Live boundaries, where do you end？ (i

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=i_0DUda822U

the Wow, we are live. Although there’s quite a bit of lag on the systems today. That’s all right. We can continue with or without lag. So the topic today is boundaries. And before I get to that, I just want to take note of a couple things. One is our last live stream, which was insanely successful between the three channels, got something like 989 views to date. I don’t know why that is, but it was apparently very popular. So congratulations, everybody. Quite a popular live stream last week. Now that’s a big, you know, that’s kind of a big deal. I don’t, I don’t. The other thing that happened was my Jordan Peterson video on his trick has surpassed a thousand views on navigating patterns. So good news, good news. Lots of interesting, interesting engagement and interaction, which I appreciate. And it was a little wacky, because Stream Art didn’t like Firefox anymore and kept telling that I wasn’t using it. So I had to log in through Chrome, which I have now found out by using it that it actually obeys the camera’s focus command. And so camera’s in a little bit different position than usual, but I like this better. So we’ll be fine. So yeah, I’ve been scrambling around all week because I have a new kind of job. Is it a job if you’re not being paid? Is it? Not being paid, but very busy for better or for worse. Didn’t have a good amount of time to go over my notes. Did go over my notes for this. So as usual, this topic came up about boundaries, where you end as a person and where other people begin. And this is a much harder question to answer than people seem to understand at first blush. They’re like, oh, I understand this. And I’m like, no, you probably don’t. It’s kind of everywhere. Boundaries are things that you must discern. So a boundary is a discernible container, a discernible layer, a discernible edge in something. And we don’t recognize the boundaries of ourselves, both physically and psychologically. So some people will get too close because they don’t understand. No, you shouldn’t get too close to people physically. And a lot of people project psychologically because they don’t understand that there’s a boundary between what’s going on in your head and what’s not going on in your head. And sometimes we want characters in our heads to be out in the real world, we’ll say, or outside of our heads. And then we place those characters there in error. We’ll say that. And so I think that’s worth understanding. And when we’re talking about boundaries and their required discernment, what are we really sort of looking at here? We’re looking at the fact that we’ve collapsed the world. So we’ve collapsed the four causes into one cause, right? Well, the Big Bang, initial conditions, and therefore we have way too much information. And it’s like, well, which information should I be paying attention to? We don’t know anymore. There’s just too much of it. We’re like flooding. It’s a flood. It’s a sea of information now. We don’t know what matters. We don’t know what’s causal anymore because correlations are everywhere. And things happen together, and we can always make a story for, well, they happen together and therefore this caused that. You can always make that story, but that doesn’t make it true. So it’s a real problem. Like, it’s an actual issue. And then we confuse causal events with orthogonal events, events that aren’t attached to what’s happening. These are concerns, and they’re big concerns, and they happen all the time. And part of the problem is that, you know, you have limited perception. How you see the world gets smaller, not larger. And without help from the outside, you can’t make it larger because you’re not recognizing the things outside of you. You can always argue, yes, Mark, but the stuff that I’m looking at in my head is so much more free and open and infinite. Yes, but you can’t focus on the infinite. Whenever you try it, it narrows down. And there’s that old saying about the abyss staring back at you. Well, where do you think that happens? That happens in your head. So you’re locating the abyss, which is infinity, and then it’s narrowing you down to a pair of eyes, which is, you know, a very mysterious thing indeed. But that’s because you don’t have boundaries. You don’t know where you end and the abyss begins, for example, or where other things begin. You’ve probably subsumed the entire world into your head, and now there’s no world. There’s just abyss. Because there’s got to be somewhere that you are. When we grab too many things and put them in our head or try to, we run into this problem. I’m going to have to take a drink here. I apologize. Big Sam Pal bottle, though. I came up with that at a grocery store. Got to have one for my stream. And the idea of the outside helps us to understand where our inside is. So when we’re ignoring the outside, we’re not paying attention to the outside, or we’re rejecting the outside. We don’t know where we are. We don’t know where our container ends. We don’t know where other things begin. And you can see that’s hard work, that discernment. And then once you have discernment, then judgment. And you know, we don’t want to be judged, and we don’t want to judge. Judging is hard work. There are consequences to judging. It’s not all fun and games. So we try to get rid of it, effectively. We try to make everything equal. And then there’s no discernment required, and therefore no judgment required. So we get rid of judgment by getting rid of discernment by making everything equal. But things are just not equal. I mean, evolution is pretty clear about this. The model of the fittest doesn’t work unless there’s a fittedness. And fittedness is a measure of inequality by definition. That’s what it is. So this gets into the problem of what’s in your head versus what’s not in your head. You have to make models of the world. We usually call those worldviews. They might not be, but worldviews are certainly types of models of the world. And so we have to pay attention to that. And when we confuse our models for the world, we can’t correct the models anymore, because there’s nothing to correct. And that’s the problem. So we need to know where our imagination ends and our body begins. We need to know where our body ends and our mind ends and where everything else begins. We need to know that. And if we’re not discerning it, if we’re not attending to it, if we’re not paying attention to it, we won’t know that. And what often happens is we get confused. Right? You put yourself in the story. You make yourself the hero of the story, because why not? And then you assume that you can rise to the occasion of that requirement. But what if you can’t? What if you’re not the hero? What if you’re a supporting character? One of the problems that we have is we’ve been focused on these single hero motifs in film and in books. So we need to know where our imagination ends and our body begins. Who’s more important in Harry Potter? Harry or Hermione? What about Ron? What about Dumbledore? What about Snape? There isn’t one hero in the book. The book is focused around one person. The book is the story of one person’s perspective. But the hero, or maybe I should say heroism itself, is not located in that one person alone. Without the support, the rest of it doesn’t happen. And in a story, what usually happens is people have precious resources. And maybe magical items in a story. They may be things of value that don’t seem valuable, like an old van. They may be knowledge, like, oh, I happen to know things about how a pizza shop works. Let me say, Mark, where are you getting that from? Stranger Things. Stranger Things is interesting. Well, I know where we can get these components. At a pizza shop. It’s a great scene in that movie, in that show, rather. These elements are not given up randomly. They’re given up in the circumstances where they’re needed to enable the hero. Because heroism is not all co-located in one person. The one person has boundaries and limits. Those boundaries and limits are only overcome as a result of those other people, the people outside of them. Now, I’m going to take a slight segue, mostly because my notes are a mess, but I’ll pretend like it’s on purpose because that’s more fun. Rules are boundaries that are there to adjudicate a standoff. It’s not the only reason they’re there. But they’re boundaries. They’re important boundaries. And the reason why they’re important is because you need to know where you end and other things begin. You need to know where you end and other people begin. You need to know that when you’re talking, you’re talking to something that can respond in a way that is unexpected and makes you grow. And the characters inside your head are not like that, typically. They respond in the way that you expect. There’s no growth there. If I just expect everything, nothing’s going to change. I’m just going to feel self-righteous and correct. Maybe I don’t need that. I feel that way anyway. That’s a problem. The rules need to exist, even if winners and losers are arbitrary. Now, I don’t think winners and losers are arbitrary all the time. That’s clearly not true. There are lots of things that I can do that I know most other people cannot ever do and never be able to. I assume the same for most of them. And I’ve seen that be the case many, many times. And there’s lots of examples. The power of a beautiful woman in the room is not something I can replicate because I’m not a woman. So there you go. Maybe with the pirate ghetto. Who knows? The ability to go out and work continuously for 12 hours physically is not something everybody can replicate. Nor the willingness. Even if they have the ability. The world is very complex. And without that discernment of the boundaries, oh, I have a will and that will, in my case, is very strong. Shouldn’t be a surprise there. And then I have a physical body and that physical body is limited by certain things. And if I try to override it with my will, I might damage it. That happens. Right? And so I’ve put rules in place. Don’t do this unless it’s an emergency, you know, because there might be consequences and they might be immediate and they might end in death. That happens. So you need rules to help you understand boundaries. It’s not optional. And winners and losers might be arbitrary between, say, the top five or the top three or the top two. Maybe. But you still got to pick one. Still has to be one thing at the top to pay attention to. All of Harry’s friends are paying attention to him as the special boy for whatever reason. It doesn’t really matter. And so they give up their precious resources, which in some cases are extremely rare and have been collected at great peril, so that he might succeed. He’s not in charge of those external resources. Those external resources are granted to him by others. And that’s what’s really important to understand. And your limited perception is part of the problem. So I took a trip out to Thunder Bay by way of South Dakota, as one does to visit Sally, Sally Jo. So I’m out and she very generously took me to the Badlands, which we always wanted to see. Badlands were gorgeous. Everybody should see the Badlands in South Dakota. Absolutely beautiful place. Amazing. So we go there. And there’s a touristy area thing where you enter in, touristy area thing happens, and you’re in touristy land. And there’s a bunch of tourists, because that’s what touristy land is for, tourists. And they’ve got these little viewing areas. But in the park, you go wherever you want. It’s public land. You can’t take fossils off the property, but you can take rocks. Which, you know, I did. I got a bunch. Cool rocks. From the Badlands, straight from the Badlands. Really nice. Right? Now, there’s a bunch of touristy folks. Oh, they like the quartz. There’s a bunch of touristy folks out there. And they’re looking at Sally Jo and I, because we’re on the other side of this viewing area. We’re underneath it. But we’re past it. We’re like on the park land. Oh my. And they’re very upset. Because from their perspective, we have broken the rules. But there are no rules that say you cannot do what we were doing. In fact, there are well-worn trails. People do it. There were other people out there. They just weren’t there when those people left, so they didn’t see the transgression in their minds. Their perspective is limited. They see a fence around a viewing area, and they think that’s a rule or a barrier or a marker or a boundary. And they cast that boundary onto everybody else. They make up that rule in their head. And then, because we’re living in the postmodern hell of postmodernism, they make the critique. They assume that they have the authority, the knowledge, and the skill, which is roughly in this case, discernment, and the energy and the will to act upon these boundaries. But they don’t. They don’t have that authority. They didn’t read the rules. They think they did. But they cast the rules onto the world as a result of their engagement in a fence that’s there to prevent them from falling over off the cliff, because they didn’t understand where they were. And there’s no transgression there, but they believe that there is. So they’re acting it out, talking about it. What are those people doing? All based on a convenience. It’s a convenience that the Park Service set up a viewing area. To this gorgeous area. Oh my goodness. Go to the Badlands. So pretty. You put yourself in the story. Oh, I’m here. You make yourself the hero of the story. Oh, I can critique. I’m the judge. You assume that you can rise to the equation, to the occasion rather, of the requirement of the hero role. I can judge these people who are outside of the fence line. And they took a guide and made it into a rule. They were following rules that didn’t exist, and they were judging us for it. They didn’t know where their authority ended, where their selves ended, and the rest of the world began. They didn’t check. And they made a bunch of assumptions, like Sally Jo lives there, or not too far away. She’s been to the Badlands many, many times. This is probably their first and maybe their only visit to the place. And the problem is that they’re assuming that they’re in the hero position where they can critique. And you see this everywhere. You can see it in Hegel’s work, where he puts up this false dichotomy, this false binary framing. He builds close small worlds, but it’s something you can understand. So Wu is scary, right, because it kills your worldview. And now you have domicide from the place you thought you were standing with Hegel, which is objective material reality, where you can take a position. And because you took a position, there’s an equal and opposite position. And then you, it’s implied, but it’s still there, can synthesize those positions. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Then you’re the hero of the story. And unfortunately, Hegel’s four years old and is wrong. It’s not hard. He’s just wrong. You can see he didn’t know where people end and where they begin. I’m not saying everybody ends at the same place. That’s silly. But do you know where you end and the rest of the world begins? Do you know when you’re projecting? We outsource our sanity. That’s kind of important to realize. Why? Because we can’t see the container that is us. We can’t see clearly enough all of our edges, all of our boundaries. We extend ourselves into the world physically and mentally and fantastically or imaginally. And I think those are different. We extend our world in, we extend ourselves into the world mentally through rationality, logic and reason. We extend ourselves into the world physically by building and destroying. We extend ourselves into the world imaginally through a different process. Because we have to make models. You don’t have a choice. It’s when we confuse those models, those maps for the territory. That’s when the problem comes in. It’s not the only place the problem comes in, but that’s where the primary problem comes in. And we get confused. So a lot of people think because of this Hegelian dialectic, which is a load of garbage, when people buy into it and they act as if, saying no is a critique. Saying no is not a critique. Critique takes real work. You have to do your freaking research. You have to know the core issues. No, you don’t have to read the work. I’m not saying that. That’s clearly absurd. But you have to be familiar with something. You don’t have to read Das Kapital to know it’s garbage. You don’t have to. You can look at segments of it and realize it’s totally contradictory in and of itself. You can engage with the statements in it and go, well, that statement’s false. I can just observe the world and see it’s not true. Because Karl Marx is a materialist. So he doesn’t understand what drives the world. He thinks humans are cogs, that one worker is exchangeable for another worker. I’ve worked. That ain’t true. That’s wrong. It’s false. Observably false. Look, in the middle, there’s a lot of overlap. But I’ll tell you, there were only a few people that could sort packages as quick as I could at UPS. And the people that couldn’t sort weren’t sorters. There goes all of Marx’s theory, gone. All of his core base axiomatic assumptions are wrong. I don’t need to read the rest of his work to critique him. Because I did my research and it wasn’t read the whole book. And you can’t say, oh, your critique is invalid because you didn’t read the whole book. No, I don’t need to read the whole book to know the starting axioms are wrong or to know statements about capital are wrong and contradictory. I don’t need to. It’s just not required. And it’s easy to confuse the idea that you didn’t read everything about the topic with knowing the topic and more importantly, the truth of the topic. Because the truth is outside of the book. The truth is bigger than you. It’s bigger than the book. It’s bigger than the Hegelian dialectic. And you can interface with the truth and not worry about somebody’s misinterpretation or deliberate propaganda about the subject. And the core problem is the inability to discern between a constraint, an affordance, and an action. There are constraints in the world. You were born into that world that had those constraints. You can cry about it if you want, or you can accept the fact that that happened and maybe you had no say in it. Maybe you did have a say in it and you just don’t know that. Constraints are things that hold you in. Affordances are opportunities, ways to interact. A constraint is a way you can’t interact or a limit to your interaction. And affordance is the opposite. It’s a positive to your interaction. And an action is actually taking the action. Now you can’t take an action against a constraint without a negative consequence. When you take an action with an affordance, you get a positive outcome. When you want to try to live in a world with no constraint, you have to live in your imagination. There’s no other place with no constraint but inside your head. That’s a problem. There’s a lot of people living in their imagination. And they want the outside world to mirror their imagination, so they’re like in a video game. And maybe not even playing a video game, but they’re doing the first person shooter, or worse yet, the VR. Then you get to pick your constraints because it’s the game. You can tell the game to go away anytime you want. You just click the X button. It’s a big problem. You probably also love AI because AI is under our control. It’s the world where you are God, just like the video game. I don’t particularly want to talk about it because it’s dumb, but social justice comes up here. What did I do? I took justice, which is a virtue, and put a modifying world in front of it. That is an invalid way to communicate to other humans and to yourself. That is invalid communication. You’re not communicating anything. You’re bringing justice down to the material level. You’re a materialist. You’re saying, you know what we can do? We can bottom up the justice. No, you can’t. No, you can’t. Justice is above you and all around you. You can’t drag it down. You can’t modify it. You can’t change it. It’s not up to you. Justice was here first, and it’s bigger than you. And it happens because you think things should be a certain way, and you can judge the world, and then you believe you are being treated unjustly. But this is just a misapprehension of the world and how it works. Affluence leads you to focus on you rather than others. It takes you away from how you fit into the larger world, whether it be you with yourself, you with nature, or you with others. It takes you out of all of those frames, and it puts you in your imagination. And it’s a problem. Because you’re only seeing your own world, your own imaginative world. You’re not seeing the world as it is. You’re not able to. So where does this leave us? But it leaves us to trying to understand where we end and where others begin, where we end and where nature begins. Confusion with nature might be something like trying to save the planet. I’m sure I’ve said this before, but apparently people aren’t getting it. You’re not saving the planet. It’s not going to happen. The planet is so much bigger than you that anything you do as an individual is irrelevant. Irrelevant. Now, what we do as a culture, as a group, as a society, as a country, whatever kind of bucket you want to put it in, can matter to the planet. That’s true. But saying, well, if we all jog left instead of jogging right, we won’t impact the planet is wrong. It’s trade-offs. If we all just make electricity instead of burning oil, okay, is that an option? No, by the way, it’s not. Do the correct math, not the math these idiots tell you. It’s really not hard to see that there’s not enough electricity in solar. They have large solar plants. They just don’t produce the way you think they should. If it’s true, if we do it, are there side effects? Yes. So you put a bunch of solar panels on the planet Earth and actually you will get cooling. Duh. Big time cooling, actually, as it turns out. That’s not a big deal on the small scale that we could do solar panels on, granted, but it is a big deal in that area. Is it more damaging than oil? I have no idea. It’s confusion. You’re trying to save the planet by making it about not just you but others. You’re trying to loop everybody else into your mad scheme to save Gaia, the goddess Earth. That’s all you’re trying to do. That’s all these people are trying to do. And they don’t see it. I get that. Why don’t they see it? Why is it when I reflect it back to them and it sounds absurd, they don’t understand that that’s what they sound like? They don’t know where they end and where others begin. And they don’t want that. They want everybody to agree with them. They want this humanism, this equality, so that they don’t have to worry about that anymore. But that isn’t going to happen. We’re not equal. We’re not going to be equal. We shouldn’t be equal. And we have a great hindsight bias, which means we rationalize and place ourselves into the story from our own perspective. And what we are missing at that point is we never knew our place at the time and we have a limited view of our impact, even with hindsight. So I can look back on what I said to somebody that didn’t seem to have an impact at the