierarchy into doing things in the world, that’s that reciprocal opening because all of the inspiration is contained within. Well, yeah, you have a hard time because with the pyramid, with the point at the top, you don’t have to do anything to make it sit there. If it’s on the point, you got to keep spinning it to make it stay up. Yeah, that’s right. Does that make sense? What I’m saying? Yeah, that makes sense. Not not if it extends up into heaven and this being which it’s suspended, it’s suspended by the animation that is informing your action. Right. So I wouldn’t sit under it. I’d be a friend. Yeah, I don’t think you need to invert things. There’s no reason for this cynical skepticism. Right. You can just accept things as they are instead of trying to invert everything to learn more about it, this negative theology garbage is a waste of time. It could be reason, speech, knowledge, literally anything. And it’s logic, reason and rationality on the bottom. And the thing is, it’s like, OK. OK, so I just bought last week, you saw I was talking to fill up us. And I was like, I bought this skill saw. It’s like, did I waste my money, whatever? And so I’m looking I’m checking out this new skill saw, like reading the owner’s manual and everything in the trigger handle, the thing that you pull to engage the motor that turns the saw, there’s a little like a quarter inch hole, like a circular hole that goes all the way through it. And you see that’s like, I wonder what that’s for. And in the instruction manual, there’s it says that that’s actually a space for a padlock to for you to put a padlock in in that little hole and you lock it. And, you know, obviously, it’s to prevent people from using the tool that shouldn’t be using the tool, a lot of children, right, or anyone like so. It’s like that’s what this like like theology. I mean, we’ve been talking about theology lately. It could be anything. It could be. Let’s let’s just use. Yeah, sure. Yeah, exactly. Science theology, it’s like there’s a hierarchy, like there’s people that daddy should be using the skill saw son, three year old son should not be using the skill saw. That’s why that that’s what that that padlock mechanism is for. So you can put a padlock in there while you’re at work. Your son doesn’t go in there unsupervised and cut his hand off or something worse. You know, like there’s a hierarchy. There’s things that are are appropriate for use and inappropriate for use. And in a flat world, there’s no padlocks like the it’s like that. It brings on the skill saw and anybody can use the skill saw for any hierarchy in a flat world. And now everybody’s cutting their limbs off and stuff. Yeah, yeah. The technology comes down to the that’s the skill saw being used by the five year old is scholasticism or or scientism or to science. It’s like it’s just a flat world at the bottom part of the triangle. And people are playing ping pong ping pong back and forth. But we built a world. And when you talk to people about it, they don’t understand that doesn’t work in a world with children. And then we’ve been infantilized everybody. So we’ve got 22 and 28, 32 year old children. They’re actual children. They have a literal child’s conception of the world. And they have a child’s emotional capacity. They have child’s emotional control of a child like that, that that whole meme with the woman going out in the middle of the city and just screaming. What did you expect to change about the world by screaming? That’s something that three year olds and two year olds do. That’s not something that people her age are supposed to be doing. They should be interacting. They should have interacted with screaming young enough to know that it doesn’t change anything about the world, which means her parents must have changed things in the world for her much, much later as a result of screaming much later than they should have. Yeah. Like we think that children and adolescents not obeying their parents is a thing. That’s not a thing in non-Western culture. Not a thing. Right. All cultural ideas. And it’s because we’ve thrown out expectations. So we we Yeah. So like when we go back to this this carfulful on the Reiki server, right? What they’re effectively wanting to do is create an environment where where people can be kids, right? Like, what do you do with a screaming person? Right. Like the only thing that you can do, you can say, come to mommy and I’ll pat you on the back and I’ll give you a cookie. It’s like that’s the only way that you can deal with those people. And so it’s like, well, like if that’s your the way that you see the world, like that’s the people that you’re engaged with, then you think that is the proper mode of engagement, like, yeah, like I should give you a cookie. And like because like there’s nothing else I can do. But but yeah, like that’s that’s not healthy. Right. Like this, this if we go back to the raising of a person, right, like at a certain point, the masculine spirit comes in. Right. The masculine spirit says you need to be challenged. Right. Like go out there, get hurt. Right. And the money will comfort you. Yeah. There needs to be there needs