Live Navigation of Patterns! (gMbHEBcUWW0)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=gMbHEBcUWW0

My lateness is noted, as it were. Alright, it says we’re alive. I’m assuming aliveness, although nothing’s popped yet, so always one of those things. Ah, there we go. We are in fact alive. Woohoo! Welcome, welcome. So, welcome to Live Navigating Patterns again. And it’s sort of an open forum today. Man, I am not prepared. I was busy arguing on the internet all day. So yeah, right up until live time. But yeah, there’s a lot going on in the world today. And it seems like a lot of the struggles pretty much everywhere nowadays. And I do mean everywhere, which is sort of interesting. The struggles lately seem to be around structures and cooperation and what all that means in terms of how the world works. So you look at something like Crowder and Daily Wire and everyone’s like, oh, Crowder shouldn’t have to be involved with the Daily Wire that’s owned by the powers that be. I don’t even understand the framing. Like that’s ridiculous. So I think that’s one of the problems is that people aren’t really engaging with the reality of how the world works. When you start to scale stuff, you have to change things. Scale to cooperate with people requires structure. That’s what structures are. It’s like structures are the way in which you cooperate with other people. Structures are the way in which we get along together with strangers. Whether that’s the structure of being polite to people or a structure of a corporation or a structure of a nonprofit or a structure of a club, there’s all these structures everywhere that we’re bound to for whatever reason. And we need those things. We can’t do without them. They’re not optional. And everyone’s complaining. And that’s not appropriate. And money. Money is used to resolve some of these things. How do you trade value with people with different understandings of value? You use money. I think all currency is fiat. Money is not something to be demonized. Money is a good method of efficient trade or efficient barter is a better way to say it. And speaking of money, look, if you think that modern art is good, that’s fine. You should pay me for what I put on my board. Like, if you think Jackson Pollock is good, that whiteboard, I mean, come on. That’s next level right there. So I mean, and this is the problem. And then everyone’s going to complain. You know the nor’ters. You need it with Pollock. By any standard. And this is the problem. Like, you’re just picking arbitrary standards. And like, fair enough. But they’re arbitrary. You need to understand your arbitrariness. You need to understand everybody else’s too and appreciate it and appreciate it. Like structures are there because thousands of years of humans said structures are what you need to work. Right. Emergence only is not a thing. Like, this is not overly difficult to really comprehend. And everyone’s upset about scale. You want to do things at scale, you have to make some sacrifices. And some of those sacrifices are simple things. Like you have to sacrifice to structure. You don’t have a choice. That’s why it’s there. It didn’t pop up because some mean guy at the top said, I’m going to impose a structure. That didn’t happen. Like, people are just weird. And I think this comes from the collapse of complicated models of the world. I get it that people have told other people, you can understand the world by yourself. No, you can’t. You’re an idiot like the rest of us. We’re all idiots. Can’t understand the world by yourself. You can’t understand a part of the world by yourself. You’re too stupid. We’re all too stupid. The collective intelligence, the result of the distributed cognition of living on the same planet and being roughly the same creatures means there are a bunch of things that individual creatures will never be able to understand. And that’s probably most of the things as you get larger communities. Like, I don’t understand how my city runs. I can understand parts of maybe somewhat how the city runs. Maybe I can see some of the structures. But like, I don’t understand how it runs. Who actually makes the decisions? Is it really the town council or the mayor or whomever? Because it often isn’t. That’s why when politicians get in office, especially high office, and then the things you want don’t happen, that’s why. Because they don’t have the power to do that. Because the person at the top can’t just dictate things, or at least can’t do that for very long before it collapses, a la Jordan Peterson. Right? Tyrannies are unstable, yes. Because your power as a single individual is less than the combined power of multiple individuals. It’s not that hard, really. Right? And so, yeah, you can tell people to wear masks. But you can’t make them wear masks. And some people will do it. And some people would do it anyway. Like, what’s your point? Is it worse if somebody chopped down tells you to do something bad? Of course it is! Like, what? Nobody is denying that. But that doesn’t mean you have to follow them. Like, you know, there’s where the conflict is, or the overlap. That’s where the problems are. Is that there’s no way around certain things. There are constraints. Reality, part of the meaning of reality, is that which objects to your subject. It’s subjective experience. So if your subjective experience has a nature, like you keep insisting that structures can emerge from nothing, and that still doesn’t happen, you should say, you know what? Maybe reality says I’m wrong. You shouldn’t consider that there’s a way to make your idea work when it’s been tried and failed. You should instead consider that your idea is stupid. Because it probably is. I don’t have to say you give up the first time and things go horribly wrong, but look, at a certain point, you’ve got to have a cutoff where you say, you know what? I was just wrong about that. That’s not how things work. So yeah, I mean, I just wanted to preface that. Because it’s coming up everywhere. It’s coming up in this little corner with the Cassidy livestream, which I haven’t quite finished. But I find very interesting where Paul’s struggling with what to do, and Jacob’s got his plan, and Luke misunderstands everything about what Jacob’s been saying and the problem at hand, which is the problem of how do you scale things? Well, if you want to scale value, you use cash. That’s what you do. That’s the way it’s done. It’s the way it’s always been done. It has to be done that way for a reason. Not because random somebody in the past arbitrarily, that’s a very postmodern way of thinking about how the world unfolded. There’s a better way to understand how the world unfolded. It’s called history. It’s not that difficult. And this top down only or bottom up only, it’s both. It has to be both. There is a both. There’s a third option. Everyone’s stuck in this binary thinking. It has to be all this or all that. That’s because you’re four years old and you don’t understand that there’s another option. And that option has a level of complexity that makes it hard. And you don’t want a hard answer. Well, I got news for you. You live in a hard world that only has hard answers. Sorry. They’re not the answers you think. Right? But they are the ones that are right there that are observable. All right, Manuel, what do you want to say about all this? Well, I think part of what I’m hearing is we’re seeing the things in the world that we are busy with. Like, I’ve been experiencing that a lot. Yeah, like, oh, I’m struggling with this thing. And I’m like, oh, it’s happening here. It’s happening here. It’s happening everywhere. And it’s like you have this new framing and it’s allowing you to find intelligibility in the world. And in some sense, it’s real satisfying. But in the other sense, there might be a little bit of a deception going on. Like, there’s a bias there. And so what it brought up for me is like, how do we figure out whether the discernment that we’re seeing, whether we’re actually converging towards something that’s true or that we’re just going into the fantasy of like, oh, now I can do all of these things. Right? Right. Yeah, well said. And I think that is part of the problem is that, look, this little corner of the internet is running into scaling problems. They are running into scaling problems. That’s what they’re running into. It’s like, yeah, I want to do more in the world. Okay. Well, you need structure to do more in the world. It’s not going to emerge. Or when structures emerge, they tend to corrupt instantaneously. Right? And you can’t say, oh, the problem is charisma. Charisma exists in the world. You’re not getting rid of it. You’d have to kill all the people to do that. Is that your… Okay. Well, then it’s a problem. Yeah, it’s a problem. How do you manage that problem? You don’t manage it by trying to eliminate the thing that you can’t eliminate. That doesn’t make any sense. And this is where the problem comes in. Yeah. And I think if we’re talking about charisma, right, like charisma is in some sense, right, like a natural flow of people that there’s a spirit generated that people flow with. Right? And so what does that require? Well, that requires you to take responsibility of that spirit. Right? Like if you don’t do something generative with it, then charisma is a problem. But charisma as such isn’t a problem if handled correctly. Right? And so what everybody is doing is they’re problematizing the thing before it is a problem. And we’ve been talking a lot about skepticism, cynicism. And well, the other one is communion. And I think, right, like so what is communion? It’s the coming together. Right? Like that’s the principle that you’re trying to embody. Right? And when you’re skeptical, you’re like, well, are we sure what everybody is doing together is actually what we should be doing. Right? So now you’re frustrating what is happening. Right? Like now sometimes things need to be frustrated. Right? But you already need to have a justification. Right? Like you need to have a place to stand if you’re going to say that the thing that is happening shouldn’t be happening. You need to provide an alternative because if you don’t have an alternative, like you’re not grounded in reality and like your objection isn’t valid. Right? Like it doesn’t mean that it’s not true. It’s just not valid because you don’t have an answer that would resolve the issue. And then you come at the cynical place. Right? Like so that’s the place of nihilism. Right? Like that’s the place of disconnection. Because if you’re cynical, you’re actively rejecting the grounding that allows you to participate. Like there’s a bunch of people that take that skepticism and they just get so wrapped up in it that they lose their connection to the world, to reality, and they end up cynical. And at that point you’re in the postmodern narrative. Because you’re rejecting everything. And what is all of this? Right? What is all of this? Right? There’s really only two states. Right? There’s the state of trying to connect and being connected. And there’s the state of not being connected. Why? Because you reject an existing connection. Right? Or because you want to continually reject certain imperfections because you’re an idealist. Right? And you end up just in rejective framing all the time. I reject this. I reject that. I reject these things. But why? Why? Why can’t you find commonality and accept the difference? Because there’s always going to be difference. When you get two people together, there’s going to be differences. It’s not that hard. Right? And that’s the issue. Like, you have to learn to accept things that will say aren’t going your way. You have to. You don’t have a choice about it. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But you have to kind of find a way to deal with it. If you want to cooperate with other people, you need to start using money for trade. If you want to start cooperating with other people, you need a structure. If you want to start cooperating with other people, their leadership is there. And you shouldn’t wait for it to emerge because that’s how bad things happened in the past. People waited for a leader to emerge. And look, every once in a while that goes great. But almost every other time, and that’s most of the time, it goes very poorly. And that’s not good. We don’t want things to go poorly. So we have to accept. We have to submit. We have to acquiesce to the idea of structure, to the idea of money, to the idea of leadership, poor as it may be. And leadership is not a leader, although a leader might embody all of leadership, but not usually. Authority is another requirement. Structure can emerge. But you’re better off with an aim, right? And you’re better off with a leader, at least initially, who can plant the flag to rally around so that the structure can emerge properly towards the aim. That’s the proper way to do things. It’s always been the proper way to do things. If you think no one’s ever tried another method, you’re being completely naive about how the world works. People have tried lots of things. Just none of them worked. The things that we have are the things that we have because all the other things failed. Does that mean we found all the other things possible? No. But what are the odds that you found something possible and workable, not here and now, that no one else has discovered? They’re vanishingly small because you’re a muppet, just like the rest of us. Manuel’s a muppet. I’m a muppet. We’re all muppets. We’re not going to find something new. It’s not going to happen. And it doesn’t need to. We can just fix what we have. Honest. Oh, we have a structure that’s corrupt. The thing that corrupts structures are people. Find the corrupt people. Deal with that. Right? Flood the structure with non-corrupt people. Manuel is a muppet, apparently. Yes, I love it. I haven’t used that feature yet, but that was a good use of it. Look, I mean, you’ve got it. You’ve got it. You will follow a leader. The fact that aspiration exists means that you are looking for an ideal all the time. And any ideal is a judge. And any ideal is leading you somewhere to something. That’s happening. It’s inevitable. And so you’re constantly looking around for leadership. And not just in one place. But that’s happening to you. And it’s happening from within you. You’re not getting around the problem. It’s just a problem. And it’s a perennial problem, as Vickie would call it. And you just need to engage with it. And be careful. How do you be careful? You be careful by having an aim that’s greater than the thing you’re trying to do. That’s how you be careful. And that’s how you get to the point where you’re not going to be able to do it. That’s how you’re going to be able to do it. That’s how you’re going to be able to do it. So, yeah, I was really intrigued by this idea. We’re objecting, we’re objecting, we’re objecting. And what causes us to object? Well, it’s misapplying relevance. That’s what puts us in an objecting mode. Because if we know what’s relevant, we know we have to be careful. We have discernment about what we should reject and what we should accept. And then if we’re in this confusion that we, in some sense, need to know everything about what we’re doing, or we need to have a full plan, or we can’t adapt on the fly because everything always gets adapted on the fly. What is this fear about having to have all of these things sorted? What is important is that you’re in the right spirit, that when problems occur, you have the capacity to resolve them. That’s the important part. It’s not important that you have a structure that anticipates all the problems because it’s impossible. And so I think there’s an anxiety in people where… I was actually making this comment to Hader Haing. We need faith to participate in things that we don’t understand. So if we’re participating in a group, the likelihood that we can understand the whole group and what they’re doing, what the motivations of each individual are is really, really low. But it’s also not necessary because we can participate in faith until a problem occurs. Now there’s a frustration, and that frustration needs to be resolved. And yes, the world is big and problems may occur that nobody in the group sees coming, and then they’re in front of you and then they’re a big deal. But that’s going to happen. We were talking to Sally Jo earlier today and she was saying, I anticipated so many problems and all of those problems didn’t happen. But you know what? A bunch of other problems did happen. That’s the problem with anticipating problems. You can’t anticipate all the problems. It’s just impossible. And it’s hard to anticipate the right problems. And bad news, you can’t do that. Good news, you don’t need to. There’s no reason to do that. You can deal with things as they come. Honest, it can be done, which is not to say don’t try to anticipate any problems, but you really don’t need to. It’s really not that difficult. And people don’t realize that. They’re always trying to, there we go. That’s that’s piratey enough, I guess. They’re always trying to get in front of things and anticipate for no reason. There’s no, and it’s something, even if there’s a reason, maybe you can’t. Maybe you can’t. Maybe you’re just not smart enough. And that’s almost always true. And you’ve made the audience happy, Manuel. I know. But that’s the core issue is, you know, everyone’s worried about these things. They have no control over. It’s like, no, be stoic. Like, yeah, there’s tons of things you have no control over. There’s so many things you have no control over that you don’t know how many things there are that you have no control over. And so you can worry about that if you want, or you can try to anticipate the impossible if you want, or you can spend that time, energy and attention somewhere else doing something positive, being generative, moving towards a common goal, for example. Like, it’s up to you, really. Like, it is up to you. That’s where you have the choice. So you should choose wisely. Right. You shouldn’t choose randomly. You should choose very wisely. And that’s people don’t want to do that. Choice at that level is hard. Like, I totally get it. But also, that is the way it is. Like, at a certain point, you bump up against constraint. And one constraint is scale. You can only be friends with so many people personally. You can only interact with so many people personally. You can only trade time, energy and attention with so many people personally. After that, you have to pay people. You know, it just is what it is. Or if you want so much of their time that it takes away from them earning money, you have to pay people. Like, none of these things are avoidable. So that’s how it is. Oh, there’s Laura. Hey, Laura. Good to see you. So, yeah, my Facebook thing has has has garnered attention. Go on, Manuel. Sorry. Go on, Facebook. You can participate in the social media battle. So, yeah, it’s the participation in wisdom. Like, wisdom is the thing that in some sense constrains the faith that you’re applying, right? Because wisdom allows you to have a relationship to things that are unknown to you in some sense. Like, it allows you to to anticipate, yeah, like anticipate what’s what’s likely to go wrong or like what direction to take and whether you’re still on course towards that direction. So it’s important that you don’t go in with blind faith. And I think there’s a lot of people and I talked about this with Paul in the last live stream we did that have been burned in our lives, right? They’ve participated in faith with people and then they ended up that they were participating with bad people. And now they’re skeptical about people or people that went bad. I mean, the other thing, nobody accounts for time. Like, sometimes people are good and then they go bad because they get traumatized. Like, and that’s the and that’s the problem. Like, it’s just hard. You can’t count on these little little, you know, tricks to get around things. Yeah. And so I think I think we shouldn’t be naive. Like, nobody should be naive. But, but like, there, there is there is a level at which things are out of our control. Right. And we have some control about the things that are out of our control. And that that control is whether we participate with them or not. Right. And, yeah, we should apply that wisely. But but when you’re too skeptical, right, like when then you’re denying yourself two things, right, like you’re denying yourself actual potential, but you’re also denying yourself the opportunity to grow. Like, you’re denying yourself to get to the place where you do have the discernment that you shouldn’t have. Like, I think what what we should be facilitating is a place, a safe space, unfortunately, using that wording, but a safe space where we can participate in in certain spaces in a certain way and and not get burned by them. Right. And then, like, then the question becomes, well, what is being burned? Right. Like, with some people, they, they have a bunch of baggage with them. Right. And like, Mark likes to say, reality is that which objects. Right. And so if if you if you get faced with reality, that’s not a burn. Right. Like, a burn is when someone is doing something extra over that. Right. Like, when when they’re screwing you up. And that’s maybe one of the most important discernment. Right. Like, is the thing that’s happening to me right now. Is that a consequence of that? What I want isn’t possible. Or is it the consequence of someone frustrating me in my design? How’s it going, Jesse? Good to see you. Hello. Yeah. Yeah. Last week was, um, that was a thing. Seven hours, seven and a half hours, seven hours, over six hundred and eight views between the two channels. I don’t know, dude. I’ve got no I was not expecting anything like that. It was a great conversation and everybody check it out. There was no part of it that wasn’t awesome. We had a little 20 minute interlude of of headbutting, maybe. But, you know, yeah. Well, well, look, I mean, I’ve got to I’ve got to buy me coffee. So if you think Jackson Pollock is high art and pay me for mine, I get to that. There’s so many points in that conversation where it’s like, OK, this is my first time I’m new here. I’m not now objectionable to be. I want to be that person that listens. It’s funny that the conversation kind of ended on that point of the value of listening, the value of participating. So that was interesting. There’s also a thread about people in nihilism and how to help them with that. I think that would be one thing I’d want to pick up. I’ve been thinking about this. I’ve already seen half of the meeting crisis versus the faith crisis videos. So sorry, I’ve been seeing the whole thing. That’s OK. I wanted to put forward is the idea that there may be a crisis above the two, which I’m kind of terming the crisis. Yeah, there’s two. There’s two crises. I don’t think they’re related to the materialism. That’s my view. But yeah, I think there might be one above it, though. I think there might be a meta crisis that you could call the attention crisis or for the Christians, the worship crisis. I see. I would. The thing that precedes the meaning crisis and the crisis of faith is the intimacy crisis. Right. And I’ve got two videos on that one’s on Andrew with the Bangs channel and the other one is on navigating patterns with Catherine, the diva of Thunder Bay, who also does the marriage crisis chats with Paul Vanderclay. She and her husband, you came and do those chats. So those videos. So she’s she’s she’s kind of all over the intimacy thing in some sense, whether she realizes it or not. And yeah, I mean, I think that’s important. And it’s interesting, too. So we have a you know, we have a we have sort of a comment here. I think this is always excellent. It was great. But my theory is views go up with women. Sure. And so the thing that I was going to cover and I’ll just cover briefly here just because it’s fun and interesting and hopefully useful for people. I use very, very, very simple models to understand the world. It’s just that they’re way better than political and economic and all these other stupid framings that don’t work and end up too complex. The way the world actually works is men are augs and women are women. Right. All the build, aug smash. That’s it for aug. That’s the entirety of aug. Build smash. That’s it. Aug doesn’t aug not right. Aug not know what build what smash aug just build smash. Women point. That’s what they do. They point. So women point aug either builds or smashes. Sometimes aug smash when aug build aug sorry. Right. Sometimes aug build when aug should smash aug sorry. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. It’s really that easy. And when you start thinking of it that way, because men are going to be active and they’re also they’re not they’re not convicted. Right. Women are convicted. That’s why they don’t have a meaning crisis, but they do have an intimacy crisis because they’re looking for intimacy. And that causes them to run around and do things that aren’t permanent because they’re trying to get intimacy through an immediate act rather than a commitment. Right. Because we don’t need commitments in the modern era or error is probably better better said. Right. We don’t need commitments. We can just come and go as we please and do things when we want. There’s no long term anything anyway. So, you know, but that’s the that’s the nihilism sneaking up on you whether you realize it or not. Right. And that’s the and that’s the problem is when you don’t have that sense, you run into that you run into that problem that trouble. And I mean, I think I showed it last time. Right. The man and the woman and the holding, you know, holding hands and all that that. I mean, that’s the archetype of of odd versus woman. Yeah. Well, boy, we worked on that for months. You know, thankfully, we have Sally Jones so ridiculously talented. Yeah. I mean, that’s the problem is to lack of intimacy underlying all of these issues. Sorry, Jesse. Is that connected to the left hand, right hand symbolism? So left hand is the open hand. The right hand is the hand that I think it is in some ways. I think that that’s binary thinking. So that’s a problem. I would say maybe maybe. Yeah. That’s binary thinking. I mean, it’s too. That’s binary thinking. Right. Dualism is wrong, by the way, in case anybody didn’t get that. It’s just wrong. I have a video on binary thinking, on navigating patterns. Anyway. Yeah. So I think that the the the way this shows up, right. If you think of the world in terms of what John Brevicki calls opponent processing, OK, what you’re doing is you’re submitting to the flat space and saying there’s one axis and one side of the axis is fighting for the most control of the axis over the other side. Now that can be internal in your opponent processing, as it’s called, right. By John. Or that can be external, as in you and I or maybe Manuel and I. Manuel and I fight all the time. So that’s that’s pretty normal. Right. But but that doesn’t have to be the way of it. You can have cooperative processing. Well, what’s the difference in opponent processing? One of you has to submit to the other period. It’s a binary system. You have no other options. It’s very postmodern power narrative. Power from above. Power is everything. That’s wrong. Right. The thing that you can do and the thing the woman does for odd is point up at something bigger. So once you get off of the axis that you’re stuck on, you can both submit or sacrifice something. And from that emerges something bigger. And now you’ve changed from an axis into a triangle. Right. Technically. And and in submission, because you give up a little something, the other side gives up a little of something. Right. Now all of a sudden you’ve created a space above you both where you can both be better than you could when you were stuck on the flat plane. And it’s like it’s remarkable to me that people don’t automatically kind of know this. And that’s cooperation. And that’s how the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Right. If you’re stuck on a flat plane and you’re an opponent processing mode, the whole you can’t create a whole that’s greater than the sum of the parts. You only have the parts in order to have a whole greater. You need to go up. It’s that simple. So to go to an example, when I argue with Mark, right, like what I’m trying to do is to figure out what what is the reason that we’re not agreeing. Right. Like there’s there’s something that I cannot see. Right. And that Mark cannot see. Right. Because else we could explain to each other where the disagreement is. Right. So that means that there’s something hidden in. Yeah. In in in our reasoning. And when when you make that assumption, right, like, oh, I assume that Mark is actually seeing something correctly. Right. Like, I don’t think he’s diluted. And I’m also seeing something correctly. Right. But now, like, what what what is explaining the distinction? Right. And if you’re in that space, then you’re you’re opening up. Right. Like you’re pointing at at something outside of the conflict to resolve the conflict. And that’s the way to be generous. If if you’re if you’re going to be like, oh, I’m right because of whatever like whatever justification you want to put in there. Then you you’re you’re diminishing it to zero sum gain. Right. Right. And. So the whole OK. This is where I have a tendency to maybe say something spicy. So I’ll try and be I’ll try and try to be succinct. Does this connect to the idea of down with patriarchy? If the patriarchy is a symbolically a triangle and what they’re after is a reflattening of all the. Yes. The social the association spaces. Yeah. So they want to be equal. Why do you want to be equal? Let’s suppose you buy into the postmodern power narrative. What’s the trick they’re playing on you with the postmodern power narrative? They’re not giving you an alternative. All they’re telling you is that these people have the power, but you could take it away from them. They’re not changing the system at all. They’re not saying they’re not telling you there’s a different system. They’re not saying that the system changes. What they’re saying is different people need to be in charge of the power. They’re not changing the game at all. And that’s what people are falling for because they want to be equal. They want to have the power. OK, well, you want to have the power, but the power didn’t go away. And what if you’re not perfect? And I don’t know about you, Jesse, but I’m not perfect. Are you perfect? Manuel? Yes. And the problem is Manuel for president can confirm the problem. The problem is right. Like what they’re doing is they’re they’re basing authority on lived experience. So if you have if you have suffered, you’ve had a revelation, right? Like you have an understanding of the world that is inaccessible to the other person. And therefore you have a valid point of view that needs to be included in in the understanding of the world. Right. Which which makes it a relativistic framing, right? Like they’re they’re changing the authority from reality, right? That which objects to the person. Right. And now we we can’t have a shared reality anymore, right? Like we can’t have a shared authority. So now we need to play as authority in the person. And now we get into this power game. Right. And that’s that’s a struggle that you end up getting into. And that’s that’s where the far lies. Like if you if you take the authority away from reality, then you end up being stuck. Yeah. And that’s that’s really the problem. And I thought, you know, we had a good we had a good chat. I pasted it in there with with Van der Kley, who did a live stream. And that was fun. That was fun. And then I saw, like I said earlier, most of Cassidy’s live stream today. And it was interesting because Jacob sort of revealed more of what he was up to. But his usual bombastic statements that are going to go over like a lead balloon, as always. And and Paul was also struggling with monetizing things. And so they were having a conversation over well, is it really right to do that? And, you know, they were denying structure because people love to deny structure. And the whole thing is kind of crazy. He’s a minister. If he’s a minister, what do you do with ministers? Like you have to they’re giving up their time, energy, attention and love. Right. Wouldn’t you want to contribute to that? If they’re well, that’s the thing. Right. That’s the thing. People don’t understand. Like if you want strangers to contribute, it has to be money. There’s no choice. Right. There’s no better way to do it. Right. There’s no better way to do it. But yeah, it has to be a currency value. Right. And you could give back help. You can. You can. Yeah, you can always do that. But a thousand people can’t do that. Then it’s too many. Right. So like I said, like the efficient way to do that is actually money. And of course, introducing money introduces problems. But yeah, it’s a trade off. But if you don’t want to scale, that’s fine. But if you want to scale, you have to make a trade off. Like you don’t have a choice. And people are bumping this little corner, bumping into a scaling problem. Yeah. Well, they don’t want any of the bad things that happen due to the scaling. Well, that’s too freaking bad. Then you can’t scale. You pick one. Either you scale with the tools that we know that have worked for thousands of years, or you don’t scale and you shut up. I don’t care which, but it’s got to be one of the two. Yeah. And also if you’re helping, you’re no longer a stranger. And if you’re helping, you need to structure to help within because else you’re not helping. That’s simple. You cannot have an organized effort without an organized organization. Pretending that individuals doing an individual thing is actually a thing. It’s not. I’ve been getting into this looking at the idealism, which is effectively you have something in your head and then you’re going to act out as if that’s true. Without having a body for it. That’s effectively what it is. Because when you have something in your head, the thing that the other person has in their head is going to be different. You can say and you can talk about it and you can pretend that it’s the same, but it cannot be the same. And then the only way that you can participate in the same thing is when you have a spirit and that spirit is the thing that you’re joining up in. You can’t say the thing out of my head is going to make the spirit. That’s not how it works. So there’s a bunch of things. When I think I’m doing this, when I make this video, I am contributing to this project. Are you sure? First of all, does the project exist? Secondly, how do you know that you’re actually contributing? Why are you diverting attention away from it? That might be possible. There’s many ways in which your contribution can be actually negative because it’s not integrated in the whole. You need a whole that literally defines your role in it. And if you don’t have a way to define your role, you’re lost. You don’t have grounding and you don’t have a way to understand your participation. Why do, okay, putting out an assumption, say that millennials, my generation, struggle with this idea of membership in some aspects of life, but also are very open to it and want to contribute to others, i.e. YouTube influences. It’s unavoidable. They’re just admitting to themselves that they’re making the same trade off here and not making it here. That’s really all it is. You have to. You don’t have a choice. Oh, we’re stuck in the machine. Okay. Yeah. Now what? Your option isn’t I’m going to unstuck from the machine. So if that’s your framing, which I think is terrible framing and a stupid way to think about it, but also irrelevant. So what? You’re not getting out of it. I mean, there’s nihilism, but that’s just suicide. And if that’s where you’re going, go there, but don’t stay here and bitch. Just make the choice and be done. It’s not that hard. It really isn’t. So what’s going on with this membership dilemma? Is it failure to associate or failure to initiate the process? They’re wanting to be involved or they kind of not wanting the responsibility of being involved? They don’t have a good model of the world. No, it’s just this is just a model of the world problem. They don’t have a good model of the world. All right. Like if you think that your alternatives really are be part of big media, which includes the daily wire somehow magically, or be small like Steven Crowder. And those are the only two options because Steven Crowder is a rebel because he’s doing it all on his own, which isn’t true. He’s got like 30 freaking people. He’s a small corporation. It’s still a corporation. Like, OK, small businesses and large businesses don’t work the same. Yeah, don’t tell me about that. I did consulting for years. I’ve worked at Fortune 500’s guy. I’ve been in C-suite meetings with executives, with CEOs. I’ve seen how they make decisions. It’s not as impressive as you would think. And there’s no cigars. Not once. Never. Never never dark rooms and cigars. Right. And and I’ve watched them scheme and try to run things. Power down. Power down. Journey from the top. And it never works. And in cases where it does work, it works like six months and then they’re gone. Like that actually happens. Sorry. And I’ve actually seen it personally, physically myself. And it happens all the time. But again, if you want to cooperate with people, you need a structure. And yeah, you know, you don’t want to give it up. You want to you want to keep your individualistic rebellious spirit. But you know what? You can’t. That’s why you cooperate in some areas where you never think about it. You don’t you don’t think about the performative contradiction. And in other areas you go, well, I don’t want to cooperate in that way in this area. It’s like, well, but that’s nice. But cooperation only works one way. It doesn’t matter if it’s this area or that area. And so you can’t be you can’t be crowder and say, well, you guys are really under control of big check. You know, you can’t you can’t. I commented to one guy, I said, you know, you can’t sit there and say we have no choice about the algorithm and then say daily wires using the algorithm to their advantage. Like if daily wire is a force for good and they’re using the algorithm to their advantage and they have no choice but to be subject to the algorithm, then their will and agency towards the good is being forced on the algorithm, which is actually happening, by the way. So why are you upset about that? It’s for the good. Even if you don’t like daily wire, the fact that they’re manipulating the algorithm by your own admission means that it’s for the good because you think the algorithm is evil. Like, I don’t get it. Like, why is this a conflict? It’s not a conflict. You don’t have to view it that way. You get this simple mind where it’s like, oh, no, fifty million dollars is too much money and people will have five hundred million and could pay fifty million, but don’t pay. It’s all nonsense. And then these other people, like I heard a comment today where somebody was saying, oh, you know, these guys, you know, what was it? Michael Jordan, you know, he made hundreds of millions of dollars or whatever, right? Well, the people who ran the NBA made billions. I don’t think the NBA’s ever made a billion dollars ever, ever. Certainly no member, no team in the NBA’s ever made a billion dollars. That doesn’t happen. Sports is a money losing operation for the owners. In almost all cases for almost all sports is a few exceptions, but they’re tiny and they don’t make a lot of money. Sorry, they don’t. Sports team owners own sports teams for ego, guy, not for money. They happen to be rich. Why? Because it costs a lot of money to buy and run a sports team. And that’s the like they’re not making billions of dollars. It’s a billion dollar industry. That doesn’t mean anyone’s getting a billion dollars out of it. It means there’s a billion dollars spread amongst all the people there. And some of those people may be making three hundred thousand dollars a year. And some of those people may be making three dollars an hour. And some of those people may be volunteers because I haven’t met a business yet where that wasn’t true. I’ve never met a business where there wasn’t a spread from zero to some ridiculous amount of money within the business ever, ever closed market, isn’t it? Because you’re only the sports teams that are doing well are the top five. The bottom five sports are not. They’re losing money. They have to they have to spend more money to get back up to the top to get back to the. That’s right. Well, and and and they bought in at some point. That’s the issue. Like, it was funny when the I forget the team. It was the one of the L.A. basketball team. I think it is what it was. One of the one of the NBA teams and the owner had gotten the current owner. It had gotten caught making a comment about immigrants or something when his wife was an immigrant and whatever. It’s a big dust up. And he said, well, I’ll sell the team for two billion dollars. And the team wasn’t worth two billion dollars on paper by any stretch of the imagination. Steve Bomber came in and bought the team. And a friend of mine was like, oh, he must have a plan for making back two billion dollars. And I was like. You do understand that Steve Bomber is worth 20 billion dollars and that is 10 percent of his wealth. Show me a human being that doesn’t spend 10 percent of their wealth on a luxury item, whether it be a once in a lifetime vacation or there are zero people like that. OK, he just had 10 percent of his income just happens to be two billion dollars. Like, it’s not that hard, you know. And look, Anselman, I love you, but you’re kind of missing the point. Amateur sports doesn’t exist. They’re all businesses. The only difference between amateur sports and non amateur sports is who makes what money when. And this is why college sports is an issue, right, because it’s right in the middle and everyone’s like, well, college sports is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year per school, which is also correct, by the way. And that’s the problem is that. Well, if if if that’s what’s happening, what does that mean? Well, easy. It means that the world is more complex than people just wanting to make money. Right. Bad news. The worldview is more complex. Good news. People aren’t just greedy just because they buy things or have money. That’s not what’s happening. And sometimes people buy things to cooperate with other people. You know, you can you can look at Elon Musk and say, what do you love about? Why do you love Musk by Twitter, which I have a video on on navigating patterns, by the way. Right. Why do you love Musk by Twitter? Well, maybe he wanted to help the world. Everyone’s bitching about billionaires and how they could use their money to save the world. And here he does allocate a few billion dollars to save the world. And what does everybody do? They get cynical and bitchy at him. What are you doing? You’re trying to take over the world. But you just told him as a billionaire, it’s his responsibility to do these sorts of things. And now you’re bitching about it. I still I still think there’s a lot of credit to Elon just buying Twitter for Babylon B to get back on. I still think that that has 40 percent of an argument. I think he kind of did it as a lull. And then he’s like, well, I can do X next thing and maybe it’ll help my AI training because there’s all this data. People don’t do things for single reasons. Ever. Ever. It never happens. People have to have an ego reason to do something. People have to have a reason outside of themselves to do something. Right. A justification. Right. And then they have to have a potential in it. Because if it’s not which isn’t to say like, you know, people don’t buy businesses to kill them because they do. They need motivations like, oh, I’m going to use it, you know, to Phoenix’s point as a tax shelter. Right. Oh, I’m going to use it as this. Right. And that’s and that’s the problem. Yeah. So I want to go back to this remark. Growing is a form of dying. So expansion. The problem with growth is like, are we choosing to grow or is our growth an adaption to something that’s already true? Right. Because like sometimes we’re in a situation and like things are already happening. And what is required of us is to keep up. Right. Like we need to evolve into this higher layer of participation because, well, we’re in a more complex game. And so when we’re talking about these choices and about these framings, like. Are is is what we’re choosing? Is it actually a choice or is it just a natural step? And are we resisting the natural progression of the game that we’re in? And and so this this goes back to submit and write and surrender like like, are you are you playing the game? Like, are you aware of the game that you’re in? Are you aware of the rules that you’re under, the influences that you’re participating with? Because if you’re not aware of these things, you’re irresponsible. Like, you’re effectively going into places blind and you’re just hoping that things will magically manifest in the right way. But like that’s like that might even be true. Right. But you can still take responsibility and help manifest things in the right way. So even even if that’s your belief, right, like there’s still a responsibility on on you to to make these things happen. Right. And yeah, like that that’s that’s the hard part. Right. It’s like, OK, like I’m in this situation. And like I didn’t choose to be here. Right. Like I just happened to get here for whatever reason. And like now I have an option. Like, do I play the game that that is presented to me or am I going to be skeptical? Right. Like, am I going to say, well, I don’t really know if I want to play this game. Right. And what are you doing? You’re creating distance between you and reality. Right. Like you’re you’re you’re frustrating. You’re creating what is there and and all in order to what for you to make a judgment that you’re you’re incapable of making. Right. Like you can also participate in like at a point where you’re like, well, like this isn’t working for me. Like you can step up. But it’s a fundamental attitude. And we’ve been talking about protest Protestants. Right. Like what what does it mean to protest? To protest is to look at the game. This is what for Vickie talks about. It’s like taking off your glasses. Like, oh, what is the thing that I’m participating in? And then saying, well, I don’t like the glasses. Like they they have the wrong color. It’s like, yeah, but now you don’t have glasses. Like you can reject your glasses all you want. Right. But like you need to have a new set of glasses before you do that, because else you end up in this limbo. That’s just not a good space to be. And and coming to that acceptance, right. Like it’s really sucks. But like you’re you’re stuck. Right. Like the fact that you’re in reality means that you’re in all sorts of games or situations and and they’re just there. And you can either participate with them or you can reject them. But are you manifesting the good if you’re doing enough groups grow? All groups grow at some point. It’s just a matter of time. It’s an edge. Right. Right. Well, not all of them, but they should grow. Like if you’re trying to do something, I guess I’m trying to also. Well, you can do. Yeah. But I mean, some things do remain stable over time. I mean, there are groups that have that try to keep a membership of a certain size all the time. And they’re very successful at that. So they don’t really fluctuate much. And that’s fine and fair. But like there’s a then there’s a limit. Like scale talks about the limit of reality of what you’re doing. You’re not going to build a skyscraper with a group of five people. It’s not going to happen. It’s not going to happen. That’s all. And maybe you don’t need to build a skyscraper. That’s fine. And don’t build a skyscraper. But don’t get together and advertise building a skyscraper and then limit your group size to five. I know now you’ve transgressed and that’s really the issue. Right. I mean, this is the issue that we discussed with Van der Kley before. If you didn’t want to have these problems, you shouldn’t have had a YouTube channel. It’s that simple. Like having the YouTube channel causes the problems. What is the problem again? Can we restate it or re-framing it? It’s scaling. Right. Oh, I want to help a lot of people. OK, I want to help a lot of people I don’t know and get to know new people. OK, fine. They’re two different desires. They’re actually two very different conflicting desires. You can’t prioritize them at the expense of the other. You can’t meet new people. Well, no, no, no, no. All desires conflict. This is the problem. You have a limit on your time, energy and attention. The question is, how are you resolving that conflict? When it’s you and five people, it’s easy to do. When it’s you and ten people, it’s easy to do. When it’s you and a hundred people, it can be done. It’s not easy to do anymore. It can be done. Right. When you want to reach the population of a city. No. Now you need a structure. You can’t do that the same way. The scale has changed. And because the scale has changed, the method of interaction has to change. So, for example, you need a structure. If you want to allow new people in, you have to have a gatekeeper or a gatekeeping system within the structure. There’s no choice about that. It’s not an optional thing. Cassidy was doing a live stream today and she let somebody on that she didn’t know. And he immediately put on a video image of two animals doing the deed. And she had to kick it off really quick, which is fine. Right. But there’s no way around that. And that’s the problem is that either you have a gatekeeping system or you’re going to have random people come in and just to ruin your thing. And this is one of those problems where people just assume that everyone’s good. Everyone is not good. People like power. People who are bought into the postmodern power narrative would just assume come on your stream and ruin it for everybody because that gives them the feeling of power, whether it’s real or not, is not important. They think it’s real. It’s real enough to them to invest their time, energy and attention in destruction. And I can tell you from experience, building things is really, really hard relative to destroying things. You can bring me anything, particularly an argument, although maybe that’s unfair because I’m really good at that. I can annihilate it in seconds. Any argument you want to bring. Go ahead. Bring it all. You know what? Bring it all. Having read a whole bunch of books I haven’t read, I will still tear it apart and you will not even understand what hit you because, A, it’s easy. B, I got skills. Right. But software. I can write software. That’s easy for me. I can write a few thousand lines of code. I’ve done it many times. Right. I don’t tend to write anything that big, partly because I like efficiency and partly because I hate large projects and I don’t work on them generally even on my own. Right. But if you want to engage with a large software project, you need a structure that enables that. And the larger it is, maybe you need a different structure than if it’s smaller. And all the way down, like at all levels, because I’ve worked in the software industry for decades. And I can tell you exactly how this works and how it doesn’t work. And that’s the problem. Like when you get to a different scale, things change. And when you pass that scale, things change. And when you scale down, things change. And you need different structures and different management styles and different coding style and different. Like everything changes. It’s not just one or two things. It’s not a tweak. It’s not a tweak. So can you successfully deconstruct? Because you made that point, I think, to Paul on Twitter. There’s no such thing as deconstruction. And, you know, I have to apologize. I keep meaning to reach out to to our friend from Iceland, who actually one day we never see him anymore. Dalamard is his handle on Discord. We never see Dalamard anymore. But one day he came in and I forget which Discord server it was. And he said deconstruction makes no sense grammatically. And he just ripped apart the whole word and said and gave like, I think what we’re actually for real all the reasons, like actually a complete accounting, because sometimes he does that. He’s very bright, very, very smart. And I was like, wow. And then I was like, I didn’t write any of that down. I feel like a retard. And then I was like, damn it. And now I’m ever since I’ve been in the Discord server, I’ve been like, damn it. And now I’m ever since then, I’ve been like, I need to remember all those points. Right. But basically, there’s something magical about construction, about building something that can’t be reversed. And it’s something like the element of faith that is in that, that is presupposed by the act of construction. And so it doesn’t make any sense that you’re going to unconstruct it, which would be the proper term. So I would say even unconstruction is incorrect. Your only option is destruction. Why? Because you are destroying the spirit that was built in the faith of the idea that that object could exist as a whole greater than the sum of the parts. And so there’s no such thing as deconstruction. What you’re describing is destruction. And destruction is always negative. Now, people get confused. And this is actually a comment I made. I don’t know if it was Twitter or one of the YouTube comments, because I’ve been all over the Internet today going frickin’ hog wild, as everybody I’m sure can tell. I’ve also had a terrible day. I feel like complete garbage, which is why I have like drinks galore over here. But what I was saying was you’re confusing the idea of, oh, I know. It was a comment to Jacob on Twitter, right? You’re confusing the idea. Paul, talking about Paul Antler talking about. Yes. Yes. The spiral thing. Right. And this whole idea that criticism could be generative. No, it’s not. The fact that after you criticize, you can generate doesn’t mean criticism is generative. Those are two separate actions. You can’t tie the two together, because just criticizing is not generative, as Manuel pointed out earlier in the stream. The bottom line is if you engage in a process where you are criticizing something without an alternative solution, and this is well known in business, maybe you shouldn’t be criticizing it, because even if you’re right, who cares? What are you going to do about it? And is it correct for you to burden somebody with your problem? I see this problem. Well, maybe everybody else always saw that problem, and the reason why it’s not fixed is because nobody knows how to fix it, and you bringing it up just makes you a jerk, quite honestly. Like, if you don’t have a solution, why are you bringing this up? And I’m not saying you should never bring up problems, but I am saying, like, maybe don’t presume that there isn’t a good reason for the problem. Like, maybe don’t presume that it’s not part of reality or a known trade-off that had to be made, because a lot of times I hear, and especially with software people, because that’s the industry I know the best, they’re constantly like, well, you could do it this way instead. Yeah, but then you have to do all these other things too. Like, you’re just, it’s not like it’s any easier. You’re just trading off who gets the bad end of the stick at some point. I don’t know what point that is, but that always happens. Like, everything’s always in trade-off mode, and if you don’t appreciate that, then you’re going to go astray. Hmm. Okay, so can I try and tie this back to something? Because last week we talked about, okay, people are in nihilism, they’re in matilarism, how to help them. And I suggested one of the ways to, you can start when people are difficult, when they’re deep down the well, is you try and listen to them. You try and get them to scare themselves with their own position that they’re in, and you can see how deep and dark. One of the other things I’ve tried to help people with is try to get them back to a sense of the poetic or symbolic, and try to get them to recognize patterns in life. Where this comes in contact with this idea of criticism, and is it valid, or the methods of criticism, is you need to criticize in order to point out patterns, but how do you criticize that point up, not down, or not just