time. And then it turns out that it did have an impact. It just took a long time. And we don’t really understand that trying to build these boundaries around everybody so that there’s no, so that we’re all equal, so there’s no more discernment required, is really just destroying the world. Because at a certain point, there’s probably a limit to civilized conflict resolution. There’s probably a limit where you have to accept the amount of conflict that you have. Like men and women are never going to understand each other, and they shouldn’t. It’s okay that they don’t. Because the female perspective and the male perspective are complementary. If you let them be, you can treat them like they’re not. If you want, you can also take out a gun and shoot somebody if you want. I don’t recommend either course. You could treat, we’ll say, the tension or the conflict or the difference between men and women as a difference of specialization. And then there’s a negotiation that has to occur for sure. And that sucks because I just want my way. Like why should I have to negotiate? And, you know, I can make the argument in this case with terrorists, women. Fair enough. But also, you’re here now. If this already happened to you, you need to get over it. And because of hindsight bias, we’ve totally lost discernment. We still don’t understand where we end. What are the limits of our perception? What are the limits of our imagination? When have we stretched our imagination so far that it’s no longer serving us? These are good questions. These are things we’re not dealing with for whatever reason. So there’s a deep confusion about ordering and sequence in the world. Something had to be here before us. Let’s just call it creation because that’s the best word. We need to discern that we weren’t here first, that the constraints and some of the affordances were here before us. It doesn’t mean we can’t make new affordances or change constraints. In some cases, maybe we can. But we first have to discern what’s here. There’s a difference between, we’ll say, natural law and the laws that men make as part of our government, even though we call them both law. Deep confusion. The habits and behaviors of people came before the laws that they wrote, necessarily. We didn’t have writing at first. We were acting something out. And I know that gets all wooed. And again, we hate woo because woo ruins our closed world, logical, rational way of thinking. But we don’t live in the logical, reasonable, rational world. Just talk to a people at any point ever. And then observe their behavior. They’re not rational. They’re not logical. They’re not reasonable. Not never, but not most of the time. We live in the world of spirits and eduigores. And I might as well call it last week’s stream since it got almost a thousand views, like 11 away between the three channels. And that’s what we need to realize is about this perspective that we have and what are the limits of it. Where are the constraints? Where is the boundary where I end and other things begin and other people begin? And that is the fundamental question that we are struggling with, that we need to be struggling with. And we’re not accounting for it. We’re not taking it into consideration. And that’s a problem. So, with that, I think I will open it up. One of the reasons why we did this a little early was because Jesse requested it. And as most of you should know by now, Jesse’s the one who got us on Friday night in the first place. And I did also want to mention that Jacob has once again threatened to take me off of his channel and Rando’s United at some point in the future. So, if you want more live streams, you better make sure you subscribe to Navigating Patterns, because someday they won’t be on Rando’s and on Jacob’s channel. Or maybe they’ll be on Rando’s and on Jacob’s channel. But I figured I would let you all know. And with that, I shall open it up for anybody who wishes to join and discuss boundaries or really anything else. I mean, this is just an anchoring monologue so that we can get things rolling in the cooperation of the cult of the ecumenical cheese pizza with our pirate friends. And we’ll see who wants to jump in and say hello. Jesse says he’s going to be here soon. Well, that’s good. Not soon enough, my friend. And you’ll notice I’ve got my tea over here. I’ve got my kombucha. And boy, I like the camera zoomed in, but then I don’t like the camera zoomed in. I’ve got my huge bottle of San Pal, right? I’m going to take a swig of. I didn’t like Peterson until I saw you drank San Pal. I’m like, all right, he’s all right. Good enough judgment. You know, you got to have something to go on. He’s Canadian after all. That’s strike one. Psychology, strike two. Todd at Harvard, strike three. Like, it’s unbelievable that I even listen to the guy. Yeah, this problem of boundaries. And again, it just came up everywhere. Everywhere. You see this problem. People do not know where they end. They have no idea. What are the limits of my perception? You see this a lot in book clubs where people end up with. Why, I didn’t see that in the text. Yeah, well, you’ve got a blind spot. It’s like, oh, yeah, you’ve got a blind spot. We all have blind spots. Those are part of our boundaries, part of our end. Like, oh, when I’m reading a text for the first time, I can only see so much of it. Yeah, that’s definitely a thing. You know, when I’m out running, I can only run so far. That’s another boundary. Right, there’s all these interactions, all these boundaries that we run into. And when we’re not paying attention to them, when we’re not attending to our boundaries, we lose ourselves in something bigger than us. There’s just plenty of bigger things there to get swept up in that will, they’ll take you. They will take you. You may not think so, but they’re there and they will take you. And that’s not good, because then you’re part of something you don’t know about or understand. And that’s why boundaries are important. You don’t know where they are and somebody else does. The next thing you know, you’re off marching in some weird climate change thing that starves a few hundred million people. That’s not hyperbole, by the way. We did that in the US. We starved about 360 million people worldwide just to change our gas to ethanol. It’s fantastic, great idea. It wasn’t so much that we were producing that much less food, although that’s also true the disruption of the supply line. Global economy is great until you have a supply line disruption. Then the global economy is not working for you but against you all of a sudden. And yeah, since we’re the breadbasket of the world in the US, when we make a relatively minor change to how our economy operates and change over the gas and destroy all the cars in the process, different topic, has a big effect on food everywhere. And you know, what’s 360 million people to change our gas over from one bad chemical to a worse chemical? Ethanol is death for engines, by the way, absolute death. Older engines that aren’t set up for it die sooner and newer engines can’t be, it’s just terrible. That’s why we weren’t using it. We had it all along. In fact, ethanol was one of the first fuels used in internal combustion engines. They stopped using it with a good reason or I should say good reasons. There’s lots of reasons not to run ethanol. What happened with Jacob, what boundaries are broken? So the funny thing that happened with Jacob and you can see this on his live stream from a couple of days ago, I was pointing out to him that, you know, gee, my live stream did pretty well the other day. He wasn’t paying attention. He goes, holy mackerel, you know, and it wasn’t boundaries that are broken. He just wants his channel back, right? He wants to keep his channel on whatever topic, which I suspect is, I want to talk about the Torah. I want to talk about, you know, the Noahides. I want to talk about, you know, the culture war or whatever framing propaganda. You like to talk about that. I think he just wants to stick to those topics, you know, on his channel. As somebody who’s studied YouTube quite extensively now, I would say that’s actually an error, but it’s his channel. He should do whatever he wants with it. Yeah, Jacob really likes the Jew stuff for some reason. Good one, Father Eric. That is correct. Yeah, he’s trying to do his Jew thing. Yeah, look, and it’s his vehicle and it’s his vehicle for bringing his understanding of the Bible to people. And he, like, he just cries when he talks about that. It’s, you know, good. He should do that. And yeah, if that means I have to go, then I will go on another channel. It’s just too bad because his channel, for whatever reason, had a lot of algorithm draw. I mean, it was 600 plus views on his channel for last week’s livestream. I don’t know why. I guess Fierce and Agregores are popular. And yeah, I mean, you can get a huge amount of views that I can tell, although I think it’s better on his channel, obviously, than just online, because he had more than twice his main views. But yeah, it’s just sort of interesting that these things crop up. And who knows, who knows why? It’s hard to, he has more subs than I do. Subscribe to Navigating Patterns. Let’s get over, he’s at 879 or so. I picked him up, like, seven, I think, subs. I picked up three of them. Oh, I picked up four and lost one. I picked up four on my channel. So these things are interesting just because of the way they kind of pan out. And you know, that’s for Jacob. The boundary is, I only want Jewish stuff that I do on my channel. Fair enough. And like and subscribe. Yes, Father Eric, everybody should like and subscribe to Navigating Patterns, not these randos united channels, although do that one too. Not this Jacob channel. He’s got enough subscribers. I’ll take them all, thank you very much. I can do more with them than he can. Yeah, that’s the pirate captain is stealing all the subs and the likes, thank you very much. If I can get away with it. Yeah, and I think that, you know, that is what’s Jacob’s boundary. He wants to talk about his stuff on his channel that’s under his name. Well, fair enough. It’s a reasonable boundary. You got no problem with it. And you know, he’s right to want that. It’s his channel. He built it. He got all the subs. He’s got quite a few, you know, that’s like I said, bigger than my channel. And he’s trying to do something. And I support that effort that he’s trying to do. That’s one of the reasons why he wanted people to do content. I was like, all right, we’ll do content on Jacob’s channel because that’s what he wants. We happen to have some time, so we’ll put it towards that. Time, energy and attention, which stands for T, which we have plenty of. This is the tea from Table Rock Tea Company in South Carolina. This is the Kenyon Tea. It’s called Marathon. It’s pretty strong, actually. It’s quite a strong tea. I quite enjoy it. And I hope to be doing business with them soon to introduce Wisdom Tea. Trying to get that off the ground. I’ve just been busy with the new project. My old company died, well, at least from my perspective. And now we’ve got the new company. What is this, Ethan? You need to get Father Steven DeYoung on your channel. Yes, if I got Father Steven DeYoung on my channel, I could get a draw. I’m trying to get Cale Zeldin, but he hasn’t fucked up yet. I love Cale. He and I get along fantastically well. So I talked to him a little bit on Twitter, but I talked to him on a live stream with Vanderclay. And I see where he’s going. And I’d love to talk to him about his Catholic school because I went to Catholic school and I want to find out how different it is now. All the stuff he was describing though that he’s described before, I’m like, yep, I recognize all of that. But yeah, I mean, I could reach out to Father Steven or whatever. I could be unlazy about this and do a lot more, but I’ve just been caught up in recovering from Thunder Bay, which took way longer than I thought was possible and all the turmoil. And now I’ve just been super busy these past couple of weeks with this new project. And I am the chief operating officer of the company now. And they actually have a product. So hopefully we’ll be able to get that product in front of either people or investors so that we can make a billion dollars each because that’s the minimum buy-in to get my time, energy and attention now. And I’ll see you guys next time. Bye. Bye. Kee-haw, steal all the subs. All right, well, okay, there you go. Listen to the artist, Sally Jo. She did the background here and stuff and the little badge. Oops, how come I can’t do this? I hate being dyslexic. My little badge in the corner. That’s all Sally Jo’s excellent work. So if she says that I should steal all the subs then go to navigating patterns, subscribe, like, share, comment, let’s get it rolling. Mark has a job now. Yes, Mark has a job now. I’ve got to pin this. I have yet another, I had a job before. I actually have had several jobs over the past three years. Just none of them have been paid. A couple of them promised to pay and didn’t which kind of really pisses me off. But yes, I have an official COO title. I updated my LinkedIn. We’ll see what happens. I like working with Floyd. He’s a good guy. Get some unique technology. We’ll see if we can make it work. No, Ethan, I will not abandon you after I’m a billionaire. When I’m a billionaire, I’ll have more time to hang out with you all. And I won’t be constantly stressed out by impending bankruptcy like I am now. Let’s see how we get. Mark has jobs, private jobs. Well, to some extent, that is true. I have been doing the pirate job thing. That is for sure. Being a pirate is a tough job. Especially if you don’t get any booty. And I haven’t been getting any booty in my pirate adventures. So that has been an issue. And yeah, it’s been an issue. Yeah, I was trying to work with nonprofits. Don’t ever try to work with nonprofits. They all suck. They’re all serious people. Unserious people or people who are serious but incompetent. That seems to be the nonprofit space. Startups are just a mess. Even though I’m in one now, they’re a mess. So you’ve got to be careful with startups. Sally Jo, can’t we pirate? Can’t we pirate Mutiny and take billions? He has to keep us. There we go. Yeah, and if you want to support me, I will take the link to the Buy Me a Coffee thing. So that you can buy me a coffee. But yeah, it’s been a tough three years with jobs. Because getting jobs is not a problem. Getting jobs where people are actually going to pay you and they say they’re going to pay you. It’s been a problem. Which is unfortunate. Because I rather like to be able to do it. I rather like working with people that if they’re going to be jerks and not live up to their end, then it’s going to be an issue. Anselman, I have Doris Day in my head singing Take Me Back to the Badlands. The Badlands of Dakota. I don’t think I’ve heard that song. Although maybe my brain’s just tired and I have. It’s quite a beautiful… It’s an amazing just carving out of the earth an exposure of beautiful rocks and gorgeous colors. I was thinking about that earlier today actually. Just before I started the stream. I can take a picture of my pond. But you guys can’t. I can show you that picture. But you can’t understand the pond. The quality of the pond is not merely individual representation of the pond. And you know, there’s boundaries. I can take a small subset of the world, like a picture, and I can print it out. But it’s violating a bunch of boundaries. And it has boundaries. And so you don’t get the full quality. Sack. I’ve been in startups as a mechanical engineer for 15 years. I know the struggle. Startups are a bear. They’re a bear. Big companies have their own challenges. So, you know, pick your poison. You’re getting poisoned either way. The only pencilman is really the Black Hills. Calamity Jane. The Black Hills is north of the Badlands. And they’re just hills. Although they’re not really hills. They’re mountains. They’re about the size of the Appalachians on the East Coast. That’s the precursor. That’s the foothills, roughly. To the Rockies. Which are big mountains. That’s where the big mountains are. The big Appalachian mountains are out by knee in North Carolina. The largest. The largest mountain on the East Coast is just outside of Asheville, North Carolina. It’s about three hours from here. I’ve actually seen it. It’s gorgeous. I didn’t go up. I should have gone up. Next time I go up in that area, I’ll go up the mountain. I guess you can go quite far up the mountain in a car before you have to either hike or stop and take a look. I don’t think you can drive up the top of Mount Mitchell, I think it’s called. I don’t think so. I’ll have to go again. You can drive up top Mount Washington in New Hampshire, where I’ve been. That’s the tallest one in the Northeast. Quite a view. I’ve been up there a couple of times. We used to hike. We’d hike Mount Washington. Man, when you’ve got a 75-mile-plus view of the area. Oh my goodness. You can see all kinds of things. You can see Canada. You can see the Atlantic Ocean. You can see almost all of Maine. You probably just about make out Nova Scotia. You can see New York, Vermont. You can see all the way into Connecticut. If it’s clear enough, yeah. If you’re far enough above the curvature of the Earth, that your visibility is quite good on that mountain. I’ll have to do the same for Mount Mitchell, because it’s right in the corner of the state. It’s right by Georgia, Tennessee. It’s in North Carolina and South Carolina. And Virginia is not far away, so you can see all those states from there for sure. Because it’s right on the border of all those states. Borders are boundaries. Dun, dun, dun. And they’re kind of arbitrary. But you’ve got to have rules, man. You’ve got to say where your state ends and other states begin. It’s behavior changes. Especially in the United States, man. Woof. Sometimes they’re really subtle, and sometimes they’re really not. I mean, you cross that Mason-Dixon line and things will be changing pretty quick. But even just going from Virginia into North Carolina, it’s like, yeah, something’s different. I used to tell people, like, the grass is a different color in New York or New Jersey from Massachusetts. So Western Mass is very close to New York, but there’s something different. And you can tell, and it’s not clear what it is. So it’s not just geographical either, right? It’s also the culture, and although that’s affected by the geography, it’s not the whole picture. And those boundaries help us to know how to act and when to act out and when to not act out and what to act like. And dress does that too, right? Part of your boundaries are. So we went to presentations today, so I put on a dress shirt. And then, of course, one of the little bastards in the entrepreneur group, I said, Jeff, what the hell? No fist bump? And he goes, oh, I didn’t recognize you, Mark, because normally you’re not dressed up. I was like, hehehe. And he was just giving me the business, obviously. It was pretty funny. But yeah, boundaries, right? Oh, I’m going to presentations. I’m going to do presentations in front of students at the university. I’m going to dress up. It didn’t go like this. Might have been fun. I could have gotten away with it. But actually, I think boundaries are important. I think dress boundaries in particular are something we’ve been ignoring for a while. And that’s a problem. Is that we haven’t been setting the boundaries. Like, what’s a CEO? Is it some thug, liberal, or something? Is it some thug-looking autistic guy wearing a hoodie? Is it some guy in a turtleneck he paid way too much for? Is it some guy wearing jeans and a scruffy t-shirt? And maybe it has become that. But maybe there should be boundaries. Like, maybe they should be dressed up and look nice. And maybe when somebody takes pride in their work, they should set those boundaries to dress up and look nice. Maybe that’s a good boundary. Maybe that tells you who you are in that moment. What you’re representing. What identity you have. And part of this lack of boundaries is all about identity and not wanting an identity and not understanding identity and trying to collapse identities. Because we’ve come to confuse naming and identities. And the movies have been making it seem like they’re the same and relevant. I’m sure Jesse’s fuming to get on now. We’re confusing things like title. And we’re setting bad boundaries, I would say. And so, is that video done? That video is done. I have a video that is done. I don’t know why I haven’t released it. I guess I get too busy to release any videos this week. But I have two in the kitty. And I get so many recordings to do. It’s insane. Maybe I’ll get around it this weekend. I did do a video and it is going to cover this. It’s coming up on navigating patterns. So beware. And basically we’re going to be talking about superheroes and the differences between them and why it matters. And it’s going to represent a shift in the culture. Pretty clearly, I think. So it’s going to be an interesting video. It won’t be a live stream. But we’ll probably do a follow-up live stream on it. That’s pretty cool. And then Jesse is allegedly, although I haven’t seen any output from Jesse lately, working on this matrix stuff that we’re going to do. And I don’t know if we’re going to do that as a live stream. Probably. We’ll probably do that as a live stream. But I haven’t decided yet. We haven’t discussed it. Because I haven’t seen Jesse’s stuff. Hopefully you’ll get on that soon. So I’m going to go ahead and do a follow-up live stream on it. And then I’m going to do a follow-up live stream on it. And then I’m going to do a follow-up live stream on it. And then I’m going to do a follow-up live stream on it. But I think the identity stuff is all about boundaries. Trying to discover boundaries. Recognizing boundaries without really appreciating them. Things like that. You know what? I’m going to adjust this camera because it’s bugging me. There. Getting more of my artwork. Yeah, I don’t stream yard flipped out today. And wouldn’t let me in with the normal browser. So maybe go in with Chrome. And Chrome is a good place to do that. And I’m going to do a follow-up live stream on it. And then I’m going to do a follow-up live stream on it. So maybe go in with Chrome. And Chrome, as it turns out, is not broken like other browsers tend to be. And so it honored my zoom on my camera. Which is a function on the camera. I don’t know why. And so I have different boundaries. Different borders. As a result of using a different browser. Who knew? And that is part of the recognition of browsers and identity. And that is part of the recognition of browsers and identity. Am I the guy who’s way far back in the big frame? Or am I the guy who’s right in your face? Or am I the guy who’s right in your face? Or am I the guy who’s right in your face? Pirating directly. And how does that affect identity? And when you’re trying to identify with everybody, or as everybody. And when you’re trying to identify with everybody, or as everybody. You end up in this conundrum of engagement with too many things. You end up in this conundrum of engagement with too many things. Too much information. Too many other people. Too many rules. Too many ideas. And then now it gets overwhelming. So you try to collapse things again because you need something