to be this amazing dance between the masculine and the feminine. Right. Right. It’s not but it can’t be overstated. I think, you know, men need to be empowered. I’m struck, you know, when I’m in Italy, you know, a young fellow was doing something and some guy just like in his car, got out of his car and went and told the kid off. Like we’ve lost that in our society. Right. The male male needs to be encouraged to like Mark. They need to we need like zillions of Marks wandering around North America. No, no. We’re going to clone Mark. We’re going to go. No, now we’re getting into eugenics. You’re terrifying everybody, Elizabeth. But I’m serious. I’m serious. Mark really embodies the masculine like he does. The masculine that’s missing with everything about him. That it’s so. Manuel is crying now. I think it’s a great idea. Somebody should and someone do a piece of art like. There we go. I just have to go to the remark that was made. Mark was able to communicate with me because of Fereke’s language. Right. Like that’s still hanging in the air. There we go. Well, look, I mean, there’s another factor here, too. Right. The other factor is that when the masculine isn’t there to tell the feminine to stop mothering, because that’s another one of those things, right. You get the single motherhood and then there’s no man there to say, no, no, no. You’re over coddling the child, whether it be male or female. And you get people yelling in the middle of the city because they’ve been over mothered. And that’s not an overbearing mother situation, the way for the way Peterson talks about it. Right. That is a slightly different thing. It’s it’s lack of the signaling from the father to the mother that now is the time to disengage. This is why we’re not individuals. Right. Yeah. Write that down. Write that down. It’s a huge problem. We need we need lots of signals from the masculine like everywhere. So what’s your frame? Like you guys, you guys, we could clone the rest of you to not just Mark. No, no, no. What story or frame could you use to to to explore that? What story do you have in mind? What do you mean? I just want to store it. You’re stating it out. Christ. Christ is the ultimate I may not know. We were talking about the OK, sorry. Go ahead. Constantly. You know, he goes into the temple and he over he tells everybody off and he says, don’t tell the Christians that. Yeah, don’t tell the Protestants that. Well, you were talking about the feminine part, you know, in the masculine part, the dynamic of putting limitations, you know, on the. But also like like responsibility, men are responsible for raising for raising the village around the city. Right. Like you guys should be out there like pointing like stop that young whippersnapper like you guys need to do that. There’s nobody doing that anymore. Like Peterson, he’s such a sweet fellow. No, he’s going online. You know, you are perfect. We’re going to clone you. Don’t worry. OK, you do that. I’ll wait here. Don’t don’t clone me with my illness. That won’t help. No, even your illness will accept that radical acceptance. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They take the whole package because we you know that we believe in. Near. Look, at one point, right? You know, there’s that whole and I don’t know the story because I didn’t read the stupid book. There’s that whole thing about about Mary wants wants Christ to do something. And he’s like, no, it’s too soon. It’s not happening. He cuts her off. No, it’s too right. There is that balance, that back and forth, that argument between them. Right. And and natural and healthy. And we don’t have single motherhood means you don’t have that. But Christ is constantly doing that. OK, he heals somebody. He says, don’t know. This is what you need to do now. No, don’t go and tell anybody. And then he does something else for somebody else. And he’s constantly doing acting in context for what’s necessary. Right. And it’s always a surprise. It’s fascinating. And that’s what you masculine that’s what the mask needs to be doing. It is totally lacking. Yeah, I just realized something because I think the don’t tell anybody. I first thought that was like he doesn’t want to get famous or something. Right. But but I don’t think that’s what what’s going on. Like, I think that actually the telling is corrupting it. Because in the Verveki server, this guy was just like, effectively saying, well, I’m I’m better now. And like, this is better. This is better. This is better. I’m like, stop counting your blessings and like, make sure that you’re safe, like you’ll build a home so that you don’t get like swept away when the next wave comes. Yeah. Right. Yeah. That’s exactly it. It’s strange because Jesus, he’ll tell most people to not tell anyone. Then he’ll tell some people to tell everyone. I can’t without what the. Well, the point is, he’s in charge, man. He’s calling it. He’s calling every situation. Right. And also, like we’ve had these years, decades now of people viewing Christianity as a pacifism experiment, as a pacifist experiment in in how to run, you know, how to behave. And there is no pacifism in Jesus. Like, it’s