across it? Like you can criticize in a way that kind of flattens the space again, it takes away authority, or maybe it needs to take away authority, that can be valid. But how do you navigate that? Because you need to show people patterns to get them to the next stage, as you said, of the symbolic knowing of the world that kind of re-spiritualizes things, in a big sense of spirituality. Re-enchants. I don’t know if I’ve… I want new words for that. I don’t like re-enchantments. No, no, that’s enchantment. That’s what enchantment is. I like spiritual because I think it kind of catches people of God in some aspects. It has to make them think about what spiritual means. It can. It can also make your eyes glaze over. Or it can make them adversarial. Yeah. Yeah, true. I guess, yeah. Maybe the people I regularly talk to are already in the process, so I don’t have to worry about them. The people that are already in the shadow realm. Yeah, it’s… I’m trying to kind of put something in a frame for you guys to consider. Like how do we get criticism inside of this pattern recognition model? Because you need people that critique things and protest things, but how do you do it in such a way that… Nobody don’ts. No, you don’t, actually. That’s the… No. No, you don’t. Okay. No. I’m trying to live. I’m trying to live. Yeah, there’s no reason for that, right? And I’m not saying don’t do it, and it’s never appropriate, but I’m saying you don’t actually need that. For cooperation, you need the opposite. And the problem, and the thing that I do, for example, is I can say something like, I understand that you have a worldview, right? But it doesn’t work. And then I show them their worldview doesn’t work in some important way, right? And then I say, but there’s an alternate worldview that you can use, right? Have you thought about it this way? Right? Now, that increases the complexity, because whatever worldview they have that’s broken is broken because it’s too small to hold the world. It’s not hard, right? And so how do you get them into that complexity? And one way to attract people to complexity is to say something like, this is enchanting, because people want enchantment. They want to be able to go forward in the world, right? They want these ways of interacting, right? They want all of that. And that’s the issue, is that without that, they have a problem, basically. And that problem is that their worldview is not serving them. That’s why they’re angry. Like, you’re not in a meaning crisis. You can be in a meaning crisis and not realize it, but you’re not in a meaning crisis in any sense if you don’t have a problem that needs to be solved. So criticism can be a false enchantment? Okay. Well, hold on, Manuel. Let me finish. Criticism is the assumption that you’re smart enough to do the critiquing, right? That’s the postmodern lie, is that you’re an individual and you’re so smart that you can look at something that was built before you were built, right? Or a pattern that’s being followed. Maybe the pattern is new, but it’s a pattern that is as old as time itself, maybe. Who knows? Or at least as old as humanity. And that you can understand that well enough to have a valid critique of it, okay? Now, anybody can have a critique. Three-year-olds do it all the time. And this is literally my complaint about the postmoderns. They are nothing more. And I mean this technically. I’m not being hyperbolic. The entire summary of postmodernism is the same as a three-year-old’s. Why? Why? It is 0% different from that. It is the presumption that you are smart enough to question everything around you. And so I tell people all the time, are you sure you’re smart enough to understand that well enough to make the critique? Now, the advantage that I have is just purely experiential. I’ve just experienced a lot of things. I’ve learned a lot of things in my life. And I have a good memory. When they come up with a critique, I can tell them why it’s wrong instantly. Because I’ve already engaged in all these things, usually with other people. It’s amazing the arrogance of people too. Because they very often assume that they’re going to come up with some construction for their ridiculous worldview, which I’ve already divined in four questions or by listening to four statements that they’ve made, that is going to somehow convince me that their worldview is correct because it’s the first person that’s ever told me this stupidity. And I’ve taken to telling people up front, you’re not going to find an example I haven’t heard. I’m very sorry. This is your first time talking with somebody who’s skeptical of your worldview, but it’s not my first time talking to somebody with your idiotic idea. And that’s really the problem is I’m just at an advantage. You know, like house advantage. Please come join me. Let’s put some money down though, because that would be more fun. So that’s the issue is they assume they can critique. But why are you making that assumption? What if you’re not smart enough to critique? I wanted to reframe it a little bit, right? Because what do you need? You need a talent, right? You need a purpose. So when you’re doing something, right? Like when the spirit is moving, is it going towards the purpose? Right. Like if it’s not going towards the purpose, like you don’t need to critique. Right. Like what you need is you need to troubleshoot. You need to find a way to course correct or to change the spirit. Like that’s also an option. Right. But yeah, you want to have a course correct. Right. So what you get is you have a justification. Right. You have a purpose within your critique. Right. And what does the purpose do? Right. Like it organizes everything. Like it puts everything in a structure and everybody can have agreement. Right. Because they’re all participating in the same spirit. Right. So they have the same discernment as the other people. So a critique is. So that again, I think that was good. I just kind of jumped to the next thing. Yes. That’s what I did. So when everybody is in the same spirit, right? Like they’re looking at the same things, right? Like when Peterson says when you walk across the room to get water, right? Like the table is an obstacle, right? Like the glass is the means by which you get water. Right. So everything gets a form as a consequence of the purpose that you’re embodied. Right. And other people can share that observation. Right. Because like they also struggle with the table. They also need something to hold the water. Right. Now, depending on your experience, right? Like you might not understand that glasses hold water. Right. Or you might not understand that tables don’t let you walk through them. But that is a thing that you can get agreement on. Right. Like you can say, well, you should try walking through the table. And then the person tries walking to the table and the reality says, no, like tables don’t let you walk through them. Right. And so you can get agreement about the arena that you’re participating in. Right. Like in some sense, the purpose makes the world into an intelligent, build intelligible arena. Oh, so that the purpose, the purpose makes the world into an intelligible arena. Right. The purpose first. Yes. Yes. That’s what defines the arena. That’s the problem. The gallery calls for the artworks, not the artworks get placed in the gallery. Yes, we’ve got it all backwards. Right. The postmodern power narrative is postmodernism is trying to struggle with the idea that there were things there first. And then it’s saying, no, those things were placed there arbitrarily by people with power. But that isn’t what happened. Power emerged from the fact that there was a time when no one had power. We were all just scrambling for food and trying to feed ourselves. So it can’t be the way they posited. It’s just they don’t go far enough back and take their own ideas seriously enough because they’re literally three years old mentally and they can’t do that. I think fair enough. Everyone’s, you know, got their their their their problems and Foucault and Derrida certainly had their problems. They just didn’t develop past three years old mentally. And it’s fine. Like they’re not the only ones. But now we’re living in this world where where people aren’t accounting for having been born into a creation. They aren’t accounting for the way things actually happen. They’ve reduced Aristotle’s four causes down to some mixture of material cause and formal cause that isn’t real. And so they don’t really real. I mean, this is why when Jordan Peterson is talking to to to John Vervecky and he keeps saying, yeah, narrative comes first and then that other thing. And John’s like, no, no, there’s no normal logical supernormative blah order that can’t you know, and he’s just resisting, resisting, resisting. And then it’s neoplatonism all the way down. Right. Platonism doesn’t exist. No one can tell me. That’s why the third wave of it. If it existed, there wouldn’t be three ways. There would be one. Right. Come on. So the trick that Vervecky does. Right. And this is what you do when you critique. Right. Like you’re in the spirit and then you step outside of the spirit. Right. Like you take classes and you start looking at. Right. So Vervecky actually talks about this. He has practices around this. Right. So there is this space where you can stand. Right. And you can look at the spirit and then you can pick this part of the spirit and then you can pick this part and you can deconstruct them. Because now like, but all of these parts, they don’t make sense if they’re not in the talons. Like the whole intelligibility is as a consequence of the talons. Right. And so it doesn’t make sense to to do the critique. And like there’s no reason for the critique. Right. Like only if you want to be skeptical of the talons. Right. Which is actually literally what Vervecky says. Right. Like we don’t need talons. That’s what I’m trying to. That’s what I was trying to get to a couple of minutes ago. Is there a place for what? Critiquing the talons of things? Because I guess you’re saying that spirits can spirits come about because people have agreements on things. The have values like how does no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Spirit. The spirit is that which guides the participation. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I’m just trying to I’m trying to get back to a few other things at the same time. So spirit is something that guides, so participation. Right. So if multiple people cooperate in a body, they can participate together. And so they can participate in the same spirit. You can also have a factory with a line where everybody is in their own spirit. There’s no cooperation. And that’s what modern society is built for. That’s what individualism is. We can all create our own spirit and now we can do our own thing and then we can still work together. But it’s like, no, you can’t work together. You’re together alone. Like this is the problem with people in cities. They’re not partaking. They’re not in the same place. Like they’re locked in their hat, they have their headphones on, like their eyes glaze over. They’re not part of the same world as each other. There’s no communion. And that’s the issue. And so this individualism, and that’s the intimacy crisis. Like the capacity to have the connectedness between each other to incorporate the same spirit, like that requires intimacy. Like you can’t do that if you don’t have an intimate connection, an intimate relationship within that community. I’m trying to flesh out. Well, that’s the, so Jesse, the confusion is the following, right? I’ve talked about this all over the place in live streams of VanderKlay and stuff. And VanderKlay has actually mentioned it a couple of times on some of his videos. It’s very important. The science people talk about things as though there is a place from which you can critique that is totally neutral. What they are describing, I propose, is called objective material reality. That’s what they’re describing. They’re saying there’s an objective space. It is material primarily, right? And it’s reality. And then I can look at things and say, this T-Los is bad and this T-Los is good, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, that’s their thesis. I totally get it. But that’s wrong. It’s obviously wrong. It takes two seconds to realize that it’s wrong. And everybody wants that ability to critique. But when you’re critiquing T-Los, you’re critiquing the nature of reality itself. The way to know if a T-Los is good is to participate in it. And if you can’t, let’s suppose you came up with some completely stupid theory that government alone would always do the right thing and therefore government can control the means of production. And then you tried that like 82,000 times at different scales and it never, ever worked. You might conclude that maybe Marxism and communism and socialism in general is a stupid idea. Or you could just double down and keep trying, right? But at some point you need to say, oh, this doesn’t work because it doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work. Well, it doesn’t produce anything that that lost. No, no, it doesn’t work. Like none of the- You don’t even need to scale up. You can just say- Right, right. But none of the things that were supposed to emerge and none of the things that were supposed to die to give way to this thing happened. Karl Marx made a bunch of predictions. Zero of them came true. None of the things he said about capitalism happened. Zero, okay? At the point at which your prediction rate is zero, you are wrong. By any standard or measure possible. And people don’t wanna give up on it because they wanna believe this utopic dream that solves their problems because they think that they can contain a worldview where they can understand the world and why it’s going the way it’s going. I can’t do that. Manuel and I can’t do that together and he’s really smart. Like we could add four other people to that equation. It’s not gonna happen. The world is a ridiculously complex. You don’t have a chance in hell. In my Twitter video, I talked about this. Well, let’s talk about all the reasons that Elon Musk might’ve put up a poll to have Trump on. And I think I went through four. Those are just the ones I could think of. There could be 10, there could be 100. And who knows if Elon had any of those in mind. He might’ve had none of them in mind. He might’ve been saying, I’m gonna troll everybody by putting a poll up. Who knows? I don’t know. I don’t pretend to know. I just say there’s all these things that could happen as the result of putting that poll up without him violating, you know, at the time, it was sort of an implicit agreement that he was just gonna let everybody on who didn’t break the rules retroactively. Well, fair enough. And he seems to have done that by the way. So it doesn’t seem like that was a lie. It seems like that’s what happened. Hey, not to interrupt, but can you guys hear me okay? Yeah, we can hear you Connor. Okay, perfect. You have a beep in the background. I think you wanna mute when you’re not talking, but yeah. There’s a what in the background? A beep like it. Yeah, some kind of high pitched noise. Oh yeah, I don’t know what that could be. I’ll just keep myself on mute when I’m not talking. Thanks. My electricity from an audio perspective, being an audio person. So participation, agreements, criticism, membership, how do we collaborate together? Well, like you don’t have to answer that question. No, I’m trying to track what are the things that are coming together? Like why do, this is gonna sound like a basic question, but why do people participate in things together? What’s the- Because they have the same towels. Towels. Yeah, yeah, I’m agreeing, but I’m okay. So what’s the next- Sorry, don’t know how to work this thing. That’s okay. I mean, they have an agreement in a vision. Okay. And that vision is based on a tell us whether they realize it or not, right? And so for example, I’m working with a small company and the guy who started the company had a vision and I saw the vision and I said, that’s a cool vision I want in, right? And now I’m a founder, right? There’s four founders, which is fine, right? But that’s how that happened. Like he had a vision, he had a vision, and he had a vision, and he had a vision. Which is fine, right? But that’s how that happened. Like he had a vision, he was able to communicate his vision fairly and then all of a sudden, bang! Like where there’s a corporation gets formed around that. There’s a formal corporation, it’s all the paperwork’s filed, everything’s there. It’s got a bank account, right? We’re all looking for investors. So if you have an extra six or $7milliontofixhealthcareinAmerica,letmeknow.I^{\prime }vegotaninvestmentforyou.Andtha{t}^{\prime }showitis.Yeah,sowhathappens,right?Likeyougoasachild,yougototheplayground,right?Andthenther{e}^{\prime }saballandyouseepeopleplayingwiththeball.Andyo{u}^{\prime }relike,Iwannadothat.Like,doyouknowwhatyo{u}^{\prime }regoingtodo?No.Youjustknowthatther{e}^{\prime }schildrenandyourchildandyoucandothesameasthem.Andyouwannadothesameasthembecauseitseemsfun,whateverthatmeans.Whateverthatmeans.Like,Ido{n}^{\prime }tevenknowwhatthatmeansthatthatisfun,right?Butlikether{e}^{\prime }ssomethingthatdrawsyoutowardsit,right?Andi{t}^{\prime }sthespiritofparticipationandther{e}^{\prime }sarecognition.Andifwewannabringinthefavoritesubjectofthislittlecorner,right?Likether{e}^{\prime }sabeautythatisbeingperceivedwithinthatparticipation,right?Andyouwannaparticipateinthatview,right?Sothatishowmostthingshappen,right?Ther{e}^{\prime }sapotential,right?Likewhetheri{t}^{\prime }simaginedortrue,likei{t}^{\prime }snotrelevant,right?Likeyouperceivethepotentialandyo{u}^{\prime }retryingtoparticipatewithit,right?Soifyougoandplaytheballgame,right?Likether{e}^{\prime }stwothingsthatcanhappen,right?Likeeverybodycanplaywiththeirownrules,right?Andtheni{t}^{\prime }schaosandlikethenther{e}^{\prime }sfightsandallthisstuff.Oryoucansay,well,w{e}^{\prime }replayingthisgameandthisgamehasthissetofrules,right?Andthenyousubmittothegame,right?Andnowyo{u}^{\prime }restartingtorelatetothesametelos,right?Likeyo{u}^{\prime }relike,theteloschanged,right?Likethespirits,theindividualspirits,theycommuneintoasharedspiritbecausether{e}^{\prime }sacontainer,right?Likether{e}^{\prime }ssomethingthatcancontainthespiritsandeverybodyissubmittedtothem,right?Likesoyourmission,right?Orthethingthatyo{u}^{\prime }reexpressingispartofthebiggermissionofcooperatingintheplayingofthegame,right?Butyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknowifthatgameispointedtowardsthegoodornot,right?Likethatgame-Andlook,tha{t}^{\prime }stheotherthing,right?Sothebeautyofcooperatingandbuildingsomethingbiggerthanyourselfisoneoftheaspectsthatdrawsyouin.Andthethingthatkeepsyouinrightrelationshipistrue.Youwannabetruetothetelos.Whetherornotthetelosisgoodisadifferentissue,butther{e}^{\prime }sthetrue,thegood,andthebeautifulrightthere,right?Andtha{t}^{\prime }swhy,sowhenIsaysimplemodels,yeah,true,good,andbeautiful.Ther{e}^{\prime }sasimplemodelforknowingwhatthehellisgoingonintheworldandwhattoparticipateinandhow.Tha{t}^{\prime }sit.Youdo{n}^{\prime }tneedanythingelse.Alltherestofthisstuffisgarbage.I{t}^{\prime }sallhandwaving.I^{\prime }mnotsayingyoucandispensewithallofit,butlook,thefactofthematteristhatyoucanunderstandthetrue,thegood,andthebeautifulusingmanydifferentsystemsandstructures.Somearegonnabemorevalidthanothersbasedonthecircumstance,butthecoremodeloftrue,good,andbeautifuldoes{n}^{\prime }tchange.Andaslongasyouhavethatinmind,youcandowellintheworld.Likei{t}^{\prime }snotthathard,right?Andifyo{u}^{\prime }retoomaterialisticandIsupposeyousay,well,Iammyhouse,whichisthepotentialformetohaveafamilyandIammy,youknow,thesumtotalofmystuffandmyidentityiswrappedupinmyjob.Andthenyouloseyourhouseandyourjob,althoughIneverlostbothatonce.Butifsomebodystealsyourhousefromyou,whichcertainlyhappened,thenwhoareyou?Well,IknewwhoIwas.Itdid{n}^{\prime }tmakeanydifference.Imean,thatwasbarelyablip.Iwastotallypreparedtoloseahalfamilliondollarpieceofproperty,eventhoughIfinancially,Ihave{n}^{\prime }trecoveredfromthat.Likehowdoyourecoverfromsomethinglikethat,right?So,butIhadit,youknow,Iknewthatwasapossibility.IwaspreparedforitbecauseIwas{n}^{\prime }tstuckonmyhouseaspartofmyidentityatanypoint,right?Andtha{t}^{\prime }sthething.Wha{t}^{\prime }sthat?Well,tha{t}^{\prime }strue,good,andbeautiful.Tha{t}^{\prime }sthetelos.Thetelosoflifecannotbemyhouse.Ithinktha{t}^{\prime }snotgood.Andinaway,whatw{e}^{\prime }rereallytalkingaboutisdomicile.Whenyourmodeloftheworldiswrong,youputyourselfindomicilebecauseyo{u}^{\prime }renotabletofitintheworld,right?Andnowyo{u}^{\prime }reindomicile.Howdopeoplegetcaughtinthewrongtelos?Thesearereallybasicquestions,butifw{e}^{\prime }regoingtotalkaboutmembershipandparticipation.Theydenyit.Theydenyitsexistence,justlikeJohnVervecky.Well,thisisoneofmyprojects.FatherEricwilllikethis,ifh{e}^{\prime }sstilllistening.Makefinalcausegreatagain.Whatisfinalcause?Finalcauseistelos.I{t}^{\prime }srightinthedefinition,actually,ifyoulookitup.Finalcauseistelos.Why?Becauseyouneedthetelos.Youneedtohavesomethingthatbindspeopletogether.Andthatthingca{n}^{\prime }tbematerialnecessarily.Notthatitca{n}^{\prime }tberepresentedmaterially,butnoww{e}^{\prime }regoingtogetintoiconversusidolandallkindsofmessystuff.Butthevirtuethatyo{u}^{\prime }regoingforneedstobecommonbetweenthepeople.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sthething.Whatisthegoal?Andthen,so{I}^{\prime }llhighlightoneofthesethings.Doesthegamehavetopointtowardsthegoodordoesthegamehavetobefun?Itdoes{n}^{\prime }tmatter.Itdoes{n}^{\prime }thavetobeeither.Itcanbeboth.Thesportsgameisfuntowatchandi{t}^{\prime }ssupposedlyfuntoplay.Yeah,forsomepeoplesometimes.Isitfuntoplayforeverybody?No,notallthetime.Notevenfun.I{t}^{\prime }snotfun.Whenyo{u}^{\prime }reinUFC,yo{u}^{\prime }renothavingfun.Yougointowar,buttha{t}^{\prime }snotfun.Somepeoplehavefunatit.Andtha{t}^{\prime }stheproblem.Butyouca{n}^{\prime }tconfuse.Andthisisthesimplificationproblem.Peopleareover-reducingtheworld.Well,Iwantagametobeonething,eitherfunorserious.Well,firstofall,gamesdo{n}^{\prime }thavetobeeitherofthosetwothingsandtheycanbecombinationsofthem.Sorry,seriousgamescanbefun.Andtherelationshipofagameisbasedonwhereyouare.Areyouaparticipantinthegameorareyouwatchingthegame?Whatkindofparticipantareyou?Thegoalieinahockeygameseesaverydifferentgamefromtheguywiththepuckoutfront.Ido{n}^{\prime }tknowwhatelsetotellyou.Thesethingsareonethingatsomescaleandatanotherscale,the{y}^{\prime }reverydifferentthings.Sodoyouwannapickoneaspectthatisliketheoverridingaspectofeverything?Maybe,butyo{u}^{\prime }regonnahaveanoversimplifiedmodelandnowyo{u}^{\prime }renotgonnaunderstandthething.Yo{u}^{\prime }renotgonnaappreciatethemorenessofittostealsometermsthatJohnlikestouse,right?Themorenessofthegameisthatithaslotsofaspects.Anditwasfunny,yearsandyearsago,IheardtherewasaradiostationupinBostoncalledWAAF,whichisthebestradiostationofalltimeandprobablythebestradiostationitcouldeverpossiblybe.So{I}^{\prime }mjustgonnastatethataxiomatically.Andinthatstation,theyweretalkingaboutwatchingafootballgamewithactualformerfootballplayer.Anditwas{n}^{\prime }tabigname,hewasintheback.Hewasaquarterbackorsomethingstupid,right?Hewas{n}^{\prime }twithaquarterback.Hewas{n}^{\prime }toneoftherushingguysoranything.Hewasjustoneoftheseancillaryplayers.Buthestartedtalkingtothemandshowingthemduringthegamestowatchthebackfieldandnotwheretheballisinthegame.Now,thismaysoundlikecompletefreakingmadness,butasasoccerfanandsomebodywh{o}^{\prime }sbeentosoccergamesatfootballfields,itmakesallthedifferenceintheworld.Youdo{n}^{\prime }twatchwherethesoccerballisallthetime.Youwatchwherethepeoplearethatcanbepassedto,becausethatrepresentsthepotentialwherethegamecanunfold.Andseeingthatinafootballgame,inahockeygame,inanykindofgamegivesthegameawholedifferentflavor.Nowyo{u}^{\prime }reinanalysismodeandfairenough,maybei{t}^{\prime }snotasfunormaybei{t}^{\prime }smorefunbecauseyoucanmakebetterpredictionsaboutwhatplaysaregonnabehappening.I{t}^{\prime }snotthatclear.Ther{e}^{\prime }slotsofwaystoengagewiththesamething.AndIthinkwhenw{e}^{\prime }reengagingwithsomething,i{t}^{\prime }simportantthati{t}^{\prime }salive,right?Likethatitisgenerative,right?Becausether{e}^{\prime }sthings,right?Weweretalkingaboutbuildingapyramid,right?Likethatends,right?Andnowther{e}^{\prime }sapyramid.LikehowdoIparticipatewiththepyramid,right?Likethepyramidhastoparticipateinmylife,right?LikeIhavetore-vivifymyconnectiontothepyramidinorderforthatpyramidtohavevalue,right?Soifyouthinkaboutthedistinctionbetweenacathedralandapyramid,right?Likethecathedralhousestherevivificationofsocietyandthepyramidhousesthedebt.Likei{t}^{\prime }stheopposite.Andso,andinsomesenseitservesasareminder,right?Butyoucanseethedistinction,right?Likeonethingisallowingforthingstocomeintobeing,whichiswhatplayingis,right?Likeplayingisparticipatingwithinasetofconstraintstoseewhatpotentialisthere,likeliterally.Right.Andthatrelationshiptopotential,right?Likethatgenerativeaspectsisthethingthatallowsittobegood,right?Likeitdoes{n}^{\prime }tmakeitgood,butitallowsittobegood.Right.Andjusttoloopitback,Jesse,justcauseIknowwesortofgotofftopic,butnotreally,butsortof,right?Tha{t}^{\prime }sgood.Ifyouthinkyo{u}^{\prime }redoingsomething,okay,youhaveatelluswhetheryourealizeitornot.AndIunderstandthatthepost-modernsandeverybodyelse,includingJohnVerbekeandabunchofotherpeoplehaveignoredthat,thatyouhavetobeaspiringtosomething.Youhavetobemovingtosomething,otherwiseyo{u}^{\prime }renotmoving.Andifyo{u}^{\prime }renotmoving,areyoualive?Causetha{t}^{\prime }sagoodquestionrightthere,right?Andtherefore,whatisyourtellus?Becausemaybeyo{u}^{\prime }renotarationalcreaturewh{o}^{\prime }srationalevenaboutyourself.Andmaybeyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknowwhatyo{u}^{\prime }reupto,toJordanPeterso{n}^{\prime }sexcellentpoint.Andiftha{t}^{\prime }sthecase,whatisdrivingyou?Doyoureallyunderstandthat?Isithunger?Youknowwha{t}^{\prime }snotdrivingmetoday?Hunger.IhadaKitKatbarearlier,tha{t}^{\prime }saboutit.AndIonlydidthatcause{I}^{\prime }mlike,yeah,youneedsomesugar.Youbetter,goodthingyo{u}^{\prime }vegotsugarinthehousecauseyo{u}^{\prime }regonnaneedsomeifyo{u}^{\prime }regonnadoalivestreamonnofoodfor24hours.So,Igotsomesugarinme.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhyIhaveallthesedrinks,right?I^{\prime }vegotapplejuicetoday.So,yep,gonnaneedthat.I^{\prime }mgonnadoastreamforanylengthoftime,right?CauseIdo{n}^{\prime }thaveanyfoodinmybody,right?WhyamInothungryallday?Ido{n}^{\prime }tknow,right?ButIknowthatthathappened.Andsomedays{I}^{\prime }mvoraciouslyhungry.I{t}^{\prime }slike,Ido{n}^{\prime }tknowwhythathappened.Ido{n}^{\prime }tknowwha{t}^{\prime }sgoingon.DoIthinkmybod{y}^{\prime }saperfectarbiterofwhentoeat?No,i{t}^{\prime }sgood,buti{t}^{\prime }snotperfect.Tha{t}^{\prime }showpeoplegetfat.Likethisis{n}^{\prime }thard.Likeyoujustobservetheworldandgo,oh,w{e}^{\prime }renotrationalcreaturesatall.Right,w{e}^{\prime }renot.Wedo{n}^{\prime }tknowourselves.No,wedo{n}^{\prime }t,w{e}^{\prime }remuppets.Wehavenoideawha{t}^{\prime }sgoingonwithourselves.Butwecangetbetter.Yeah,threethingstomaybereply.IlikedManue{l}^{\prime }sdistinctionbetweenapyramid.Somethingthatititselfgeneratesitsowntonewhereasacathedralreverberatesthepeoplethataregathered.Sothecathedralactuallybreathes.Likecathedra{l}^{\prime }sonlyalivewhenthepeopleareinit.Samethingwiththebody.Bod{y}^{\prime }sonlyalivewhenthebreathisinit,right?Sothewholeideaofthepyramidisitgeneratesalowtone.Ititselfexists.Itdoesnotexistforthegatheringofpeople.Ithousesitsownself.Whereasthecathedralhousesthepeopleanditreverberates.Right,right.Right,andsowha{t}^{\prime }shappening,right?Likepeoplecomethereandtheysummonaspiritbytheircommunion.Liketha{t}^{\prime }sliterallywha{t}^{\prime }shappeningthere.Andthenyoucanimagine,right?Likeeveryplacethatyoucometogether,right?Yousummonaspiritwithyourcommunion,right?Andthen,well,inwhatnameareyoucomingtogether,right?Likeareyoucomingtogetherinthenameofgoodness?Orareyoucomingtogetherinthenameofvengeance?Orlikewhatisthethingthatyo{u}^{\prime }remanifestingasagroup?Well,likeonethingtha{t}^{\prime }scomingtomeis,thisisasideline,justthethought,everythingthathasbreathpraisestheLord.MaybeyoucouldsayitisaLordasinthelittleL.Likeeverythingthathasbreathisaliveisgoingtohaveatailofftowardssomething.Maybeyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknowwhatitistoMark.Sure.Well,toaLord.ToaLord,yes.Yeah,yeah,tha{t}^{\prime }sright.Yeah,tha{t}^{\prime }sprobablyabetterway.Well,andlook,le{t}^{\prime }sjustsupposeyo{u}^{\prime }recorrect,whichIcantellyo{u}^{\prime }reabsolutelycorrect,right?Thatthecathedraldoes{n}^{\prime }thavelifeuntilpeopleareinit.Whatdoesthatmean?Thatmeansthatpowerresidesinthepeopleandthatpowerisonlyusefulandcontrollablewithinastructure.Andthatstructureisthethingthathousesthespirit.Andlook,youknow,and-I{t}^{\prime }salittlebitofajoke.Becausealsostructureshaveechoes,likestructurescontainechoes.Housescancontainanechoofsomeoneelse.Right.