to keep it on your hand. Because you’ve been told that you can. And I would argue against that. I would say you’re a muppet. We’re all muppets. You can’t understand. You don’t have to. You can just go along and trust that your ancestors knew what they were doing when they did the thing. And yeah, I think that’s kind of important. And yeah, I think that’s kind of important. These boundaries keep us within ourselves. These boundaries keep us within ourselves. They allow us to interact with the world correctly, They allow us to interact with the world correctly, Instead of incorrectly. They give us our identity to some extent. They help us relate to our own selves in a way that helps us to be stable. And when we’re stable then we can build things. And we can destroy only appropriate things and not inappropriate things. destroy things by default, even when we’re trying to build them, because we’re not stable. It’s like doing Jenga while you’re drunk. At first, you get much better at Jenga, so it feels pretty good. And then you’re terrible at Jenga, and you fall into the Jenga board and lose it for your team because you’re drunk and retard. That happens. Funny to watch. That’s why Jenga boards at bars are a big deal. And a lot of things are that way, right? When you get a good buzz on, you actually do better, because you relax. So relaxation is good to a point, and then you relax too much, and you lose all boundaries, and then you’re falling over. And that’s how it happens, and it happens to people all the time. And not just because we’re drunk or under the influence of chemicals or whatever. We vary throughout the day with our glucose cycle, what we’ve eaten and haven’t eaten, what actual foods. All these things change. And so they’re affecting us all the time. And if we don’t know where we begin and end, we don’t realize that particular problem. And it’s a big problem when you don’t realize a problem. Problems are worse when you’re not actually engaging with them, although not all problems. I mean, some problems are unresolvable, and therefore, I think John Ravichy calls these perennial problems, which I would classify as not problems, things like grief. You’re not going to wave a wand and get rid of grief. You’re not going to resolve grief. There’s no solution. It’s not like a Rubik’s Cube where if you manipulate it enough, grief goes away. That’s not how that works. So yeah. And we’re confused about these things, because we’re not understanding boundaries. We’re not paying attention to boundaries. We’re not engaging with boundaries as such. We’re rebelling against constraint itself. And again, that puts us in our imagination. And we’re making models of the world, and then they’re wrong. Oh, my officials finally got elected. My party’s in power. And all the things they said they were going to do, they didn’t do. And it didn’t happen immediately. And they didn’t implement it the way I thought they would. And when they did implement the way I thought that they would, they were going to be in power. And when they did implement the way I thought that they would, it didn’t have the effect I thought. Oops. That just means you’re wrong. It’s not a big deal. It’s not hard. You’re just wrong. It’s OK to be wrong. That’s how we learn. We don’t learn by being right. Then we unlearn. Jesse’s such a troublemaker. How would you recommend restoring broken boundaries? Boundaries are still negotiations at the end of the day. So in order for me to learn not to try and sit in a chair and code for 16 straight hours without actually leaving the chair, I had to cross a boundary, which is the boundary called your bladder. Your bladder is not happy when you do that, especially if you’re drinking the whole time, which I was, because I had laid out drinks on the desk. I was at the GNU Labs at MIT campus, basically. And yeah, I was there to learn stuff. I had free access to this 1.8 trillion until somebody realizes, wait, it’s not worth $1.8 t r i ll i o n . I t^{'} so n l y w or t h$ 0.8 trillion. It takes a trillion dollars of value off the stock in a day or two, right? Or in a week, whatever it was. That happens. And that happens all the time. People realize, oh, these companies aren’t doing so well. And now their prospects have gone from this to this. And it’s like, oh no, their valuation comes down rather suddenly. And things always come down quicker than they go up for whatever reason. That’s a good asymmetry to know about the stock market. Also tells you why Nassim Taleb trades in options and makes lots of money, or at least he used to. That’s how it works. You take advantage of the asymmetry in the downward movement, which is always much greater and quicker than the upward movement. And then you can leverage that to your advantage. Getting back to your example, Sally Jo, the people outside of the fenced area, are these big multinational corporations like Disney? Disney stock options go all over the place because they want unbridled limitation. They want to go onto the streaming model, which is hyper volatile. Yeah, I mean, I know what it is. Cause this is how my ideas are. It’s just something I get a sense of out there and I’m just abstracting it to be able to communicate it. But yeah, like the, I think it’s coming from, we have to be inclusive. Everyone needs to be inclusive. Include me, please. Oh, but not you, you’re mean. It’s like if somebody has a limitation or a boundary and they’re like, no, I’m not going to do that. Well, that’s mean. I mean, that’s not very inclusive. So you need to get out. But they’ve just been screeching about inclusion for months. Oh yeah, you go watch the lady, the New Zealand lady burning the Harry Potter books that you’re making around. That was hectic. Include everybody until they come to an autistic or disagreeable person who won’t play their particular little social game. And then they’re mad at them for not playing it, whether they can or cannot. And it’s just like, what the hell to me? Cause like, I just, I can’t quantify that hiccup in the road. It’s like, you’re like, oh, we should, we should include the disabled. We should include this and we should include that. And then if somebody is disagreeable or just not quite as capable socially, but not them cause they’re mean. And it just like, holy, or like if you, if you’re just very modest and you just won’t not wear shorts in the pool as a woman. It’s like, well, you’re making people feel uncomfortable with your shorts. What? Like, yeah. And like, this is things that actually have happened. Like, yeah. Like, yeah. I was like, that’s a personal example. Yeah, no, like, and so, but that’s the- I think we should, maybe it’s the Christian thing in me to want to strive for harmony. Implicit- I think we want people to be able to cooperate. The implicit versus explicit. So the guy with the fence has an explicit boundary. He’s like, yep, I want this. And the explicit hierarchy, the explicit boundary is seeable to everyone equally for real disease. Whereas the people who desire to grow a patch, they desire to grow pan disease, desire to grow tulips, but wouldn’t put up a boundary because they didn’t want to infringe on other people. They’re like, well, they wanted to be fair. But actually, actually, they wanted it to be there. And so there was an implicit hierarchy that probably the socially adept, probably the non-Dutchman, could see. But the tulip guy was just like, well, they have a fence. What do you want from me? Like, he just put up a fence. And so this is the difference between- When you say there is no hierarchy, it’s bullshit. You just want the hierarchy to be implicit because you’ll dominate, you think. Right. Right? So- No, you’re right. That’s what it always is. And the problem with an explicit hierarchy is that that’s a judge. And so there’s an inherent judgment in an explicit hierarchy and people don’t like to be judged. And it’s like, well, this guy put up a fence. And so he’s saying, in this area, this dominates. And I’m not willing to put up a fence because A, it’s a lot of work. And B, I want to secretly rule. I don’t want, I don’t like. Right. And I’m weak because it’s usually the weak people that this is why I keep telling people, no, no, no, just tell them now. Because they’re not gonna do anything. They’re just gonna get frustrated. Because, you know, people are like, that’s not true. I’m like, I do this all day. Literally all day, all the time to all kinds of people at work every single time. You back, you go up to somebody and say, what are you gonna do about it? And the answer is always nothing unless they’re of a certain type. There are people out there who are, you know, they’re gonna have their way. But these people who are whining and crying loudly and go out the middle of the street and scream at the sky, you don’t need to worry about those people. They’re just not worth worrying about. You can let them act out as three-year-olds and tell them no, and there’s nothing they will do. That’s the cartoon I did about the guy dreaming of the bigger soapbox. I was like, Steve or something. Steve dreamed of a bigger soapbox so he could finally make his point. But it was at 11 a.m., so we weren’t really worried. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and that’s the thing is that, yeah, they wanna be loud and they equate the volume with the hierarchy or with the power or whatever, and then it turns out that that doesn’t work. And then they get frustrated, and it’s like, well, but that doesn’t work. Like, what do you want from me? I’m just not gonna back down. I’m not gonna do your stupid kind of game. I’m gonna call you out when you try it. This is it, Mark. When did we start caring about these tiny little… When did we start revering them as a society? When did we start kowtowing? And it’s our fault. We started with, that’s the victim thing, right? That’s the, you gotta be a good Christian, be nice. And it’s like… I gotta be careful here. I have an employer that would be… I would say that the problem was that the gate broke down. The gate was left wide open. The gate no longer mediated between the United and the world. There’s no boundaries between those who do and those who do not. And you don’t need to worry about those who do not, because one of the things they do not do is push back. And it’s like, if you just stand your ground, they will go away. But you have to stand your ground, even though it’s harmful to their soul. It’s like, yeah, my soul is hurt by your implicit judgment because you’re willing to put a stake in the ground or put up a fence or whatever. I’m like, well, that’s nice. I don’t care, sorry. And then it’s like, well, we all need to get along and care about each other. And I’m like, no, no, we don’t. I’m not going to do that. You need a new plan. That’s your plan? You need a new plan. That plan is dead. Yeah, this is what I mean about the shorts issue is like, if you are a woman and you want to wear the baggy shorts over top of your swimsuit, I have seen pools that get like, you’re making everyone uncomfortable, maybe. Especially in high school. Especially as like, you can’t do that. It’s not a lot. You’re wearing more clothing. Yes, yes, because you’re making everyone uncomfortable because you don’t feel comfortable. Because you’re feeling of immodesty in this modern swimsuit. Because you feel immodest, you’re making everyone uncomfortable. And yeah, this is the, oh gosh, if you go down the rabbit hole of the complete crazy psycho rants against tri-drives, if you want to see people be disgusting towards women, go look at the psycho rants against tradwives. Like stuff like, I want to smash your face into a wall and just dumb shit because they’re seeing a woman in full form, like unapologetically. And it’s freaking fascinating. And it’s a judgment they can’t deal with, right? She’s a head who I, it’s a guilty indulgence, much like trailer park boys to listen to a rant once a while. It’s just, she’s fascinating sometimes. And she did a whole thing about trad, because she just is like, oh, this looks dicey. And she just goes for it and it’s kind of great. But it’s just unfreaking believable. And like, I’ve experienced it a little bit, is like the things that people will feel judged by that are just total surprises to me is just remarkable. Yeah, and you can’t control it. Like you can’t not make other people feel judged. So why should you bother worrying about it? But people do. And that’s, I think that’s a lot of the acceptance. You should accept, you should support, you should be an advocate, whatever stuff. And it’s like, I can’t make you feel comfortable with yourself. I can’t do it. It’ll never be possible. Right, and that’s what they’re asking. They’re asking for you to make them change in a way that they have already determined would be good for them. And in the way that they want. And it’s like, yeah, but that’s not an option that’s available to you. And that’s what they don’t understand. It’s a lost cause. Watch compilation TikTok girls against trad wise. It’s like watching a reptilian brain take over their body. That’s funny. Their visceral reactions, we built of some kind though. I don’t know if that’s the word. No, it is the word. They’re guilty of not living up to the standard. And that’s what they’re yelling about. Like they’re yelling that there is a standard that they’re not living up to. And the reason why they’re yelling is they know full well that it’s their fault. That not that they could reach the standard, but it’s their fault that they’re not even trying. That’s why they’re screaming. That’s why they’re yelling. That’s why they’re upset. They are being judged by the existence of these other people. And they’re not living up to the standard or striving for it. And they’re screaming about it. They wanna tear the ideal down so they don’t feel judged. That’s all it is. A zillion years ago, Mark, a zillion years ago when we made the first video on my channel about churches. And this is why freaking churches should be the most beautiful damn thing in the whole entire city on the highest hill. They absolutely should be asserting that upon the world with no apology. And this building inside of shopping malls and huts and other ridiculousness is just, I’m so mad that I can’t talk. It’s ironic to me that all the people that talk about beauty are basically not embedded in super beautiful churches. Like, and they’re not screaming about having beautiful churches. And I’m like, why wouldn’t the beauty be located in the religion? Like, I don’t understand. Isn’t that the appropriate place for it? I’ve always had a back and forth relationship with the beautiful as the feminine, like, and why you should do that. And I had a friend, well, I have a group of friends and they’re a big Catholic family. It’s massively different than my family and socially they’re much more adept than my family. So when it comes to interpersonal dynamics, I very much value that friendship. And one of the girls was injured her senior year of high school and she tried to recover and basically she has to walk with crutches maybe the rest of her life. And there was a period where she quit dressing up and just wasn’t going to. And it’s interesting because they’re like no sex outside of marriage, only getting married to have as many kids as you can possibly have kind of family. So it’s like, why would they be concerned about her? And I was visiting this one summer and she was out, Becky starts talking to me about it. And I was noticing too, the last couple of times I’d been out, oh, I should not have said names, that’s okay, we’ll move on. So the last couple of times I’d been out, I had noticed this stay at home mom was doing up her hair and ordering a nice blouse and wearing lipstick a little bit. And I’m like, nobody’s seeing her but her kids. And then she brings up to me, she’s like, yeah, I want my kids to have a pretty mom. And I was like, and like for the first time- I just thought somewhere, where are you starting from? For the first time in my life, I wanted to be feminine was when I realized she was not worried about this sex appeal. Like it was not a sex appeal situation. It was a, I value myself, I feel good about me. And it totally changed my relationship to beauty, like entirely. And I saw, I experienced it. Her little sister wasn’t trying anymore. I was sad. I was sad. And then to realize, oh, this is not about sex act. This is part of our sex to value ourselves to be this sort of thing. And I had never understood it. And I was 31, two. Like I had never understood beauty as such. I had put on a face before because I would wear it as like a confidence facade and to not look too young because I always felt like I looked straight for all of my jobs. You used it to project identity. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I would use it to project. Not to have an intimate relationship with the world. But to see it inside of that dynamic, inside of a home, not even directed towards the opposite sex, to be directed to the internal family dynamic of why you take care of yourself. And then, where was I? I got lost on why I was thinking about this. Well, it’s like the tradwife thing. Standards, the standards changed between the two sisters. The standards of what they value. They can only see dolling up as porn. And Shu hits this really, really well. The shoe on head girl, she’s like, they see a pretty woman and they can only think porn because they never go outside. And I’m like, I think that’s right. And I think dressing up for your kids, dressing up for your family and keeping yourself clean and kempt to take pride in your family, in your people, in your us, as it were. Not the you and them relationship. But that’s the pointing then, Sally. That’s the pointing. Women point. And one way they point is by dressing up. And I’ll go back to that in a second. But I wanna deal with lost cause. Evangelicals don’t want beautiful churches because they see spending money on looks as vanity and that money should be used somewhere else. It’s deeper than that. That’s contrary to what’s in the Bible. So you should tell them all that and say you didn’t read the Bible correctly because you don’t have a tradition. You should tell them to read the Bible because you’re relying on your own cognition and you are a muppet and you shouldn’t do that. Prodigy isn’t bad, just saying. And then meanwhile, local mega church spends millions on its utilitarian design renovations. Well, indeed. And look, there is some very beautiful- It’s bad framing. There’s so many bad frames there. I’m sorry, lost. I’m sorry, but you’re lost. You’re lost there. Yeah, he’s lost there. I mean, there’s a very beautiful church in Charlotte, the Cavalry Church. The confusion about embellishments is very strange because the evangelicals will embellish hell out of some audiovisual music stuff and they’re just scared of gold foil for no valid cause. I don’t have time to get into this because like, but it’s the relevance. They over-reduce the world on this idea of we have to be relevant enough to be heard. That’s what happened in the 70s. A lot of these things come back to the cultural revolution in the 70s regarding relevancy, wanting to fit in, wanting to match the standards of the day in order to have a message that would go out. I know, I don’t agree with it, but that’s where it started. And then that materialistic urge is manifested as an echoed out. And every time an echo goes, it reduces its resonance. It reduces its power. And then you get to the 90s mega church model. It’s so weak in its sense of urgency and relevance. It starts to self-oscillate now because it’s just oscillating around its own bad echo. It’s a different aesthetic piety because what- No, it’s not, no, no, no, no, no. The evangelical church system, its beauty structure is basically the same structure of an RSL. Sorry. It takes a long time. It’s an aesthetic piety because you could have saints and gold foil and the stories and images. Or is it more holy to have bare white? Or is it more holy to have wood walls? Or is it more holy to meet by the river in the mud? It’s an aesthetic piety. Right. They’re confusing it and they don’t have the pointing. This is why the woman in the family needs to dress up because she has to point at something beyond herself, beyond her looks in the moment or we’ll say her manifestation as the probably exhausted wife and mother who’s been keeping the house clean and making a home out of an ugly structure that otherwise would have bare walls and still putting stuff up, saying, I’ll get there someday. And so she’s the one that points. And without that pointing, I don’t decorate my house for years because it was the only pointing. That’s why this image is so important. There’s a lot in this image. We spent a lot of time on this. There’s a lot of pieces and a lot of great additions at the very end that we didn’t think of. But, you know, and let’s just go Sally Jo. Yes, this is the problem with woke porn infested storytelling. No man can just be close friends without it going gay. Well, the gay thing is the materialism. I mean, I talked about this with Andrea with the bangs on her channel, right? My intimacy conversation, well, as deep as a puddle. In that conversation, we went over this. When you’re a materialist, you don’t have intimacy. You can’t understand intimacy as anything but physical interaction. And therefore Sam and Frodo are gay because there’s no, either you’re together physically or you’re two different people. And if you’re together physically, then you’re either gay or straight or married or in a polyamorous relationship. There aren’t a lot of options for materialism, right? There’s no way that Jesse and I can have a deep platonic intimacy with the ideas around culture, cultural change in movies. There’s no way that I can go visit Sally Jo and, you know, have deep conversations with her around art because in the material world, there has to be a physical connection because materialism, like it’s just not, there’s nothing, there’s no other options in that particular problem. Materialism is the value system. That’s what I’m trying to point to is the shift in the values, what people value and what groups and that shifted, that shifted and that led to outcomes. The outcomes of those values are the differences in the aesthetic choices, but the values have to be, you have to investigate where do those values shift, what caused them to shift and why? No, no, because the outcomes aren’t that important. It’s not a shift. It’s not a shift. It’s not a shift. They shifted though. They shifted though. The phenomena happened. No, no, materialism is an inevitable collapse down to a quantity. Materialism is the value here though in those shifts in culture. I’m saying- The loss of values led to more and more materialism. I’m saying the piety of creating a cathedral is the same as the piety of creating a bare stick wall intention. And they view themselves different and they’re wrong. Yes. So they’re using material to get at the quality of piety. That’s what materialism is. It’s a reduction to the quantity. What’s another word for piety? So how do you- What’s another word for piety? How do you project to the world that you- You’re using a word I don’t understand. Can you use a different word? He doesn’t understand the piety. So let her do his definition. No, I do, but I want you to use a different word. Explain. So