not there. It’s not there. They just keep, you know, all the Christian anarchists, right. Which is a contradiction in terms of impossible. My professor. Right. But then but then but then what they describe is not anarchy. It’s pacifism because anarchists are violent. I don’t know why you would want to be an anarchist. They’re violent. They kill people. They’re the ones that bomb people. This is not really anything is anti Christ and they’re the ones. Right. They’re the ones that you bring in to start the revolution are the anarchists. That’s always an issue who they bring in to start the revolution. And so why you want to identify that way, I don’t know. But what they describe is pacifism. But Jesus is not a pacifist. And no matter how many times you point out to them that he’s not a pacifist, they just resist it because they don’t want to believe it. I think it’s a kill. Like, I think what you’re pointing to are Christians being pushovers. No, no, it’s not that they’re pushovers. They want to live hidden because they don’t want to turn over the tables because they don’t want to get eaten by the lions. They’re wimps. They’re, they’re, yeah. Yeah. Thank you. But but but but just men are wimps. Can you tell Peterson that? Yeah, I come on. Mark, when you talk to Peterson, you need to say, Peterson, you’ve got to change your story, the real problem is not over compassionate women. It’s that men are wimps and they need to read the Gospels continually so that they start turning over the table. I agree with both of them. That’s what it is. It’s OK. I’m going to use Verbecky. I’m going to use Verbecky ways of talking about this. It’s the the lack of the rational. It’s a lack of rational dialogue between the two archetypes or the two things. Like we they’re still both there, but they’re they’re just they’re working against each other and destroying each other. Like the eatable mother that Peterson talks about and the tyrant and the hyper rational, the hyper rational utilitarianism. We have that. And then we have this all the stuff coming from from from below that is manifesting in. Manifesting in like, you know, this this eatable, like tolerance, you know, all of that stuff, they’re both there, they’re both there. You can’t get rid of them, but you can get rid of the rational dialogue between the two. I don’t like that. It still sounds weird talking about it in that way, but I don’t know how else to know. It feels like we’re talking about psycho history, like some some Harry Selden shit. Yeah, let’s let’s Richard go ahead. Let’s know. I think you can do it. I think that’s what Peterson talks about when he talks about the need for dialogue between the right and the left. And you also got that in his conversation with Mathieu when he was talking about, I forget the phrase he used, but he used as the benevolent adversary, something like that. But I always set him in straight with Mark, with the lion, because the Christians have to be willing to be eaten by the lions. They don’t fight back against the lions to save themselves. Right. Right. OK, so like that’s what I take the passivism to mean. No, but it’s not. They’re hiding from lions. They’re supposed to stand in front of the lions and get eaten. They risk getting eaten so that other people won’t get eaten. That’s what they’re there for. Christians have no other purpose. Sorry, you don’t have any other purpose. That’s what you’re there for. Yeah. And I agree. I do think that Christians should always be prepared to be martyrs. Yeah, we need to be martyrs. Yeah, I think that’s true. No, I don’t think they’re going to be martyrs. I know. Joe says we all are going to be martyrs. What do you mean that nothing will be martyrs? I’m not doing that shit. Oh, you will. Vroomy shroomy. You will. Hell no. You’re going to be martyrs. I’m on Christians. I de-Christianize myself officially. No, no, you guys, get ready. We’ve already killed 30,000 up here in Canada. Get ready. Your time is coming. Yeah, I’m going to agree there. I like it. You’re going to get martyrs whether you want it or not. Yeah. I mean, if you get martyred, hold a machine gun, fight. And I mean, OK, you call that martyrdom. Whatever the positive. And that’s not the purpose. You’re not supposed to do it for yourself. No, you’re doing it because you’re no, that’s not the point. What do you got? I mean, I’ve had this argument with people. People tell me that if you’re fighting and killing people while you die, you’re not a martyr. So I don’t know. I’m going to be fighting when I get killed. I’m not going to. I’m not a lamb. I’m not Jesus. I have greater confidence. Like, like, probably. I don’t know. That’s a good. To be like Christ. Like, get ready, guys. And that’s the image. That’s the image. We can’t argue about that one. We can’t argue about that one. Because he said he did it and nobody else had to do it. So I’m going to listen to him and I’m not going to do that. And he sounded like you at the Garden of Gethsemane. Well, I’m with that guy. You know, I’d go back in time with some AK-47s and take over Rome. But, you know, I’m probably a fool again. But that’s what I do. I’d rather receive him anyway. This