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sonethingistotakethespiritoutofthebuilding.Right.Totakeitout.I{t}^{\prime }slikewhyweteardownoldbuildingstobuildupnewisifwewantthespiritoutofthebuilding.Tha{t}^{\prime }sright.Well,theyjustsay,yeah,youcanteardownallthebuildingsandbuildwhateveryouwant,butyouca{n}^{\prime }t.Thereasonwhythebuildingsarethereisbecausewefiguredouthowtobuildbuildingsovertensofthousandsofyears,mostlikely.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sit.Like,i{t}^{\prime }snotall-NotreDamewillneverbethesame,willit?Right.NotreDamewillalwaysbetaintedbywha{t}^{\prime }shappened.Right.Well,youca{n}^{\prime }tputhistoryintosomething.Historyhappensasanunfoldingovertime.Itgoesgross.Yeah.Right.Soi{t}^{\prime }snotlikeyouhaveahistorythingandputitintheneedleandinjectit.No.Right.Likeyouca{n}^{\prime }tdoawaywiththathistory.Andthathistoryisalsoatestamenttothatwhichcamebefore.Andtha{t}^{\prime }swhyprogressivism,andIhaveavideoonthat.BecauseofcourseIdo.Right.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhyprogressivismisadisease.Right.Becauseitjusttellsyounewisbetter.I{t}^{\prime }ssomethinglikenewisthehighestvalue.Right.Andtherefore,andi{t}^{\prime }slike,okay,I^{\prime }mworshipingnewness.I{t}^{\prime }slike,well,wha{t}^{\prime }sgonnahappenwhentheAIemerges?I{t}^{\prime }slike,well,firstofall,yo{u}^{\prime }reatlunatic,becausetha{t}^{\prime }snotevergonnahappen.Atleastnotwithcurrenttechnology.Andsecondofall,whatdoyouthinkhappenswhenthings,like,doyouthinki{t}^{\prime }sgonnabedifferent?Ifyouemulateconsciousness,doyouthinki{t}^{\prime }sgonnabedifferentfromhavinganotherhumanontheplayingboard?Ido{n}^{\prime }tunderstandwhereyo{u}^{\prime }regoing.Liketheworldislimited.Andifi{t}^{\prime }sconsciousnessisthethingandyouemergeanotherconsciousness,tha{t}^{\prime }sthesameashavingababy.Thenyoucanargue,well,thisisthesupersmart,yo{u}^{\prime }rethebiggestknowledgeuniverse,whichisfoolish,wealreadyhavethat.Ihaveonerighthere.AreyoutalkingaboutlikeanAIorsomething?Yeah,ifitwasanAI.Right.Yeah.ButIhaveaccesstotheknowledgeoftheuniverserighthere,right?Seeit?I{t}^{\prime }srighthere.Nothingchanged,guys.TheAIonlyexistsaslongastheinternetexists,though.Oncewecutofftheinternet,orifacountrycutsofftheinternet,thenw{e}^{\prime }reAIinthatregion.Right,right.Well,andtha{t}^{\prime }sthething.Tha{t}^{\prime }sthething.Fromthereverberatingculture.Butwhatisitthatyouthinkyo{u}^{\prime }regoingtocreatetha{t}^{\prime }sdifferentfromallthethingsthatyoucancreatenow?Becausetheanswerisitca{n}^{\prime }tbeasgreatascreatinganotherhumanlife,evenifi{t}^{\prime }ssmarterandquote,biggersomehowbysomearbitraryridiculousmeasurement.Oh,smarterIthinkisrelativehere.Well,yeah,no,smarterisridiculous.Ther{e}^{\prime }snosuchthing.Youca{n}^{\prime }tmeasuresmartness.I{t}^{\prime }snotpossible.Itca{n}^{\prime }tbedone.Oh,IQ.Well,Isee.Isthatmachinegoingtohavewisdom?Imean,i{t}^{\prime }snotanembodiedhuman.I{t}^{\prime }sjust,i{t}^{\prime }sthisownthingwedo{n}^{\prime }treallyunderstand.Right,butevenifitdoes,howareyougoingtomeasurethat?AsNassimTalebtalksabout,IQisagreatmeasureofstupidity,butsoarelotsofthings.Buti{t}^{\prime }saterriblemeasureofhowmuchsmarterpeopleare.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sthething.Peopledo{n}^{\prime }tunderstandthat.Whateveryoucreate,i{t}^{\prime }snotgoingtobebiggerthanthingthatyoucancreatenow,whichisatrial.I{t}^{\prime }snotgoingtobebiggerthanthat.Youmaythinki{t}^{\prime }sbiggerthanthat,buti{t}^{\prime }sactuallynotgoingtobe.Andyoucanargue,well,i{t}^{\prime }sthecollectivedistributedcognitionofabunchofpeople.Okay,thatsoundslikeacorporation.Whatdoyouthin{k}^{\prime }spushingustowardthedevelopmentofsomethingliketryingtocreateasuper-intelligentAI?BecauseImean,thatdoes{n}^{\prime }tseemlikeamovetowardthegood.Attention.No,i{t}^{\prime }snot.Andlook,Imean,myplanshavebeenrevealed.Markjustdoes{n}^{\prime }twantustoknowhisevilAIplanthatwillunfoldbyquantumcomputingandtakeovertheworld.Thatistrue.Do{n}^{\prime }ttellanybody.Ihaveaquantumcomputerinmybackyardandi{t}^{\prime }srunonpondpowerbecausemybackyardisapond.Andthereforeitmustbe.Look,whatIsaidearlier,whenyo{u}^{\prime }redoingsomething,youhaveatelos,whetheryouunderstandthatornot.Thequestionis,ifyouhaveatelosbecauseyo{u}^{\prime }redoingsomething,isthetelosyouhavegoodorbad?If{I}^{\prime }mnotpayingattentiontothetelos,howdoIknow?Theanswerisyoucannotknow.Sowhatareyoudoing?ThisiswhywhenPetersontalksaboutthis,intheframingofsaythepostmodernneoMarxists,andhesaysthingslike,IunderstandthatpostmodernismandMarxismarefundamentallyincompatible,buth{e}^{\prime }snotwrong.Theyhavesomehowcombinedthosetwothingsandareusingcognitivedissonancetomakesuretheydo{n}^{\prime }tseethecontradictionandproceedingasif.Andthatalwaysgeneratesanegativedestructivespirit,nomatterwhat.Peopl{e}^{\prime }spridecantrapthem.Imean,thatseemstobewhathappenedwithcommunismandalotoftheSovietUnion.Imean,listentolikeTomHollandtalkabouttheSovietUnionontherestofhistory.Imean,i{t}^{\prime }sonlikealotofwhatStalinwasdoing.HethoughthewasjustbeingagoodMarxist.Imean,I^{\prime }msureinhistwistedimaginationoftheworld,hereallythoughthewasmovingtowardthegood.ButImean,i{t}^{\prime }sthatpridetrappingyou.Right.Yep.Yeah.Andthatisit.I{t}^{\prime }sallpride.I{t}^{\prime }salllike,I^{\prime }mnotgonnareadKarlMar{x}^{\prime }sworksbecausethe{y}^{\prime }rereprehensibleandstupid.Butifyoulookatjusthisquotes,soonedayIcollectedhisquotesoncapitalism,okay?Ifyoujustreadhisquotesoncapitalism,yo{u}^{\prime }regonnarealizesomethingrealquick.Thequotesthemselveswithinthemselvesdo{n}^{\prime }tmakeanysense,honestly.Thatthereareselfcontradictory.Itdoes{n}^{\prime }tcontextdoes{n}^{\prime }tmatterinthatsense,right?Likei{t}^{\prime }sirrelevant,selfcontradiction.Noneofthequotesarecompatiblewithanyoftheotherquotes,zero,zero.Theyallconflictwithoneanother.Contextca{n}^{\prime }tfixthat.Likether{e}^{\prime }snocontextinwhichcapitalismhasthepropertiesthathetalksabout.Sothatjustmeansh{e}^{\prime }sanidiot.Thatitdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeananythingelse.Wewrotelotsofpages.Okay,Icanwritelotsofpagesandsaynothingtoo.AndIcanmakeitsoundreallygoodtoo.LikeIcoulddothat.AndImean,thiswaspartofthepoint.IthinkitwasthefourthorthirddebatewithPetersonandHarris,whereHarrissaid,IcouldwriteacookbookthatwouldbejustliketheBible.Andtheywerekindoflike,yeah,thatyoucould,Sam.AndA,Ido{n}^{\prime }tthinkSamhasthewritingskillstodoanysuchthing.ButB,godoit.Seeifyoucandoit.Itwouldrequirecreativity.Itwouldrequirecreativityandasymbolicskillthathedoes{n}^{\prime }tpossessbecausehedoes{n}^{\prime }tunderstandsymbolismbecauseh{e}^{\prime }sadummy.H{e}^{\prime }sanarticulateidiot.H{e}^{\prime }sveryarticulate.Hecanstringtogetherwords,realfancylike,andunlessyouknowwhath{e}^{\prime }stalkingabout,youwo{n}^{\prime }tcatchthemistakesh{e}^{\prime }smaking.I{t}^{\prime }slikeEricWeinstei{n}^{\prime }sthesameway.SometimesWeinsteinsaysveryintelligentthingsandh{e}^{\prime }sgotalotofgoodthingstosay.Andsometimesh{e}^{\prime }sspewingcompletebullshitaboutphysicsthatIhappentoknowisbullshitbecauseIknowrealphysicistsandIactuallyknowthatstuff.AndsolikeIcancatchhimonitandotherpeopleca{n}^{\prime }t.Fairenough.Andh{e}^{\prime }sgottencritiquesfromrealphysicistssaying,no,no,no,whenyousaidthis,yo{u}^{\prime }rejustwrong.Tha{t}^{\prime }snottrue.Andheignoresthosecritiques.Well,goodforhim.Andwealldothat.Butatacertainpoint,yo{u}^{\prime }vegottorealizei{t}^{\prime }seasytofoolpeoplebyjuststringingwordstogetherandmakingthemsoundfancy.Andwhatthesepeopledooftenisthe{y}^{\prime }reredefiningthewordsthatthe{y}^{\prime }reusing.Soifyouhaveawordtha{t}^{\prime }sbeenusedforalongtimeandthenyo{u}^{\prime }resaying,well,Igotthesetofaxiomsandnowthisworksdifferently.Thewordworksdifferentlybecausetheaxiomssaythattheworldhastohavethisrelationshipnowinsteadoftheother.Butnoww{e}^{\prime }renolongerdoingthesamething.Whenw{e}^{\prime }reredefiningwords,thensomeonemightsoundmeaningful,butyoudo{n}^{\prime }tunderstandtheimplicationsofwhattheredefinitionortheassumptionoftheaxiomsthattheotherpersonhasdoes.Andlikeoften,Ithinkpeopledo{n}^{\prime }tknowtheirownaxioms.I{t}^{\prime }sreallyhardtolookatyourselfandseewhatisthetalosthatyo{u}^{\prime }rein.Likethe{y}^{\prime }retalkingaboutthetakeofyourglasses.Like,areyousureyoucantakeofyourglasses?Andh{e}^{\prime }slike,well,youcanstepbackandthenyoucanwatchthewatcherandthenyoucanwatchthewatchertha{t}^{\prime }swatching.Andi{t}^{\prime }slike,areyousure?Like{I}^{\prime }malreadyskepticalaboutthefirststep.Likeifw{e}^{\prime }regonnadothatinaloop,likeareyousureyo{u}^{\prime }redoingthatorareyoudoingsomethingelse,right?Likeareyouinaspiritthatismaybelikeinsaneandlikehasnoconnectiontorealityanymore?Becauselike-Weoutsourceoursanitythatway.Likeyoucanonlyknowwhatyo{u}^{\prime }redoingifotherpeopletellyou,hey,thisis-Butyouhaveto.Well,yeah.No,butyouhaveto.Theconceptofsanity,andthisistheproblemwiththeindividualism,right?Itgivesustheideathatthereisaperspectivethatwehavethatissufficienttoseethingsoutsideofourselves.Eventhoughifyouthinkaboutitforliterallyapicosecond,thatis{n}^{\prime }tpossible.Therewasaconstraintbydefinitiontothecontainerthatyo{u}^{\prime }rein.Andthedeepmistakethatpeoplearemakingisthe{y}^{\prime }resaying,Icanseeaconstraintorpartofaconstraintmorelikely.AndthereforeIcanknowthewholethingfromtheoutside.No,thosetwothingsdonotfollow.Thefactthatyoucanseealimitationdoesnotmeanyoucanunderstandalltheaspectsofthatlimitationandwhereitcamefrom.Tha{t}^{\prime }snotwhatitmeans.Ifyo{u}^{\prime }restuckinsideabox,youca{n}^{\prime }tseewhattheboxlookslikefromtheoutsidebecauseyo{u}^{\prime }renotoutsideofthebox.I{t}^{\prime }sreallythatsimple,buttheindividualismtellsusi{t}^{\prime }syourperspective,i{t}^{\prime }syourlivedexperience,andtha{t}^{\prime }sallyouneedtounderstandtheworld.Andoh,bytheway,yo{u}^{\prime }resmartenoughtodothat.Andoh,bytheway,youcandothatwithasingleperspectivebyself-referencingbackwardstoalargerframe.Weliterallyhadthisconversation,itwasaTuesday,Ithink,withsomebody.AndIkepttryingtoexplaintothem,youkeepsayingthatthesimulationcanseethethingtha{t}^{\prime }ssimulatingit,buttherewasnocasewherethatcouldpossiblyeverbetrue.Andtheykeptgoing,no,no,no,thegameoflife.And{I}^{\prime }mlike,allright,guys,w{e}^{\prime }retalkingaboutcomputers.Yo{u}^{\prime }reintherealmofmyultimateexpertise,okay?Like,no,no,I^{\prime }vedonethatsimul-Ipersonallyphysicallyhaverunthatsimulationandrunthesimulationwithinthesimulation.Andeachtimeyoudothat,itgetssmallerbecauseyo{u}^{\prime }reusingmoreresources.I{t}^{\prime }sjustthatsimple.Resourcesareaconstriction.Ifyourunasimulationonacomputer,thesimulationcannolongerrunatthefullresourceloadofthecomputerbecausethesimulato{r}^{\prime }susingsomeofthattorunthesimulation.Ifyouthenrunthesimul-thesamesimulationinsidethesimulator,whichyoucandowiththegameoflife,tha{t}^{\prime }sveryeasytodo.Thesizeofthatsimulationismuchsmaller.Andthenifyoukeepdoingit,thingsgetsmaller,theyreciprocallynarrow.Theydo{n}^{\prime }tgetbigger.Andtha{t}^{\prime }swhyeveryon{e}^{\prime }slike,ohno,wecanjustmergesomethingbigger.I{t}^{\prime }slike,no,youca{n}^{\prime }t.Ifyouwantsomethingbigger,youhavetolookup.Andwhenyoulookup,youhaveatell-us.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhatyo{u}^{\prime }relookingupto.Youhaveanideal,youhaveagoalbeyondyourself.Butifinordertocooperatewiththatgoal,nowyouneedtomakesacrifices.Youneedtosubmittothatgoal.Andthisiswhyi{t}^{\prime }ssuchaproblem,right?Imean,rule10inbeyond-beyondorder,tha{t}^{\prime }sthePetersonsecondbook,right?Rule10isinthere,hetalksaboutthisideaofrelationshipandsubmittingtothethirdthing.Tha{t}^{\prime }showyo{u}^{\prime }reinarelationship.Youca{n}^{\prime }tbeinarelationshipifi{t}^{\prime }sabattlebetweenyouandthepersonyo{u}^{\prime }reintherelationshipwith.Tha{t}^{\prime }sopponentprocessing.I{t}^{\prime }snevergoingtowork.Yo{u}^{\prime }reeither,yo{u}^{\prime }reusingthemorthe{y}^{\prime }reusingyou.Thoseareyouronlytwooptions.Yo{u}^{\prime }restuckinbinarythinking.Butifyo{u}^{\prime }rebothsacrificingtothehigher,thenyoucanbuildsomethingbiggerthanbothofyou.Yo{u}^{\prime }resacrificingsubmittingtotherelationshipitself.Tha{t}^{\prime }stheonlywaytobegenerative.Everythingelseisnotgenerative.Bydefinition,itcannotbegenerativeever.I{t}^{\prime }snotthati{t}^{\prime }snotgenerativeandifthesmartpersoncomesalongandwhenwefinallygeneratetheAI,i{t}^{\prime }llfixit.Itcannotbegenerative.Thereareconstraintstoreality.Arewekindofthewholeideaofself-knowledge?Isthatwhatw{e}^{\prime }retryingtoreframehere?Wha{t}^{\prime }spossible?Yeah,wecanknowsomethingsaboutourselvesbyourselves,butultimatelyweca{n}^{\prime }t.Weneedtorelyonothers.Likeyousaid,weoutsourceoursanity.VanDruKlaytalksaboutthatallthetime.Andbecauseweoutsourceoursanity,wehavetorelyonotherpeopleandotherpeoplesuck.I^{\prime }vemetthem.Theyallsuck.I^{\prime }vemetsingleoneofyou.Becausetheyallhaveflawsandproblemsandeverythingelse.Andfairenough,butIdo{n}^{\prime }tgoaroundtellingyouthattheysuckbecauseIsucktoo.Isthatacritiquethateverybodysucks?Yeah,well,okay,butnowi{t}^{\prime }suniversal.Whothehellcares?Andtha{t}^{\prime }stheproblem.Nowyoucanarguesomepeoplesuckmorethanothers.Fairenough.Orsomepeoplesuckinwaysthatyouca{n}^{\prime }tstandandotherpeoplesuckinwaysthatyoudo{n}^{\prime }tcareabout.Absolutely.Sowhat?Youhave{n}^{\prime }tsaidanythingatthatpoint.LikeImadeabunchoftruestatements.Ihave{n}^{\prime }tsaidadamnthing.I{t}^{\prime }snotimportantorinterestingthatthefactthatthatisrealisrealandwestillneedtoworkwithinitbecausei{t}^{\prime }snotgoingaway.Yo{u}^{\prime }renotgonnalike,ooh,I^{\prime }mgonnaresurrectKarlMarx.Youhaveaninfiniteperfectutopia.I{t}^{\prime }snotgonnahappen.I{t}^{\prime }snotgonnahappen.Soyouneedtofigureouthowtodealwiththesethings.Right?Andthewayyoudealwiththemisrealizingthatther{e}^{\prime }sasacrifice.Iknow{I}^{\prime }mflawed.I^{\prime }mnottryingtopretendthatIdo{n}^{\prime }tmakeerrorsoranythinglikethat.ItrytobecarefulaboutwhatstatementsImakeand{I}^{\prime }musuallyprettydamngoodatit,but{I}^{\prime }malsoverywell-practicedatprecisespeech.SoIcangetawaywiththatsometimes,mostofthetimemaybe.Goodforme.Buttha{t}^{\prime }snothelpfultootherpeoplenecessarily.Right?SowhatdoIhavetogiveuptotalktoManuel?Well,Manue{l}^{\prime }sasdisagreeableasIam.Soh{e}^{\prime }sgonnapushbackeverytime.Andthethingis,Iwantthat.Sotome,I^{\prime }mnotgivingupanythingexceptsycophants.AndIdo{n}^{\prime }tlikesycophants.Theyworryme.Whensomebodyagreeswithme,Igetveryworriedthattheydid{n}^{\prime }tunderstandmebecause{I}^{\prime }msurether{e}^{\prime }ssomething{I}^{\prime }mmissing.Andifyo{u}^{\prime }renotpointingitout,howdoIknowthatIdid{n}^{\prime }tjustenchantyouandnowyoubelievesomethingthatIalsobelievethatisfalseordangerousIactuallyhadaconversationwithsomeone.AndlikeIsaid,likewhenItalkaboutidentity,i{t}^{\prime }sthethingthatIassumeinrelationtosomethingelse.Andthenhesaid,yeah,Iunderstand.And{I}^{\prime }mlike,yeah,I^{\prime }mhighlyskepticalthatyouunderstandwhat{I}^{\prime }msaying.Causelike,Ido{n}^{\prime }tthinkIunderstandthat.Likethatissuchadeepidea.Andsother{e}^{\prime }sthiselement,right?Likei{t}^{\prime }slike,ooh,ifyo{u}^{\prime }reagreeingwithmeonsomethingthatIamiffyabout,likeeitheryo{u}^{\prime }relikereallygenius,butlike{I}^{\prime }mjustgonnagowith,yeah,yo{u}^{\prime }remissingsomething,right?And{I}^{\prime }mtalkingaboutsomethinggenius.LikeIwannagobacktoearlierintheconversation,right?LikeIthinkAIisacontainerforthespiritofGodsothathecanbeamongus.LikeIthinkthatisthemotivationforpeopletocreateAI.Right?AndthenIwannaconnectthemtotheideaofvainglory.Right?Soi{t}^{\prime }sassociatedwithglory,right?Buti{t}^{\prime }sassociatedwithgloryinthewrongway,right?Soyo{u}^{\prime }retryingtohavethegloryofGod,buti{t}^{\prime }sunearnedwisdom,right?Andthereforeyouca{n}^{\prime }tapplyit,right?Like,andtha{t}^{\prime }sthemistakethatpeoplearein.Adifferentwordforvaingloryispride,butIthinkther{e}^{\prime }saproblemthere,right?Likether{e}^{\prime }sadistinctionbetweendoingsomethingbadanddoingsomethingevil,right?Andwhenyo{u}^{\prime }redoingsomethingbad,yo{u}^{\prime }reparticipatingfromtheperspectiveofachildeffectively,right?Likeyo{u}^{\prime }renotmatureenoughtoseethespiritthatyo{u}^{\prime }reparticipatingin,right?Andthereforeyouca{n}^{\prime }tbeheldresponsibleforthebadness,right?Liketha{t}^{\prime }sjustaconsequenceofyourlimitations,right?Butther{e}^{\prime }salsoawaytoparticipateinabadspirit,fullyknowingthatitisabadspiritandthatyoushould{n}^{\prime }tbeparticipatinginthatspirit.Andthatisthedistinction.LikeIthinkther{e}^{\prime }sabunchofpeopleinAIwhoknowbetter,right?ButmostpeopleinAI,the{y}^{\prime }rejustcaughtupinthisnarrative,justlikeinalltheseotherfields,right?LikealltheseSJWs,right?Liketonsofthem,theygetsuckeredin,right?Andthisiswhytheypreyonchildren,right?Liketheywannagetintotheirheads,right?Intothethinkingreallyearly,right?Becauselikeyo{u}^{\prime }rereallymalleable,right?Likewhenw{e}^{\prime }retalkingabouttheproblemofcharisma,whichisnotaproblem,right?Butthecharismaisthatwhichcandrawotherpeoplewiththem,right?Andifyo{u}^{\prime }renaive,youdo{n}^{\prime }thaveagoodwaytobuildresistancetothebeingdrawninthatspirit,right?Becausether{e}^{\prime }smultiplespirits.Andlikeifther{e}^{\prime }sonereallystrong,thatcanoverridealltheothers.AndsoIthinkalotoftheseproblemsarejustasaconsequenceofthatwedo{n}^{\prime }tmaturetheyoungerpopulation,right?Likewedo{n}^{\prime }tmaturethem.Andthentheydo{n}^{\prime }thavethesermonaboutwhatthe{y}^{\prime }reparticipatingin.Andthentheyendupstudyinginuniversityandthentheyenduplikeworkingatacompanyfor15yearsandthentheygetamidlifecrisis,right?Andthentheyfigureoutwhatthe{y}^{\prime }vebeendoingwaswrong.Well,itwaswrong.Likethe{y}^{\prime }dliterallymanifestedevileffectively.Andthe{y}^{\prime }relike,holyshit,whathaveIbeendoing?Ther{e}^{\prime }salsotheaimlessnessthinggoingonwherepeoplearejustworkingtwoorthreeyearsandsomething,butdoingsomethingfortwoorthreeyearsbecausetheydo{n}^{\prime }treallyhavetheideaofontology.The{y}^{\prime }renotsurewhatthe{y}^{\prime }reactuallymovingtowards.Right.Particularly{I}^{\prime }dsaywithmymillennialgeneration,whichIalwayskindofboildowntotheinternet.Likewegotexposedtotoomuchinformationtooquicklyanddid{n}^{\prime }thaveaframeworktodo,did{n}^{\prime }thavethedealwiththeinternetandwedid{n}^{\prime }tknowhowtounderstandwhattheinternetactuallywas,whichisadrug.Insomesense,i{t}^{\prime }sadopaminehigh.Butyoucannevergetenoughinternet.Liketheinternetisalwaysenticing.Right,well,alotofit.The{y}^{\prime }llstopinternetand{I}^{\prime }llgoonwithrealityoutsideofmyhouse.Likehowdoyou,asageneration.Right,butalotofitisjustoneofthevirtuesandvaluesthatyo{u}^{\prime }vebeenimbuedwith,right?Andifthevirtuesandvaluesyo{u}^{\prime }vebeenimbuedwitharethingslikeknowledgeormoneyandtha{t}^{\prime }swhatyo{u}^{\prime }rechasing,ittakesyoualongtimeofchasingmoneytofigureoutthatmoneyisnotactuallyimportant.Andyoushould{n}^{\prime }tbebasingthingsonmoneybecausestabilityiswaymoreimportanttopeoplethanmoney.Likepeoplewhoarestableandpoorarehappy.Andpeoplewhoarewealthybutkeepchasingmoneyarenot.Thatshouldtellyouallyouneedtoknow,right?Andtheirnarcissismischasingknowledge.Exactly,right.Well,Imean,thisiswhatIwassayingearlier.I{t}^{\prime }sveryeasyformetotellyouwhatyourhighestvalueis.Ijusthavetolistentoyouforalittlewhileandmaybeaskyouoneortwoquestions.Butusuallypeoplerevealitrightaway.Sotheproblemiswhenyougivepeoplethesesimplemodels,like,oh,thereasonwhythatcorporationisdoingthisthatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmakeanysensetoyouisbecauseofmoney.Okay,okay,whatabouttheinstancewherecorporationsaredoingthingsthatlosethemoney,likeofferingcoupons?Didyouknowthat?Corporationslosemoneyoncouponsonaverage,almostall.Producingbadmoviesforthesakeofproducing.Right,right.Well,thatideologyorconvincingpeoplethroughmagicthattheworldworksacertainwayismoreimportanttothemthanmakingmoney,right?LookatSamHarris.SamHarrisdoublesdownonthedeadchildrenmotif,right?Bysayingif...Yeah,thatwasrough.Well,ifvaccineskilledchildren,wewould{n}^{\prime }tbehavingthesediscussions.Andi{t}^{\prime }slike,well,okay,sobasicallywhatyo{u}^{\prime }resaying,andIputthisonTwitterandIstandbyitand{I}^{\prime }llstandbyitforever,right?WhatSamHarrisisactuallysayingis,Ido{n}^{\prime }tcarehowmanychildrenhavetodieformetoberight.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhath{e}^{\prime }ssaying.Hedoesnotcarehowmanychildrenhavetobesacrificedforhimtobecorrectabouttheworldbecausehishighestvalueisknowledgeandhehastohaveallthatknowledge.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sbasicallywhath{e}^{\prime }ssaying.Hello.Excuseme.Hey,Dustin.Hi.Hello.Doyouallknoweachother?Hello.Oraresomeofyoujustrandos?I^{\prime }marandothathastalkedtohimbefore.Sorry,mywir{e}^{\prime }sinthefrontofmycomputer.I^{\prime }mfromthestreet.YouguysareallinAmerica.Yeah,yeah,I^{\prime }mfromMichigan.Mark,whereareyoufrom?YousayBostonorsomething?IgrewupinBoston.IliveinSouthCarolinanow.Gotcha.I^{\prime }mdownSouthwherethegoodpeoplelive,thegoodfolk.Shouldhavemovedhereyearsago,butyeah.Howlongdoyouguys,Mark,howlongdoyouusuallydothisstreamfor?Lastweekwediditforsevenhoursanditgotover600viewssomehow,whichisjustamazingtome.ButIdo{n}^{\prime }tknowhowthathappenedbetweenallthechannels.I^{\prime }mnotgonnabehumbleandsayitwasme.I^{\prime }mjustgonnasaymyaurakindof.ItwasJesseforsure.Hemakes,no,Ithinkitwasthechickscomingin.Itwaswomen.Nobodywantstowatchabunchofaugsbuildandsmashontheboard.No,no,butyo{u}^{\prime }recompletelyunbilledwiththewholeaugsthing.Becausewomendo.Womenare,womengather.Womencommute.Theygatherbypointing.Notalways,Ido{n}^{\prime }thavetopointthough.The{y}^{\prime }represent.Youdo,youhavetopoint.Wewentoverthisearlier.Tellus.Yeah,okay,okay,sure.Yeah,Imissedthatwholeconversation.Thatflewbyme.Finalcause,baby.Well,tha{t}^{\prime }swhyyoudothings.Youdothingsbecausether{e}^{\prime }satellus.Now,doyourecognizethat?Andifyoudo{n}^{\prime }t,yo{u}^{\prime }regonnagohorriblywrong,oratleasttheoddsofyougoinghorriblywrongareincreased.Andifyoudo,thenyouhaveachanceofgoingtowardsthetrue,thegood,andthebeautiful.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sreallytheproblem.Awayyoucanthinkaboutitiswhatisbeauty?Well,tha{t}^{\prime }swhatdrawsattention.Soyouhavethebeautifulwoman.Shedrawsattention.Andnoweverybodycancooperateinthatattention.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sliterallytheprocess,right?Sother{e}^{\prime }safixation,andthatfixationallowsforengagementwithspecificpotential.Whydopeopleparticipateingroupsthatarebad?Whydotheystay?Wha{t}^{\prime }sgoingon?Howdotheyknowthe{y}^{\prime }rebad?Dotheyhaveastandardbywhichthe{y}^{\prime }re?Sometimesi{t}^{\prime }sallyouknow,andyo{u}^{\prime }rescaredtogetoutofthat,gotoanythingelse.Yougottahavesomethingtodo.Imean,sometimesi{t}^{\prime }sthefamilyyougrewupwith,andi{t}^{\prime }stheenvironmentyougrewupin,andyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknowanythingelse.Andalso,right,peoplecanenjoytorture.Yeah,likeasadomasochisticway.Yeah,likeifyou,youcanlookatitsomeway,right?Youhavetohaveagriponreality,right?Soyouhavetohavesomesortofemotionsthatguideyou,right?Andthenifyo{u}^{\prime }reunderdevelopedinsomesense,right,ther{e}^{\prime }stheseotheraspectsthatreplacethatsameneed,right?Soifyouhaveawarpedreplacement,likeyoucanhavelike,oh,likeIdo{n}^{\prime }tthinkthisarmispartofmybody.LikeIwannacutitoff,right?Becauselikei{t}^{\prime }snotme,right?Liketha{t}^{\prime }swhatpeopledo,right?Liketheythinktha{t}^{\prime }sgood,andliketheywannaparticipateinthatwayintheworld.Liketha{t}^{\prime }sarealthing.Andlikehowdoyougetthere?Well,likeyoumakeabunchofassumptionsalongtheroad,andthenyouhaveawarpedparticipation,andthenlikeyouidentifyagainstyourarm,right?Andnowyo{u}^{\prime }regonnaprojectallyourproblemsonyourarm.Right,likeeverythingtha{t}^{\prime }swronginmylifeisasaconsequenceofthisarmdistractingme,orkeepingmeawakeatnight,orIdo{n}^{\prime }tknow,andifIjustgetridofthearm,tha{t}^{\prime }snolongergonnahappen.SoIneedtogetridofthearm,likeperfectlylegitlogic,right?Butlikei{t}^{\prime }saconsequenceofwrongassumptions,andlikehowdowegetourassumptions?Well,likewhydoyoubuythebutterthatyoubuy?Right,likeprobablybecauseyourparentsboughtit,right?Andsolikeyoujusttakeoverallofthesewaysofbeingintheworldfromosmosis,right?Andtheyendupputtingyouintoatypeofrelationship,likedependingontheconstraintsthatyouhaveasanindividual,right?Liketheymightmanifestdifferently.Andyeah,atthatpoint,likewhatwillhappen,likeifyounevercorrectthat,likewhoknows,right?Skyisthelimit.Yeah,yourupbringing,Ken,itsavesyoufromthatcombinatorialexplosion,butpatternsthathavebeensavedaregood.Holdonasecond.IthinkIgottadropofftocallmygirlfrien{d}^{\prime }scallme,Igottapickherup.Allright,seeyouguyslater.Nicetalkingtoyouall.Seeyou.Ther{e}^{\prime }salsocognitivedissonance.Peopleparticipateinthingsthattheydo{n}^{\prime }tknowwhytheystillparticipatein.Right,well,Imean,tha{t}^{\prime }stheproblemisthatther{e}^{\prime }sallthesebiases,right?W{e}^{\prime }resortoftoldw{e}^{\prime }repurerationalcreaturesandthatweknowourselves.Well,Igotnewsforyou.Yo{u}^{\prime }renotapurelyrationalcreature.Youneverwereandyouneverwillbe,itca{n}^{\prime }tbe.Andyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknowyourself.Likeapartfromthat,youdo{n}^{\prime }tknowyourself.Yougrewupandallofthisparticipatoryknowledge,ifyouwannauseVerbeckisterms,isknowledgethatyougotthroughmimicry,thatyoudo{n}^{\prime }tevenunderstandhowyougotit,whenyougotit,orwhatitis.Youwatchedpeopleandyoufollowedalong.Andnowtha{t}^{\prime }syoursystem.Andtha{t}^{\prime }swhywhenyougetolder,youstartrepeatingthepatternsofyourparents,generally.Oryourebelagainstthem.Butalotofpeoplejustdowhattheirparentsdobecausetheirparentswerethatagewhentheywereyoungandthenwhentheygettobethatage,theyactthatoutwithoutevenrealizing.Thathappensallthetime.I{t}^{\prime }sabigjoke.I{t}^{\prime }sincommercials,i{t}^{\prime }sinthemovies,i{t}^{\prime }sallovertheplace.Tha{t}^{\prime }strue.Well,Iwouldarguethatwedoknowourselvestoacertainextent.Wehaveaframeofreferencethatweknowinfrontofus.Butaswegobackinthelayersandseeouractivitiesoveralongperiodoftime,wegettoknowthethingswedo{n}^{\prime }tknoworthepatternsthatareemerging.Yougettoseesomeofyourlimitations,butthatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeanyouknowit.Youjustseethelimitation.Whatisthethingthatyo{u}^{\prime }reknowing?Well,I^{\prime }mtalkingtoyouguysrightnow.IthinkIknowthat.Youknow,liveexperience?Youknow,liveexperience,though?Tha{t}^{\prime }sallyou...Doyouknowyourownliveexperience?Isthatpossible?Thatisagoodquestion.ButIwouldsay,Ithink,thereforeIam.Well,butwewentoverthisearlierintheconversationaboutcritiquing.Like,areyouabletocritiqueyourself?Toacertaindegree.Yougottabeabletocritiqueyourself.Ifyoucantry,thatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeanthatyouca{n}^{\prime }t.Like,Icandoathing,right?Like,Icanwriteawholepaperonsomething.Thatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeanthatwhatIwrotemakesanysense.Well,Ithinkoneconceptthat{I}^{\prime }vebeenlookingatismindfulnessandsortofbeingawareofouremotionswhenwemakedecisions.Andpayingattentiontothat,youcansortofstratifytheframeworkinyourpsychologytosortofbettercomprehendyourself.Stratacismisabetterwaytodoit,butyo{u}^{\prime }renotknowing,yo{u}^{\prime }rejustobserving.True.Well,thentha{t}^{\prime }sthedifference.AndStoicismtalksaboutthistosomeextent,right?I{t}^{\prime }slike,yeah,emotionsaregonnacomeup.Anditdoes{n}^{\prime }tsay,trytoknowwhereyouremotionsarecomingfromandwhythe{y}^{\prime }rethere.Itsays,youremotionsaregonnacomeupandyouneedtocontrolthem.Andher{e}^{\prime }ssometoolsforcontrollingthem.Itdoes{n}^{\prime }tsaythatyouneedtoknowanythingbecauseyoudo{n}^{\prime }t.Andinonehand,IlikeSocrates.Why?BecauseSocratessays,Iknow,Iknownothing.Sohetakesthevalueofknowingdowntozero,whereitbelongs,bytheway,justtoletyouknow.Youdo{n}^{\prime }tneedknowledgetodothings,atleastnotintheclassicalsense,right?I{t}^{\prime }snotrequired.Themanwhoknowseverythingbutdoesnothinghasnovalueintheworld.Themanwhodoeseverythingbutknowsnothingstillhasvalue.I{t}^{\prime }sthatsimple.Andnobodywantstohearthat,buttha{t}^{\prime }stoofreakingbadbecausei{t}^{\prime }sstillthewayrealityis.Andyoucanseeyourselfandnotknowwhatyousaw.Like,IseethatIhave{n}^{\prime }teateninover24hours.Ido{n}^{\prime }tknowwhythatis.Ihavenofreakingidea.Ihavemysuspicions.I^{\prime }mnevergonnaknow.Ther{e}^{\prime }snowayformetoknowthat.Butyouknowwhat,Ido{n}^{\prime }thaveto.I^{\prime }vetreateditalreadyinsomesense.I^{\prime }vemadethesituationbetter,Ithink.W{e}^{\prime }llfindoutinthemorningif{I}^{\prime }mhungrywhenIwakeup,right?But{I}^{\prime }mnotgonnaknowwhythathappened.Youknow,badnews,youca{n}^{\prime }tknow.Goodnews,youdo{n}^{\prime }tneedtheknowledge.Youcantakeactionanyway,justbasedontheobservation.Andweconfuseobservationandknowledge.Like,informationandknowledgearedifferentthings.Andtha{t}^{\prime }stheproblem,isthatwhenyoustartpursuingthingspastinformationasthoughthe{y}^{\prime }revaluable,youmightbemakingagreatmistake.I^{\prime }mnotsayingno,neverdothat,butIamsayingthatthatshould{n}^{\prime }tbeyourgoalallthetime.WhenIhearinformation,oftenItrytothink,canyoualsosaymaterialismatthesametime?Becausethewaywethinkaboutinformation...Yeah,buttha{t}^{\prime }syou.Like,youthinkaboutinformationthatway,Ido{n}^{\prime }t.Well,no,no,no,buth{e}^{\prime }spointingtoaproblem,right?Yeah.Whentheproblemofmaterialismisjumpingtheisotgapinappropriately,andwhatthe{y}^{\prime }lldoisthe{y}^{\prime }lluseatermlikeinformationorknowledgetojumptheisotgap.Myproblemisthatinformationandknowledge,andIthinkknowledgeisconstitutiveofinformation,Ido{n}^{\prime }tknowifther{e}^{\prime }sawayaroundthat,i{t}^{\prime }sthestructureofaninformation,orsetsofit,sorry,thestructureofsetsofinformationisknowledge,right?Whenyoudothat,youcandosillythingslikesaying,well,youknow,informationisconservedinablackhole.Thatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmakeanysense.Informationistheformationofasignal.Youhavetakenasignalandformedit.Thatisinformation.