in the medieval world, to sacrifice to the church, to create the church, to build up the church, was to show the piety of your city. What do you mean by that word? I need you to use a different word on that word. I saw it in pictures too fast. It was to show how you were good. It was to show your goodness. You showed your goodness by giving your all to the cathedral and building up this magnificent thing. And so now in modernity, you’re still showing your goodness, but instead of building up a cathedral, you’re no, no, no, we don’t need that. No, we don’t need that. No, we don’t need that. It’s still- We’re showing our goodness in our poverty. And it’s the poverty of beauty. And that’s what Sally outlined earlier, right? Are you more pious if your church doesn’t have stained glass windows? Or you’re more pious if you’re just blank walls? Or you’re more pious if you’re down by the river? Because that’s a materialistic quantity way of measuring piety. That’s what she’s saying. That’s where the materialism comes in. Or holiness or righteousness or closeness to God. They’re all- Or closeness, any of the religious qualities of a good religious person. That’s what she’s referring to. The religious qualities of good religious- And I do wanna- Damn it, Sally, give me a second. Now I’ve achieved this over. But while- But now I’m pulling us back to boundaries and the attempt to create them and understand them. I’m trying to bring us back to boundaries because we’re a little bit, if we get into the whole- No, no, it’s fine. I mean, it is right up the alley of boundaries. But I did wanna interrupt and say one quick thing. So apparently, when I went to go get my intimacy talk with Andrea with the bangs, I noticed it is over a thousand views. So thank you everybody who watched that. And if you haven’t seen it, it’s got over a thousand views. It’s one of the most popular things on her channel that doesn’t involve a celebrity because I’m really not a celebrity, even when I’m a pirate. And so that’s wonderful. If you haven’t seen that talk, you’ll understand materialism better, I promise you. And if it’s not clear, let me know. And I’ll try to clarify. But that’s the thing is- It seems like you’re pointing to a bottom up, like you’re pointing to emergence and not- But that’s what materialism is. Materialism is a focus on only emergence. It’s the denial of emanation. Materialism is sick. It’s not the denial of all emanation. It’s the denial. It’s not, I take that back. It’s a denial of emanation. It’s not the denial that there are things above, but it’s a denial that they come down and that we need to meet them. Instead, it says, no, no, no, everything comes from below. The primary mode of the world comes from below. The reason why people are bad on Twitter is because of the platform. No, it’s not. That’s the dumbest thing anybody’s ever thought in the history of the universe. Of course, that’s not the case. The reason why we do bad churches or ugly churches is to show our piety. Why? No, you’re just a crazy materialist. The reason why we can self-transform is because seeds contain all the information required to grow into a tree. None of that is true. Okay, it’s all false. It’s all materialism. Everything the seed needs is contained within the seed. No, it’s not. That’s foolishness. It’s obviously wrong. The gravity’s not in the seed. The water’s not in the seed. The soil’s not in the seed. The sunlight’s not in the seed. None of these things are in the seed. The seed’s worthless without them. You can send a seed into space. It’s never gonna germinate and become a tree. Like, you know, that’s the problem. So lost cause says fascinating pick. That’s good. And then, so I am not is above I am. If I am not is above I am, it’s not. No. I don’t know how you come up with that. I was just doing inside, outside boundary box. So I was just- Yeah, she’s just showing boundary. I just was going to- Yeah, you don’t, see, you don’t identify with things. Identity is a negotiation. You probably missed the beginning. Identity is a negotiation. It’s not up to you. And you don’t have one identity. You’re never gonna have one identity because you’re not one thing. You’re not some flat two-dimensional object. That isn’t how the world is. Like, you can just observe yourself and see, I act differently around different people. Like, I mean, obviously, if you look at the videos that aren’t live on navigating patterns, I don’t dress like this. This is an identity that I adopt for the live stream on purpose. And it’s not me. I was in a dress shirt earlier today. No tie, no suit coat. I didn’t need that. But I was in a dress shirt earlier today. And then I’m in a dress shirt driving top down in 80 degree weather today. Like, those are all different identities. Like, I’m the guy in the Beamer who drives too fast on the highway, top down and doesn’t care. Like, I’m not being a pirate. I’m just annoying people with my aggressive northern driving. That’s totally different ethos. Are you gonna do this to me again? Damn it, Sally. What is maintaining a boundary? I will X if X. If you X, I will X. I lock my doors. I do not X. Well, I like that. I like that, yeah. Or also I X, right? Which is your virtues and values. It’s not just what you don’t do, but it’s what you will do. Like, I will always help homeless people. People can do that as well as help to maintain their boundaries. So Paul Glanderclay always helps homeless people. That’s part of him maintaining a boundary. So is to maintain a boundary an action you take in the world? It can be. I would say it’s a value. No, it can be an action. Is it a real? You can put up a fence. You can put up a fence. That’s an action, right? But not doing the putting up the fence is also making your value manifest in the world. If you do not put up the fence, you are someone that wants to be open and wants to be. So is it a physical? You’re still expressing. You’re expressing a value on the world. Your inaction is an expression. This is where people get confused. This is really good. Yes, the trade-off. This is great, thank you. Your inaction is an expression. You’re like, oh no, I don’t express anything because I don’t do anything. No, the fact that you don’t do anything expresses to me that you’re a lazy piece of garbage. How’s that? You’re expressing yourself in your inaction. Clean the room. And people don’t want that because now they’re responsible no matter what. And I get that you don’t want that, but it’s still the world that you were born into. You wanted. I just wanna cover this. So I guess the way I saw the pic was above my, I see. So he’s admitting that he might’ve seen the pic incorrectly there. But that’s the issue. There is no condition of action or inaction where you’re not signaling and where you’re not expressing values. That doesn’t exist. You can’t say there is a state of no signaling in the world and therefore I’m gonna hide. So the fact that we’ll say you’re a live hidden Christian means that what you’re saying is my religion’s not important to me and to others or in the world or maybe both. What do we got, Sally? So a boundary is an expression of values in the world. I’d have to think about that. I don’t know, is it? No, it’s a little bit too oversimplified. I think that’s oversimplified. Yeah, I think that’s way oversimplified. I know, I know. It’s not easy, Sally. It’s a signal of something for sure. It’s a signal of something, right. And what I was trying to say to Bluejay a couple weeks ago is people are always signaling. It’s up to you to pay attention to what they’re signaling. And he’s like, well, I don’t know if I’m smart enough to see all the things in the world. He’s like, no, you’re just not seeing the world. You’re just not paying attention to what’s around you. That’s your own problem with not valuing the interactions with people, valuing the activities that you’re in. Right, right. Right, and that is the issue is that, you think you can get away with this stuff by just not interacting, but of course, there’s no state of not your breathing. You’re using up water. I have no, you can’t, exactly, yeah. There are other people who know about you. There is not no spoon to go back to the matrix. Right, right. And that is the lie of the matrix is that there is a place that you can exist where you’re not in the matrix. And it’s like, no, there’s no such place. And it’s funny, because again, well, I sort of touched on this, Jesse, right? The matrix tries to subvert these things. And then in the movie, it doesn’t. And I don’t think they realized that it didn’t. I think that’s one of the reasons why they abandoned the Superman thing and started to use it differently in the second movie. Right, because in the first movie, it was implied that he was just gonna have superpowers and free everybody. And that was gonna be the end of that. And screw the architects, right? Which we don’t really need at that point. Yeah, well, if we do the matrix, we gotta do a stream on the other two. I think. Because the other two are far more important, as you said, in terms of what the other two, the deeper questions, but they’re also just as confused. Yes. Well, they’re, again, they’re- It also depends on your perspective of how you want to see the matrix. Because I see the matrix as the fundamental. It’s about a construct, about getting you to believe in the construct rather than the construct itself. But it’s worse than that, right? So the end of the matrix is basically them realizing we’ve subverted the architect of the simulation, right? And now we have a new person in charge. Uh-oh. No. We were trying to get rid of person in charge. What do we do? I know, we’ll go deeper into philosophy, which is the right move, to be honest. It’s just a stupid move, because you can’t get out of that construct. Like it’s not, there are just limits and constraints, and that’s one of them. But the constraint of creation exists. And that’s why the most pure, accurate, and precise intelligent design theory came out of science. And it didn’t come out of the fundamentalist. The fundamentalists actually have a perfectly reasonable intelligent design thesis that is, yeah, a guy created it all, and he’s God, and he has superpowers. That’s actually way more reasonable than we live in a simulation. Because saying we live in a simulation is a very materialistic way of getting around saying, well, if you live in a simulation, it had to be built by something that isn’t the mere simulation itself, right? That’s where you get into this, why can’t self transcend? No, you can’t. You can’t build a mechanical machine that builds mechanical machines bigger than itself. That can’t happen. And we know this. We’ve been trying for decades, for hundreds of years, really, and it’s never worked, because things always get smaller, unless they’re injected with time, energy, and attention. And the only creatures that have time, energy, and attention are really us at the end of the day. And that’s why AI is gonna fail. And actually, I was gonna do an AI video, I didn’t. But I will. It’s parasitic. The thing that people don’t realize is that you can only modify art within boundaries and keep it art. When those boundaries are gone, the modifications you make to the existing art no longer qualify as art to people. And no one realizes this yet. I’ve done the experiments physically, personally, myself. So I know that that’s what’s happening. There’s a scale of problems. Yeah, which is, here’s one. I wanna return to echo your point, but also wanna return back to something I was thinking. The difference between a seance and a performance art is very porous. Yes. If you know Marina Abravovich, you know who I’m talking about. Going back to something we’re talking about. There’s kind of the literature around the seven basic stories. I’m not sure about that. But what we can point to is that the hero’s, exactly. The hero’s journey is a boundary. If you follow that boundary line of the hero’s journey, going around the stage, you get a story that people associate with. They can participate in, they can collaborate, they can elaborate from that boundary line of the hero’s story, or the hero’s journey, sorry, is a way of making sense of the world, of stories. And when you try to, like the matrix, not complete the hero’s journey, you stop subverting the original intention of the journey, of the story. Things just go mismatch. Right. Right. And that’s what starts to happen with those films. And then it has to go, you have to get to the fourth film and try to lock off the story. You have to go into critique space, rather than to complete the actual story. Because if you don’t know how to complete the story, you just have to start critiquing the fact that you never completed the story. And so you have the circles are spinning in opposite directions, rather than completing the cycle. And so what happens with the fourth film is basically is another incomplete cycle. Right. But it was amazing. Predictable. Bullet time. I can control bullet. It’s like, wait a minute, you just broke, you didn’t broke the fourth wall, you broke all the walls. Like now you’re more boundaryless again. Well, no, no, no. The proper read on that is that he starts to move a lot. He starts to become an agent. The very thing he’s fighting, he starts to become. He moves like they do. Like that’s the line from Trinity, go to me yesterday. And that’s, he broke the boundaries of what was possible for a non-agent in the world. And every time you do that, you subject yourself to becoming something that you desired not to be. Well, and then he broke the boundaries of an agent by flying. And then they pulled that back. And now he’s not flying so much anymore, except to get places or to get out of a situation. But he’s no longer flying to free people from the matrix. It’s like, oh, isn’t that the implication of the end of the first movie? It was, and then it did. Well, yeah. If you want to go into a dark sort of corner for the last 10 minutes, I’ve got left. You know, the socialists in the communist utopia promised they were going to do a bunch of things and they just imposed a darker, more sinister version than the previous system. So they said, oh, we’re not going to have a Czar anymore. We’re going to have a pseudo republic and we’re going to have a new money system and you’re valuing things and communities. And oh, no, no, no, we’re just going to impose a worse system than it was there previously. It’s not really based upon anything. It’s just based upon our new preference set, which we haven’t tested, by the way. They have to. Like it is parasitic upon that which came. Like everybody wants to break free from that which came before. So one way of doing that is to ignore history. And that’s why they say, if you’re ignoring history, you’re doing to repeat it. Yeah, pretty much. But they want to break free from the constraints of the past because it’s the past that put us here. It’s like, yeah, but it’s also the past that put you here. And so all the good things you have are the result of the past too. And you try to critique and figure out where, why and what the connections are. You can’t do that. The thing you were born into is the result of distributed cognition through time. Tens of thousands of years by this point. And then you’re gonna come along with your tiny little Muppet brain and critique that. Like really? That’s your move. That’s your move, right? And then usually my move is to show them that they’re stupid about something that they think they know something about, which happens to be easy for me because I have a really good memory and I’m fairly well read in certain areas and certain other areas. Like I haven’t read any classics. I actually literally refused to read things like the Republic and I’m reading it. We’ll be doing the book club, the YouTube Texas, the Texas meaning community, right? Has the other ones up. We might go live with that at some point. I refuse to read Canterbury Tales. I refuse to read Shakespeare. I refuse. I flat out, no, I’m not doing that. And that’s part of that is because I’ve seen the corruption of especially in the US, a lot of the Charles Dickens stuff is acted out in the US as though that happened in the US when none of those things, nothing like that ever happened in the US. So in one way, the people in the US are trying to pay for the sins of the industrial revolution in England where we never made those mistakes. Like that never, we didn’t have orphanages like that. That didn’t happen here. It only happened over there. And they’re trying to pay for the sins of their ancestors. This reparations talk is not new. It may have changed in implementation, but it’s not new. And I didn’t wanna be corrupted by those views. So like I didn’t read any of the Western Canterbury, like almost any of it. It’s, I mean, there’s exceptions obviously in big William Blake fan. My father has PhD in Blake. So like unavoidable at some point. Yeah, yeah, he has a PhD in English literature. His thesis was on William Blake. Oh yeah, oh yeah. So if you wanna talk some Blake, let’s do that, right? So my disengagement from things like Shakespeare, and I did read, because I had to in high school, I did read Julius Caesar, right? You block these stones, you worth some senseless things, says, was it flavious to Morales? So I remember that. The rest of it I forget, cause I am like Pentameter is a curse upon the planet and a killer of souls and hearts as far as I’m concerned. Cannot stand it. But- You like Hamel again. You like Hamel again. Hamel- Maybe. I’m probably not gonna read it. That’s the thing, like that was my boundary. I wanna discover these boundaries for myself. And so when I’m talking about things you can’t do, I’m speaking from absolute experience, not from theoretical book learning. Uh-oh, here we go. Here we go. The standing people wondered why. Oh yeah, butt sitters. Chair, chairs hers, what? Chair sitters. Ah, chair sitters. I don’t know what I’m on about. What is this about? I don’t know. No, I mean, no, it’s a good representation. It’s not an economy, that’s a plus, right? So what you’re actually saying is, there’s people that do things in the world and chair sitters are upset at the butt sitters, not realizing they are equally useless. I don’t know. Equally useless. And they’re like, you know what? I’m better than you because I’m a chair sitter. And the butt sitters are going, I’m better than you because I don’t need a chair to sit. And it’s like, yeah, but you’re both sitting and therefore you’re useless and therefore we don’t need you and shut up and go away and stop acting that you’re better on the basis of a chair, which to your point earlier, Sally, is an aesthetic. Right? And that’s really the issue. Maybe that’s why I’m, I don’t know. We were talking about that. No, you’re highlighting aesthetic, but I wanna go over this. If our world is a simulation, no, it’s not, that’s dumb. Then could it be assume where all instances of time already exist? No, all that is dumb. I flat out refuse. I refuse your frame, sir. I refuse your frame. It is no good. No, we’re not a simulation. That’s just a dumb recursion theory that ends in tears for everybody. And I don’t wanna make everybody cry. So I wanna engage in pure intelligent design theories about the universe. I don’t find it useful. I think that if you’re gonna engage with intelligent design theories, you should side with fundamentalists. You should check out Ken Ham. Like that’s a much better way of understanding the world than simulation theory could ever possibly be. And I can prove that mathematically too, by the way. It’s not hard. They never ask where the simulation comes from. It’s like, it’s a self-emergent simulation. It’s bigger than it. It’s like, no, none of that is how anything in the world could ever possibly work. And we know this from simple observation, stop getting silly. And that’s the boundary. Like people are living in their heads again. Scientists are living in their heads going, we could build a simulation in our imagination that would simulate something bigger than itself and therefore it would be emergent. And it’s like, no, you can’t actually do any of that. So it’s pointless. What is- It’s horrible, Mark. Why are you torturing me? There. Oh, there we go. Now it’s in a simulation. The computer’s- Now it’s in a simulation. That’s perfect. I like how you just made a dissimulation. I think that’s fantastic. Done. Done, simulation. And you can always do that. That’s what people miss. Like you can always turn it into a simulation. You could imagine it as data for, yeah, you can imagine anything. This is the problem. You can imagine anything, but you can’t do anything because you have boundaries and constraints in the world. So the fact that you can imagine unicorns doesn’t mean anything other than the fact that you can imagine unicorns, but that doesn’t affect the world. But it doesn’t actually have an effect. And all right, what do we got? What author did you mention for me to read? I don’t know. Did I mention for an author? An author? Did I mention an author ever? Reading is evil. I’m like burn the books. That’s where I’m at. Welcome back. No, I don’t burn books. Bad people burn books. I’m a bad people then. Books are no good. You gotta learn about life by living it, dammit. Stop reading and thinking you’re gonna understand something about the world. No one’s reading anyway, so. I’m reading The Republic tomorrow on the Texas wisdom community channel. So not no one. Too many people are watching movies as well. To my point. And Danny’s helping me. And Ethan’s probably gonna be there. And whoever else wants to come should show up. I’ll find the channel. One thing I wanted to say just before, I gotta wrap up, because I gotta go to this family thing. I got family in town. That’s why I’m wearing a fancy shirt and all that stuff. Family. Is that. You can be virtuous in the world once you have a secured place. You have a boundary line that you’re moving from. You can act virtuously. If you do not have a place that you’re willing to defend, you cannot act virtuously in the world. Right. Without boundaries, you can’t be virtuous. You can only destroy virtue in others. I like that. That’s a good. You have to have a place that you’re starting from essentially. You have to have, you know, this is my, this is my safety net. Pick an analogy, right? This is my castle. This is my land. And then, you know, in order to do well or to aim at the good, the true, the beautiful, you have to have a place that you’re starting from, but also a place you’re willing to go to. A place you’re willing to have a stake in. Right. Right. And you can’t have a stake without a boundary, without an end point for you, because then all stakes are part of you, but they’re not. And then if everything’s part of you, there’s nothing to defend because it’s all part of you. You’re not gonna fight against yourself. That makes no sense. And then of course that doesn’t work. So you act out and then you get angry and upset and start attacking people and being upset that people are judging you because they’re standing and doing stuff and you’re sitting either on a chair or on your ass. And well, don’t sit. Like I don’t, and that’s a great image, Shelley. We should do more with that image. Because that really gets to the point of it, which is the point of it is, yeah, there’s three types of people and two of them are useless and bickering. And the third type is just being the ideal that they should be adhering to and upholding and are not. There’s also a value distinction between works and good works. And you have to be able to, we as the West in as a tradition have kind of devalued what we consider good works. Yes, you’re right. Well, we don’t think about the good, the true and the beautiful anymore. We assume it. No, we’re not able to make the distinction between what is good works. Like we’ve just rolled it into the state or into one of the religion. And Sally, we’ve reduced it to aesthetics. And whether it’s negative or positive. No, no, aesthetics are the logical end point. That’s what I was trying to get to. Aesthetics are the logical end point of not having these things echo out properly. I don’t, I know you’re making causality claim. I’m not sure it’s true. I’m not sure it’s true either, but I’ve got to be, someone’s got to have a bit of a creativity, push the conversation along. It’s not me, it’s not Sally Jo, it’s me. I’ll say crazy things. Yeah. No, no, that’s fine. Well, you’re a crazy artist, so you’re allowed. No, no, it’s good. It’s good. What do you got for us before you leave, sir? I know you have to go. Oh, we’ve touched upon this. It’d be good to come back to this sort of, this sort of zone of the conversation because it is what’s playing out right now. I do have a thought too, if you guys haven’t, if the audience hasn’t heard of the whatever podcast, I don’t necessarily recommend it, but you could look up a few clips from the whatever podcast and you’ll get a good perspective on the problem of identity and character in the upcoming generations and how they essentially one of the biggest claims is X is whatever I want it to be rather than X has a defined boundary instead of limitations. For instance, one of the girls said, if feminism is basically me doing whatever I want to do, she said that out loud. And I was like, well, that’s interesting. That’s the, this is all up there. Freedom from everything, freedom to do anything. Yes, yes. And then freedom to accomplish nothing, which is the bigger. And that’s why we have a despair. I did a thing about this. The crippling nature of boundless opportunities because that’s where a lot of- Decision to take. Is it was a person sitting on a hill and down the hill was gold paths in every direction because you can’t go anywhere. You’ll still starve to death on a gold path if you can’t go on one. Man, you’ll just ask me overnight. What does 100% anti-mop proof mean? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You did. Affirmation, negative target exclusion. I’m not sure. I’m not sure if I would have to ask him. Sentence is a little bit hard to read. I think I know what he’s getting me at. There was my comment on which market code that, Paul Vanaclay interviewed Mary Harrington. And I said, it was phenomenal. I said, Paul’s frame of wherever you started from is 100% anti-mop proof. There you go. Yeah. That makes sense. I haven’t even caught up on Twitter today because I was running around actually doing things all day. It’s okay. Twitter is just me of my, it’s just a catalog of my, I can give you a thought and opinion. I can spin one right off right now, whether I actually want to defend it or not. You asked me two days. No, no, no. It’s a good idea to share it. I enjoy your interactions on Twitter. So they’re good. Yeah, but no, I just, I mean, it’s just me and my life. I get myself into all sorts of trouble. Yeah, good. That’s good. Yes, yes, yes. To be honest in some sense is to be a troublemaker, but you need that. Father Eric. Speaking of troublemakers, oh my goodness. Really? Ultimate troublemaker. He’s not even at home. He’s off doing something somewhere. Mark, that’s where you’d be wrong. See, this is now my office. Oh really? My current office is the workmen are going to be breaking through the wall. And for some reason they don’t want me in there. So here I am in the cubicle of destiny. Oh wow, you’re a cubicle priest now. Wow. Yeah. You never thought it would come to this. Desperation in the Catholic church, they’re shoving their poor priests in the cubicle. How far have we fallen from grace if the priests are in cubicles? About 40 feet. Oh no. Exactly 40 feet. I know it’s about 40 feet because that’s how far I hauled all my stuff today. So anyway, here it is, the beautiful cubicle. There’s my lava lamp. Oh, I love it. There’s Margaret’s office. And then Father Carmel’s over there. And yeah, there’s my door. Yeah. So here we are. Nice. Interesting. I guess I just wanted to- What did you offer us for boundaries? What did I what? What do you have to offer us for boundaries for today’s topic? Yeah. Well, as you well know- You can frustrate Jesse. Because he has to go soon. Yeah, yeah. Well, basically one of the fundamental properties of being is that every being is a being, which means that it’s not another being. I like it. I like that. Yeah, yeah. Ethan, those people want a constraint-free landscape filled with their own design affordances, right? From their imagination, which is a boundless realm. And they want that boundless realm manifest outside of their heads. And that’s why they don’t know where they end and other things begin. All right, because they’re just trying to project the perfect world, and it is a perfect world, right? This is where you get utopianism onto the world outside their head. And I think Karl Marx is a perfect example of somebody tried to do that. And just obviously, really, how does anybody take his stuff seriously? It takes four seconds. This is all dumb. This is actually stupidity. It may sound confusing, and then people are like, it’s confusing, you must be really smart. It’s like, no, it’s confusing because he’s three years old and stupid. Damn it, Sally. Now I have to rearrange the whole thing. What do we got? How to use a boundary. Me, boundary, my home, boundary, my work. Oh, I like it, boundary, my community, boundary, my nation, boundary, yes. Path of horror, I love it. Oh, death, war, and horror is the dragon. I like it. The dragon’s assaulting the boundaries. I’m all in, I’m okay with all that. I like it. Now Ethan’s got more to say. Two-year-old temper tantrum syndrome, yes. Yes, can confirm. I mean, everybody knows that when you wanna have a magical, what was it, a constraint-free landscape filled with their own designed affordances, that’s what fanfiction.com is for. Because you could just post whatever you want there. That doesn’t have to have anything to do with anything. And you could be happy there. Right. That’s what happened with Tumblr. That was the Tumblr revolution of social media. It was the fan fiction became the norm. There was no distinction between fan fiction and fan fiction. And it’s parasitic, right? Like it wears out eventually because it’s parasitic. It’s like, yeah, but you need real authors to, right? It’s the same problem that Daft Punk ran into. They said, wait a minute, we’re doing a lot of sampling here. You know, we’re doing a lot of sort of banal stuff. I mean, not anything they do is banal. They’re an awesome band. But they’re like, we need to get real artists in, right? Maybe a whole album with real artists. Where, you know, now we have new material. It’s like, yes, you can’t be parasitic forever. You can’t just do rap music and sampling forever. Because you’re just gonna run out of either language or samples or both. And then what are you doing? Like now you’ve destroyed the thing you love by overusing it basically, by overburdening it. And you need boundaries. That’s what you need boundaries for. There’s also the misuse of material, the mythic objects. Like you’re using an object that can’t, it’s, you know, a piece of music, a notation of a piece of music can be reinterpreted. But when you’re just sampling a limited object, there’s only so many times you can actually sample before. So the limited object breaks down. I mean, I know I’m using really specific terms, right? But like, there’s- Yeah, it’s copying. Copying destroys things. The first copy is less than the original. The second copy is less than the first copy, et cetera. And it degrades, it’s parasitic, it’s reciprocal narrow. So I think I realize something. Oh, if you’re insisting other people behave in a way that you should be tolerated, what you’ve done is your boundary is appropriate like this. And then if you make it bigger to where it squishes other people’s boundaries, it becomes frail and inappropriate. And then everything is warped. Right. Or something like that. Well, I wanna deal with this. So Father Eric question here. Well, you wanna deal with this? I know only this term birth lottery, which is a garbage conception of the universe should be ignored. Like that you are and not someone else, right? I suppose God decided this boundary. I don’t see that as a boundary. God decided that I was the one to be born as bubble this. Well, that’s certainly true. I don’t see it as a, like the birth lottery is we all won by being born. Like that’s, but go ahead Father Eric, you can take that. Well, yeah, yeah. I mean, that’s basically just an extension of this idea of providence that God’s the one who’s actually in charge here. Who’s at Hansel von Balthasar, imagine God as a great playwright and director, and all of us on his stage acting out his great drama. And your part has been assigned and your script has been written and you can choose whether or not you’re going to actually stick on the script or if you’re going to go mess the whole thing up. But he’s a great enough writer that he can deal with the improv. Well, here we go. I have a feeling that materialists and scientists, those are the same thing, cannot handle the fact about our world, the birth lottery. Well, it’s not the birth lottery, but they can’t handle anything about birth. They can’t even talk about creation at any scale, at any scale, right? All they can do is say it’s all from initial conditions. But what do you got for us Father Eric? Yeah, well, I mean, that just sounds like an argument against materialism because these are just inescapable constraints. I’m never going to be seven feet tall, no matter how much I want to be seven feet tall. I’m never going to be able to go back and be the cool kid in high school. You know, you’re just dealing with these inevitable constraints here. Well, you’re the cool priest in our school, don’t worry. Sure, sure. The person who has integrity, who has character, who was able to navigate the patterns of life and their identity is something you can mediate between those spaces. So you have to understand that there are quality differences between different types of boundaries. A stone wall cannot have a gate easily. You have to have a very limited voice to speak to for a picketed fence, you can install a gate quite easily. So there’s these different types of boundaries and you have to honor and respect why they were built in the first place, right? A walled castle. And what their boundaries are. And that’s the porousness that Sal was talking about before. Like porous to what? Because every boundary is a filter and filters are the way the world works. We filter everything out. And if you don’t have a restored gate or don’t have this ability to mediate between yourself and others in the world, you’re going to invite yourself or bring in different challenges and challenges you might not be willing to accept or might not even be willing to embrace, right? If you let in foreign animals inside your castle, you don’t know how to deal with them, for instance, right? Like the crocodiles are meant to be in the mode outside of the castle, not inside the castle, for instance. And how do you deal with a crocodile inside a stone castle? That’d be quite a challenge. Well, I’ve heard that crocodile tastes like chicken. So that’s how I deal with it. It does. It’s actually quite good. Kangaroo actually tastes quite good in Cooke Wright too. Just a little at home reference here. But which just kind of leads me to maybe wrap up my part of this discussion, which I was loved. Thanks for having me on, Mark. Is that perhaps if you want to have or maintain boundaries in life, you need virtues and values? Yes. You know what to write in and what to reject. Well, and that’s what gives you integrity and identity. Right, deciding what you let in, right? Because you can’t let everything in. But that gives you identity and integrity at the same time. Yes. Because sometimes it is a virtuous thing. Thank you for joining, Jess. Always a pleasure to have you. Nice to meet you finally, probably Sally-Jer. And Father Eric, I’m sure I’ll see you again soon. Thanks. Okay, cheers. Cheers. So we’ve got another one. Father Eric, have you ever talked to a scientist about who or what is running the birth lottery? No. I don’t, I’ve never, I mean, this is brand new framing for me, but it’s so miserable. Like I don’t, this thing is a birth lottery. Does the birth lottery imply that your spirit as such existed before your physical form was conceived? Or is it a different abstract? It’s just the end of materialism, right? It’s a stop against materialism. Like at some point people weren’t born equal and now you need to explain that and you can’t use materialism because in materialism there’s an equal amount of matter and anti-matter. And so it’s like, well, there’s an equal amount of matter and anti-matter, how did our universe come to be? Because they start from zero because they’re stupid and then they don’t realize how the math is gonna work out because I don’t know why they didn’t realize that instantly. And then they go, well, it’s a weird mystery that there’s more matter than anti-matter in the universe. And I’m like, it’s not a weird mystery. You need to start from that because it was obvious. You just ignored the observation that there has to be more matter than anti-matter and proceeded as if they were equal. And then you ended up at zero again. No kidding, genius. That’s because you’re stupid. Like I don’t even know. So what is this? Oh, making the decision. Yeah, so I mean, this is basically like if your heart is not open to God, then all of these things are just gonna be mysterious and unfair and arbitrary and awful. Whereas if you say, you know what? Maybe I really wanted to be a quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings, but I was not created that way. I guess there’s a different plan out there for me. Right, well, it’s drawing the boundaries of where you’re at. And again, versus the world, I’m at a certain point and that point is not quarterback material. And then accepting that like, oh, okay, these are the boundaries in which I’m born and therefore. And it is the end of materialism in that materialism can’t explain difference. In other words, the evolutionary system can’t explain itself. That should be obvious, but apparently all the evolutionists think that it can. And then they usually resort to physics, which they know nothing about. They get all the physics wrong and all the physicists start screaming at them and saying, that’s not how physics works. And then everybody ignores that. And it’s like, you guys are just referencing each other thinking that the other side is solving a problem that it’s not solving. The physicists often point back to the evolutionists and say, oh, well, if we could discover initial conditions or string theory or whatever, then evolution will explain the rest. And that also is already proven not to be true, by the way. So I don’t know why they keep doing this, but they’re just constantly rebelling against the idea that there was something here first. There is a creation. Creation is existence. And that is the thing into which you grow. The place where you transform and you can’t self-transform, that makes no sense. And you can’t say, oh, seeds self-transform into trees. No, they don’t. They need gravity, they need water, they need sunlight, they need soil, they need nutrients. It’s not by itself. There is a creation around the seed. And without that creation, the seed doesn’t grow into a tree. So the seed doesn’t contain all the information that grow into a tree. This is nonsense talk. And it’s nothing else. It’s just crazy people talking crazy things because they’re crazy. And it’s okay not to listen to crazy people because they’re crazy. Apart from the fairness, unfairness, it’s not. It’s just difference. And difference is good. There is a fact that the decision is made, no. And science can’t handle or recognize this fact. No, science cannot get at why. It doesn’t answer why questions. Science explicitly removes itself from why questions. It can only answer how questions. And how questions are how many why frameworks. That’s the point he’s making, that science can’t handle the fact that there are decisions. Not just decisions that you can point at individually. Right. Yeah. In fleshed human being making, but like decisions about creation. That uses the model that science can’t tell you how to pass through a cornfield. Like that’s the little. Right, it doesn’t tell you how to walk. Nothing tells you how to walk through an empty field. Right. The empty field doesn’t tell you how to walk through the empty field. Right. Yeah, there’s so many things that point to God existing. Like something that was bigger than you and bigger than all of the things that you can possibly know about, had to create all of those things, including you. It’s really not that hard. And people get all, I think people get upset when there’s something easy and obvious that they missed. And then they wanna be smart for whatever stupid reason. And then they reject the simple, easy answer. And then they get caught up in this, well, there must be as much matter as antimatter in the universe because we started our math at zero, like a bunch of dumb people, and we didn’t notice that we made a stupid mistake. And now it’s a mystery. It’s like, no, it’s not a mystery. You’re just stupid. It’s fine. It’s okay. We’re all dumb sometimes. It’s cool. Like relax. Oh, I don’t know if we’ve been talking about boundaries this way, but I was wondering if one of you would be able to put out an example of a boundary within a family or a boundary within a congregation. How do you like determine one? And how do you know not just being selfish? Because this is a consistent struggle for many people where they wear themselves out or they don’t see the beginning of themselves and then they cannot be amicable because they haven’t treated themselves with care and they’re doing that because they’re in fear something like being selfish or basically like somehow violating the good by caring for the self or something. Not to be confused with ridiculous amounts of self care because I know that’s a whole trope that everybody’s freaked out about right now, which I’m like, have you met women? Because some of them should just take a nap. But okay, be upset about self care. Anyway, so yeah, and I’m kind of interested in boundaries for that reason because I know that I should have them. I know that probably having some better ones could help avoid what I term surprise emotions. And I would like to figure that out, but man, I don’t wanna be selfish. I can’t tell how much I could do and I always feel like I could do more. And then sometimes it just turns into a soup sandwich. And I think emotions tell you your boundaries, Sally. Like your emotional state tells you, oh, I’m doing too much. Your emotional state is the thing you need to pay attention to to discover your boundaries. No, that’s a stupid thing again. Self-awareness is the answer. Yeah, I would say, I mean, if you’re actually genuinely wondering if you’re going too far or not, the most useful thing you can do is talk to a wise person who cares about you and see what they think. And then you can ignore them and then do it anyway. And then get an I told you later on your discord. Hypothetically, it’s all hypothetical. It doesn’t happen every day or anything, it’s fine. It’s always such a straightforward simple answer that no one can do. It’s a simple answer that no idea how to implement. Well, yeah, that’s because you haven’t been paying attention to your emotions, because they’re the one thing that override your will. Emotions override your will, guys. If your will is being overridden, it’s your emotions. Not always, but almost all of your emotions. Gonna put in the other book, great. Stuff I didn’t wanna know. Sorry, Sally. Sorry to ruin your day with the same thing I’ve been telling you for three years. The other book, because I expected something. Oh, there you go. Yeah, I think Father Eric, you’ve gotta put this desire of people to understand creation in a way that is not helpful to them, it’s bad. How do you crazy Catholic priests deal with people who just do nothing but question and question and question and question and question and just calling them crazy Protestants and burning them at the stake, which is my preferred method. So I’m glad you’re in charge instead. Yeah, we just tell them to pray more and trust God. That’s a fine answer. I like that. Yeah, I mean, it’s this understanding. You know, it’s crazy. At a certain point, I say this is in the Bible or it’s a part of our tradition. And at a certain point, you’re either gonna accept it or you’re not and I’ll pray for you. Well, yeah, and it is that lack of exception, accepting a non-answer. It’s like, sometimes you’re not gonna get an answer and there’s nothing wrong with that. You’re just not going to get an answer. Maybe no answer is possible or maybe there’s no way for you to understand. Like, there’s a bunch of things that I would like to understand that I know I will never understand. But it’s like, oh, okay, well, whatever. There’s a bunch of things I can understand better than nearly anybody else on the planet. It all balances out. It’s cool. Like, I don’t, you know, yeah, would I like to understand the mind of God? Maybe, but it’s not gonna happen. So it’s like, well, whatever. I mean, it’s cool. Like, I’ll understand something else instead because it’s still about time, energy and attention, T. It’s about time, energy and attention. And so if you’re spending your time, energy and attention on something you can’t ever understand, or if you understood it, you couldn’t do anything with the information, then you’re taking away from all the things you could understand and do something with with the information. And so, look, I’m not saying don’t philosophize, but like at a certain point, your philosophization is taking away from doing this. Yeah, at a certain point, you gotta pull the Thomas Aquinas where you pointed everything that you’ve written and say, compared to the real thing, this is all straw. Yes, there you go. I’m coming around to Tommy. I’m like, yeah, the more I hear about Tommy, the more I’m in on the Tommy thing. Good, good, glad to hear it. Yeah, I keep on, I’ll hear some of my delightful Orthodox cousins bash on Western Christianity. And I look at their critiques and I’m like, yeah, actually, you’re nailing the later scholastics pretty good there, but you haven’t got Thomas. You’ve not got Thomas. Haven’t taken him out yet. Because it’s amazing. It’s really, this blew my mind when I learned it in my history philosophy classes, is that Thomas Aquinas is writing in the 13th century, and then nobody but Dominicans read it. It was just like, it was like half forgotten about. Until the