is a great conversation. I’d rather mow down all the Rome and do it that way. You know, but oh, well, it did. I don’t have a time machine. Find that damn time machine. See you later. Bye. Thank you. Yeah, you guys are great. Bye. See you. Good night. Well, yeah, I mean, yeah, Steven gets started. So you have that. Yeah, I think I think that. Yeah, I think the the the fundamental problem is it’s hard to it’s hard to sort of cast them as as as martyrs because that is a positive thing. You’re just lions. And if you if you get eaten by the lion, you get eaten by the freaking lions. But if you don’t stand up, if you’re living hidden and trying to get eaten by the lion last, that’s all you’re doing. You’re just delaying the inevitable. You’re not you’re not solving the problem. You are making it worse by hiding, by being powered and not showing strength in the face of what looks like certain death, if you can’t stand up in the face of what looks like certain death, you’re a coward and you’re in trouble and you’re making the world worse. Yeah. And we can talk about whether fighting is involved in that. I think we can all agree that having the courage to stand up in the face of certain death is a necessary virtue. Right. And I think I think if you’re a living Christian and no one knows it, you’re you’re not eligible for martyrdom because you’re not witnessing and you’re not you’re not you’re not Christian enough or something like that’s not acceptable to live hidden and do nothing while the world around you burns. Like, no, I’m not a fan of that garbage. I think it’s garbage. I think you’re weak and you’re not going to make it. You’re not going to make it in the kingdom of heaven. I don’t think you’re getting in, kid. I think you’re done. Yeah. And that’s why the stories of the saints are so beautiful, because you get stories where I forget who the saint is. It might be to I think it was Saint Dominic who he gets questioned by the Roman Emperor and about something about money. And the Emperor is like, show me the witches of the church. And so Dominic goes to get it and he brings back like poor people, sick people, all of the saints and said, these are the treasures of the church. And it’s stuff like that, right? What you actually live, the way of what you believe in, in radical and provocative. I just went up and looked at martyrs and in Dutch, martyr is is the same as torture, like the word. Yeah, because they don’t they don’t have to die. They just have to be punished for their faith and yet still profess their faith. That’s what so many martyrs weren’t killed. They were just sent off to mines or whatever. So they were removed from their families and effectively made work slaves. That’s still martyrdom. Can you still punch someone in the face and be a martyr or you just can’t do it? Well, so there is an extension of martyrdom that is like when you’re doing your job and you’re you’re suffering in your job for a righteous cause, like you’re also a martyr. Right. So there’s this. So I would argue that being a soldier is a job for the Catholic. For the Catholics, you have to witness your faith. And you have to be a religious component. And what are black, the Protestant ethics coming in there, right? The Protestant ethic is like I am my works or something, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. What do you think the Black Road preachers were during the Revolutionary War? I don’t know anything about it. You’ll have to like the Black Road preachers were the ones with muskets leading everybody to shoot the British and kill them like they were not pacifists. They were black. They were black roads when they were ready to do war and defend our country. So what do you make of that? No, there’s no time period in history that I’m aware of where Christians didn’t fight. This fantasy of Christian pacifism is a fantasy. Where did it come from? It came from the from the wussy Protestants. That’s where it came from the pacifist freaking Anabaptists mostly. That’s where it came from. OK. And then it came from cowardice and not wanting to stand up for your Christian beliefs and not wanting to die for your for your fellow man, even if he’s not Christian, because the because the this is what we were talking about earlier. Right. We were talking about Protestants. Yes, it was yesterday or the day before. Whatever. I don’t know what day it is anymore. Right. And basically the problem was that everything he described that the Catholics were guilty of were things that are common between Protestant denominations that Catholics never did ever, ever. It was just fantasy. He was just casting the sins of Protestants on the on the Catholics for no reason. What’s the web making all kinds of outrageous statements about Catholic Catholic doctrine? And I’m like, I’m almost positive none of that is. And I looked it all up and none of it was Catholic doctrine. None of it. Not a word. He was just wrong about all of it. But the Protestants do that to each other all the time. Like actually all the time. And that’s the difference. And you just know that. He just had literally no idea that that’s what was going on. Yeah. And