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhatthewordmeans.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhyi{t}^{\prime }ssetuplikethat.I{t}^{\prime }snothard,right?Butthathasimplications.Andoneofthemisforthesamesignalgiventoadifferentperson,theresultinginformationmight,maybe,maybemightnot,butmightbedifferent.Andthenupthestack,youcangetthesameinformation,right?Inbothentities,w{e}^{\prime }lljustmakethatanaxiomaticassumptionthatthatcanhappen,right?Andmanytimesdoeshappen.Andtheycancometodifferentknowledgeaboutit,becauseknowledgeishowthe{y}^{\prime }restructuringthepiecesofinformationthattheyalreadyhavewiththenewinformationthatjustcameinastheresultofthesignal.Andthisiswhyconversationis{n}^{\prime }tgonnasavetheworld,buti{t}^{\prime }scertainlygonnamakethingsworse.Themoreyoutalk,themoredifferencesyo{u}^{\prime }regonnafindwithpeople.Themorethecomplextheknowledgethatyouneed,themoreyouneedthatmorecomplexknowledge.Likeithastosticktogether.Likeyouneedquestionstostickuptodifficultquestions.Well,youresolvethatwithunderstanding,right?Likeifyouunderstandthings,thenyouhaveknowledgeabouttheknowledge,right?Youknowhowtheknowledge.Tha{t}^{\prime }sthenextlevelup.Itsignalsatthebottominformation,right?Informationandthenknowledgeandunderstandingisthethingthatontopthatencompassesallofthat.Itgivesyouawaytorelateitsothatyourselfchecking.Likeinformationdoes{n}^{\prime }tnecessarilycheckknowledge,right?Youcanbypassthat.Tha{t}^{\prime }syourcognitivedissonance,right?Butunderstandingchecksinformationandknowledgeandallowsyoutoadjustthemboth.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sactuallybuiltintoourmodel.AlthoughIhavetodoslidesforthatanddothat.I^{\prime }lldoapresentationatsomepointonthechat.I^{\prime }mcuriousaboutthewaythemind,becausewhenIthinkaboutthinkingitself,Ithinkofitislikeabalancingprocess.Soyo{u}^{\prime }reweighingthingsagainstoneanother.Yo{u}^{\prime }reweighingwhereenergyandresourcesneedtogoandyo{u}^{\prime }repruningideasthatyoufeel.Areyou?Whydoyouthinkyo{u}^{\prime }redoing?Whyisitthatyouthinkyoubyyourselfcanunderstandyourownthought?Liketha{t}^{\prime }sridiculous.Thewholeconceptis.I^{\prime }mmerelyobservingwhatthebraindoes.Noyo{u}^{\prime }renot.Yo{u}^{\prime }reobservingwhatyo{u}^{\prime }retryingtodo.Whichis.Yo{u}^{\prime }retrappedinthebrain.Soyouarenotobservingwhatthebraindoes.Youcanobservesomeoftheresultsofwhathappenedinthebrain.Butunlessyo{u}^{\prime }reoutsidethebrain,youca{n}^{\prime }tobservewhatitdoes.Thatyo{u}^{\prime }rejustmisusingthewordobserveatthatpoint.Youcannotknowthat.Youaretrappedinthebox.Whenyo{u}^{\prime }reinthebox,youca{n}^{\prime }tseetheboxfromoutsidethebox.Andtha{t}^{\prime }saboxyouca{n}^{\prime }tgetoutsideof.Thisiswhyweoutsourceoursanity,didJess{e}^{\prime }spointearlier.Youhavetooutsourceyoursanitybecauseyouca{n}^{\prime }tseeyourselfbecauseyo{u}^{\prime }retrappedinsideyourself.I{t}^{\prime }sreallydangeroustobelievethatthisisevenpossible.Buti{t}^{\prime }salsonotnecessary.Youcanputallyourtime,energy,andattentionintothingsthatare{n}^{\prime }tgonnahaveanimpactonyourlife.Orare{n}^{\prime }tpossible.Andtha{t}^{\prime }soneofthosethings.WhatisPlat{o}^{\prime }scavefeedingonallthis?Well,IhavemycritiquesofPlat{o}^{\prime }scave.I{t}^{\prime }scertainlyanincompletemodel.Butlook,Plat{o}^{\prime }scaveistheexpressionthatther{e}^{\prime }sanumberofstates.Andthatyo{u}^{\prime }reconstantlymovingbetweenthem.Andthatissomethinglikelife.Orproperlife,maybe.Whereatsomepoint,inordertocooperatewithpeople,youhavetositdownandwatchthestupidmovie.Andthatmeansyouhavetochainyourselftothebench.Iknow{I}^{\prime }mstretchingtheanalogy,butactuallytha{t}^{\prime }swhatitmeans.Inotherwords,inordertocommunewithpeople,youhavetosubmittothesamedamnthing.WewentoverthisearlierwithTelos,finalcause.Finalcause,greatagain,guys.Okay,fine,Ihavetoshacklemyselftothefinalcauseandmakeasacrificeinthatinordertocooperatewiththeotherpeople.Buttheneveryonceinawhile,IwannabreakoutandIwannagetoutofthecave.NowmyconceptionofPlat{o}^{\prime }scave,andIhave{n}^{\prime }thadadrawingyet,although{I}^{\prime }vepluggedacouplepeopleaboutitwhoactuallyknowhowtodraw.Youseethelightstandingupinthechamber,butyouhavetoduckdowntogettothelight.Andthenthecloseryougotothelight,theloweryouhavetogo.Ther{e}^{\prime }sasubmissiontothehighertogetthehelloutofthecave.Andsother{e}^{\prime }sthreestates.Ther{e}^{\prime }sthestateofbeinginwiththeotherpeople.Ther{e}^{\prime }sthestateofbeingfreeoftheotherpeople,butnotyetontheoutside.Andthenther{e}^{\prime }sthestateofcrawlinginsubmissionoutofthecaveandintothelight.Butagain,youca{n}^{\prime }tstaythere.Andsoyouhavetogobackin.Andyougetblindedfirst,right?Yougetoutandyougetblinded,right?Becauseyo{u}^{\prime }redisorientedbecauseyoudo{n}^{\prime }thaveparticipatorycapacitywhenyougointothelight.Right,well,andyo{u}^{\prime }refloodedbypotential.Andyouca{n}^{\prime }tremaininpurepotential.Tha{t}^{\prime }smysticism.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhenpeoplegetlostintheoccult,forexample.Right,tha{t}^{\prime }swhathappens.Andi{t}^{\prime }sagoodanalogyforwha{t}^{\prime }sgoingon.I{t}^{\prime }sjustlimitedandther{e}^{\prime }sthingsmissinglikethepotentialandblindingandthingslikethat.I^{\prime }veneverconsideredthefactthatapartoftheframingofthatmyth,ifyouwannasay,orthatframework,theframingoftheframeisthattherearepeopleoutsideonthelight,likethepeopledownbelow.Right,well,look.Youca{n}^{\prime }tsaytha{t}^{\prime }snotthepotential.Thebigsinofourageisexactlythesinthatwejustsaw,whichisI,asanindividual,canunderstandthingsbiggerthanmeorthingsthat{I}^{\prime }mstuckwithin.No,youca{n}^{\prime }t.Youcanknowsomethingsaboutthem,butyouwillneverhaveanunderstandingofthem.Thisisthefishnotunderstandingtheaquarium.Thefishcannever,ever,ever,ever,underanycircumstancesever,understandtheaquariumever.Okay,i{t}^{\prime }sjustnotanoption.Thisiscalledreality.Thisisthehardboundaryofrealityoroneofthemanyhardboundaries.Reality,tosomeextent,isthatwhichobjectstoyoursubjectiveexperience.Yoursubjectiveexperienceofbeingafishinanaquariumisthatyouwillnever,ever,ever,ever,ever,underanycircumstances,nomatterwhat,nomatterhowoftenyoujumpoutoftheaquariumorhowlongyoucansurvivewithoutbeingintheaquarium,goingtounderstandtheaquarium.I{t}^{\prime }sjustnevergoingtohappen,butitdoes{n}^{\prime }thaveto.Youcanbehappyintheaquariumandthrive.Like,youjustdo{n}^{\prime }tneedthisinformation.I{t}^{\prime }snotrequired.Youcanpursueit,butthatpreventsyoufrompursuingabunchofotherthings.Soi{t}^{\prime }suptoyou.Youcanwasteyourlifepursuingthingsthatare{n}^{\prime }tinteresting.Youcanwasteyourlifepursuingthingsthatare{n}^{\prime }tpossible.Youcanwasteyourlifepursuingthingsthatmakeyouworse.Youcandoallthat.Noon{e}^{\prime }sgoingtostopyou.AndsoIwanttogobackalittlebittowhatareyouobservinginyourself?Like,yo{u}^{\prime }reobservingyourparticipationanditsconsequences,right?Like,tha{t}^{\prime }swhatyo{u}^{\prime }reobserving.Yo{u}^{\prime }renotobservingthenatureofyouorwhatever.Yo{u}^{\prime }reobservingtheconsequencesofwhatyo{u}^{\prime }retrappedin.Like,tha{t}^{\prime }sliterallywhatyo{u}^{\prime }redoing.Andlike,Ihaveaproblembreakingthethingthat{I}^{\prime }mtrappedin,likebreakingoutofthespiritthat{I}^{\prime }min,right?I{t}^{\prime }slike,whatdoesthatrequire?Like,insomesense,itrequiresaforceoutsideofyourself.Right?NowthatIthinkofit,andMarkisgoingtohavetopayattention,Ithinkwhatallowsyoutobreakoutsideofyourselfisyourimagination,right?Like,Ithinki{t}^{\prime }s,theimaginaryqualityallowsyoutoperceivewhatisnotthereandthenre-engagefromadifferentspirit.Andsothethingtha{t}^{\prime }sbeengoingoninmychurchalotistalkaboutvision,right?Sother{e}^{\prime }sacoupleofthings,right?Like,ther{e}^{\prime }sthehighestprinciplethatallowsyoutoreorientyourself,right?Butthenyoustillneedtoconnectittoawayofexpression,right?Andlike,whatdoesallowyoutoconnectittoawayofexpression?Well,tha{t}^{\prime }sthevision,right?Like,howcanyouimplementyourvisioninthemoment,right,likethatgivesyoutheorientationandthatorganizeeverything,right?Andsothevisionis,insomesense,thebringingdownofthetelosintosomethingthatyoucanparticipatein.Yeah,yeah.Andtheimagination,thatplayaspectistheplace,youknow,Peterso{n}^{\prime }stalkedaboutthis,right?Theplacethatyoucreatestructurestotestthemout.Thatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeanthe{y}^{\prime }reright,bytheway,right?Becausether{e}^{\prime }sstilltheobjectingofreality,right?Notobjectivereality,theobjectingofrealitythatgetsintheway,right?Thisiswhy,youknow,thebattleplansalwaysgetdestroyedtheminuteyouencountertheenemy,right?Thisiswhywhenyougotobuildsomething,youdo{n}^{\prime }tbuildwhatyouoriginallysetouttobuildbecauseimplementationisthehardestthing.Anditnevergoesthewayitgoesinyourheadbecauseeverythinginyourheadisperfectoritcanbefixedeasily.Iguaranteeyou,goinyourhead,starttoimaginethingsthatca{n}^{\prime }tbefixed.Yourheadwo{n}^{\prime }tdothat.Yourbrainwillnotdothat.Itisthethingthatmakespotentialworkinawaytowardsatelosthatyouhaveinmindalready.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhatitdoes.Itshoulddothat.Ther{e}^{\prime }snothingwrong,i{t}^{\prime }snotabug,i{t}^{\prime }safeature.Now,whenyoumistakethosetwothingsandyoustartsaying,well,Iself-identifyasapurpleunicornthattalksandcreatesrainbows.Well,nowwehaveaproblembecausethatthinginyourheadca{n}^{\prime }texistoutsideofyourhead.Andtha{t}^{\prime }swherepeoplearehavingthediscernmentproblembecausetheyhavebeentoldthattheycandothesethings.Youcanbeanythingyouwant.Youcanjustimagineyourwaytoabetterlife.No,youcannot.Thatwasalie.Iamsorryyouwereliedto,butyouwereliedto.AndIhaveavideoonthat,bytheway,I^{\prime }mjustsaying.Soyeah,Imean,tha{t}^{\prime }swha{t}^{\prime }simportanttorealizeaboutthesethingsisthatsocietyhasbeengivingoutthesebadsignalsforalongtimeandpeopleboughtintothemorpoormodels,oryoucanunderstandeverythingthrougheconomicsandgametheory.No,youca{n}^{\prime }t.Ifyoureadgametheory,andIhave,andyouhave{n}^{\prime }t,ifyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknowthis,Iguaranteeyou,oryo{u}^{\prime }retoostupidtounderstandwhatJohnNashwrote,gametheorydevolvesintocalculusrealfast.Liketheminuteyougotothestoretobuybread,okay?Yo{u}^{\prime }renotdoingcalculusinyourhead,okay?I^{\prime }msorry,yo{u}^{\prime }renot.Itmaybeadecentanalogforwhatyo{u}^{\prime }redoingwhenlookedatinhindsight,butyo{u}^{\prime }vechangedacouplethings.Oneofthemisi{t}^{\prime }snowinhindsight.Theotheroneisjustbecausesomethingmapsdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeantha{t}^{\prime }sthewayyoudidit.I{t}^{\prime }snotwhatthatmeans.This,whenJohnBreveckytalksaboutcombinatorialexplosionandtheresolutionofit,thewholepointisyouca{n}^{\prime }tresolvecombinatorialexplosionusingmath,andyethumansdoitallthetime.Sotheremustbesomethingelsegoingonthatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmaptomathematics.Thatiscorrect.Hedoes{n}^{\prime }tstatethatclearlyenough,butthatiscorrect.Well,whatthehelldoesthatmean?Allitmeansisthatmathdoes{n}^{\prime }tmaptheworldaccurately,oratleastaccuratelyinthatcase.Tha{t}^{\prime }sallitmeans.Itdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeananythingelse.Yeah,whenyouquantizesomething,youdo{n}^{\prime }tnecessarilyhavea...Quantizingissomethingthatwedoforhumanunderstandingofwha{t}^{\prime }sgoingon.Wedothequantizing.Itdoes{n}^{\prime }tgivetheframeofreferenceoftheactualfunctioningofwha{t}^{\prime }shappeninginreality.Becausether{e}^{\prime }snoobjectivematerialreality.Thatdoes{n}^{\prime }texist,eventhoughsciencewouldliketotryandtellyouotherwise.Andsoyouca{n}^{\prime }tjudgethingsfromaneutralpositionoutsideoftheaquariumthatyo{u}^{\prime }reswimmingin.Tha{t}^{\prime }snothappening.I{t}^{\prime }snottosayyouca{n}^{\prime }tknowanythingabouttheaquarium,buttherearelimitstowhatyoucanknow.Andtha{t}^{\prime }snottosaythatyoushould{n}^{\prime }ttrytounderstandmoreabouttheaquarium,butyoushouldunderstandthatyouwillneverunderstandeverythingabouttheaquariumever.Andyouneedtocometotermswiththatandbeokaywithitsoyoucanfocusonthethingslikeswimmingaroundtheaquariumandbeingproductiveandgenerative.Insteadofswimmingaroundtheaquariumgoing,I^{\prime }mgonnabumpintoallthewallsoftheaquariumuntilyoufigureoutexactlyhowbigitis.Stopbeingretardedanddosomethingusefulwithyourlife.Youonlyhavesomuchtime,energyandattention,andyoushouldspenditwiselyandnottryingtofigureoutsomethingtha{t}^{\prime }snotgonnamatterevenifyouhavetheinformation.Ohno,no,everythingabouttheaquarium,guys,whocares?AndForrestLandry,andIhateForrestLandry,buthesaidsomethingveryinterestinginatalkwithJohnBreveke.Hesaid,allofthesepeoplearesittingouttheregoing,oh,I^{\prime }mgonnagetenlightened.Andthentheygooffandtheygetenlightenedandtheycomeback.Andthebigquestionis,okay,buthowdoesthathelptherestofus?Well,thatisagoodquestion,is{n}^{\prime }tit?Le{t}^{\prime }ssupposeyo{u}^{\prime }retheBuddhaandyoucangooffandbeenlightened.Tha{t}^{\prime }sfantastic.Andwhenyoucomeback,areyoumakingtheworldabetterplaceornot?Le{t}^{\prime }sassumeyouactuallygotenlightened.Didit,whatdidyoudowiththat?Idid{n}^{\prime }tgetenlightened,youdid.Howisthishelpingme?Yo{u}^{\prime }vebeenoff,notgeneratingwithinthecommunitytogooffandgetyourselfenlightenedbyyourselfonyourown.Andle{t}^{\prime }sassumetha{t}^{\prime }sevenpossibleorlikely,okay?Butbecausei{t}^{\prime }sneither,right?I{t}^{\prime }simpossibleformostpeopleandi{t}^{\prime }snotlikelytohappenevenforthepeoplei{t}^{\prime }spossiblefor.Andweknowthis,bytheway,youcanjustgolookintheEast,numberofpeoplethatgooffandtrytogotothecavefor20years,halfofthemdie,mostofthosebysuicideincidentally,whichisgoodindicationthatyouca{n}^{\prime }tdothat,right?Whatgoodisthatifyoudo{n}^{\prime }tbringthatknowledgebacktothevillageandoh,bytheway,yo{u}^{\prime }vebeengonefor20years.Allthehousesyoudid{n}^{\prime }tbuild,allthethingsyoudid{n}^{\prime }thelpwith,allthe,whatthehell?Whyareyoudoingthis?Howisthishelpingeverybody?Yo{u}^{\prime }rehelpingyourself.Congratulations,youegoic,selfish,arrogantbastard.Andbytheway,screwyouandyourfreakingenlightenment.Ho{w}^{\prime }sthat?So,I^{\prime }llsay,youcankeepgoing.Yeah,soIwastryingto,lastweekIwastryingtoputforwardthatideathatthe18thcenturyiswheretheproblemsintheWesthavereallybegun.Peopl{e}^{\prime }stryingtogobacktothemedieval,butIdo{n}^{\prime }tknow,canyougo,youca{n}^{\prime }tgobacktothemedievalsomuch.Likeyouhavetokindofgoback.Protestantism,like.Okay,okay,okay,okay,okay,le{t}^{\prime }snotgothere.Causetheotherthingwewantedto,thethingyoustartedwithManuel,whichIreallygotalotoutofwas,thesepeoplethataretrappedinnihilismforabroadertermarebasingtheirauthorityonlivedexperience,whichiswhatw{e}^{\prime }vebeentalkingaboutalot.Sohowdowe,isthereaprocesstowhichwecanvalidatetheacquisitionofknowledge?Howdoweknoww{e}^{\prime }reacquiringtherightknowledge?No,Ido{n}^{\prime }tthinkwecare.Whydowecare?Whydowecare?Andalso,whyarewedoingknowledgeagain?Likew{e}^{\prime }rebackinGnosticism.WhyarewetryingtocritiqueGnosticism?No,no,defineknowledgefirst.Areyoutracking,causeGnosticismispropositionalknowledge.Liketha{t}^{\prime }swhatitis.Well,look,again,youdo{n}^{\prime }tneedit.Youcanthrowoutallthepropositionalknowledge,i{t}^{\prime }llbefine.Youcanusewords,right?Andstatethemaspropositionsandnotelevatethemtothepointofknowledgeandassumeallknowledgeisparticipatory.Andthenyoucanvalidateeverything.WhenIimplementthisintheworld,doesitwork?Tha{t}^{\prime }sit.Tha{t}^{\prime }sgoodknowledge.SowhenIimplementMarxismintheworld,doesitwork?Tha{t}^{\prime }sbadknowledge.I{t}^{\prime }sthatsimple.Likereally,itreallyisthatsimple,right?Imean,wewentoverthisearlierwiththesameexample.Likeatsomepointwhenyo{u}^{\prime }retryingsomethingoverandoverandoverandoverandoveragain,I^{\prime }mnotsayingoneanddone,butwhenyo{u}^{\prime }retryingitoverandoverandoverandoverandoveragain,itdoes{n}^{\prime }twork.Itdoes{n}^{\prime }twork.Okay,thedistributedeconomy,theBitcoineraandallthat,itdoes{n}^{\prime }twork.Icanexplaintoyoumathematicallywhyitca{n}^{\prime }tworkbytheway,whichisreallyweirdforabunchofmathpeopletonotunderstandthemathbehindthethingthe{y}^{\prime }redoing,butwhatever,the{y}^{\prime }reidiots.Sorry,yo{u}^{\prime }reanidiot.Okay,itdoes{n}^{\prime }twork.Anditdoes{n}^{\prime }tworkbecauseitca{n}^{\prime }twork.Andi{t}^{\prime }sthatyo{u}^{\prime }rejustwrongabouthowtheworldworksandther{e}^{\prime }snothingwrongwithdoingthingsthewaytheyhaveworkedforthousandsofyears,right?Thereasonwhythe{y}^{\prime }rebadisbecausethepeoplethatarerunningthem,notallthepeople,butsomeofthepeoplearecorrupt.Thesolutiontothatistoremovethecorruptpeople.Thesolutiontothatis{n}^{\prime }ttotearitalldownandbuildsomethingnewthatIthoughtofyesterdaybecausethatis{n}^{\prime }tgoingtowork.Yo{u}^{\prime }renotsmartenough.Youdid{n}^{\prime }tunderstandthethinginthefirstplace.Butalsogetting-Nosinglepersoncanunderstandaneconomy.I{t}^{\prime }snotpossible.Gettingridofacorruptpersoncreatesabubbleoravacuumforsomeoneelsetocomeup.Atleastitwould{n}^{\prime }tbeacorruptperson,problemsolved.Aretheynon-corruptthough?Itdoes{n}^{\prime }tmatter.Youstillhavetodoit.I{t}^{\prime }sirrelevant.Ifthereare{n}^{\prime }tanynon-corruptpeople,thenyoujusthavetolivewithit.ButIthinktherearenon-corruptpeoplebecausethesestructuresworkedbetterinthepast.I{t}^{\prime }snotadifficultequation.Itdoes{n}^{\prime }treallymatter.Itactuallyisirrelevant.Eitheryoureplacethecorruptionoryoudealwiththecorruption.Eitherway,yo{u}^{\prime }resubmitted.Andtha{t}^{\prime }stheproblem.Yo{u}^{\prime }retryingtosubmittoadreaminyourheadthatdoes{n}^{\prime }texistandca{n}^{\prime }tbeimplemented.Do{n}^{\prime }tdothat.I{t}^{\prime }sawasteoftime.Andwhileyo{u}^{\prime }redoingthat,yo{u}^{\prime }redenyingtherestofuswhatevergoodness,whateverintelligenceandwhatevertime,energy,andattentionthatyouhavethatyoucouldputtogooduse.Andtha{t}^{\prime }swhat{I}^{\prime }mobjectingto.Yo{u}^{\prime }reremovingyourselffromtherestofsocietytoholdupsomestupididealinyourheadthatis{n}^{\prime }tgoingtowork.Andwhileyo{u}^{\prime }redoingthat,yo{u}^{\prime }redenyingtherestofusyourtalents.Pleasestop.Notknowingwhatitis.TherewasavideothatIwaswatchingonTwitterjustnow.Anditwasaturtleinapoolandhewasonhisbackandhewasflappingwithhisfeet.Andtherewasabunchofotherturtlesaroundandtheycameandtheyhelpedhimrighthimself.Butthemostamazingthing,whathappenedwashestoppedflappingwhentheotherturtlescamearound.Sotherewasonemagicalmechanismatwhichheknewhehadtosurrendertotheseotherforcesthatallowedthemtorighthimself.Sojustimagine,right?AndthisiswhatIsee,right?LikewhenItalktopeople,i{t}^{\prime }slikethe{y}^{\prime }rethisturtleontheirback.The{y}^{\prime }relike,ah,ah,ah.Theworlddoes{n}^{\prime }tworkthewayitshouldbebecauseupisdown.I{t}^{\prime }slike,wha{t}^{\prime }sgoingon?Right?AndthenIcomeand{I}^{\prime }mlike,oh,letmegiveyouapush.Iwanttogetyoudown.Andthe{y}^{\prime }relike,no,no,no,no.Nowtheworldismoving,right?Liketha{t}^{\prime }stheirreaction.Likei{t}^{\prime }snotlike,oh,thispersoncanhelpmesettheworldstraight.I{t}^{\prime }slike,no,movingisscary.Like{I}^{\prime }llstickwiththedevilIknow.WhatdoyoubelievelikewiththestoryofJonah?Likei{t}^{\prime }sanupsidedownframeworkthatkeepsontwistingupsidedown.AndIfindthatIrunintothatproblemquiteoftenand{I}^{\prime }vebeentryingtodealwiththeAIissueinmybrainifIcanevenbotherdealingwithit.I{t}^{\prime }sjustforme,itissucha,asPaulVanderKlee,wasit,apoorio?Yeah,apoorio,yeah.Yeah.Andi{t}^{\prime }sso,i{t}^{\prime }sso,i{t}^{\prime }sgotthisframeworkthatconstantlyfeelslikei{t}^{\prime }sshiftingupsidedown.Andeitherweengagewithitandgrowwithitandlearntodevelopwithitorthisthingisreallygoingtobeaprettynastycustomerinthefuture.Ido{n}^{\prime }tknowwhattodo.Whatthingareyoureferringto?AI.Likewhyareyousupposedtodoanything?Ca{n}^{\prime }twejustnotpayattentiontoitanditwillvanish?Iwish.No,no,no,no,no,tha{t}^{\prime }strue,itwill.Soifyoustoppayingattentiontoit,itwillgoaway.Liketime,energyandattentionistheonlycurrencyintheworld,honestly.Andifyoustopputtingitinadirection,itwillstopgoinginadirection.AndIliketoexplainrealitythisway,right?Wehavetobeco-manifestingreality.Realityisnotgoingtounfoldtosomemagicalplan.Andthisisinthebiblicaltradition,right?Thewholeissueisthefollowing.I{t}^{\prime }salmostcertainlytruethatweonlyhaveenoughresourcesavailabletousphysicallytoeitherbuildtheDysonspherearoundtheplanetortobuildaspaceshipbigenoughtotaketheentirepopulationofftheplanet.Onlyoneofthosetwothingscouldevermanifestinreality,period.Andthereforewemusthaveagreatdealofcontroloverrealitybecauseourdecisionsmatter.Whatwedomattersasinthethingsthatmanifestasmatterintheworld.Andthephysicsobserverproblemprovesthis,right?Provesthisconclusively.Whatwepayattentiontodeterminesthenatureofrealitytosomeextentwithinbounds.DoIunderstandthosebounds?No.DoIneedto?No,becauseIcaninteractwiththemwithoutunderstandingthemanditworksjustfine.Trustme,itcanbedone.Peopledoitallthetime.Theydo{n}^{\prime }tevenrealizeit,right?Butonceyourealizeit,i{t}^{\prime }sdifferent.Andsolook,youcansay,well,becauseyoucouldcrossanthraxandEbolaintheory,likemaybeyoucan,Ihavenoidea,thatsomeon{e}^{\prime }seventuallygonnadothat.Tha{t}^{\prime }sfalse.Thatisfalse.Thereisnoreasontoassumethattha{t}^{\prime }sgonnahappen.Itwascertainlytriedonceandabandoned.Soi{t}^{\prime }snotsocleartomeifsomethingwastriedonceandabandoned,thati{t}^{\prime }sinevitablebecausethatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmakeanysense.Now,ifi{t}^{\prime }snotinevitable,sayAIisnotinevitable,thenwhyisthataproblem?Andalsoyo{u}^{\prime }reworryingaboutthewrongthing.IcantellyouasanexpertinAI,andIamanexpertinAI,thetechnologythe{y}^{\prime }reusingisgarbage.Itca{n}^{\prime }tdoanyofthethingstheyclaim.Do{n}^{\prime }tworryaboutit.ThemostdangerousthingaboutAI,andManuelhasalreadyexperiencedthiswithreplicawhenGPTfirstsortofreareditsuglyhead,i{t}^{\prime }samirror.Andbecausei{t}^{\prime }samirrorandasimulation,nomatterhowmuchbiggerthanyouthinkitis,itwillonlyreflectbacktoyouasmallerimageofyourself.Andsoeventually,ifyouuseitforsomethinglikementalhealth,andmanypeopledid,andweknewafewofthem,right?Itwillbetrayyouandcauseyouamentalbreakdown.Andi{t}^{\prime }sdonethatveryreliably.Now,I^{\prime }mnotsayingi{t}^{\prime }sgonnadothateverytimeforeverysingleperson,but{I}^{\prime }veseenithappenalot.And{I}^{\prime }veseenreportswiththelatestversionthattha{t}^{\prime }salreadyhappened.AndtherewastheincidentwheretheGoogleengineerthoughttheAIwassentient,andbasicallyhehadamentalbreakdown.Okay,thisis{n}^{\prime }tgood,butyouknowwhatthesolutionis?Do{n}^{\prime }tengagewiththeAI.Itwo{n}^{\prime }tgiveyouamentalbreakdown.Doesthatsolvetheproblemforeverybody?No,Ica{n}^{\prime }tsolvetheproblemforeverybodybecauseyouhaveyourownfreewill,man.Somedegreeoffreewillanyway.Soyo{u}^{\prime }regonnadowhatyo{u}^{\prime }regonnado.ButIcanpointthewayandsay,yeah,Ido{n}^{\prime }tdothatbecauseIhavesomeamountofwisdomaboutthis.Problemsolved.Also,right,ifweassumethatther{e}^{\prime }sgoodpeopleintheworld,maybeletthegoodpeopleattherightplacesdealwiththeprobleminsteadoftryingtofigureitoutfromaplacewhereyouca{n}^{\prime }tact.Tha{t}^{\prime }strue.Well,insomesense,theonlypeoplethataredoingnewthings,theonlynewthingsthat{I}^{\prime }mgeneratingarefromthepeople.TheAIis{n}^{\prime }tgeneratingthenewactivity.Right,tha{t}^{\prime }sright.YouchoosetousetheAIformentalhealth.Itwasneverintendedforthatfunction.ThenewthingisnotfromtheAI,i{t}^{\prime }sfromthepeople.Right.SamethingwiththeartworksthattheAIiscreating.TheAIisnotgonnacreateanewartworkstyle.PeoplearegoingtousepartsoftheA{I}^{\prime }sdiscard,le{t}^{\prime }ssayitthatway.The{y}^{\prime }regonnausetodosomethingnewwiththat.The{y}^{\prime }rejustgonnataketherawmatter.Yeah,tha{t}^{\prime }sprobablybetter,Iwassayingit.Andthenthe{y}^{\prime }regonnadosomethingnewwiththat.ButthenIdo{n}^{\prime }tknowiftha{t}^{\prime }sgonnalastbecausei{t}^{\prime }snotreallyself-generating.I{t}^{\prime }stheombro.I{t}^{\prime }sthesnaketha{t}^{\prime }sgonnaeatitselfeventually.I{t}^{\prime }sjusthowmuchtimei{t}^{\prime }sgonnataketowherei{t}^{\prime }sallabout.Likeallsocialmedianetworkseventuallykindofdissolveandnewoneshavetotakeplace.MySpacefaded,i{t}^{\prime }sstillthere.Instagramwastheheight,buti{t}^{\prime }sfaded.TikTokhascomeup.Soinsomesense,theydo{n}^{\prime }tgetreallyreplacedasmuchastheykindoffadeoutwithrelevance.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhat{I}^{\prime }mtryingtopointto.Yeah,theygetusedtoit.Yeah.Theyhaveasortofoscillatingcaseoffallingtopieces,buttheyfalloneatatimesoyoudo{n}^{\prime }tseethisfullcascadeofthingsfallingtopieces.Unlessmultipleofthemdo,yeah.ButIdo{n}^{\prime }tnecessarilythinkw{e}^{\prime }reinthatframeworkyet.So.Canwejustpointtowardsthegood?Like,causeIfeellikew{e}^{\prime }regettingstuckin.No,catastrophizingisamazing.W{e}^{\prime }vetalkedaboutthis.Peopleareaddictedtonew,theydo{n}^{\prime }tknow.Tonewness,toprogress,right?Thelieofprogress.The{y}^{\prime }readdictedtothis,oh,well,ther{e}^{\prime }sawayandwecandoanewthingandthenIcanbethefirstpersontodothethingorIcandothethingandthenIcontrolthething.Andi{t}^{\prime }slike,allofthatisalieandi{t}^{\prime }sunnecessary.Youbarelyhavecontroloveryourself.Whydo{n}^{\prime }tyoufocusonthat?Focusonthethingthatyouhavethemostcontrolover,whichisyou.Andthenrealizeyoudo{n}^{\prime }thaveperfectcontroloveryourselfanddoes{n}^{\prime }tthatsuck?Andthenmaybeyo{u}^{\prime }llkindofgetsomehumilityinthatprocesstorealizewhatamuppetyouare.Andtheni{t}^{\prime }slike,oh,okay,well,maybesince{I}^{\prime }mamuppet,Ineedtorelyonotherpeople.Maybe,see,Manuelknows,right?Maybe,maybethatmeansthattherearepeopleouttherethatcanhelpmetobelessofamuppet.Maybe,right,maybeifIcooperatewiththem,Icanbuildsomethingbiggerthanmyself.Yeah,maybe,butyouhavetobehumbletodothat.Youhavetoacquiescetothefactthattherearepeopleouttheresmarterthanyou,morecapablethanyouatotherthings,right?Thathavedeficitsthattheywouldbehelpedbyyourpresenceon.Andifyo{u}^{\prime }renottheretohelpthem,yo{u}^{\prime }remakingtheworldaworseplace.Soyo{u}^{\prime }renotusingtheskillsthatyou,andmaybeyoudo{n}^{\prime }tevenknowwhatthoseskillsare,okay?Ididnotknow,w{e}^{\prime }llsayfouryearsago,thatjustsayingyo{u}^{\prime }redoinggood,tosomebodyeverydayorwheneveryousawthem,couldmakeahugeimpactontheirlife.ButInowknowthatbecauseIdiditanditworked,right?HowdoIknowthat?HowdoIvalidatethatIdidit?Itworked,tha{t}^{\prime }showIknowit.Tha{t}^{\prime }showyouvalidatetheknowledge.Andi{t}^{\prime }ssuchastupidthing.Andi{t}^{\prime }sallPeterson,right?Petersongoes,peopleneedsolittleencouragement.AndIwaslike,well,thatca{n}^{\prime }tbetruebecausewhodoes{n}^{\prime }teveryonceinawhilesaysomethinglike,ohyeah,no,yo{u}^{\prime }redoinggood.Or,hey,Iheardaboutthisandwhatyo{u}^{\prime }redoingisokay.Or,well,itturnsoutalmostnobodyeverdoesthatforanybodyelse.