late 19th century when Pope Leo XIII was like, guys, we’re all gonna go back to Thomas Aquinas because everything else has been a mess since then. There you go. Uh-oh, here we go again. What is easy to understand is that there is a decision that is made, not necessarily me not being Father Eric. To me, this is an interesting fact about our world. It’s not interesting, it’s obvious in everywhere. Well, I don’t know. I think it’s a little bit interesting. There is like a certain sense of awe I could get at the fact that I actually exist sometimes. And that it’s me. Well, that, war. Right, and so, and then maybe imagining what I would be like if I was somebody else, and then like, but I’m not. And so I’m being a little nicer to Mr. Bob Elvis than you are. No, sure, but that’s the boundaries discussion. It’s like your boundaries are yours and they’re not somebody else. And the fact of boundaries is the thing that makes things unique, yes. And your weakness is an interesting thing to ponder, sure, but it has nothing to do with you or others at that point. That’s true for rocks, and it’s true for grass, and it’s true for birds, and everything else. I don’t know if I was reading Marcus Aurelius or where I was reading it, but I came across the ancient perception that like life is more like a blossoming of a rose. And I got, I’m very, it’s an interesting idea because is a rose better because it blossoms? If a rose was, it wouldn’t be better. And this is one of the things that weirdly justifies the suffering in life. Because if you think of yourself like the blossoming of a rose, like your life is like the blossoming of a rose, it might be better because of the transition. And then it’s a good way to recognize yourself as a pattern or a piece of a pattern or as a thing that is not just the flesh. You’re not static, you’re not static. And see, that to me is more amazing. The fact that who you are now and who you were are different and who you’re going to be are all different. That’s way more interesting to me that there’s this transformative unfolding across time. And that even though you clearly only have one me-ness about yourself or I-ness about yourself, that that is changing. And that to me is way more interesting and amazing than anything else. And isn’t Father Eric’s show, what is going on? I’m actually gonna do a controversial take here and not quote Thomas Aquinas, but I’m gonna quote Heidegger. And I think the fact you’re looking for is thrown-ness. The fact of having been thrown into the world. He actually- And yeah, you’re losing points left, right and center now. Heidegger on my channel, how dare you discuss these modern philosophers. Sure, sure, but I think it’s a really interesting word and I kinda like it. I do like thrown-ness. No, I do like thrown-ness. But it is one of those cop-out sort of like something happened to you and therefore, it’s fair enough, so what? Well, he’s just looking for the term for that moment when you realize that you have boundaries and you are not other people and other people are not you. I can’t come up with a better word than thrown-ness for that. So- That’s right. Well, and of course it’s always gonna stray here because Jeffrey, I mean, bubble this, is like this. Father Eric, what would be the best term to refer to this fact? There we go. Yeah, yeah, that’s what I’m answering. Thrown-ness and there being a thrower, yeah. I think if you understand it like that, two thumbs up. Yeah, like why do you have to go further? You can keep going further forever or you could do something useful. It’s up to you, go to the useful, do something useful. You wanna go down the philosophical rabbit hole forever because it’s not resolvable, you can do that too. But I would prefer not to, she does dust and mountain dew philosophy route. Why are you being so hard on the pelvis, man? I think he’s asking good questions. I don’t think they’re good questions. It’s all obvious, crazy stuff. Well, you have to figure it out, Mark, that things that are always- Here we go, see? There you go. This is never gonna end. This is the whole thing. That’s being God, there you go. Right, it’s just God. I’m gonna answer all these questions with God. Right. That great mystery, that thing high atop everything. Yeah, it’s not hard, it’s just obvious. We have reference for all this already, we always did. We just keep rejecting the religion or the religious tradition in the case of the Protestants or whatever it is. It’s like, well, or you could just accept that all this has been resolved. It’s like these, I don’t know if you saw it, Father, did you see the… Van der Kley did a clip of the Nate Heil social justice talk. I don’t know if you saw that video. I think I did, but remind me what I was supposed to notice. I got 30 minutes in and I couldn’t watch it anymore because one of the guys in the Nate Heil talk was saying, well, I’m going after my PhD and we’re trying to have three kids and she can only work part-time because, right, and I’m just sitting there like, this has nothing to do with justice. These are all decisions you made about your life. And then Van der Kley doubles down on this ridiculous frame and I’m pretty upset about this. Actually, I did excoriate him in the comments. But he doubles down on the frame and says, is it just for colleges to offer PhDs that basically won’t earn you money? And I was like, that’s not a justice issue. This has nothing to do with justice. And the thing is, people don’t understand. PhDs were always designed not to make money. They were literally designed for wealthy people to have something to do. This is how Tolkien wrote his books. He had money. It wasn’t an issue of they’re designed for the wealthy class to give them a game to play. That’s what a PhD is for. What a PhD is not for is to make money. It was never for that and it shouldn’t be for that. And this is the materialism. It’s like, oh, well, I have X years of education and I make X dollars, right, because we make this ridiculous, which isn’t true, by the way. None of the numbers bear this out. And then therefore, if I get four more years or six more years or whatever it is, I should make that much more money. And none of that works that way. And no, you shouldn’t. It wasn’t even designed that way. Where did you get this and why are you a lunatic? So there is a thrower, the one who decides where you will land. Why is this relevant? There is God, yeah, he does things. And so what? What is the name of this thrower? Is philosophy and what is the name of the throne? Yeah, no. I don’t even recognize this question at this point. It just seems redundantly silly. All righty, so since we’re on the subject of justice, I have a question from the summa here. The summa is all laid out like this on Aquinas.cc, if you guys ever have questions. And so you were talking about modifying justice and how I rate that made you. But Aquinas identifies two species of justice such as communitive and distributive. And I haven’t actually studied this bit yet. So, I’m gonna go back to the question so a particular justice is directed towards a private individual who’s to compare to the community as a part to the whole. Now twofold order may be considered in relation to a part. In the first place, there’s an order of one part to another which corresponds of the order of one private individual to another. This order is directed by commutative justice which is concerned about the mutual dealings between two persons. In the second place, there is the order of the whole towards the parts which corresponds to the order of that which belongs to the community in relation to a single person. This order is directed by distributive judges which distributes common goods proportionately. And so there are two species of justice, distributive and communitive. Just curious your take on that. Yeah, that would require some actual research. I don’t think that’s correct. I mean, I think this is perspectival postmodern framing effectively before postmodernism but postmodernism has been around a long time. Yeah, I mean, this is what Socrates talks about in book two explicitly, right? He says, you can’t understand justice from the perspective of a single person. That’s not a possible thing that you can do. And that’s why they do the cities. In other words, when they’re doing the cities, it’s not a political statement. There’s no politics in the Republic. I mean, I haven’t finished it but I’m gonna guarantee you right now it’s not there. If you’re putting politics in the Republic, that’s something you’re doing. Socrates doesn’t understand these concepts and would never think of the world this way. What he’s doing with the cities is he’s explicitly saying at the scale of a single person, justice cannot be understood because it’s too low resolution. And so you can’t relate yourself to justice in that way. The only way justice makes any sense, because again, virtues aren’t of any use like philosophy on a desert island by yourself, pointless, right? The only way to relate to justice is at the level of a city. I mean, that could be a society or a culture, it doesn’t really matter. To the ancient Greek cities were societies and cultures. Society, culture, and cities were all the same. He’s explicitly framing it that way saying that the particular individual is compared to the community as a part of a whole. So he’s got that framing as far as I could tell. Yeah, but at that point then there’s not two types of justice. There’s still only one, not which emanates from above. Sure, sure. And he would have a very strong sense of that. So let’s see if we can parse this out a little bit. You’ve got a commutative justice, right? That’s the bit where there’s a dispute between two members of a system. And we need to figure out how to resolve this dispute between the two members of the system. And so we’ve gotta not just have these two members, but we have to have the rules of fair play, of balance, all of these ideas of justice, which is gonna have to be adjudicated by at least a third person, maybe 12 other people. Sally’s distracting me with a drawing. I’m doing philosophy, Sally, put your drawings away. No, no, they’re more relevant now. It’s between, you’re talking about, it has to be between one of these parties. Yeah, yeah, so this is like a… I think that’s the problem. You can’t talk about justice in terms of a single person. Well, sure, sure, but we’re not talking about a single person. We’re talking about two individuals who are part of a community with agreed upon standards. Us. Right, and so we can call that commutative, and then we’ve got common goods, things that everybody should have access to, and trying to figure out how people get access to these. I can fix that. That’s easy to fix, right? So what he’s basically done there is there is only one type of justice, okay? And what he’s describing is a relationship from a perspective. Yeah, sure, no, he would say that justice is one virtue, so, but it’s got these two species, which are just appearances. So that’s literally the way he talks about it. So it’s got these two different appearances of the same thing. Yeah, or implementations, or manifestations might be. But species literally means, comes from sight that you see something. Yeah, it’s related to that. I would call something you can see either an implementation or manifestation, because that’s the action that goes with the ability to see. Sure, but we’re translating from Latin, and this word species loses a little bit of it, because it was probably, yeah. Well, the Latin’s probably way more accurate, because Latin is a super accurate language, unbeknownst to everybody. Latin’s like, Latin should be a programming language. It’s so beautiful. It really is. It really should be a programming language. It’s so well structured in that way. So yeah, I mean, if he’s just making a difference of perspective, then sure. And that’s valid, like sure, absolutely. As long as it’s only a perspectival difference. And again, this is in, I cannot believe nobody has ever once, as far as I can tell, mentioned that right in book two is Gnosticism, the problem of children, and the problem of scaling. They’re explicitly right in book two. And everybody skips over this and starts saying, well, there’s politics. There’s no politics. I don’t know what’s wrong with your brain. You probably need drugs or to get off drugs or something. Something’s wrong with you at that point, literally. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but something’s wrong with you. If you missed what was going on in book two, it’s kind of explicit. You could also just be 19 when you read it, like I was. Fair enough, fair enough, whatever. And this is why I didn’t read that stuff. I didn’t absorb that stuff when you’re young. Come on, you gotta be older. You gotta understand things about the world. You have to interact with the world. And this is what I said. You can’t do metaphysics until you’re 15. There you go. Well, this is what I said on Karen Wine’s channel once. She asked me, why don’t you read Plato and all this? And I’m like, because they found out everything by living life. And so I’m assuming you can do the same thing. I’m not assuming that they’re super magic creatures. I’m assuming that anybody can run into what they ran into. And maybe they were better at articulating it. And maybe my goal is not to be able to articulate it because I just don’t care about articulating it. And I don’t need to articulate it because I can just have Sally draw it. Problem solved. And yeah, if you wanna have discussions about it, now you have a problem. But this is why I like John Vervecky’s work. We couldn’t talk about meaning without John’s work. It’s not possible. And I’m gonna die on that hill. I’m gonna say, no, before John Vervecky, there was no way to talk about meaning that would make any progress with anybody ever. And you could say, oh, Peterson. And I’m like, no, Peterson did not go all the way. He did not give you the framework. He gave you the framework for interacting with meaning pragmatically. And I would argue that’s better. I would argue that all day too. However, having the science of meaning that Vervecky gives you now gives you a way, to build tools to create more pragmatic ways of interacting with people in a meaning crisis or a crisis of faith, that matter. But the more important one for me is the meaning crisis. Crisis of faith needs to be taken up by the church. Someday I hope they do that. I would argue that they haven’t been lately. And Vander Klee and his misunderstanding of Peterson revival and all that nonsense is making it worse, not better. Which is not to say there isn’t a lot of good coming out of it. It is making it worse. I mean, I think those people are gonna fall back out pretty quickly. That would be the danger there. Or get kicked out, like poor Sam. Poor Sam, oh no, I got kicked out of the church that was only ever going to kick me out anyway. Because I set up a situation where that had to be the case. Whatever, I’m not feeling sorry for you. You did that to yourself. Stop playing victim, disgusting, disgusting and horrible. Terrible, terrible. Oh, I want to appeal to a higher authority. No, you don’t. You picked a non-denominational church, you muppet. You did all that to yourself. Nobody did that to you. You could have gone to a Catholic church. You wouldn’t have had that problem. Just saying. So at one point in the conversation, we got to a boundary is a value expressed? And then we decided that that was for simplification. Yes. So then what is it? Value, what is a value? No, a boundary. Well, a boundary. Yeah, boundaries have lots of qualities. Like they’re filters, right? And they’re also ways to include things, right? And so there’s an implication of a filter keeping things out and there’s an implication of an inclusion keeping things in. And you say, oh, it’s a two-way filter or whatever. I think it’s important to differentiate the inside from the outside, right? It’s also a way of relating, right? Without a boundary, you can’t have it relating. You can’t have relationship as such. Relationship only makes sense with a boundary. Because otherwise you don’t have two different things. Right. Right. And also you don’t have something to relate to. So because let’s just, if you’re trying to live with somebody without being married, you don’t have a container with a boundary to relate to the other person with. And so that can only really end one of two ways. One of you is in charge and the other of you is completely subservient to that person. Or you’re both trying to be equal all the time, which is just exhausting. Crick, it’s just terrible to try to be equal with people. It’s just an awful thing to try to do to yourself. And to others, because it’s an impossible standard to live up to because you’re not equal and you’re not going to be. And so when you’re putting all your energy into being equal and treating each other equally, you’re really just wasting a bunch of energy and eventually that’s going to catch up with you and burn you out. That is my experience trying to do collaborative art with 80% at least of people. Right. Because somebody needs to come in and lead and not to pick on Sally Jo, but I mean, she’s here. So we might as well, she can defend herself. She sets up an art server. Where does she get all the art done? On my server. Why? Because we set up the structures. This is going to be the structure. Go this way. And there’s all sorts of other little pieces there, but it’s the leadership and the willingness to draw the clear boundaries and filter people out for her and get people to see, look, if you’re going to post, be involved. You’re not going to be involved, don’t post. Yeah, well, and the thing is, I can’t do my own art while entertaining the ideas of others. I can enter like in regards to what I’m doing with my art. Cause like I do art with this group, but it’s not cause it’s stuff I don’t want to do. And if I have to entertain all ideas equally, it becomes infinite. And I have this horrible habit of being nice and I just have to quit. It’s not useful. Like just, cause I can’t go down every rabbit hole of why this person wants to draw cigarette lighters and this person wants to draw lilies and this person wants to draw ducks and this person wants to draw non-organic forms. And I was very excited to become an artist and trying to get this going. And I’ve tried it in variety of iterations. And it has been the most functional with this domain. Yeah, and I’ve just been looking for a functional domain. Like I’m pragmatic and I think it’s valuable. And like, yeah, so that’s what I’m doing. And then- You’ve been searching for constraints, it sounds like. No, I knew that I was though. Like I- Yeah, container. Do you need a container in which to manifest the art because you can’t just manifest random art. Yeah, no, I tried working with galleries. I tried a variety of different types of galleries. I tried working with musicians. I love the way musicians think, but I don’t love the way musicians act. Cause the language of songs is the same as the symbolic language, how I draw and paint and make forms. And so I can riff on ideas and structures and what could be created with musicians all day, but functionally doing anything, I just get too angry with them because I expect if you said eight o’clock, it was gonna be eight o’clock. If you said Tuesday the 12th, it was gonna be Tuesday the 12th. And then I’m there and I’m ready. And everybody else is like, well, maybe we’ll see you at 10. And there’s just nobody shows, anyway. Yeah, yeah. That’s real. That’s why the bands that get big probably actually had to be organized early on and actually rehearse. I call it band boy syndrome. There’s just the band boy syndrome. It’s kind of like Californiaitis, except a little less terminal. Yeah, I’ve got a brother who’s a musician. I know exactly what you’re talking about. I’m kind of a bit of a musician myself, but not full time. So what, and I think you probably answered it and it probably just doesn’t fit into the square hole that I’m obsessed with. What would be a functional example for the audience to see? An example for the average congregation member of having a self-maintaining boundary in a Christian way. Does that make sense? I feel like it does, but I’m not. Yeah, I’m getting caught up on the word self-maintaining. Maybe that’s not a good word. But I’m looking for an alternative to, because there’s good martyrdom, there’s good martyrdom, and there’s conceded martyrdom, where it’s like, well, I’ll just do it because it’s the right thing to do until the point they destroy themselves and their family. And you shouldn’t do that. You should have some boundaries with other people that are requesting things upon you. And it’s hard, here’s a good, I think this is a good example. There’s the mother who’s doing volunteer stuff to the detriment of her own kids, but she can’t stop because she doesn’t have boundaries. How does she, in a Christian way, figure out where that begins and ends? And this isn’t specifically the one, but this is the best cohesive one I can think of right now. Yeah, yeah. So basically, what we’re dealing with here is the virtue of prudence. And prudence is knowing how to go about the good in the right way. If somebody doesn’t have an intuitive sense of the good, then usually, the way you learn prudence is just to be around prudent people and watch what they do and figure out how they do it. If you don’t have an intuitive sense of when that’s too much and too far, then you just have to, I mean, this was the answer I gave is you find a wise person who cares about you and ask what they think. Okay, so I just got hung up and so it’s seeking out a person to embody it. Like seeking out a person who’s doing it well. Right, right, yeah. Right, okay. And then you just, you explain it to them and hopefully they got something to say. Well, you might not get them, because the problem with being a kind of person who wants to articulate life to this detail is when you ask the average NPC, how do you do what you’re doing? They pretty much self-implode and get freaked out by you. And so sometimes the answer would just be to just watch patiently, because if you try. I would say, don’t say, how do you do what you do? Come to them and say, I’m having this problem, what do you think? And then they don’t have to explain to you how they came to the decisions that they’re making. They’re just gonna make the decision based on whatever reservoir or participatory wisdom that they’ve built up and they’ll just give you the answer. And then you just listen to them and you just do what they tell you. If they’re really trustworthy, you can just like, okay, I don’t fully understand this, but I’m gonna go for it and. That’s the submission. You don’t fully understand this, but I’m gonna go for it. I’m not gonna rely on having to have my own interpretation on my own terms. I’m just going to accept what the person says and try it. And the only issue is figuring out who those are. And I think this is kind of the state we’re at with people, broken homes or didn’t have a model, especially for mothers, if you’ve decided you want to do the stay at home thing and you want to try and do it better, because you know there was a deficit and lots of women just know there was a deficit and they wanna do it better, but then it’s like, who do you talk