that’s and that I think is the problem. The Protestants are extra puritanical, all of them in some way, because they want this non involved world, which they built in America as a result of the separation of church and state. Well, I mean, I mean, I did. You can definitely have some sympathy for not wanting to take a right on Christians. Now, stories of Christians who become medical or medics in arguments and stuff like that. And the reason why they do that isn’t because they lack courage or something. It’s because for what their conscience won’t allow them to. Oh, OK. OK, Richard. That’s because they’re cowards. That’s why it’s a lack of courage. You can use the excuse that it’s their conscience. But if their conscience is that is that way, it is overriding courage. That’s all it is. I know I can’t have any sympathy for anybody that has that attitude. We live in a brutal world and people suck. And sometimes you got to do the right thing. And the right thing is hard. It’s really hard. Yeah. Taking a life is really hard. Hurting people is really hard. Not hurting people is also really hard. Sorry. It’s all hard. Out of it. So I. The lions are coming to eat you. You don’t have to jump in front of them. But if you don’t jump in front of them, everything is worse for everybody. It’s up to you. We don’t need that’s what you say that jumping in front of the lion without a sword. Is. Why is it than jumping in front of the lion with a sword? You know, no, jumping in front of the lion is jumping in front of the lion. Your swords are relevant. No, it’s not. What are you talking about? Yeah, if I had a sword, I’d jump in front of the lion. I don’t have a sword. I don’t know what I’m doing. He’s just he’s just a hidden. I’ve got a steel. I to jump in front of the lion. It doesn’t matter. You have the sword. You have the sword. You have the flaming sword in your hand. You need to start preaching to that. This is the warrior of God. Just pay attention and that warrior ethos. It’s not like Jesus doesn’t turn over tables and make a lot of trouble all throughout the Bible, it’s not just one section. It’s not just with the with the Jewish authorities or the moneylenders or whatever. He’s always overturning tables and causing trouble and then submitting to authority because that’s what you do. I think the distinction with Jesus and this is maybe why it’s like Caesar’s Caesar’s, it’s it’s it’s a tilted picture with Jesus because like when you are speaking the truth, you don’t need violence. Like like you just come in and you just blast people with truth. And you don’t need it because like you have authority. Well, he specifically what I got from Pace Caesar is Caesar’s was like, if you don’t like this shit, don’t be in the city of the guy you don’t like. You know, it’s his rules. It’s his house. This is Caesar’s place, man. You don’t like it. Go out into the world and build another thing that’s yours. Yeah, but also but also you can’t avoid And therefore you have to at some point bow to the authority because you don’t have a choice. You’re not ever going to be living in a world where there’s no authority over you. That’s never going to happen. We’re always going to run away from it. We’re going to Mars. We’re going to go to fucking Alpha Centauri. Like we just keep doing it. Some people are only the crazy rebels like you that live in the crazy rebel Well, well, I think we do it and then we have 100 years where we do something. And then what you’re saying is true. It comes back and then we leave and then it comes back and then we leave. And it’s a constant thing. Yeah, some people. Yeah, not everybody’s going to do it. But I think that’s the thing we do. But there’s people who don’t have to submit because like says Mark says, the FOEB is it’s inevitable until you have your submit to it. Yeah, you can get rid of that. You can get rid of that, but not the authority for a little while in small But eventually there’s no such thing. There’s no such thing as not submitting. Right. And look, if you’re not submitting, there’s no such thing as not. Look, if you’re not submitting to Caesar, how are you submitting to God? You haven’t you don’t really practice submitting, you muppet. You need to learn to submit. It’s just that simple. Yeah, yeah. And you actually get this piece of obscure Orteson story about a foreign general named Naaman who comes to the Israel prophet Elijah. So Elijah and Naaman has weapons. So he asked Elijah to heal him. And he said Elijah is so big in the river. He says, OK. And then Naaman says, once I go back to my country, I’m going to have to sacrifice to the foreign gods. Is that OK? And Elijah says, the Lord says, yeah, it’s OK. Because you have to. Right. But you guys do. That’s interesting. I see Elijah and Naaman. Well, and look, on the on the topic of submission, I have to submit to sleep. So we’re it’s like three thirty in the morning. This is legendary. I’m tired as I can get. So I’m going to I’m going to I’m going to close down the stream. Let’s do it. I’m going to thank everybody for participating and helping me to last this long. I said, yeah, myself. And it just demonstrates the power of