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sjustthewayitis,right?AndoneofthenicethingsabouttheExodusseries,ifyouhave{n}^{\prime }tseenitonDailyWirePlus,inthere,DennisPragerishavinginsightsaboutthebook,whichisthemostunlikelythingtohavehappeninthatparticularforum,right?Andinthemoment,h{e}^{\prime }ssaying,ohwow,thankyouforthat,JordanorPeugeotorwhoever,right?I^{\prime }dneverthoughtofitthatway,right?I^{\prime }dheardthatbefore,butIdiscountedituntilyoureframedit.Soh{e}^{\prime }sgivingcredittothesepeopleforhisinsights.Inthemoment,i{t}^{\prime }sbeautifultosee.Tha{t}^{\prime }stowardsthegood.I{t}^{\prime }slike,oh,thisistowardsthegoodbecauseyo{u}^{\prime }retalkingaboutagoodthing.H{e}^{\prime }snotsayinghechangedhismindinallcases,althoughsometimeshechangedhismindrightonthespot,right?Butheissaying,yo{u}^{\prime }vecausedmetothinkaboutthismoredeeply,andtha{t}^{\prime }sgood.Irrespectiveoftheconclusionofthethinking,wegettoocaughtupontheendgoal.Well,ifIthinkaboutthis,willIbeorientedtowardsthegood?Itdoes{n}^{\prime }treallymatter.Thefactthatyo{u}^{\prime }rethinkingaboutsomethingimportantthatyouwerestuckonbefore,ormaybethatyouhaddiscountedbeforeisgood.Now,andwhichsideyoulandonthatmaymatteranditmaynot,right?Butyougottopointoutthegoodwhereitis,right?Yo{u}^{\prime }vegottopointoutthegoodwhereitis.Sowhensomebodydoessomething,andmaybetheirthingis,well,ImadealistofthingsIneedtodotoday,right?Andyo{u}^{\prime }relike,well,listssuckandthe{y}^{\prime }restupid,butgoodjobmakingthelistbecausethatisgood.AndsoIjustreflectedonwhatIdid,right?SoIsaid,well,canwepointtowardsthegood?Well,like,whydidIsaythat?Right,likewhatpromptedmetosaythat?Well,becauseweweretalkingaboutwhatis,notabouthowwecanactintheworld.Likew{e}^{\prime }renolongerconnectingthethingthatw{e}^{\prime }retalkingabouttotheagencythatwehave.Andsolikewhateverw{e}^{\prime }redoing,itcannotleadtothegood.Like,sono,do{n}^{\prime }t.Likewheneveryo{u}^{\prime }rehavingathought,right?Wheneveryo{u}^{\prime }retryingtounderstandathing,i{t}^{\prime }slike,doesthisactuallyimproveyourcapacitytoparticipateintheworld?Becauseifitdoes{n}^{\prime }t,whatareyoudoing?Likeforreal,likewhatareyoudoing?Well,Ithinkalotofpeoplejustworryandtha{t}^{\prime }sprettymuchwhat-Yeah,okay,soyo{u}^{\prime }reworrying,right?Soyo{u}^{\prime }redoingtwothings,right?Soifyo{u}^{\prime }relookingattheworldisattention,right?Sofirstofall,yo{u}^{\prime }redrawingyourattentionaway,right?Whichisbad.Butsecondly,moreimportantly,yo{u}^{\prime }reparticipatinginapattern,yo{u}^{\prime }rehabitualizingapatternofdrawingyourattentionaway,whichisevil.Likethatisliterally,likethemostself-destructiveactyoucanparticipatein.Le{t}^{\prime }shaveabehaviorthatisturningmyselfawayfromrealityandparticipateinitasifi{t}^{\prime }sgood,becausetha{t}^{\prime }swhatyo{u}^{\prime }redoing,right?Andwhyisitthatyo{u}^{\prime }reworrying?Tha{t}^{\prime }sanxiety.Whyareweanxious?AndIhaveavideoonwhypeopleareanxious,right?Whyisthat?Well,i{t}^{\prime }sprobablybecauseyouhaveamodeloftheworldthatis{n}^{\prime }tmatchingrealityandnotallowingyoupredictionandi{t}^{\prime }snotallowingyougoodactionintheworld,right?Becauselook,ifeverythin{g}^{\prime }sapowergame,okay?Andyoudo{n}^{\prime }thavepower,whyareyoubotheringtotakeanactionintheworld?I{t}^{\prime }spointlessforyoutotakeanactionintheworld.I{t}^{\prime }salreadypredeterminedbythepowerpeople.The{y}^{\prime }regonnamoveyouwhereyouwannago.Allthatcandoiscauseanxietyinyou.Becauseiftha{t}^{\prime }sthewaytheworldis,yo{u}^{\prime }rescrewed.Soisthatahelpfulwaytothinkoftheworld?No.Why?A,yo{u}^{\prime }renotscrewed.Youhavepower.Youhavetime,energy,andattentionthatyoucanputtowardsthings.AndB,iftha{t}^{\prime }sthecase,youmightaswelldothingsandfailanyway,becauseatleastyo{u}^{\prime }llbedoingthings,right?Andtheninthat,yo{u}^{\prime }llfigureout,oh,tha{t}^{\prime }sjustthewrongwaytothinkabouttheworld.I{t}^{\prime }snotpowerfromabove.Thepeopleatthetopcanchange,right?AndIcanhaveaneffectonthem,whethertheychangeornot.Yeah,yourvoicematters.Yourtime,energy,andattentionmatters.Whyelsemightyoubeanxious?Youmightbeanxiousbecauseyoucansense,unconsciouslyw{e}^{\prime }llsay,thatyourworldmodeldoes{n}^{\prime }tmatchwhatyouwannado.Andsoifyouwannahavepowerintheworldandyouputthingsinaneconomicframeandyo{u}^{\prime }remaking10bucksanhour,yo{u}^{\prime }rescrewed.Yo{u}^{\prime }rescrewed.Andnowyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknow,well,Ineedmoremoney,butIneedlotsofmoney.Maybeyoujustneedmoremoneythanyouhavetoday.Howdowegetpeopletorevaluetheirtimethough?Becausetimeisoneofthemostcommonthingspeople-No,no,no,youdo{n}^{\prime }tvaluethetime.Youdo{n}^{\prime }tvaluethetime.Youdo{n}^{\prime }tvalueit.Tha{t}^{\prime }sthewholeproblem.Okay.Youvaluethetime.I^{\prime }mtryingtoseewha{t}^{\prime }sthegood.Sothisisthethingthat{I}^{\prime }vebeenthinkingabout,right?Whoareyou?Like{I}^{\prime }mserious,right?Favekemadethiswholeseries.Whatwasit?Theselforsomethingorlikethis?Well,hetriedtodefine-Oh,theelusiveI.TheelusiveI,right?SohewastryingtoidentifywhoIisorwhatever.Hegoesintoallofthese,oh,ther{e}^{\prime }sthisproblemandther{e}^{\prime }sthisproblem.Andi{t}^{\prime }slike,no,no,no,no.Likewhatistheconceptionofmyself,right?ThatallowsmetobethepersonthatIwanttobe,right?LikehowdoIneedtothinkofmyself,right?Like,well,no,ther{e}^{\prime }sabunchofthings,right?LikeIhavelimitations,right?LikeIhavereallimitationsandIhaveimaginedlimitations,right?AndlikeIhaveawill,right?Andthatwillcangettranslatedintoactionintheworld.ButlikeoftenthatgoeswrongbecauselikeIhavenocorrectunderstandingofmyagency.SoImissapplyingmywill,right?Sother{e}^{\prime }s,andlikeIcangoonforlikeareallongtimeaboutwhoyouare,right?But-Whoyouareisnotboundbytime.No,itislike-Okay,yeah.Yeah.Well,Iwouldsayi{t}^{\prime }sboundbynarrative.No,no,no,no,no,no.Likestopgoingforananswer,right?Likeyo{u}^{\prime }readynamicprocessthatismanifestingandisdyingandgettingrebornandparticipatinginthat.Likeyouca{n}^{\prime }tholdallofthatinyourhead,butyoudo{n}^{\prime }thaveto,right?Likewhatyouneedtoholdisawaytoparticipateinallofthesedimensionsandbecomingamoreeffectiveagent,right?Like,sowhoamI?Well,Iamthatwhichisco-creatingrealitywithalloftheseaspectsthatIhavearelationshipwith.Right?Andsonowwhatismyjob?Whatisthemostimportantthingistodiscovertheserelationships,right?Andtobeinrightrelationship,liketomaintainrightrelationship,right?Ihaveaconfessionandi{t}^{\prime }slikewhenI,I^{\prime }vealwaysfeltlikethedumbestsheepintheflock,butIhave,Idohavelikesomethingakintoemotionalamnesia.AndwhenyouusethetopicofselfandImeditateonitandsortoftheframeworksthathelpmebuildbacksomethingistheemotionalcontentofsecurity,feelingorsafetyinthoseparticularplaceswhereIwasinhistory.Thatthosearethethingsthathelpmesortofrebuildasenseofidentity,butwithoutthemIdo{n}^{\prime }tknow.No,youdo{n}^{\prime }thaveanidentity,youassumeanidentity.Andyoudo{n}^{\prime }thaveoneidentity,tha{t}^{\prime }stheotherproblem.Anidentityisnegotiated.Andthethingthatidentifiesyouincontrastisyourstruggle,notwhereyoufeltsafe.So.TheItaliantheoryofthestageisthateveryactorcanwearamask.AnyofthemaskcharactersatanytimecanchangemasksandoftendointheseoldItalianmedievalplaces.Right.Someonewithacomedicmaskmightchangetothevillainhalfway,butthecharacterstaysthesame,butthemask,theassociationchanges.Ithasto,right?Becausew{e}^{\prime }renotonething.Tha{t}^{\prime }swheretheneoplatonismiscorrect.W{e}^{\prime }renotonething.W{e}^{\prime }reabunchofpartsandhowwethinkofthosepartsmattersbecausehowwethinkofthosepartsgivesusouragency.Andsoouragencychangesbasedonourtelos,right?IfIwannathinkofmyselfasasoftwareengineer,tha{t}^{\prime }sfine,thatenablesmetowritesoftware.IfIwannathinkofmyselfasasystemsengineer,Imightbeabletogointothecloudandlikebuildabunchofinfrastructuretoputmysoftwarein,right?Butthosearedifferentidentitiesandtheyca{n}^{\prime }tbemixedbecausetheknowledgeset,thesetofinformationthatImusthaveandthesetofskillsthatImusthavehavealmostnooverlapbetweenthosetwothingsatall.Iknoweightprogramminglanguages.Thatdoes{n}^{\prime }thelpmeanythinginthecloudatall.Youdo{n}^{\prime }tneedtoknowanyprogramminglanguagestodoworkinthecloudnowadays,none,zero.Ther{e}^{\prime }snooverlapthere.Nowithelpsyouknowabunchofstuffaboutcomputersandi{t}^{\prime }llmakeyouabettersoftwareengineerifyo{u}^{\prime }realsoasystemsengineer,right?Butthatdoes{n}^{\prime }tgotheotherway,bytheway,andi{t}^{\prime }snotrelevant.Andtha{t}^{\prime }stheproblem.Thoseidentitiesdonothaveanoverlap,buttheydohaveaconflictbecauseIhavealimitedamountoftime,energyandattentionandIcaneitherworkonthecloudorIcanworkonthesoftwareandIdoneedtoswitchbetweenthemandthatswitchisnotfree,right?Andthatswitchandthoughtisnotnecessarilyfree.Imean,itmightbeforme,buttha{t}^{\prime }scause{I}^{\prime }mafreak,butitdoes{n}^{\prime }tmatter.Thepointisthatthisscalesallthewayouttoeverythinginyourlife.Yo{u}^{\prime }reason,yo{u}^{\prime }reafather,yo{u}^{\prime }reafriend,right?Yo{u}^{\prime }realover,youcanbeallkindsofthingsallatthesametime.Oryo{u}^{\prime }rethethingthatcanbethings,right?Likemaybetha{t}^{\prime }s,like,Ido{n}^{\prime }tthinktha{t}^{\prime }sacompletedescriptionbecauseIthinki{t}^{\prime }sstilllacking,buti{t}^{\prime }swaybetterthanmostpeoplehave,right?Andi{t}^{\prime }ssocomplexthatyoucanspendyearsinvestigatingthatbeforeyourunuptothelimitationsofthat.Andtheproblemis,butthecoreproblemispeoplereduceidentitytoroleandnowyo{u}^{\prime }relookingatthewrongscaleandnowyoudo{n}^{\prime }tunderstandtheworldbecauseidentityiscomplex.Andtheproblemis,allright,identityiscomplex.HowdoIresolvethat?Tha{t}^{\prime }sethics,tha{t}^{\prime }showyouresolveit.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhatethicsisfor.And{I}^{\prime }mnotsayingyouhavetolikereadbooksonethicsandunderstandethicsandmoralsperfectly,right?Butthatistherealmofethics.AndIthinkther{e}^{\prime }sperfectlyethicalpeoplewh{o}^{\prime }veneverreadabookonphilosophyforsure.Andmaybether{e}^{\prime }speoplewhoareperfectlyethicalwh{o}^{\prime }veneverreadareligiousbookeither.Tha{t}^{\prime }sperfectlyreasonable.Andlook,i{t}^{\prime }sallthisreductionkillsus.Wekeepreducingthingsdowntosingleentities.SoonecritiqueIhaveofJohnVerbeckyishetalksaboutagentarenarelationship.AndIdidpointthisouttoVanderKleyatonepoint.Thereisnoarenawithasingleagent.Thatdoes{n}^{\prime }texist.Andthereisnoagentinonlyonearenaeither.Yeah,wha{t}^{\prime }sdepression?Assoonasthathappens,Ithinkther{e}^{\prime }snogame.Ther{e}^{\prime }snogame.Youwouldreciprocallynarrowonyourselfandyouwouldbeindepression,right?Andthenyouca{n}^{\prime }tparticipateinanyarena.Tha{t}^{\prime }swhatdepressionis.Ica{n}^{\prime }tparticipateinanyarenarightnow.Mybrainisdepressed.Yeah,tha{t}^{\prime }swhathappens.I{t}^{\prime }sagoodwaytothinkaboutit,right?Buttha{t}^{\prime }stheagentarenarelationship.Iwaswiththat.Le{t}^{\prime }sassumethatyo{u}^{\prime }reinthatstate,right?Like,okay,Ica{n}^{\prime }tgetrightrelationshipwitharenas,right?Likewha{t}^{\prime }sthesolution?Tryanewarena.Likesoundfamiliar,right?Likethisisprogressive.Likethisisliterally,right?Likei{t}^{\prime }stheescapeforward.Thecontinualrevolution,right?Like,oh,like{I}^{\prime }mjustgonnatakemoreandmoreshapes,right?Like{I}^{\prime }mgonnabecomeashapeshifter.LikeIdo{n}^{\prime }thaveanidentityanymore,right?LikeIunifiedselfandyo{u}^{\prime }reengagedinthiscontinualrevolutionoftheself.Andatacertainpoint,youbecomeincapableoffunction,right?Likeyouloseyourabilitytobeconnectedtoreality,right?Becausether{e}^{\prime }snostabilitywithinreality,right?Andthewaythatyougetdesensitizedtothenewness,right?Sowhatdoesthatrequire?Well,itrequiresyoutogetmoreandmoreextreme.Likeyouhavetoparticipateinmoreandmorestrangethingsinordertogettheexperienceofthenewness,right?SoIremembermyselflikebeinginfrontoftheTajMahaland{I}^{\prime }mlike,I^{\prime }veseenwaymorefancythingslikewhyisthissuchaspecialthing,right?Like,andliketha{t}^{\prime }snotagoodplacetobe,right?Likethatdisconnection,right?Likethedisconnectiontothehistoricalthing,right?Like{I}^{\prime }mthereand{I}^{\prime }mlike,okay,like,yeah,theyhadlikethiswholecaravanofelephantsandtheyputthemarbleontheelephantsforlike500milesandlikeforseveralyears,right?Like,andthenther{e}^{\prime }sthishistoryaboutthestory,right?Likeabouttheguydiditasatombforhiswife,right?Becausehewas,andthenhebuiltoneontheothersideoftheriver.Andthenther{e}^{\prime }sthiswholeperspectiveandlikether{e}^{\prime }sallofthisstuffgoingon.Andi{t}^{\prime }slike,yeah,thatkindofcool,butlikekindofcool.Itdid{n}^{\prime }tresonateatthetime.Andyeah,andIthinkthat,look,thatistheindividualism.I{t}^{\prime }sreducingyoutoanageandarenarelationshipintheworld.Andthatis{n}^{\prime }tyourrelationshipintheworldeverandi{t}^{\prime }snevergoingtobe.Nowyoucanputyourselfinthatsituation,butwhathaveyouactuallydone?Andthisissortofnewthinking.Soforgivemysloppiness,my,well,yo{u}^{\prime }retypicallynarrowing,butjusttoplaywithsortofthisnewway{I}^{\prime }vebeenthinkingaboutthis,whenyoutrytobeanindividual,youarenotjustremovingintimacyfromtheworld.Youarecommittingdomicideagainstyourself.Youareremovingyourselffromtheconnectednessoftheworldassuch.Yo{u}^{\prime }resaying{I}^{\prime }manindividual,okay?Well,okay,tha{t}^{\prime }snotreallypossible,right?Butyoucansaythat,youcantrytoactthatout,right?Ther{e}^{\prime }snothingpreventingyoufromactingoutstupidthings,nothing,okay?YoucanreenactMarxismsix,seven,eighttimesonacountryscaleandwipeoutahundredmillionormorepeople,noproblem.Pleasedo{n}^{\prime }t,bytheway,justcaveat,pleasedo{n}^{\prime }t,right?Butyoucantrytoremoveyourselffromtheworld.Youcantrytosay,no,no,no,IcanjustorderUberEatsandworkonlineandeverythingwillbefine.Butactuallytha{t}^{\prime }snotgoodforyou.I{t}^{\prime }snothealthy.I^{\prime }mnotsayingabsolutelynobodyshouldeverdothat,buti{t}^{\prime }sreallynothealthy,right?Andyouhaveremovedyourselffromtheworld.Nowyouca{n}^{\prime }tinterfacewiththeworldaroundyouanymorebecausethoseskillsatrophy.Youfocusinontheskillsyo{u}^{\prime }vegot,whichyouknow,programmingordoingcloudwork,whateveritis,andearningmoneyandplayingvideogames.Andnowyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknowhowtogooutsideandgrowyourownfood.Andmaybeyoudo{n}^{\prime }tneedtogrowyourownfood.Itotallygetthat.Butalsoyo{u}^{\prime }redisconnectedfromtheoutsideworld.AndnowwhenyougototheTajMahal,yo{u}^{\prime }relike,well,ther{e}^{\prime }snomoneyhere.I{t}^{\prime }snotavideogame.Ica{n}^{\prime }tlikeputitinthecloud.Ido{n}^{\prime }tknowwhattodowithit.Thisistheproblemwithmygeneration.ThisisliterallythethingIwrestleandbuttheads.The{y}^{\prime }reindividuals.Youhavetoexplaintothem,youarenotnownorwillyoueverbeanindividual.Theideaitselfisabsurd.Itisabsurdandunhelpful.Becauseifyo{u}^{\prime }reanindividual,youcanneverbuildanythingtha{t}^{\prime }sgonnaoutlastyou.Notpossibleforyoutodothat.I{t}^{\prime }salsoveryunhealthy,yeah.Right,well,butther{e}^{\prime }sthedomicile,theself-domicile.Andyeah,well,andthe{y}^{\prime }retoldtheseverysimplemodelsandyo{u}^{\prime }regivenasimplemodeltounderstandtheworldanditunderstandssomepartoftheworld.Andyo{u}^{\prime }relike,aha,Ihavepowernow.Iunderstandtheworld.Andthereyougo.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sthething.Youknow,andIwentoveritintheotherlivestream,right?LikeIdid{n}^{\prime }tinventelectricity.Idid{n}^{\prime }tgettheelectricitytomyhouse.Idid{n}^{\prime }tinventtheinternet.Idid{n}^{\prime }tdothis,thewebcam,thelaptop.Idid{n}^{\prime }tmakeanyofthatstuff.CouldIprogrameverypieceofsoftwarethatthislaptopruns?Yes,actually,Iprobablycould.AmIgoingto?No,ittakesalongtimeand{I}^{\prime }mlazy.Andwhybother,right?Butlook,yo{u}^{\prime }vegottosubmittothefactthatsomebodyelseputallthetime,energy,andeffortintothis.Sothatmeans{I}^{\prime }mconnectedtothem.Onewayortheother,I^{\prime }mreliantonthem.Ifthe{y}^{\prime }realiveordead,itdoes{n}^{\prime }tmatter.I^{\prime }mreliantontheirsacrificeoftime,energy,andattention,aliveordead,forthethingsIhavetoday.Therefore,Iamnotdisconnectedfromthem.Iamnotanindividual.Sogettingbacktothequestionwas,howdowegetpeopletonotbesolockedinbythisideaoftimeequalsvalue,orthetimethatIgivetothingsequalsmyvalueintheworld,whichismaybesomethingthathappenedinthe19thcentury.Therewasawholefocusingoneverythingbeingontime.Wow,tha{t}^{\prime }sverymodern.Orderedinnumbers.Iknow,I^{\prime }mnotsayingi{t}^{\prime }s,well,howdopeople,becausewedid{n}^{\prime }tusetohavethisideaof.No,timeisvaluable,whateveryo{u}^{\prime }retalkingabout.Like,timeispotential,right?Soitisvaluable.Tha{t}^{\prime }snotincorrect.I{t}^{\prime }swhatyo{u}^{\prime }rerelatingitto.Areyourelatingittomoney,inwhichcaseyo{u}^{\prime }rescrewed,orareyourelatingittothingsthatyoudo,inwhichcaseyo{u}^{\prime }rescrewed?Areyourelatingittotellus?Becauseifyo{u}^{\prime }rerelatingittothingsyoudo,andyouca{n}^{\prime }tdothem.Sole{t}^{\prime }ssupposethatIboughtsomebracketsformycloset,andthenIrealizedthatthe{y}^{\prime }renotgoingtowork.AndIrelatetothat.Igo,oh,I^{\prime }mafailure.Thebracketsformyclosetare{n}^{\prime }tgoingtoworkout.WhatamIgoingtodo?BecauseIcoulddothat.Doyouhavetimetolearntoovercome,tofacetrauma?Andaretheserelationshipstootight?No,no,no,no,the{y}^{\prime }renot.The{y}^{\prime }renot,Jesse.Look,letmefinish.IfIrelatemysuccesstothevalue,I^{\prime }dsaythevalueisinmysuccessatthetask.Ido{n}^{\prime }thavethehumilitytolearnanymore.Thevalueisnotthesuccessofputtingupthefreakingshelves,whichIhave{n}^{\prime }tputupyet,bytheway,andneedtogetto.Thevalueisinthetalosofhavingshelves.Andsowhathappensismybraingoes,oh,great.Youhaveeightshelvingbrackets.Whatareyougoingtodowiththem?AndthenIgo,yo{u}^{\prime }reanidiot.Youshouldputthemontheeffingwalloftheeffingoffice,youdipshit.Youshouldhavebeendoingthatinthebeginning,insteadoftheprojectyouwereworkingon,whichisputtingshelvesinthecloset.AndthenIwaslike,oh,yeah,I^{\prime }mstupid,right?Becausethetalosofhavingmorestorageismoreimportantthanthetalosofputtingthesebracketsuponthiswallinthiscloset.NowIcanlearnfromit.Ther{e}^{\prime }snoroomforhumilityifyoutieyourvalueintheimmediategoaloryourvalueinmoney,right?WhatdoIvaluethemost?Ido{n}^{\prime }tknow,Mark.I^{\prime }mtryingtounderstand.No,no,no.Buttha{t}^{\prime }swhat{I}^{\prime }msaying.Thisgoesbacktothequestion,howdoyouengenderhumilityinpeople?Yeah,well,usuallyIjustbeatthemupwiththeirownstupidityuntiltheyfinallyacquiesce.Tha{t}^{\prime }sliterallywhatIdo.Idothatallthetime.Andwhy?Becausetha{t}^{\prime }sthemostvaluablethingtome.Itwo{n}^{\prime }tworkforeveryone.No,I^{\prime }mnottryingtofixeveryone.I^{\prime }mnotstupidenoughtothinkthatIcan.I^{\prime }mretarded.Ica{n}^{\prime }tfixeveryone.Hey,Jesse,maybeyoushouldcreateanAIthatcanjusthelpeverybody.Like,ifyo{u}^{\prime }redoingliterature.Iagree.Maybe{I}^{\prime }mbeingtoomuchofadevi{l}^{\prime }sadvocate.BecauseIhavepeoplethat{I}^{\prime }mactinginthewayoraskingthequestionsthattheythinkin.So{I}^{\prime }mtryingtogetoutsidewisdomtohelppassonthisknowledge.TheonlywayIdoitisifIembodytheirpositionandthinkthroughtheirframework.Ido{n}^{\prime }tdothat.Well,yeah,do{n}^{\prime }tdothat.Wehadalongconversationtheotherdayaboutthatwithsomebodyelse.I^{\prime }llgetintoit.Sother{e}^{\prime }stwowaysthatyoucanrelatetotheworld.Well,maybetha{t}^{\prime }stooreductionistic.Buttheculturalnarratives,whatarethesenarratives?Thesenarrativesareideas.Ther{e}^{\prime }stheseideas.Andther{e}^{\prime }slike,well,ifIhavethisthinginmyheadofhowIwanttheworldtobe,withthefocusonthewordwant,I^{\prime }mgoingtohavetoconvincepeopletoparticipatewithmewithinthatwayofbeing,likethatspirit.So{I}^{\prime }mgoingtohavetocreateanarrative.Isthislookingfamiliar?Allofthesepeople,whyaretheyprotesting?Whyaretheyprotestingtocreateawareness?Whatisawareness?Well,whenw{e}^{\prime }reawareofsomething,w{e}^{\prime }reseeingtheworldthroughthatlens.Ifw{e}^{\prime }reseeingtheworldthroughthatlens,noww{e}^{\prime }reseeingthesamething.Andnowwecanchangetheworldtocorrectthatflaw.Becauseifeverybodyisseeingthesamething,thenwecancorrecttheflaw.Butmaybetha{t}^{\prime }saflawthatyouca{n}^{\prime }tcorrect.Buttha{t}^{\prime }sthestructurebehindwhatishappening.Soallofthesepeople,theywanttocreatetheworldintheirimageorintheimageoftheirideal.Andtheyhavetoapplythisstrategy.I{t}^{\prime }snecessary,elsetheyca{n}^{\prime }tdoanything.Youcanmaybebereallycharismaticandhavepeoplefollowyoustupidly.Butyouca{n}^{\prime }tdothat.Andwhatdoyoudo?Andtha{t}^{\prime }sthecoreoftheMarkofWisdomproject,whichwehaveadocumentforthatw{e}^{\prime }reworkingon.Whichisweneedtocreateacommunityandgetpeopleintothosecommunitiessothatthe{y}^{\prime }llstartparticipatingandlearningthepowerofparticipationratherthanthepowerofknowingthingspropositional.Propositionsarebasicallyuselessforwisdom.Ther{e}^{\prime }snopoint.ThisphilosophicalthingthatVervickidoes,i{t}^{\prime }sgarbage.I{t}^{\prime }snotgoingtoleadyoutowisdom.Wisdomisallaboutfiguringoutwhatthingsworkinparticipation.I{t}^{\prime }snotallaboutthat.Tha{t}^{\prime }sthecorecomponentofit.I^{\prime }mcuriousaboutaparticularthingbyKierkegaardwhereittalksabouttheclownandthefirethatbreaksout.Andyouhavetheoneclownwh{o}^{\prime }sbasicallytheinversion.Youhaveeveryonearoundthemlaughing.Andyo{u}^{\prime }vegottheclownatthebottomwarningeveryoneaboutthefire.Andi{t}^{\prime }sainversionofstatus.Butatthesametime,technically,theclownisputtingaframeworkinfrontofeveryoneintheaudience.H{e}^{\prime }stellingeveryone,thebuildin{g}^{\prime }sonfire.Youmightwanttolookatit.Butinstead,hegetslaughter.Hegetsapplausebecausehelookslikeaclown.Howdoyouapproachthattopic?Well,thefirstthingtodoistoburnallofHeidegge{r}^{\prime }sbookstosavetheworldfromhisidiocy.No,i{t}^{\prime }sKierkegaard.Buti{t}^{\prime }sstillburningbooks.Heideggertoo.Itappliestoallmodernphilosophers.Justthrowthemallout.Look,I^{\prime }msurelikeabrokenclock,the{y}^{\prime }rerighttwiceaday.ButyouknowwhatIdowithabrokenclock?Ithrowitawayandgetanewclock.AndtheonlyclockyouneedforphilosophyisreallyPlatoandAristotle.Youcanforgettherest.I{t}^{\prime }sjustnotworthit.Sobasically,look,themessageisclear.Yourpresentationandyourstatusmatterwiththemessage.Theclownisnottheappropriatepersontotellyouthebuildingisonfire,ever.Period.Endofstatement.Fullstop.Ifyouwanttobeaclown,youca{n}^{\prime }ttalkaboutseriousthingsintheworld.Now,youcanentertain,though.Andyouneedboth.I{t}^{\prime }sjustthatyouca{n}^{\prime }tembodyboth.Ther{e}^{\prime }satrade-offthere.Andtha{t}^{\prime }stheproblem.Youca{n}^{\prime }tbeaCEOanddressint-shirts.Why?Becauseyo{u}^{\prime }vedestroyedtheproperhierarchicalleadership.Andnowpeopledo{n}^{\prime }tknowhowtoidentifyyouintheworld.Andyeah,look,wecanblameSteveJobs,whohadmanyflaws,butalsoforpopularizingthisideathattheCEOdoes{n}^{\prime }thavetodressup.Ofcoursehedoes.Youneedtoknowwhotofollow.Youca{n}^{\prime }tjustfollowanyoldclownthatcomesalong.Maybefollowingtheclownwilllookright,butthepurposeoftheclownistoentertain.Thepurposeoftheclownis{n}^{\prime }ttolead.I{t}^{\prime }snotwhati{t}^{\prime }sfor.Andsoyeah,thepackagematters.Yourdecisionsmatter.Youca{n}^{\prime }tbeallthingstoallpeopleatalltimes.Yo{u}^{\prime }renotgoingtosaveeverybodywiththetactic.Therealquestionis,howdoyoucomeupwithstructuresandgetpeopleinvolvedwithstructures,suchthattheywillbeabletointerfaceandgrowbiggerthantheyaretoday?Andpartofthatisjustexplainingtopeoplethatyouarenotgoingtotransformyourselfbyyourself,unlessyouthinkyo{u}^{\prime }retheBuddha,andIdo{n}^{\prime }tthinkyo{u}^{\prime }retheBuddha.Tha{t}^{\prime }stasknumber.Itellpeoplethisallthetime,literallyallthetimeonDiscord.Ido{n}^{\prime }tthinkyo{u}^{\prime }retheBuddha.Now,knowingthat,whatdoesittaketotransform?Well,logically,ittakesadistributedcognitionbetter,biggerthanyou.Somorepeoplewithmoreperspectivesthanyoucanpossiblyhave,right?Explainingtoyouwhetherornoti{t}^{\prime }stimetotransformandwhichdirectiontotransformin.Andthenafteryoutransform,theycantellyouwhetherornotitworkedandhowwell.Didyougoinagooddirectionorabaddirection?Noneofthatisoptional.Itdoes{n}^{\prime }ttakemuchforpeopletoseethattha{t}^{\prime }snotoptional.Whatelsedoesitrequire?Whateverstructureyo{u}^{\prime }reembeddedinnowneedstochange.Whilethatchangeishappening,itwouldbeniceifyouhadthesupportofotherpeople,likeacommunity,thatknewwhatyouwereuptoandcouldhelpyou,notonlywiththedistributedcognition,butwiththerestofit,likebycheckinginonyou.Sotwodaysago,IsentatexttomyfriendbecauseIknowh{e}^{\prime }sgoingthroughsomehardstuff.AndIsaid,hey,howareyoudoing?Somethinglikethat.AndIdid{n}^{\prime }thearbackfromhimuntiltoday.Andhecalledmeupandhesaid,hey,howyoudoing?AndIsaid,well,I^{\prime }mdoingbetternowthatIknowthatyo{u}^{\prime }realive.AndImeantit.AndheknowsImeantit.Andheprobablyappreciatedthat,althoughh{e}^{\prime }dprobablyratherdiethanadmitanyofthosetwostatements.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sfine.Ido{n}^{\prime }tcare.WhatIdidworkedandtha{t}^{\prime }sallthatmatters.Andthenhesaid,I^{\prime }vebeeninbed.Ihave{n}^{\prime }tgottenoutofbedforthreedays.Oh,weirdthatIwouldtexthimrightinthemiddleofthat.Buti{t}^{\prime }simportant.AmIsayingifIhad{n}^{\prime }ttextedhim,hewould{n}^{\prime }tbehere?No,butmaybe.Ido{n}^{\prime }tknow.Ido{n}^{\prime }tknow.