to? Well, anyone in your fear caused the problem and if you ask them about it, you’re condemning them. Well, Craig. And so then it’s like, how do you find that model? And I’m sure it’s just trying to figure it out. Well, then that’s the question of submission again. And so I posted the video that you did by the eric panagopic orientation with Manuel. That is it. I mean, you have to not worry about your impact on these people and just get the wisdom that you can get where you can get it. Right, because that is the issue. People are unwilling to interface because they’re worried about their impact on the world. One of the things I’ve been learning much to my surprise is that just going out and talking to people about say the new business that I’m in, they’re willing to do a tremendous amount of free work with absolutely no guarantee that they’re ever gonna get anything out of it monetarily at all. Entrepreneurs will get together and give each other good ideas and feedback for no money whatsoever. This happens all the time. I mean, we don’t recognize or appreciate it because we’re materialists and we’re thinking like, well, they’re not doing it for money, then it can’t be right or they’re not doing it or they’re doing it for other reasons, which will get them money. And it’s like, no, people just like to collaborate and they like to cooperate because they know we’re better together. They know that that is true. Let’s see, like I spent Sundays listening to sermons and they’ll talk about an abstract thing and I’ll find myself wishing they would talk about like how to live, just every day. I wished somebody would say from a pulpit, just many hours of TV time a week is acceptable for a family and anything past that is decades. Right, right. Well, people want boundaries, but that’s the Peterson trick. Peterson just tells you these things due to the pragmatism. Or even like food, which I have come to the conclusion that the health of a church may be the obesity level, specifically of the minister. Because I’ve been to some churches like with young people that seem like they were thriving. I tell you what, the minister’s lean and that might be an oversimplification, but it’s really consistent. And I don’t mean like, add a little bit of a muffin top. I mean, like there’s a difference. There’s like a, you work, you might have a heart attack on the stairs or you don’t. That’s the line I’m drawing. It isn’t without some in-between for age and stuff. But like, yeah, there’s, but it just, it’s like the church has gotten, there’s just, there’s no how to live. And it’s like, I care about the songs and I care the words of Christ, but like I’m really hungry for how to live. That’s what they withdrew from. That’s the withdrawing from the world. They said, you know, it’s gonna take care of this. Secularism and science is gonna take care of the how to live. They’re telling you what to eat with the food pyramid. They’re wrong about all of it by the way. So don’t follow it, right? They’re telling you how much salt you should have. They’re telling you how much sleep you should have. They’re talent, like the scientists are already telling you all this. They’re wrong about all of it by the way. So don’t follow it. This is what’s attractive about the Orthodox because they got the count and they got what to eat and they got when to be places. And it’s a lot of how to live. And the thing is, if you’re rudderless, gosh darn it. You found a rudder and you just wanna cling to that sucker. Like there’s no tomorrow. Now see, I kind of had two because I had a home of origin and it does have a function and it has things going for it. And you know, we got a skinny pastor. So, you know, hey, something’s going on, right? But I do see the fraction of the Orthodox and telling you how to live because people are just hungry for that. Yeah. Right. It’s something that I admire that they have like morning prayers and it’s like, well, what are they? Well, it’s just, it’s the same for everybody. They’ll have their morning prayers, you know? And it’s a little bit- That book still. And most of those prayers are, God is big, I am small. God is big, I am small. And that is a huge stress relief. Like it is, it just to meditate on that, consistently that’s a huge stress relief. God is big, I am small. God is big, I am small. And I find this going out into nature too. I always got that from nature. Is like the sheer scale of this is a huge relief. It just is. It’s just, you know, outside is big. Well, yeah. Well, because they’re giving you a boundary and telling you where you are in relationship to that boundary. And so that makes sense that that would be okay. Well, and I did post our talk Father Erich, because I think that’s relevant, right? What’s wrong with the church? Well, the church needs to build community. Why? Because people outside the church don’t know how to build community. And so the church can’t, to your point, you know, which you made excellently in this particular talk, the church can’t grab people from the community outside of the church and bring them into the church community because there is no community outside to grab. And so you can’t, there’s no handle that you can’t appeal to that. And that’s part of the recession of the church. The church recedes. There’s no pragmatism anymore. They’re all in the heaven, heaven, heaven, you know, realm. They’ve receded from secularity, which is really just materiality. And now that they’re receded, everyone’s hungry for it because science can’t fit the bill. They can’t fill the stomachs. They can’t meet the need. And that’s the problem. And then Ethan, welcome. What did you have to add to all this? Nothing. Okay, good. That’s fine. You can’t hear us. Ethan, if you can read this, then you’re not watching the road. Nice. That’s a nice troll. I’m all in on the troll. This might still be too reductive, but how would I set a functional boundary? And the answer I’ve determined from this would be find a person who has one that you think you need and mimic it even if you don’t understand how it works. Yes. That’s a good, well, and also pay attention to your emotions. I know you keep resisting this. It’s only been three years that you’ve been resisting it. Maybe we’ll get you there on number three. I just need attainable goals, Mark. Attainable goals. You have emotions. I’ve seen them. You can sometimes suss them out. If you just pay attention to them instead of avoiding them, things would go better for you. But hey, don’t worry about it. They’re supposed to be about needs, Mark. And I don’t understand what that means, having needs. That’s just confusing and stressful. You’re gonna put them back in the canning jar. I’m gonna put the canning jar in the deep freezer. I wanna bury the deep freezer in the ground and it needs to stay there. That’s, that’s, that’s the- I am, I am shocked by your response. This is my shocked voice. So another thing I’m thinking about is, is that in order to actually understand what a boundary is, you need to know what the good you’re oriented towards is. And so if you’re oriented towards the good of a good night’s sleep, you would set a boundary like I’m going to log off of my live stream around 9.30. And then that would be like, oh, that’s where your boundary is. And you understand why that 9.30 is important because you know why the boundary’s there. It’s to protect this good night’s sleep because I have, how long is it? I’ve got six hours of a confirmation and first communion retreat tomorrow. So. Yeah. So once you understand the good that you’re oriented towards, you know why that boundary matters. Are you trying to escape the live stream, Father Eric? Is that what this is all about? And make a helpful contribution on my way out. That’s actually helpful. Yeah. Good night. Good night, God bless. Always a pleasure. There, there, Sally. See, he basically said everything that we always tell you that you never listened to, but that’s okay. We can pretend like it’s all new and you’ve never heard it before. If it makes you feel better, get you closer. The thing is, in his constraint, it shows that he has this premise that he deserves sleep. And some people don’t understand that. And then it’s like, is it holy to deserve sleep? And I could just keep chewing on it. And like, I shouldn’t because that’s probably the spirit or something. But people do this to themselves. They’re like, do I even deserve sleep? Is it even Christian to expect sleep? Well, but that’s the rebellion and that’s the whole thing about trying to understand something rather than committing. It’s like, just submit to the fact of sleep. And then you don’t have to ask the question about whether or not you deserve it. You can just stop there and stop asking the recursive questions that never end. Right, well, that’s the issue because you can’t know these things. The mimicking people who you think might be doing it right is pretty functional. And I like that because it’s like, I actively can see how to do that. I don’t know who that would be yet, but I’m like, the probability that they’re out there is more likely than they’re not. Yeah. Yeah, it’s so pessimistic somehow. It’s amazing. You’re resistant and pessimistic, very passively aggressively. And it just, on the one hand, it’s frustrating. It’s kind of beautiful. Like, how did she pull that off? That’s amazing. Oh, I don’t know. You’re good at it at least. So, you know, like points for being good at it. No points for not just submitting, but you know. If I could see how and when into what, but you like to see- Well, that’s the good, but that’s the submission is not seeing how and when into what. The submission is just the doing. Like, that’s the whole point of it. And if you don’t see how and when into what, this is the conundrum. Well, that’s what submission is. It’s not understanding. No, this is the jump that people make then. If they don’t have a conception of the how and when into what, they just jump straight to submit to the devil. No. That’s what happens in people’s minds when they go on a nightmare boat. No, I don’t think it does. No, I don’t think it does. I think, look, you can- I think so. No. I think I- No, no, no, no. When you don’t know what you’re submitting to, that will happen, right? And that’s the same statement as if you believe you do not have a religion, then one will be fighting to you without your knowledge or consent. Same statement. I think that’s the trauma. I think that’s the trauma with the submit word. People didn’t understand what they were submitting to, and then they did do that, and it’s just total, just patriarchy- No, no, when I hear what people committed to, never submission. It’s always like, somebody told me to do something, so I did it. And it’s like, yeah, but that’s not submission. Like, that’s not submission. It’s so confusing when that way submission was used forever. It just, I’m trying to unwrap it and be fair with it, and it’s so hard. It wasn’t being used that way in the religious context. People were materializing it and saying, submission must have to do with propositions, and submission has nothing. Propositions are not good. Like, submission has nothing to do with propositions. Propositions are an attempt to know, and that’s narcissism. And that’s where the problem comes in. It’s like, oh, propositions, and therefore, it’s like, but it’s not about propositions. It’s about proper submission to something higher. And it’s like, something higher is not your spouse. Something higher is your relationship or your marriage. That’s something higher that you can submit to. You can’t submit to your husband or your wife. That makes no sense. People want certainty. Like, people really want certainty. Certainty is the Jewish people wanting, they want the kings, they want the… They want certainty, right? And so they bring the ideal down into the king, right? Or into obedience to your husband where it doesn’t belong. And yes, the penalty for certainty is that you drag down the virtue or the value or the ideal, and when you do that, you screw up. No, the penalty for certainty is servitude. Yep, yes. Oh, well, look, here’s Ethan right here. The penalty for certainty is servitude. That’s correct. And it’s reciprocally narrowing. Like, you’re trapped in the thing you’re certain of. And that’s why certainty creates a problem. And yeah, the submission has to be to something higher. It can’t be to something at the same level or lower. Does this go all the way back to Genesis like one, two, and three? You’re asking the wrong person, Father. Because what you’re seeking in the pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil is also certainty. Right, well, what’s the snake’s appeal? The snake’s appeal is certainty, right? And it’s the damn woman that goes after it, and the men are at the level. Makes sense because, oh, shoot, I lost. The penalty for certainty is servitude because before certainty, there is trust. If you just trust, you can trust with the uncertain. Yes, yes. Well, I like this comment, Chris Wood. It’s like trading liberty, uncertainty for security, certainty, and getting neither, yes. Right, because you’re over-reducing on both ends, right? And you can’t do that, right? You can’t do that. And that is the issue. Like you’re… No, that’s… That’s the one sort of thing that’s actually somehow. I don’t know the implication. But that’s good. No, you don’t have to know the implication. You should do the thing. This is where you basically, this is my pragmatic thing on creation is good because nothing else is useful. Like you either try all the pain, suffering, and horror in existence is worth for existence to exist. You do that, or… Or you’re screwed. Or you’re screwed on being. And if you look pragmatically at those two options, which might be the only two options, only one is useful because the other one, even if it’s true, is not useful. So there’s no… And this is, yeah, yeah. So yeah, this is like that. Right. There’s a nice limit for you, yeah. I would call that a limit, right? Because this is the nice thing about pragmatism. Pragmatism deals with limits. And then you don’t have to worry about things anymore. You just go, oh, there’s a limit here. Okay. And then you can decide what to do with the limit. And that’s what I like about Peters. I like how Petersen talks about, what’s the first thing the man does? He blames the woman. Yes, that’s what he does. He doesn’t say, yeah, I bit the apple. He goes, it’s her fault. She did it to me. That’s so funny. It just cracks me up every time I think about it. I probably have to go. That’s okay, Sally. It was lovely to see you and have you on the live stream because you’re not usually able to do that. So I’m super happy. And if we resolve a bunch of things by talking about boundaries, then I’ll be like, damn, I should have been live stream like this ages ago. Maybe Sally would be better. We’ll think about it for like 24 hours and then ask you the exact same question. That’s probably. Well, I hope so. It’s been three years. Why change now? Like it’s tradition at this point. Yes, have a great night. See you Sally, have a great night. Oh my goodness. Yeah, what a time. She doesn’t know how to hang up. Nope. She wants to keep her off the stream. There we go. She finally hung up. So yeah, well now I’m here all alone because even Ethan left me. Although he was driving. I don’t know why he was trying to talk while driving. He does crazy things. So yeah, I mean, look, I mean, we made progress on boundaries that Sally understood it and maybe somebody else understood it. That would be freaking amazing. So yeah, anybody who wants to jump in, there is a link in the chat. It’s only pinned on navigating patterns because that’s the only channel I can ping things on. And the best thing I’ve seen all night is that, I don’t know if that’s good or bad. Like how many things have you seen? Is it only tonight? I don’t know. Like this is, what best about it? Is it just amusing that I can’t draw off for example, but that could be it. Yeah, I don’t know how to interpret that. I appreciate it though. I will take it in good faith. Yeah, I think that once you understand the need for boundaries and the need to pay attention to boundaries, then everything kind of changes. And you start to get a sense for in particular, how you can have intimate relationship with yourself, others in nature. And that’s what boundaries are good for. They’re good for helping you make those connections, have right relationship with things around you, including your inner self, right? Including other people, including nature, because these are all important. And when we don’t have boundaries, we can’t do that anymore. It’s not functional. And when we try to do equality, we’re erasing boundaries. That’s what that is. It’s the erasure of boundaries. It’s saying you and I are the same. Well, if we’re the same, there’s no difference between us. There’s no difference between us. There’s no boundary between us. There’s no boundary between us. Then we’re the same thing. And of course we’re not. And so now we’re upset because our model of the world is wrong. Well, yeah, that would upset me too. If my model of the world were wrong, I would be upset too. Fortunately, I don’t have that problem. I have other problems. I don’t have that problem. And it’s hard for people who have been trying to avoid boundaries to realize the importance of not trying to avoid boundaries anymore. Like that’s actually a difficult, it’s a difficult thing. And when you’re not engaged in paying attention to boundaries, you’re in trouble. Because your relationships in the world are gonna be wrong. That you’re not gonna be able to have right relationships. You’re not gonna be able to have intimacy. You’re not going to be able to have a discernible identity. Like all of those things go away when you don’t have proper boundaries. And we don’t realize that. Like we haven’t been told. Or maybe we haven’t been brought up correctly with boundaries. Like our parents are supposed to punish us, show us the boundaries, right? We’re supposed to run into things and interface with consequences as a way of learning about boundaries. When those things don’t happen, we end up having a problem. And that problem is the problem of boundaries. It’s the problem of, oh, I don’t know where I begin and end. I don’t understand where the end of me is and where the beginning of other things is. And so now I don’t have the option of relating to them anymore. The optionality of a flat world is zero. The optionality of a world of equality is zero. You don’t have any options. You don’t have any ability. You don’t even have a you. Everything’s been squished. And now there’s no you to interface with. And for you to use to interface with others because the boundary is the interface point, right? It determines the interface. It constrains the interface. It allows for that relationship, that quality of relationship, that intimacy. And I did post the, I guess I got over a thousand views already, which is amazing. The intimacy talk I did with Andrew with the bangs on her channel. And that’s why I did that talk because, well, she’s an excellent interviewer. She’d probably watch all our stuff because she’s really, really good. But I did that talk to do a sort of precursor, forerunner talk about these quality relationships or qualities of relationships, which is how I’m thinking about intimacy. And I did another talk with Catherine on intimacy, which I’ll post here. Cause that was rather good too. That’s on my channel, Navigating Patterns. Currently in the shower. All right, well, we’ll get Ethan coming soon. So that’s good. So yeah, I mean, when we fail to think about boundaries or take them seriously, or we deliberately try to subvert them without knowing that we’re like equality, it’s not clear immediately that equality destroys boundaries, but it does and it can’t do anything else. Don’t try to resurrect a bad idea, bad idea. Leave it buried. Bury it and leave it buried. Piano is great every once in a while, so you remember how bad it is. When we don’t take that seriously, when we try to do away with these boundaries, whether we realize it or not, we destroy everything. And then we’re scrambling for identity because we don’t have boundaries. When you have boundaries, identity is there. It’s already knowable. You don’t need to pursue it independent of anything else. You can just go, oh, here are the boundaries. Here are the interface points. Here is how I’m interacting in the world. And here’s how I need to interact with the world. And here’s how I can relate. And here’s how a quality relationship can happen. And now you’ve got intimacy. And now you can engage in meaning making properly. And without that, you can’t actually engage in meaning making properly. It’s not an option that’s available to you anymore. And that I think is where the issue comes in. People don’t understand the destruction of boundaries. They don’t understand the importance of that. They’re not interfacing with and understanding that the reason why boundaries are important is because they enable interface, is because they enable quality of relationship. Scholar of nihilism, Skylar, it’s good to see you, my friend. Dogma. My karma ran over your dogma? Well, dogma is certainly a flattening. It’s taking a symbol and making an idol and then not understanding the relationship, which is to move past dogmas or things you’re supposed to move past. Or guide posts, not stopping points. Yeah, I like the Catholic conception a lot better than any other conception I’ve heard. Interfacing in terms of boundary, in terms of affordance and filtering, right? Enables us to do things that we can’t otherwise do, to see things that we can’t otherwise see. And it is that ability to discern between constraint, affordance and action, right? Because those are the three things. And so, you know, Sally Jo put up the picture earlier, right? With the people sitting on chair versus people sitting on the ground versus people standing. Notice it’s always three things. There’s no two things. We don’t do dichotomies here. Binaries are probably all wrong. If you’re thinking about a binary, you’re probably thinking about something wrong. Not to say there’s no use in thinking about a binary, but binary framing is always wrong. It’s always low resolution and useless. The people sitting are yelling at the people sitting, even though one’s sitting on a chair and one’s not, one’s saying like, we’re sitting on our butts, we do not rely on chairs and therefore better sitters. And then people on chairs saying, we are using this wonderful chair technology to sit, so therefore we’re better sitters. The people standing up are going, yeah, we don’t care, we’re doing things. And like, it doesn’t matter how you sit. You can sit in nihilism, you can sit without nihilism, right? Dogmas are boundary markers, yes, well said. It doesn’t really matter, right? But what does matter is your quality of your relationship with the outside world, the quality of that filter that is your boundary. Sally Jo, all disco toads are false. Yes, all the disco toads are false. I can confirm that all disco toads are false. Dialect, thought traps, traps you in the sorcerer’s circle. Yes, it does. Well, I did talk about Hegel earlier, I’ll ask Guy there if he can listen to the initial rant. Hegel is in there just because it seemed appropriate. I’m trying to lay a bunch of