communion, the power of not trying to be an individual screaming for eight and a half hours by yourself, the power of using the time, energy and attention of others and focusing it through me because it’s my stream, right? It enables something to emerge that I can’t do by myself because I’m a puppet. I’m not capable of doing this. This is not something I do. It’s something that is a collaborative project with many people. First of all, it’s Jacob Streamyard account. It’s not mine. Right. I have other people here to help me explain my ideas and tell me when I’m when I’m not clear or when I’m wrong or or what I might be wrong about. Right. It’s. When my videos on navigating patterns, which everybody should subscribe to and like all the videos on and watch all the videos of and comment on and comment on this video. Right. I don’t edit my own videos. A couple of them I did, but I didn’t do the graphics, the background graphics on here, you know, the the the the little badge up top. Right. I didn’t do all that. I have lots of people helping me in the background and they’re not working 24 7 or anything crazy. Although if I could make that happen, I might because I’m a I’m a tyrant. You know, I don’t do this by myself. You don’t do what you do by yourself. You were born into something that was preexisting to you. You can call it creation. You can call it your parents. I don’t care. It was there first. And you owe something to the past that that is no longer there, but paid it forward so that you could have electricity and computers and freaking internet and all these wacky things that you wouldn’t have otherwise. And you owe it to the past and you owe it to the present and you owe it to the future to be better. And the only way you can get the most out of yourself is in cooperation and some conflict with others, otherwise you won’t improve. So Manuel parting shots will go around. We’ll start with Manuel parting shots from from Manuel. No, that’s just it. It’s now. So I was thinking about this idea where people are like, oh, like, like, now I get it. Right. And there’s a really dangerous hubris that that’s coming with it where you where you have the intelligibility and you feel yourself being pulled forward and it’s like, oh, like now everything makes sense. And and in in that move, right. Like what you really should recognize is that you were the person that wasn’t making that sense and you’re still make you’re still that person. You just don’t know in what area you’re that person. Like that revelation is going to continue indefinitely. Yes. Well, well said. Well said. All right. And the nearer you’re next. Um, I love you all. Thanks for letting me be myself. Always. You’re excellent. Just the way you are, Richard. Parting, parting, parting statements here. And to that, I’m not sure about public institution, but, you know, I thought was pretty good. Praise the ground. Great. Ethan parting, parting statements before I close down the stream. Well, thank you. I would like to thank my mom. Hey, mom. I love so, yeah, just to add on what Manuel said, the, you know, the danger of hubris, if everything makes sense. Once you get in there, it’s like you get into you start to you look up and you see a eminence and it’s to be very careful not to falling into the trap that eminence is good because it’s a very it’s actually probably an even more bad thing is probably an even more bad ethic than emergence is good because what’s worse than a flood? My God, I don’t even want to think that’s worse. What’s worse than a flood? Because the word flood is the worst possible thing I could think of. But there is something worse. But anyways, I yeah, I’m unprecedented eight hours and thirty eight minutes. So new record. I’m sure that will be it. And we’re going to make it 24 hours. I can’t believe it. What 24 hours? What’s the tension? This is a great screen. We had a lot of good a lot of good interaction. Right. And I think, yeah, I mean, we need more divine feminine. We need more help with our projects. Right. We need some comments and some likes and all that. We need more engagement so that we can spread the wisdom and get these wisdom communities up and running for people to engage with and, you know, try to make try to try to enable people to participate in the world to get this participatory style of understanding in the world going, because that’s what’s going to fix things, not talking about them, not that we don’t want to talk about them, we just did it for eight hours and 39 minutes. I want to thank everybody and, you know, hopefully we’ll do this again next Friday at seven, what is it? Seven p.m. Eastern. And like, comment and subscribe to Navigating Patterns. If you’re not watching this and navigating patterns, my YouTube channel, you really should be and have a lovely night. And, you know, look, be nice to each other, but be firm with each other so that you know where you need to be and you can tell people where they need to be. That’s very important. Stand your ground, even if you’re wrong, so that people know where your ground is and so that you’re secure in it. And thank you very much, everybody, for participating.