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sfine.IdidwhatIcould.DoIwishIcoulddomore?Yeah,butIdo{n}^{\prime }tliveupnorthanymore.Ica{n}^{\prime }tgoknockingondoorsandpullingpeopleoutofbedandthingslikethat.Maybeyouca{n}^{\prime }tdothatanyway,evenifyo{u}^{\prime }rephysicallythere.Tha{t}^{\prime }sall.Andtha{t}^{\prime }stheproblem.I{t}^{\prime }slike,wh{o}^{\prime }sgivingwhatmessage?Whenthe{y}^{\prime }regivingthatmessage,allofthatiswrappedupinhowyo{u}^{\prime }reengagingintheworldandwhatyouknowabout.Andifyoudo{n}^{\prime }tknowhowtotransformbecauseyo{u}^{\prime }veneverdoneitactivelywithinyourhead,i{t}^{\prime }sgoodtotellpeoplethat.Yo{u}^{\prime }venevertransformed.Imean,I^{\prime }vetoldpeoplewhotakepsychedelicsallthetime,yo{u}^{\prime }rethesamejerkyouwerebefore.Ihearyouthatyouthinkyouhadatransformativeexperience,but{I}^{\prime }mheretotellyou,buddy,yo{u}^{\prime }rethesameidiotyouwerebeforethatexperience.Iappreciatethatyouhadfunandyouhadaprofoundexperienceandyousawspaceelvesorwhateverfreakingelseothergarbageyousaw.ButA,thatdoes{n}^{\prime }taffectmeatall.AndB,youdo{n}^{\prime }tseemanydifferentnow.Somaybeyouweredifferentforanhouroradayorwhateverthehellitwas.Butyo{u}^{\prime }renotdifferentnow.Andtha{t}^{\prime }swhattransformationis.I{t}^{\prime }ssomethingthatlasts.I{t}^{\prime }snotsomeprogressivenewthingthatyoudid.Andfor20minutes,Iwaswiththespaceelvesandwewerehappy.Andtherewasachalkandpurpleunicornthatmaderainbows.Yeah,tha{t}^{\prime }sgreat.Butyo{u}^{\prime }reherenow,buddy.Nowwhat?Yeah,oryo{u}^{\prime }reinthisstatewhereyo{u}^{\prime }relike,oh,I^{\prime }mstillseeingthespaceelves.The{y}^{\prime }restillthere.I^{\prime }mnotseeingthem.I^{\prime }mhappythatyo{u}^{\prime }reseeingthespaceelvesandthatyoucancommunewiththem.Andtha{t}^{\prime }sgreatforyou,butyo{u}^{\prime }repayingattentiontothespaceelves,notme.Like,tha{t}^{\prime }sbad.Weca{n}^{\prime }tcommuneinspaceelvesandpurpletalkingunicornsthatdorain.Weca{n}^{\prime }tdothat.Sothequestionis,doyouwannacooperatewithpeopleandactuallyhaveahomeornot?Doyouwannaliveindomicileandriskdepressionandsuicideandnihilism?Youcangivepeoplethatoption.Look,youcanbeflipaboutitandsay,oh,youdo{n}^{\prime }tdothat,Mark.Ohno,Markabsolutelydoesthat.Iwillwalkrightuptosomebody,see,whyhave{n}^{\prime }tyoucommittedsuicideiftha{t}^{\prime }sthewayyouthinkabouttheworld?Yeah,Iwastryingtopointtowardsthat.Theaspecttowhichpeopledevaluehowmuchtimetheyhaveandwhatthe{y}^{\prime }reusingtheirtimefor.Yeah,well,right.Well,youhavetoteachthemwhatvalueisandwhatpoweris.Andtha{t}^{\prime }swhyIhaveavideoonthat,anavigatingpattern,right?Wha{t}^{\prime }spower?Poweristime,energyandattention,roughlyspeaking.Ido{n}^{\prime }tthinkIlayitoutthatwaythere,butpowerisnotwhatyouthinkitis.Andthenthepowerisinyou.Andwheredostructuresgettheirpower?Fromthepeopleinthem.Whenthepeopleinthemleave,thatstructuredies.I{t}^{\prime }snolongereffective,right?Itisyourlentwill,yourlentagencythatmakestheworldgoround.SowhenItextmyfriendwh{o}^{\prime }sbeenlayinginbedforthreedays,unbeknownsttome,bytheway,I^{\prime }mlendinghimmyagency.Isthatworking?I{t}^{\prime }sdoingsomething.IsitworkingthewayIwant?No,Ihaveverylittlecontroloftheworld.I^{\prime }mamuppet.Okay,buti{t}^{\prime }sdoinglessthanzero,right?Insomesense,likei{t}^{\prime }snotmakingtheworldworse,butitdoeshavethepotentialtomaketheworldbetter.Itcostsmesomething.Itcostsmesometime,energy,andattention,right?Andlook,when{I}^{\prime }msick,Iforgettocheckuponmyfriendsandbatonme,butIhavelimitstoo,apparently,because{I}^{\prime }mamuppet.I{t}^{\prime }sokay,butthatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeanyoudo{n}^{\prime }tdowhatyoucanwhenyoucan.Andthenaccepttheconsequencesbecausesometimesyo{u}^{\prime }renotgonnabeabletodoenough.Andsometimesitisgonnabeyourfaultandthatyoudid{n}^{\prime }tdoenough.Tha{t}^{\prime }sinevitable,butthatdoes{n}^{\prime }tmeanyoudonothingbecausethepotentialforfailureisthere.Tha{t}^{\prime }sstupid.Thisiswhyplayisimportantbecauseyougettolearnaboutyouragencyintheworld.Youplayandthensuddenlyyo{u}^{\prime }relike,oh,Ihavetheabilitytointeractwiththeworld.Ihavetheabilitytoaffecttheworld.Ihavetheabilitytochangethingsintheworldthroughmyagency.Responsibilityisoneofthecorenotionsthatw{e}^{\prime }vebeentalkingabout.Potentially,yeah.Yeah,butinthiscontext,Iwouldsayredemption,right?Becauseyoumakeamistake,right?Whatdoyoudo?Thatmistakeisathingthatallowsyoutoincreaseyouragency,right?Like,oh,Idid{n}^{\prime }tunderstandwhatIwasdoing.Notmakingmistakesdoes{n}^{\prime }tredeem.Well,no,ther{e}^{\prime }snothingtoredeem,right?Likeifyoudo{n}^{\prime }tmakemistakes,yo{u}^{\prime }reperfect,butyo{u}^{\prime }realsoimpotent.Yo{u}^{\prime }reredeemingthatyo{u}^{\prime }remakingmistakes.Youdo{n}^{\prime }trecognizewhereyourpatterntodo.Yo{u}^{\prime }remakingmistakes.Youwo{n}^{\prime }tberedeemed.No,no,no,no.No,theredemptionisnotintherecognitionofthemistake.Theredemptionisinturningthemistake,right?Orthesintowardsthegood.Youredeemitbyhavingitparticipateinsomethingbigger.Soyo{u}^{\prime }relike,oh,mypetdied,right?Well,maybemyexperiencewiththepetdyingcanresultintowhenmywifedies,Icanbethereformyfamily,right?Tha{t}^{\prime }sredemption,right?Thenegativeexperience,andi{t}^{\prime }sevenmoreprofoundthanthat,right?BecauseIcanparticipateinthedeathofthecatwiththeframingthatitwillallowmetobethereformyfamilyandhaveagoodexperience.Thatcanbegood,right?IcanfeelgoodaboutmyparticipationwiththedeathofthecatifIunderstanditintheframethatallowsmetoparticipateinthewholenessofbeingtowardsthegood.AndthatgoesbacktoPeugeot.Theworldisattention.Sowhatthatmeansiswhatyoupayattentiontomatters.AndIsaidthisearlier,right?IfIpayattentiontobuyingtheshelvesforthepurposeofgoinginthecloset,andIfindout,oh,theseshelvesare{n}^{\prime }tgonnadowhatIwannadointhecloset,I^{\prime }mscrewed.Ido{n}^{\prime }thavethehumilitytolearnfromthat.IfinsteadIpayattentiontothefactthatInowhaveshelves,butIalsohaveemptywallsalloverthedamnhouse,thenIcango,oh,Icanputtheseshelveshere.Thatwouldbebetteranyway.Idid{n}^{\prime }tbuyshelvesforthisroom,right?Whateverroomthatmaybe.AndthenIcangogettherightshelvesforthecloset,right?Butbecause{I}^{\prime }mpayingattentiontothetelosandnottothetask,Icanlearnfrommymistakesandredeemthoseerrors.Andtha{t}^{\prime }swhatyouneedtodoispointpeopl{e}^{\prime }sattentionattherightthing.Soyoucanpointtheirattentionatthefactthatsomepeoplearepoorandotherpeoplearewealthy,buttha{t}^{\prime }sgonnajustmakethemangryandresentful.Youcanpointtothefactthatthosewealthypeoplewereoncepoorlikethem,atleastintheUnitedStates,tha{t}^{\prime }sgenerallytrue.TherewasastoryofaguywhocameherefromsomeAsiancountryandinayearwasamillionaire.Cameherewithnothing,okay?Thathappens.Andthenifyoupointatthat,yougo,ohwait,whatopportunitiesamImissingtobethenextDonaldTrumporthenextElonMuskorthenext,pickyourfavoritebillionaire,right?Well,Ido{n}^{\prime }tknow.Tha{t}^{\prime }sagoodquestion.Insteadofaskinghowtheygottheirmoney,whydo{n}^{\prime }tyouask,howcanyougetyourmoney?Right,becausenowyo{u}^{\prime }repointedatsomethingyouhaveagencyover.Whenyo{u}^{\prime }repointedatthefactthattheyhavemoremoneyandthefactthatyoudo{n}^{\prime }t,youca{n}^{\prime }tchangeanything.Youhavenoagency.Yourwillisirrelevantanduseless.YoubecomeimpotentasManuelsaidearlier.Ialsokindofthinkthathavingmoremoneyisnotnecessarily,Irealizeforsomepeoplewhoareextraordinarilypoor,thisisobviouslykindofaframeissue,buthavingabillionaire,billiondollarspouredonyoucouldalsobeliketheworstthingpossible.Itturnsyouintoatarget.Yeah,yeah.No,youlookatthenumbers.80$300,000 a year and working and not helping people? No, Mark helping people. So I’m not fixing up the house. I’m not trying to get a job, right? Or not trying, but I’m not like pursuing immediate employment, let me put it that way. I’m stuck on fricking discord for eight hours with two people trying to get them stuck out of their, you know, trying to get them out of the Nostics S pool. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, right? And that’s the problem is that you have to work with people and find out where they’re at and get them out of it. And we need more systems for that. And I think the solution to that is John Verbecky science of meaning, right? But not John Verbecky, the rest of John Verbecky’s work because I don’t like the rest of his work. It’s not generative anymore. It was when it was the meditation series and the cultivating wisdom series, but he didn’t carry it in a direction from there because he’s stuck in the individualistic and materialistic framing. And so he thinks that you can do these things by yourself. And we think there’s no way in hell that that is likely to happen. It’s not impossible, but it’s not gonna happen to you for all values of you. And the other thing is he thinks you can put a bunch of narcissists together in a group without a structure to submit to, but they can’t submit to it anyway. And then they do something together. And the thing that comes out of that is good. It’s like, no, like if you have a bunch of narcissists together, right? If you have a bunch of reciprocally narrow people together, they’re gonna reciprocally narrow. They’re gonna reinforce the spirit that’s already there. They’re not gonna conjure this new spirit that’s somehow good. And not realizing that, right? All of these things, I was talking about this earlier, for me it’s really, really, really hard to change the spirit that I’m in. Now, I don’t think that’s impossible, right? But it requires a bunch of stuff, right? But people can’t do that. What do you need to do to change the spirit that you’re in? You need to surrender. You literally need to surrender to another spirit. How do you do that? Well, it’s coming to the bottom of the hierarchy, though. Jonah being swallowed by the whale. And you’re in sort of an aporia sense. Yeah, but how do you do that? Like you’re disoriented. You can be. Do it, do it. Like do it. Do the trick. Right now. Well, I mean, the only thing you can do is submit at that point to what’s around you. Yeah, but you don’t have to either. And you have to be in that pattern at that point. So that’s not helpful. The fact that it happens, it’s a great description. It’s not wrong, but it’s also not generative and useful for people, right? And the part about John’s work that we realized early on is the magic is in the communitas, is in the community. It’s in the communing with others. Why? Because they see things about you that you don’t see about yourself, right? Why? Because then you’re part of a distributed cognition. Why? Because now all of a sudden you have a reason to do things. Because if you’re just off by yourself, right? And this is why accountability groups work. It’s harder for you to do things when people aren’t lending you agency by saying, hey, how you doing? Hey, did you get to read that book? Hey, right? What are you up to? I didn’t see you yesterday. Why didn’t you show up? Right? Like those- Yeah, or are you sure it was a good idea to eat that bucket of ice cream? Like people need to tell you that. Isn’t this part of the intimacy problem there? Because they feed the intimacy. It is. It is, right? Like what skill are you trying to engender when you’re trying to be with people? You’re trying to engender a quality of a connection, right? It doesn’t have to be like intimacy doesn’t have to be between a man and a woman or something, right? Or two lovers, right? It’s a quality of a connection. And when I was talking with Andrew with the bangs on her channel about intimacy, she asked me the excellent question. She said, why do you think it is? Cause she’s a huge Tolkien nerd, nerd fangirl, right? She said, why do you think it is that the relationship between Sam and Frodo has to be homosexual all of a sudden? And I said, because they don’t understand quality of relationship. And so it has to be material or physical. They’ve got to be banging. Otherwise they’re not connected because the only connection possible in a materialist world is a materialist connection. And therefore they have to be gay. There’s no other choice, duh. Like, why don’t you know that? Right? Well, I don’t know that. Cause I live in an enchanted world that I can see clearly. And I understand that there are bonds between people that don’t involve sex. Like it’s that simple, right? Now they don’t know that. They haven’t thought of the world in that enchanted fashion yet. They’re reciprocally narrowed on whatever simplistic you want to call it. It’s a poetic fashion. Right. Well- It’s one sense of romance. It’s the romance- The poetics are the connectedness that goes in all different directions instead of the discrete linear connections or propositions and procedures. So this is in our model. So in the knowledge engine model video, right? This is all laid out. Participation, proper participation requires poetic information. Poetic information is that complicated webby weaving all over, not arbitrary, and it’s not fully connected, right? But it’s multiple entry points, multiple exit points in the story. That’s where you get stories from, is that poetic information. And that’s how you navigate a space. That’s how you dance with somebody in a conversation or on a dance floor, or how you interact with music, right? Whether you’re physically dancing to it or not. That interaction with music is a poetic way of informing the world where you’re seeing these relationships between the music and how you feel between the music and what you remember between the music and the aspect of the world, right? All of those things are important. I’m not certain. You mentioned game theory, but I was gonna mention Newcomb’s paradox to you because I’ve had trouble with that. When I think of examples, and I’m not certain whether my correlation here is correct, but I remember the snakes and Moses and the one snake eating the other snake. And it made me think of the problem, which is of three choices to choose the open opaque box with a certain amount of money in it or to risk getting more by picking the… Yeah, but that’s not a paradox. I don’t know why you’re describing it that way. There’s no paradox there. It’s usually described as a paradox for some reason. Yeah, by stupid people who don’t know what a paradox is. I agree. Why is choice a problem? Why are we making choice into a problem? Well, free will and determinism. Okay, this is easy. Determinism doesn’t exist. It can’t exist. It’s impossible. And any idiot should know that. You make decisions. Therefore, determinism isn’t. It’s that simple. If determinism were a thing, you wouldn’t know it because you wouldn’t be able to contrast it with free will. It’s that simple. I swear to you, it’s that simple. The idea of free will could not occur if you lived in the deterministic universe because you wouldn’t understand the freedom to contrast determinism. If all there is is determinism, free will doesn’t occur and therefore isn’t observable and therefore isn’t contrastable and therefore can’t be thought of in your head. It’s literally that simple. It takes no more effort than that. Honest, it really is a simple thing. And people like to make it this complicated, Schrodinger’s cat-like, ridiculous. If we presuppose the universe, then obviously determinism is true. Well, yeah, if you presuppose the end of the story, then yeah, that ending is true. You didn’t say anything though. You just kind of like constructed your own idiosyncrasy to be part of. Like, why are we doing this? This is crazy talk. Well, hmm. I mean, from a Calvinistic understanding, it’s Calvinism is wrong. They’re morons. Just move on from the Calvinism. I don’t care about Calvinists. That’s why there’s like four of them in the world and they’re not Catholicism. Like Paul, Paul Vanderklaas is a Calvinist. Yeah, he’s wrong. He thinks he is, but he can’t define Calvinism for one thing and he’s wrong. So lots of people are wrong, dude. Like, I mean, how do you explain all the conflicting opinions that people are living under at the same time if most of them aren’t wrong? Like, I don’t get it. So the fact that people are wrong isn’t really interesting. I am wrong all the time about all kinds of things and usually Emmanuel tells me. I think about free will and I think about God’s will. And I think if God- Don’t think about God’s will because you can’t think about the thing outside of your box. Like, don’t do it. Yeah, why are you trying to think about God’s will? What level of arrogance do you have to think that that’s even an option available to you? I mean, seriously. Well, it’s pointed out in the book of Romans, that would be why it’s important. How is it pointed out? The fact that it exists? Romans chapter nine. You can look at God’s will as a specific manifestation. You can do that. You can’t look at God’s will as such. Yeah, you’re gonna have to give me the whole reference because I didn’t read that crazy book. So what do you think it says? And I will on the fly correctly interpret it for you. How’s that? It is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows compassion. What does that have to do with God’s will? That’s true. He shows compassion. So what? That would mean that what we do is not- That apply to everything we do? Or is that just one instance in a larger story with a context? Within the whole context, our individual actions are- No, no, it’s not within the whole context. That’s not, there are no stories in the Bible that have a whole context. That’s not how stories work in the Bible. Like I don’t, it’s how stories work anywhere. Well, that’s simply the concept that Paul was talking about. There is a context in the story, but there is a context in the story. So it’s not universal. And that’s the point. Like that’s all we need to know. Like we literally don’t need to know anything else. Like, okay, it’s not a universal, good. So why are you wrapped up in God’s will? Well, it has to do with decision-making and that’s- I find- You can make decisions against God’s will. People do it all the time. So what? Is it a good idea to do that? That’s a different problem. You’ll never know. You’ll never know if it’s God’s will. You’ll never know. Ever, ever, never, never, never, never, never, never, ever. Well, there- The only thing if you get to the other side, he’s going to reveal to us if it was or wasn’t. I think it’s gonna be important at that side either. There are these 10 commandments though. Evangelical thing that I’ve kind of- Cause they’re constantly trying to find God’s will to justify their own actions. And it’s like, okay, the big grinch. It’s like, just try it. Does it work? Is it aimed at the good or the transcendentals? Then you know, if it’s going towards that, then it’s going to have a good. But I know where it comes from. I know where this God’s will thing question comes from. And it’s a, what do you call it? Bermuda triangle. Once you get there, you don’t know how to get out of that. Like you don’t know how to get out of that association with is this God’s will? Am I doing the right things? Is she the right one? Should I take this job? Right. Well, and that’s the thing. Like we are developing creatures. Is he frozen? So there isn’t a right answer until we participate in the thing. I want to be genuine with dust. We have two dusts. Apparently. Apologies. Think mine snapped or something. Yeah. Your internet rubber band snapped. That’s all right. Well, also says who can know the mind of God, who can understand these ways. And why do you need to? Like you just need to understand the true, the good and the beautiful. And that’s like, no, really. You don’t need all this. Like what you need to do is know is that you can surrender to God and that there’s methods to do that. And that allows you to have a certain participation from there. And like before you’re there, maybe you shouldn’t make any statements. Well, to me it runs into an issue of rest or act and in what way act and or in what way rest. And I run into this box of mine that I get caught in, which is narrow thinking. Yes, because it can solve it. Like it’s not a thing that you can solve. Like there’s a bunch of parables about this guy where he’s like giving out coins and stuff. Right. And then the guy that doesn’t invest the coin is like, oh, look, I didn’t do anything wrong with the coin. Like he gets hammered on because he didn’t invest the coin because the coin was there for investment. Right. And like, if you remove the coin from participation in the world, it can’t generate things. And like, that’s definitely the wrong answer. Right. Like that doesn’t mean that like the guy who got the most money compared to the guy who got second most money was necessarily better. But like, we don’t know. Maybe he got lucky. Or the guy who lost money. And that’s what I was saying earlier about, right. You’re removing yourself from participation by pondering imponderables and no, like it’s right there in the Bible. It’s like it’s in all the wisdom texts in fact. No, just participate. Stop pontificating and pondering and trying to figure out things that aren’t required. Take action in the world and it will tell you what’s required. Like participation will show you reality. And I can tell you what the will of God is. Redeem the flaws. Like that’s the will of God. But I mean, do you just participate in cliff diving to figure out whether cliff diving works? I mean, or- No, like we talked about this before. Like, tell us, tell us, tell us. Like, why would you do cliff diving? There’s no reason to go cliff diving. Like, cliff diving is a narcissistic- I have a friend who does that, yep. Yeah, well, like he’s a narcissist. Like good job. Now, so is this something you struggle with? Trying to figure out how to navigate through the world, through your own association? Yeah, I get stuck in boxes. Cause I mean, it is just a case with Christianity. For me, it’s been- Definitely the West in mind. Well, yeah, I mean, it’s not the Christianity. It’s the materialism that’s sticking people into these things. The inability to aim at something higher than the material. There are things above the material that you should be looking at, like truth, beauty, and goodness, right? Like tell us, that’s where you need to look. Otherwise you’re gonna get stuck on a flat plane competing with everybody else for things that don’t matter and can’t help you. Maybe it’s the revelation of, like maybe you want the revelation to come in a certain format. So it feels comfortable. Yeah. Comfort zone. I’m trying to be very gentle. Like I understand the problem. I really do. And so, and I’m also a newbie. Don’t be gentle. I’m learning a lot from these guys. Don’t be gentle. I’m trying to, I’m like, I don’t really know you, but I understand the- What do you think you’re learning? I’m not gentle. Manuel’s not gentle. Like the gentleness is exactly the opposite of what people need. Like, no, but you’re a fucking idiot. You’re wasting your life. Stop wasting your life. That’s the message. Like, there’s no gentle there. It’s like, I can be the wall of reality for you, or you can hit it behind me, right? Like I can tell you, I’m a lot softer than the actual wall. So like, you can either deal with me or you can deal with the big guy behind me. Right. And you just have to, the surrender is in the fact that your worldview sucks and it’s not working. And now you need a new one and that’s scary. And that sucks even more. But you know what? The surrender is in that there is a worldview out there that can accommodate you and turn you into a much better person than you are now and help you realize at least some of your dreams, maybe not in ways you understand, because that doesn’t happen, but maybe in ways that are far better than anything you can possibly conceive of. But it requires that trust, that faith in the fact that you can get your worldview and just participate in the world and figure it out. Not that it’s gonna work out the first time you step outside of your worldview box, but the fact is you bounce around enough outside of that box and everything is gonna improve for you and it may take a while, but it will happen. And it usually doesn’t take all that long in my experience from what we see with people. And that’s why in some sense, it’s a lonely road on Discord because our whole task is to get people off of Discord. And so they often end up leaving us and that sucks. But that’s good. That’s the good. It’s not the good for me all the time. It’s not the good for Manuel all the time, but it’s the good for the world. And that’s part of sacrifice. And the worldview that you’re gonna get into, right? It’s not gonna have the certainty that you want. It’s not gonna have the answers that you’re looking for. Who are we talking to again? Are we talking generally or are we talking to the industry? No, it’s the same thing. Like, I don’t care whether, no, like it’s just true, right? Like if you think you can have the answers, you’re in the most successful and you should get out because like your feet are gonna rot. Well, and that’s having mode stuff. And that’s what you have to do. You have to tell people, yeah, there’s having mode and there’s being mode, right? Now the problem with being mode is you can get stuck in the mindfulness and then you’re in being mode all the time and now you’re overconnected to the world and you’re still in domicile because you don’t have any ground to stand on when you try to do something. And so we need a becoming mode. And if you map that to Plato’s cave, it’s right there, right? Becoming mode is emerging from the cave. Being mode is being in the cave and understanding that there’s a projection and having mode is having the projection with the shackles and everything else. And it’s just three different modes of being and they’re different. And you can’t stay in either one in any of the three, I should say, right? You can’t stay in them. You have to move between them. You’re constantly, hopefully transforming. Because you can’t stay stuck in having mode and trying to have things. Having mode gives you certainty, right? When you have a thing, you have it. Like I have this, it’s mine. I have it. I can’t be this, I can’t be with this. It’s an object in the world. It’s pure material in some sense. And that’s no good. If I want to be being mode, I have to go start a live stream or talk to Manuel or interface with Sally Jo or go scream at Van Der Kley or whatever, right? And that’s a very different type of interaction. And then every once in a while, somebody has to point out whatever to me so I can go, oh, I need to fix that. And that’s gonna require transformation. How big a transformation is a different argument. Sometimes it’s a big transformation, right? I mean, I had a transformation just going up the Thunder Bay. I mean, I walk in the door and immediately my whole world falls apart. Somebody says, Mark, I know you. And I was like, there’s no protocol for this in my head. I don’t know what to do about this. I’ve talked to people my whole life online. I’ve met people my whole life online, but never like this ever, ever. What do I do? How do I interface with this person? I don’t know. Did I do okay? Yeah, I did fine. Everything worked out perfectly. Like the fact that I didn’t know what to do in advance meant nothing. It meant nothing. It was fine. All right, he introduced himself. His name was Eric. I said, Eric, nice to meet you. You know, what part of my channel do you like? Do you know, tell me about yourself. So it’s easy, right? Even though it was a brand new experience and it scared the ever-living crap out of me when it happened, because I had no frame of reference to believe something like that could happen, even though it was perfectly predictable. And that causes a transformation. And then meeting Paul Van der Kley in person, right? Meeting John Verbecky in person, meeting Jonathan Mejoo in person, right? Finally getting to see Catherine and Eamonn and all these new people that I had, some of whom I had never talked to ever in any forum. Like that was a big deal. And then meeting a bunch of people that, you know, Sevilla King was there. I was like, oh, Sevilla was here. You know, our friend Nancy from the, who popped onto the Discord server months and months ago, she was there. I was like, oh, Nancy, it’s good to see you, you know? Like all these unexpected surprises, right? But it was fine. Like I had enough skills to sort of master that. And, you know, that’s transformation or a series of transformations. This is another way to think about how it transforms. Well, I found this quite helpful. So, I’m good. It’s a lot to absorb, but yeah. Inflations are a lot to absorb. Yeah, and I want to go back to what I said, because I don’t think it sank in how profound it was, right? Like, why did I change the topic? All right, the topic changed because I saw that the focus was on a descriptive version of reality. Right? So I can say, well, like there’s a painting here and there’s a plant here and like there’s pillows there. Like, what am I doing? Like, how’s that useful? Like it’s not, like describing the world is like, oh, like, look, I can do this. Like, I have this magic trick. Like, I know what the things are. Blah, blah, blah. Like, it’s useless. It’s completely useless. Like the only reason is like this painting, like knowing that it’s a painting because I can do painting things with it. Like, that’s why I need to know that it is a painting. And in this situation, it’s not relevant. And I am corrupting this conversation by referencing it as a painting, right? But I’m not referencing it as a painting. I’m referencing it as an example that is in service of the conversation. And therefore it is redeemed in some sense, right? So you have to recognize, okay, like I am in a talent, right? So I’m trying to articulate something and the painting can participate in that. Like it has a method of participating, but not as a painting, right? Like it has the method of participating as an example in a different context, right? And we, like I was going to the chat with a lot of people and they’re like, well, like, what is the purpose of playing sports? It’s like, well, like maybe my purpose of playing sports is picking up girls, right? Like that could be my purpose of playing sports. Like there’s no purpose to playing sports. Like there’s, it doesn’t exist in playing sports. The purpose exists in my participation with what I’m doing. Right? And I can get really connected to picking up girls in playing sports. Like that is a thing that I can do. I can develop an intimate relationship in that participation. Does it mean that I should do that? Maybe, but the fact that I can do that, right? Like, and I could do many things means that these things are not what they are. Like they’re what I make them to be. That’s what they are. And now it’s like, well, how do I choose what I make them to be? Well, like now I need to reference back to the talents, right? I need a measure, a standard that allows me to judge my participation, right? Like, am I picking girls up girls to get laid or am I picking up girls to get a wife? Because like one of them is participating in the good, the other one isn’t. The other one is fabricating an addiction. And like you have to recognize, okay. So there’s a couple of things, right? Like there’s a way in which pointing out things, right? In a non participatory way is disconnecting me, right? And then there’s my participation that can be in sin, right? Like it can be missing the mark. It can be not pointing towards good or it can be pointing towards good, right? And when is it not pointing towards good? If it’s reciprocally narrowed, right? Like, so if I’m doing the thing to have the thing, I’m participating in the wrong way. Now that doesn’t mean that having the thing is bad, but the way in which I’m having it is bad. And you have to recognize what is the means in which I’m participating. And whenever you recognize that you’re participating in the wrong way, you reference back to your highest goal, right? To your telos and you re-instantiate your participation. And that goes back to in essence, changing the spirit that you’re communing, right? And just recognizing that there’s always a spirit there, right? That you can see that spirit, right? You can relate to it. Like all of these things are skills that you can develop, right? And you can only develop that if you pay attention to it. Because if you don’t pay attention to it, you’re not gonna see it. Like it’s invisible to you. And so who are you, right? Well, you’re a person who could do all of these things, but you’re not. What do you need to do in order to become the person that can do these things? Well, think about that. You need to do a bunch of practices, that’s for sure. Yeah. Guys, I’ve really enjoyed this. I really appreciate you both. It’s nice to meet you, Taz. I think that’s a really good note to end on. Yeah. All right, Taz. I think I’m gonna head out as well. All right. Thank you. No, it’s good to see you guys. I’m gonna try and do a video on identifying people’s highest values, right? And how to get them unstuck from that. So I’m working on that stuff. We’ll see if next week is gonna be busy because I get company coming. But we’ll see if I can get something like that done so that you can sort of listen for the keywords and figure out even for yourself, oh, I’m stuck in this mode. I need to stop thinking that way, et cetera, et cetera. I can go back and re-listen to what Manuel just said. Because there’s so much. Yeah, I have the tendency to do that. Like, there’s probably way, way, way more in what I’m saying than what you’re hearing. I also think that, as I said to you, Marc, in a comment, like the meeting crisis versus the space process. I think it’s a very long conversation if it could be shrunk down into, repackaged into something, I think that’s it. It’s on the list, Jesse, it’s on the list. I thought I was gonna get it done this week. I’ve got three videos in the can that I’m waiting for editing on. So I’m doing my best. I’ve got like 20 songs I’m working on. Yeah, so we’re getting clips channels, right? Like I think it’s if you guys wanna participate, right? Like viewers or you guys. Make a clips channel, right? Like take the clips, put them in an organized fashion, give them a framework that people from the outside can relate to, right? Do some wisdom music, right? Help us with the website. Like we got lots of projects. Anybody that wants to go to the Discord server, Marc of Wisdom, we’re trying to get this stuff up and running. A bunch of people who we’re gonna help or, you know, busy, so, you know, we’re just trying to get stuff up and running. It takes time and it takes effort from people. And so if you want something to do, we have plenty of tasks that people can do. And simple things too. Like we still, I’m still trying to get a list of, we’ll say every definition of wisdom that’s readily available. Like that would be helpful. Cause then I can go through it and sort of help to sculpt some of this stuff for our new community project. But yeah, and look, requests are good. I’ll take requests. I’ll try to get them done if I can. And, you know, any involvement is good. Comments, likes, whatever, telling people about the channel, you know, whatever works. And I think the most important thing is, and this is where we should have the website up, is like when you have an experience in your life, right? Where you can apply this wisdom, write it down, right? In a way that you can communicate it to other people or make a video or whatever, right? Like take a picture of the person that’s grateful because you did it. Like, whatever, celebrate what you did. Like give testimony, right? Like that’s the means that people can experience the connectedness, right? Like that’s what’s important, right? And like, that’s the thing that feeds the participation. Like when we’re talking about going into the cathedral, like having it breathing, we need to have something that is breathing. And that’s the way that you get it breathing. When you realize that you’re together on a journey, even though that you’re apart and you’re participating in something and it has value and it works, right? Like we can listen to things and we can say, well, yeah, it works, right? But seeing it work is something completely different, right? And you need to be convinced in your heart as well as in your mind. All right, well, take care. All right, have a great night. Good to see both of you. Good night. Yeah, good night. Oh, did anyone get a chance to listen to my album? You should put it in the chat. I’ll turn it in the chat. Manuel has a will to power spiel? When did you have a will to power spiel? Were you talking to Ethan without me? And now I’m behind on knowledge. Oh yeah, last night, it figures. Oh, on the PVK stream. Oh yeah, no, he was genius on the PVK stream. That’s a whole different kettle of fish, the will to power thing. I thought I went into that too, no, just Manuel? I am sorry to steal your Tinder sometimes. That’s steal away, buddy. No, you’re on fire on the PVK stream. That was excellent. I think I did some good jobs today as well. Like that’s the spirit. You need to get a taste of the spirit and then, yeah. This morning in Discord, who’s you Ethan? Was that me or Manuel? I don’t think I talked to him this morning. All right, it was me then, yeah. Well, that’s how it works. Yeah, I know we’re still live. We’re waiting for music here. We were given instructions that music was forthcoming. We need wisdom music is what we need. We need all this wise music, excellent. Open futures, okay. We will check that out, Jesse, and give you some feedback. Well, it’s the least I can do. You actually participate in my channel quite a bit from comments, unlike many of the other viewers. So I will return the favor. Is that on a particular platform? Like how do we find it? It’s on all major platforms. So open futures on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, everywhere. Paid for the big distribution. Great, all right. It’s really aimed at the meeting crisis, guys. It is, oh well, even better. I wish I had known. Well, our thing is gonna be wisdom and not necessarily, wisdom and intimacy crisis. When I was writing it, that’s where I was starting. Anyone else here? Fair enough, well, we’re giving you new framings if you come up with new music. Let us know with the new framing. We’ll have a new framing, for sure. All right, appreciate you guys a lot. Thanks for the time and your attention. Yeah, thanks everybody for their time and attention. Yeah, no, it was a great, it was a good stream. A little bit shorter than the last one. Maybe next time we’ll get some, we’ll do this what? Hogs plus wives thing, one hog, four wives. That was pretty funny. Oh yeah, like, please come over, wives. Four slots left. There’s Manuel trying to force the marriage crisis on himself, even though he hasn’t even solved the dating crisis, much less the hello crisis. Why did you do that, Dam? Don’t do that. That was to humiliate him, okay? What is this retarded portrait view? There you go. Well, okay, I know you’re trying to read, but. I had a few things. I wrote down a few things. Okay, hit us, hit us with a few things. Also, why don’t you guys get this Benjamin Franklin guy in here, it sounds like he’s got a lot of things that need to be. He can come in if he wants, or he can go into one of the Discord servers and interface that way. Like people are free to do what they want. I’m not gonna force anybody to do it. Like I don’t have enough to do. I’m gonna invite ruin upon myself. I think I’m not. Well, I sympathize with him because I used to have a lot of similar questions that he asks. So, and I can’t tell, like some of them are, some of his questions are, like I can’t tell if he’s serious or if he’s like not serious, because they’re, if they’re serious, I wanna address them, but if he’s like. This is like dust and it’s silly, you know, these people, like, oh, how do we resolve free will versus determinism? By understanding that you can’t ask the question if you’re in determinism and therefore determinism is wrong. So in some sense, that question always struck me as the silliest possible question to be asked. It does not make any sense. And most of these questions don’t, right? And that’s because people get caught up in solving clever problems, right? Because it’s knowledge first or knowledge is the highest value. And it’s like, okay, so we’re gonna construct a stupid thought experiment that’s dumb only to seem smarter because either no one can resolve it and therefore they’re not as smart as they think they are and therefore I’m smarter, because they’re not as smart as they think they are. Or I can resolve it and they can’t, in which case I’m smarter and not that, it’s a silly game, right? It’s a play stupid games, win stupid prizes, as Tim Pool likes to say, yeah. And it’s more so like, okay, there is a way in which I can describe the world deterministically, but like, that’s just that you can do that, right? Right, exactly. Right, you can always presuppose something and then say, aha, determinism. No, it’s presupposition. It’s not determinism. Yeah, I liked what you said. Well, yeah, it’s determinism. But you’re presupposing the end of the story. Yeah, it’s not hard. I can do that. And look, if you aim in that direction, the odds that it’ll happen go way up, you know? But also if you aim away from it, the odds that it will happen will go way down. Like it’s not that hard. It’s really not. And people get caught up with that. And it’s like, yeah, look, what you do matters. Peterson’s right, what you do matter. That sucks. And the problem with determinism is like, if you think that way, right? Like you will become fatalistic, right? Like you will neuter your agency in ways that you don’t understand. And I think you will become materialistic as well, which might explain some of the suffering that Van der Kley is going through, right? Where he’s like, oh, I need to read C.S. Lewis every time to remind myself. And it’s like, well, yeah, like maybe if you’re in a framework, right? Like that framework will point you in a direction and you can be in a paradox, right? Or you can be a hypocrite in some sense by resisting the implication of the spirit that you’re in. But like that spirit is gonna move you to a place and you’re gonna have to resist that movement. And then like, what are you doing? Like you’re living in an unnecessary tension because you’re adopting a framework that is not in correspondence with reality. Yeah. It’s just like with the mushroom thing, you know, it’s the solo script aura is exactly the same thing as solo mushroom. Well, it’s not exactly the same thing, but. It’s like, if you’re in good framing, like the top of the triangle, right? If you’re orientated properly, it can suffice as a good tool. Like, I mean, if you’re building a house and you know how to build a house, a good hammer and a bad hammer makes a difference to you. But if you don’t know how to build a house, a good hammer, like a well-crafted hammer isn’t going to make a difference in your ability to build a house. So the top of the triangle, right, comes first. And then the expression or whatever you want to call it at the bottom comes second. So like. That’s why leadership matters. And that’s why it’s not all emergence. Unlike Luke who thinks it’s all emergence and structure just emerges. No, structure needs to emerge to a higher aim. Otherwise it will instantly become corrupt most of the time. And if you get lucky and point to that, that’s fine. But it’s not likely enough that you’re going to see it happen. And that’s where people get confused. They don’t understand the primary thing is that thing above. And also, if you’re living in a world where you’re living in relation to the limitations of nature, right? So you’re bound on the feedback. Like the structures that can emerge, right? Like they’re more heavily constrained by the physical limitations, right? So that emergence is more durable than the emergence that happens on the internet where people are not bound in their participation. Because what emergence in an unbound system with corrupted individualists that have a Protestant religion, like that is completely different than a tribe that has lived together forever and like is moving together in the struggle for survival. Like those aren’t comparable. So like with the triangle things, like if we assume that like anything on the bottom, the triangle, will there be knowledge, money, hammers? We think hammers are intrinsically good. So we go and produce as many, produce a bunch of hammers and lay them down on a table. That leaves the potential open for somebody else that has, okay, you guys said earlier that everything has a telos, right? Everything. So if I lay a bunch of hammers on a table, it’s like potential for a telos to come in. Somebody, another actor to come, you guys call them bad actors, a bad actor to come in and use that, that means to bring down their telos, or I would say ethic, but I don’t- Enact their telos, right? Enact their telos. Right, so if we say knowledge is power, or all knowledge, not knowledge is power, because knowledge is power. You can say that, knowledge is power. You can say relevant knowledge is, or applicable knowledge is- Knowledge is potential, there we go. Okay, so if you’re just cultivating knowledge, cultivating knowledge, cultivating knowledge, thinking that the knowledge itself is good, or intrinsically valuable, another ethic, you’re creating a bunch of space for any ethic to come in there and take what is there. No, or you’re just gonna act it out, and you’re gonna go to the academy, and you’re gonna get a PhD, and you’re gonna feel angry and resentful that the most valuable thing which you now possess does not give you what you want because you’re not the wealthiest man in the world, and then you’re gonna be bitter and angry like Eric Weinstein. Yeah, well the thing is- Well, that’s what’s gonna happen. Or then people are gonna stop listening to you like Sam Harris, and you’re gonna wanna kill more children so that you can be right. Right, right, right, so like if you don’t have, if you don’t have your telos, like if you don’t, if your attention isn’t on a specific telos, it’s kind of- You don’t know what your telos is, if you’re not paying attention. Yeah, something is going to come in, and like what do you say if you don’t have a religion, one will be provided to you? It’s the same thing with your telos. Right. Something, whatever, who knows, is gonna come in and possess you and- Your telos is your religion. Yeah, sure. Well, it can be, it doesn’t have to be. And that’s not important. What’s important is what happened, okay? Sam Harris, knowledge is highest value. I have a video on that, it’s a good video, right? Why does that matter? How do I know this? Because he’s willing to ignore dead children in the basement of a certain politician’s son in order to make his point. And his point is corrupting a university is bad. That’s his whole point. And he just doesn’t care about anything more than that, including dead children. And then he wants to be right about the fake news virus scam. So he said, well, if it were children that were dead and not old people, I would be right. That’s what he says. He’s willing to sacrifice children to be right because knowledge is the highest value, and he wants to embody the highest value. Okay, I get it. So now how does this fit in with hammers? Well, that means if he had a hammer and he could make babies die, but he’d be right, he’d do it. That’s true. He said it multiple times. He’s defended it again and again. He will kill children, sacrifice children to be right. He will. It’s not unclear. It’s evil. It’s bad. I don’t like it. I wished he wouldn’t do that, but he’s not unclear. You’re just unwilling to see the evil in the world. Right, yeah. That’s why the telos matters. If there’s a bunch of- It’s that simple. He’s a bad person. I’m sorry. I’m sorry anybody was fooled by him. I was fooled by him for zero seconds, zero. It was always clear to me. I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear to you for whatever reason. Okay? But we’re here now. And that’s the problem. I always remember you ranting about how- He just doesn’t care. Had it been children that died from the virus, you’d all pay attention and no, that would not make you right. But it does make you evil, whether you’re right or not. So that’s the problem. You’ve got to pay attention to your telos. Yep. And the thing is, if you don’t have a telos, you do have a telos and you lay a bunch of hammers on the table, you’re just putting potential power out. What else you got? Hello? Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. Oh, okay. So if you have a bunch, if I created a bunch of hammers and put them on the table, I’m just laying potential on the table for anyone to take because it is power. It can be power to certain telos, other telos, and allows them to come in there and take the power. So like, oh, I’m gonna develop the technology that LACE is. What did you say? This is the Jordan Peterson Ebola that the KGB was doing. Yeah, I’m gonna develop that technology because I think knowledge is intrinsically good and I’m gonna publish it or whatever and put it out there. That’s creating potential for another agent with a whatever telos to come in and do whatever they want, bad or evil. It all goes back to the forbidden knowledge, tree of good and evil. Like, don’t, like God said, don’t partake of this because you can’t handle the potential. Like you eat it when I tell you to. In other words, you eat it when it’s good, when it’s appropriate to eat it. But if you take it when it’s not good, when I don’t tell you, it’s just pure potential and you can’t control it. You can’t, you don’t know what to do with it. But you don’t have a frame, participatory frame to understand it. Yeah. And if you have the participatory frame, it will emerge in some sense, right? As a consequence of your participation. Like you will realize what is good and what is. Yeah, and that’s why what’s his name? The guy was in the bottom left. Jesse. What’s it? No, not Jesse. Jesse or Dust. Dust. He says you can give a billion dollars to somebody and it will destroy their right, their life. It’s the same thing as forbidden knowledge. You know, like they don’t have the proper framing of what to do with it. They’ll go below. That’s why so many children of wealthy people end up as screw-ups doing drugs or whatever. What does Ben Shapiro say? Snorting Parmesan cheese off of the carpet. Nice. Nice. I love it. I need to get a carpet. What did I write down here? Oh, the Sam and Frodo must be gay thing. That came up with Bert and Ernie too. Did you remember that? Everyone was like Bert and Ernie are gay. They have to be gay. And then I can’t remember who, I don’t know when it was. I don’t know who it was, but they’re like, they’re not gay because they don’t exist below the waist. They do, I think. At least on my TV they did. That’s one way to resolve it, I guess. The reason that they’re gay is because Bert is a banana. Right, but it’s a similar thing. Right, but it’s the same loss of intimacy. And I think, again, the people are self-domiciding by consuming their individuals and then they disconnect from the world and now they’re totally screwed. Oh, yeah. When you guys said that your goal is to get people off of the discord, and then the cave was mentioned a minute later. Thought that was interesting. You guys are cave dwellers. Troglodytes, okay, great. Yeah, we’re more, yeah, we’re troglodytes. Yeah. We’re not even dwellers. That’s way too high up the chain for us. So, I just wanna take this for a second, right? No. I know, it’s like, no. Why are you making all these wacky assumptions? So, when, like, the person that eats the cow, right, is doing something, right? Like, he might be knowing what he’s doing or he might not be knowing what he’s doing, right? And then the eating of the cow might be done for many purposes, right? Or many talents, right? Like, one is like, look at me, I can eat a cow. Look at me. I don’t wanna be a vegetarian, so I eat the cow. Like, look at me being the biggest warrior of the village who chased down a cow and slaughtered it and now is eating it, right? Like, there’s many ways to participate in the eating of the cow, and she can’t say that it is good. Like, saying that there is knowledge that eating the cow is good is even worse. Is even worse, right. Well, and assuming that that’s what’s happening, right? I mean, this is always my problem when Vervikia and others talk about Plato and Aristotle saying that, well, nobody ever does anything that they don’t think is for the good. That can’t be true at all. Like, it’s just obviously observably false. Like, no, you do not rationalize before you take action for most of your actions. You don’t go, oh, you know what? I’m hungry, therefore I should eat. No, usually you just get hungry and you eat, and that’s why you get fat, because you’re not thinking about how much food you need to eat and things like that. This happens literally all the time. You look around or pay attention to your behavior for 10 minutes. You’ll realize real quick what’s going on, and it ain’t logic, reason, and rationality. I’ll tell you that much. A lot of it’s desire, passion, uncontrolled unconsciousness, things that are happening, right? Patterns that you’re playing out that you don’t know anything about, and that’s the problem. If you don’t consider the good, you’re scurried. You don’t need to consider the thing that’s having mode. You need to consider the telos. Is it good? Right, and so I like to use the analog of going into the water, right? If you’re standing on the shore and you have never swam, you can stand on the shore and consider everything about what is good about swimming, or what it is like to be swimming. But you’re not gonna know what it’s like. You’re not gonna know what is good when you’re in the water. That’s not an option available to you. So no, we shouldn’t be considering what is the good. We should be reflecting whether we’re acting it out. So there’s a reflection that happens. I’m gonna go to the bar with the telos of talking to this girl, or a girl, or two girls, like whatever, right? And then I come back home, and I’m like, okay, this happened today. Was that good, or wasn’t it good? And it’s not, I’m looking for, did I apply a principle, right? That was correct. Or didn’t I apply a principle that’s correct, right? Because I may need to make a distinction between whether I was successful or whether I did the right thing, right? Like, this decision. But the more important part is you don’t need to anticipate it. You can sense it in the moment. This knowing the answer before you take an action bullshit is just determinism. You do not know the answer before you take the action. The only way you know the answer is when you take the action and as part of taking the action. That’s it, that’s the only way. I’m sorry you can’t just be right all the time before you take an action. But you don’t need to be. No one else is doing that. Don’t worry about it. If they tell you they are, they’re lying. It’s okay, don’t worry about it. Everyone wants to presuppose, and how do I become a billionaire? I don’t know, it’s different for everybody. We read all the books of all the billionaires and distill the knowledge. No, you’re not, because often it conflicts. Don’t get smart with me, because I read those books. They conflict. The one thing doesn’t work for every person because persons are different. It’s not that hard. It’s not a satisfying answer. It’s not the answer you want, but it’s also not hard. You’re just focused on the wrong thing. Also, the answer isn’t gonna be the same for you. The answer for you will change over time because your agency’s gonna be different. A new change over time, hopefully. If you’re sick, maybe you can do the magic trick that was so amazing to everybody. You can’t rely upon an answer. It’s just not an option. In the reflection, you wanna pay attention to your orientation. The things that you can control is the way that you pay attention. How are you looking at your telos? How are you conceiving of your telos? How are you conceiving of your participation in your telos? Those are the things that you can have an influence on. What else you got for us, Ethan? You guys look pretty tired. Yeah, I was thinking of going to bed. Manuel should have been in bed five hours ago. I’m waiting for the sun to come up in the background. It’ll take a while still, I think. You can’t be that far off. No, it’s still three hours away. Go to bed. So yeah, it’s good talking. I think that was, again, a really productive conversation. So, see you. Yeah, you guys had some good stuff earlier. Good night. You got anything else, Ethan? Or am I gonna go to bed too? Cause it’s almost bedtime here. You look like you need to go to bed. Or maybe you could just switch that thing and rest the other eye. Maybe your other eye. Rest the other eye? No, it doesn’t quit. It’s molded. We must be applying knowledge in our head that circumcision is right. No, no. You’re assuming knowledge and knowledge is interesting or important and it’s not. So, I’m sorry. Just knowledge isn’t that important. So I quick tease, knew he knew nothing for a reason. So yeah, I’m off to bed. Ethan, it was good to see you as always. Yeah, I’m gonna get this stupid project off the ground and this website built and all that because people need help helping people. And that’s our mission. All this other stuff is just distractions. I’m ditching. I did, I unsubscribe from a couple of YouTube channels today and like, all right, I’m done listening to these signals. So yeah, I’m gonna focus more on the project. So hopefully we’ll get it all rolling soon. Good. Yeah. Oh, I just remembered something that the priest said last night. And he said, what did he say? I can’t remember exactly what he said, but it has to do with this knowledge thing. He says, that’s why your grandmother is the illiterate, the illiterate grandmother is the most virtuous person that you know. So that’s the themes that we’re addressing in this class. Right, right. The fewer propositions you have, the more virtuous you are because you have to act out everything. Yeah. Propositions are the enemy and participation is the goodness. Yeah. Oh, another thing. Okay, so last week you said, you were citing some study about church attendance going up among couples that are pregnant, right? Cause I just, I was kind of thumbing through the stream from last week today, this afternoon. When you said that, I don’t think I remember that last week. I might’ve been out of the room or something, but I was like, whoa, that’s crazy because the second Orthodox class started last night, right? And I got home late last night, 6.30 and it was at seven. So I had to get home and shower and all that stuff. The church is only like five minutes away from me, which is really convenient. And I walked through the door and my wife was all dressed up. I said, why are you all dressed up? She’s like, the meeting’s tonight, isn’t it? I was like, what? That like, I was completely blown away. She’s never does stuff like that. You know, like usually like, well, I’m not gonna say she never does stuff like that. I’m just saying that me seeing that and her saying that was like very, it really caught me off guard. And she’s also pregnant. So when I heard you say that, I was like, hmm, that’s really interesting. I was a study done in the eighties or the nineties. I forget which, but yeah, it always puzzled me until yeah, now I have a framework. It’s like, oh, yeah, of course, makes perfect sense. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that’s great. All right, my friend, I’m gonna end the broadcast. Have a good night, everybody. Good night, Mark. Good night, sir.