groundwork to knock over a bunch of dominoes. I don’t know how good a job I’m doing, but I’ll be knocking over more dominoes with that later. Wrong, does this letter exist or does it not exist? Yeah, these are pointless questions. That’s part of the problem. What does non-existence mean? What does existence mean? Oops, we’re already out of the binary because now there have to be levels of existence, levels of non-existence, because you drill down into properties when you’re trying to try about existence. If the lighter doesn’t light, is it a lighter? Does it exist? If it exists, does it exist as a lighter? If it doesn’t exist as a lighter, then it doesn’t exist because the precondition was lighter. You get caught and you die like your craps and you can’t get out of them. And the solution is to stop and submit and say, okay, we’re gonna start here. And then you don’t have this problem. And that is the whole idea of thesis, antithesis, synthesis is full of so many axiomatic assumptions that are observably incorrect, that it’s hard to take seriously that anybody would take seriously Hegel. It’s just hard for me. I’m like, I don’t know why for half a billionth of a nanosecond, you would even entertain any of that gobbledygook because it’s clearly gobbledygook and it clearly leads down the Gnostasis path because you’re assuming you can synthesize. You’re assuming that there’s a thesis, that you can have a thesis. You’re assuming that there is an opposite to the thesis and there almost certainly isn’t. And then you’re assuming that there’s a resolution and that that resolution can be implemented. All of that is false, all the time actually. This is not to say you can’t do things in the world, but it is to say that Hegel’s outline is observably dumb and therefore you shouldn’t even go down that road. And yeah, like there’s better solutions to these problems. They’re just not in philosophy, they’re in the Bible or they’re in the Bhagavad Gita or they’re in the Tao Te Ching, right? They’re in the wisdom texts. The place you’re not gonna find them is in the Republic. And if you read the Republic, hopefully you noticed, Book Two has children in it. And it has scale in it. And it has the idea of Gnosticism explicitly stated, right in Book Two. No one’s mentioned this before, I don’t know why. They keep talking about politics. It’s like, no. I got a thing about Wittenstein’s solution to this. Good enough, maybe. Sounds too modern for me. It sounds like he was born after Plato and Aristotle, not a fan automatically. But I am enjoying the Republic, the book club. I did post the link earlier. The book club’s going on tomorrow morning at the Texas wisdom community. Quite a bit of fun. It’s got a discord server, got a YouTube channel, posted links to the book club. YouTube channel, posted a link to the YouTube channel earlier. So you can see our earlier attempts that go through this book. And yeah, what do we got here? Which Catholic philosopher? I don’t know of any Catholic philosophers. I wouldn’t recommend anybody. I don’t do religion. I’m not a theologian. So Father Eric will recommend Thomas Aquinas. And I think he’s probably right about Tommy. I’m a big fan of Tommy. I’m ready with stuff, but it’s good. Ethan, the notion of children immediately invokes the concept of boundaries. Well, look, I mean, they use children in book two to justify censorship. And in justifying censorship, the justification for censorship is the idea of forbidden knowledge. There’s the Gnostic. I mean, it’s even more explicit later, but like honestly, Gnosticism is right in book two. It’s right there. Click, it’s not. Like it’s as clear as you could make it. It’s not all in one place, maybe. Thomas Aquinas, you’re welcome. You’re most welcome. Give him a shot. Father Eric’s a huge fan. Everything Father Eric’s told me about Thomas Aquinas sounds good to me. That’s the best I can do. Uh-oh. Thomas is wrong about essence and energy distinguish. Not a saint, fun fact. You have to get on here and talk to Father Eric. He’s the Thomas Aquinas fanboy. He had a lovely visit with him when he came down here to visit me. It was quite nice. We talked a lot about a lot of things. He was here for like a whole week, which was not long enough, by the way, but it’ll have to do. Until I can get up to North Dakota. And next time I visit the Dakotas, I may pop up to North Dakota if he’s still there. Hopefully he will be. They did offer him at the Basilica in Columbia to come down so he could get out of the cold. It was kind of funny. It was funny. The, yeah, they were pretty interesting. Interesting but strange Catholics down there. I have a Basilica in Columbia, South Carolina. Who knew? Beautiful church. There’s a few Catholic churches around here for some reason. But yeah, Aquinas seems to be an interesting fellow. I don’t, I’m not gonna read him, so good luck with that. But understanding these things, the problem is people are trying to use philosophy to answer religious questions. Philosophy is not a replacement for religion. It doesn’t answer religious questions. It doesn’t answer why questions. It answers what questions. It says what to do, and it may answer how to justify them, which is not how, but how to justify what you’re doing. And I’m okay with that. But as near as I can tell, it seems like the ancients always talked about religion and then went into philosophy, because as Immanuel Kant noted, but unfortunately noting it kind of like ruined it, philosophy is the handmaiden of religion, and it’s supposed to be. In other words, philosophy is subservient to religion. So you need the wisdom text, the religious text, not the philosophical text. They’re not religious. They’re not full of wisdom, actually. That’s where we get confused. You don’t understand the boundary between religion and philosophy, but there is a boundary there. And it’s Immanuel Kant, roughly speaking, although he’s not the only one, but maybe the most well-known one, that said, well, maybe we can move this boundary between religion and philosophy, and free philosophy from the horrors of religion so that we can unleash science or the tools of science on philosophy, which by the way is all bad framing and stupid and wrong, and thereby, you know, ringing the new philosophical utopia or something. I’m sure that’s what was in his limited thought because he’s a very limited thinker at the end of the day. Not a fan of modern philosophers, still not, probably not gonna be anytime soon. And that is the issue is they don’t state their boundaries. They don’t state their axioms. They don’t couch themselves within the creation that they’re part of. And in that, they err. And when they err, it’s big. It’s not small. You can’t sit there and say, oh, the French postmodernists would never have X or Y because they knew better. That doesn’t make any sense. And that’s where we get, you know, messed up. You can’t sit there and say, oh, well, you know, if only Jared I had lived longer, he would have, no, this doesn’t make any sense. It didn’t happen. You have to deal with facts on the ground with what came before. You can’t imagine your way into a future that cannot be manifest because the past did not turn out that way. That’s not gonna work. And I understand the desire to do it, but ultimately it’s not gonna work. And that’s why these boundaries are important. Like the boundary of the end of the boundary of the end of your religious tradition and the end of your philosophy, those boundaries are important. And we need to know what that boundary is. We need to know the limits. Five hours industry, dang, they used to wrestle before philosophizing. Right, exactly. Well, and that is the problem is that, you know, we’re not linking philosophy back to pragmatism. And, you know, I was talking to somebody about this recently. They were basically saying, well, I’ve studied stoicism and I’m a practicing stoic, but man, when someone you love is dying, it’s not filling the gap, right? It’s not doing what it’s supposed to do in their mind. Like fair enough, the problem of grief is a problem. Hervéky calls it a perennial problem. Fair enough, it’s a perennial problem. Perennial problem is really not a problem, I would say. It’s something that can’t be resolved or solved or done away with, and therefore it’s not a problem because you can’t solve it. That’s just my little axiomatic assumption. But that means you have to go through it. You have to deal with it. You have to grow as the result of it or be destroyed by it. Those are pretty much your options. Should I pop in? You should pop in, sir. I don’t know which, oh yeah, you’re on my channel. Yeah, the link is at the top of the channel thing. Ethan’s claiming he’s gonna pop in after a shower, but maybe his shower is infinite. I don’t know. I am a stoic, yes. I would argue I practice my own brand of stoicism, and that stoicism has limits. And so to the extent that I practice stoicism and stoicism is good and I support stoicism, it can’t be your only thing because stoicism doesn’t give you a why, it only gives you a how. Right, it just says, here’s what to do, here’s how to do it. It gives you stuff to do, but it doesn’t give you what you need to really interface with that stuff, right, which is the why. Why am I being stoic? Why am I enduring? Why am I denying myself? Why is this? Stoicism won’t give you that. So it’s useless by itself. Look, none of the Greek philosophies were done in a vacuum. They were all done with the assumption of a religious tradition. Now you can argue that it was terrible religious tradition, they’re all crazy pagans, fair enough, but they started from the religious tradition. And to Skyler’s excellent point, they went through participation in the wrestling and that’s how they got there. End of a relationship, yes. Well, the boundaries are important. Where is the end of a relationship? What kind of relationship? When is it that somebody’s crossed a boundary that is too onerous or causes the world not to be repairable, right? These are important questions. You have to know something about that. You can’t just magically intuit it through wishful thinking because that’s not an option that’s available to you. Ah, here he is, Ethan himself. How are you doing, sir? What’s going on? What do you think about boundaries? Boundaries, still on boundaries, just kidding. Yeah, I’ve been in and out of the stream trying to catch it since three that you got on. How are you feeling? Been going for five hours. I’m doing all right. Yeah, that’s not bad. Well, five hours plus I was busy all day. So I literally ate dinner, prepped the stream and jumped on. I didn’t even have time to organize my notes. I mean, I had been organizing my notes, but I wanted a really organized set of notes. Yeah, the monologue might be a little long because of that, but I said that in the monologue. So fair enough. But no, I’m feeling fine. A new project is hard, but it’s also fun. So I like building stuff and I’m getting to build stuff. So even though I’m busy and I can’t be on Discord 24 seven like I’m adapted to, it’s quite good. Andrew Tate released on house arrest said he’s been doing pushup and reading the Quran. Of course he did. Well, that’s one way of going through the stoicism thing. Oh, look at this. You have a fan, Ethan. We have a fan. Who we got? Skylar. There’s trouble. How are you doing, Skylar? It’s been way too long, my friend. Real life is tough. And just been dealing with that. So. Well, you’re my freaking hero, man, with what you do all day. Well, my bunk is kind of quiet tonight. I only have three people in it. So I trust them more or less. So I run a homeless farming center and a soup kitchen. My wife does all the food. I do the community resources. My community is in the middle of Arizona, Hiva. I’m just catching other people up real fast so if you don’t sound like we’re crazy. You have a fan. Called the warming center. I just have a lot on my mind and I felt like I should mess with you. Excellent. Always welcome. We haven’t seen you on the discord recently. So it’s good to know that you’re doing well. I’m completely avoiding everything. Good. It’s Len. Yeah. You can claim Len. I have a lot. Yeah. Tomorrow, for example, I have to go to the Reagan lunch for the Republicans of my state and a lot of other nationalities. So that’s fun. And we’re also like the MLK lunch people. I’m a registered independent my whole life. So I kind of vibe with Christian cinema more than the people in the Reagan party. But anyways, I’m very interested in, I wanna hit this with you. So what I mentioned with my victim’s plan comment. So I’m the guy who like jumps on Paul’s live stream and our deals with Jake about theology and told him to shut his mouth because he’s like completely out of his depth sometimes. And then like, I like, if you go back. Yeah. I mean, I know what I’m talking about when I talk about stuff. So just, if I listen, with victim sign, there’s young and old victims sign. So I’m just gonna give people like a real, I think a biography is key to actually understand someone’s work. So I’m gonna defend Hegel after I explained victim sign because you need to know where these people are. Victim sign was around a bunch of logical positivists. So they basically were trying to have Bertrand Russell is a key figure. They wanted to perfectly analyze. What’s funny is Bertrand Russell hates Hegel. So I’m about to shit on both of them and then defend both of them. It’s really. So Bertrand Russell and all these people, they believe more or less that you cannot see the perfect logical chain of thought, then it’s meaningless. So they want everything to be logically positivist. That’s the technical terminology. And they want everything to be like perfectly laid out. They’re looking for, in my terminology, total coherence. They just want every single thing to be coherent. And they just won’t give up the fact that they want a complete system. But there’s a trade off between coherence and completeness. You can’t have both. That’s just how it is. Victim sign. Girdles in completeness. Yeah. Girdles in completeness, yeah, right? It’s not turtles all the way down. It’s girdles all the way down. Exactly. And it’s scary when you really understand the implications. So older victim sign gets away from this project. I’m skipping a lot. And there’s a fun Terrence McKenna clip where you can find him quoting this. And that’s how I found where this is because it’s in his notes. But a student asked him, but is it true? Because the student had read his work and was still in the milieu of these logical positivists. They wanted truth. They wanted truth T, capital truth. They didn’t want science to keep changing what truth is every six months and updating. That’s what’s going on. So they’re looking for capital T truth. And victim sign answered, it’s true enough. So he’s written huge theses. And here he is undermining huge tombs of knowledge. And yeah, I love Jacob. I’m not, I love Jacob. I was invited to come through Arizona and be here totally. But as he says, let, how does he pray that what people think for you, groups think for you? Yes. Yeah. Sometimes he should just, yeah. Him and I, he’s talking about Bertrand Russell. Yeah, him and I could have a very productive conversation about Bertrand Russell, that’s eggs and bacon. So my dad and I would call it eggs and bacon. Or, or, eggs and bacon. So that’s the book propaganda. And it’s kind of the, if you think that that’s how the world works, that’s like third grade intro. That’s what we were working with out of World War II. Like we have a lot more on that. Anyways, back to victim sign. Here’s your proof. Here’s Mark’s case that he constantly shits on modern philosophy. Because victim sign has written these huge thick tunes on logical positivism. Worked alongside Bertrand Russell. Was his chosen student, had the smartest, highest elite people. The people pushing scientists and transhumanism, global politics, a citizenship of everyone, friends with, so I’ve been learning a lot about PIOPS and movie stuff so I can get in about 2001 and a face Odyssey, how it’s fucking awesome when you get into it. Stanley Kubrick trolled everybody by having Arthur C. Clark write a script and get everybody funding it. IBM backs that movie. And then when they watched the movie, they said, get our logos out of that movie. Right? That’s Stanley Kubrick knows what’s fucked up. Okay. You need to look with eyes to see, but that was a big jump. Sorry, everyone. However, victim sign has worked with these people who believe that like IBM computers are gonna solve every answer. And as soon as we make these computers big enough, and we have the neural network, and we have the two layers, and one knows how to encrypt and analyze, and the other one knows how to search a space, and they know how to read back and forth, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Oh, we’re just making the two hemispheres in cyberspace. Bubble, bubble, bubble. The materials. Life isn’t as dialectic. Right. It isn’t just one and back and forth. It couldn’t be. Monad, the answer to Heraclitus and Parmenides isn’t a fusion is smashing them together. It’s the leg that sit back and notice that. So Parmenides is the only, or pretty much the only time where Socrates gets schooled, and he proves that nothing changes. Everything is one. His argument is clean. Go read Parmenides and show me where he’s wrong in his argument about Monad. I’m waiting. We’ve had about 2,000 years and nobody’s done it. So you’re not. Now we go to Heraclitus. Heraclitus has the logos, the exact opposite argument where everything is flux. Everything is movement. Everything is just going out. You’ve seen Jordan Peterson’s talk at Ephesus where he discusses the two logos, the Christian and the Greek. This is the Greek. This is everything’s in flux and movement. Well, here you have Heraclitus saying everything is this movement and flux. And then you have Parmenides, the only guy to school Socrates saying, no, everything is the Monad. There isn’t even an outside or an inside. There isn’t that half this half. Like when you really get what he’s getting at, you realize he’s saying universe, one song, one thing. And if you think that you’re out of it or that you’re, so if you think there’s one coherent completeness and that’s what he’s talking about. And they’re, now, when you, I’m gonna name drop Project Gladio, things like that. And if our buddy Greg watches this, he’ll just love it. We’ll let you guys hash it out. I’m gonna go eat some supper. I’ll be back. Sorry if I scared you off being crazy. They think that they can use that tension and run the world. They’re like, oh, we know everything, right? We understand that this is how it’s supposed to work and this is also how it works. We’ll just make a computer that does this, computer that does this, have them talk. And then whatever AI God tells us will do. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. I see that is one of our main worries is in this little corner without us knowing how to articulate it most of the time. And very often it’s just the two people are arguing about these two things from such silly signs. And then I would love to hold your feet to the fire now that I have just you and I. So just brief, I’m not interested in hashing out so much. But you and I have had quite high tension disagreements in Discord because we’ve known each other for years over Discord. And I have flamed you and Manuel before, right? To the point where I like to back down and everybody leaves the channel and I’m fuming. No, come at me. Don’t you run away, get back here. I was very mixed and annoyed at the competition with Grim and you. And how the community responded was laughable to me. That’s why I haven’t been around. Well, nothing to do with you or Grim. I’m not in competition with Grim, so I don’t recognize you. And that’s why it’s like. And that’s why I’m just like. Lately something’s going on where there’s different projects going on. And if we can’t recognize that they’re all in the same spirit. No, they’re not. The same spirit can go into many different projects. And we can all inspire them. They’re not in the same spirit, right? It’s the Protestantism that’s breaking apart, right? Yeah. And we can breathe. We can, what we need to do is come to terms, which is the name of my channel from forever ago. This is like when I was talking to Eric Weinstein all the time on Discord and was like in that complete different globe of people. My Discord was coming to terms and I basically was like, okay, I hate Bertrand Russell. I think so Russell conjugation is what Eric Weinstein talked about. It’s how you can say the same thing but with different adjectives and just people can’t help but polarize their thoughts to it, right? Right. You have many examples where we were talking about this. And yes, and Mr. Bubble, oh, that’s what I just don’t want to miss. Both of them are valid concepts, the monad and the logos. So the logos is the idea of like Christianity takes that. When you read the book of John, it says the logos becomes flesh. The word becomes flesh. Yes. I wouldn’t reduce logos to words. Like I made this argument earlier. It validates that. Logos is the thing that can be named. In other words, it’s the order that you’re creating. Yeah, true. It’s bigger than word. It’s way bigger. When you make it the word, you reduce it. But it’s the true line. So it’s something like explaining to a Protestant what a halo is. And it’s like the saint is someone who’s participating in the uncreated light. So the light that God didn’t have to like bring, zap in that was with him already. When you’re working with that energy, we call you a saint. And when we draw you in a picture, we put a little halo around your head. Yeah. Like it’s not, we’re not trying to be like crazy. But then the monad is where you get the idea of like the universe where everything is one or whatever. And they’re trying to break that. And you need Aristotle’s three laws. You need just basic stuff that people like for Vicky has realized. You need four causes. Sorry? You need four causes. Oh yeah. If you don’t have four causes, you’re totally screwed. Completely. Like you’re dying. I see what you mean. Yeah, yeah. I wasn’t even. Without four causes. Yeah, I wasn’t even over there yet. I’m thinking with Aristotle, you just need his talk, his Nicomaniac. I can’t say that one ever. It’s just the talk to his son. Yeah, the ethics. That’s the talk he has for his child. So when he has something to say to his son, this is what he says is, and that’s where we get the agent arena relationship that John talks about. So, and Aristotle agents arena, by the way, I’ve dropped this on like a five hour stream somewhere else over at Manuel’s channel. I think we need to start really using the psychotechnology of alliteration better. John has kind of capped off on it. I’m gonna do people a brief story because not enough people know it. The oldest English writing that we have is a book of poems from an illiterate monk kid who was like working in stables, I think. And you listen to the prayers and stuff. And then just one day he could just like, he could just speak in a literative verse. And that’s the oldest written thing that if I showed you it, you could write it. Like it’s English that you can actually recognize without moving. Close enough to modern English. Yeah, it’s close enough that you can actually go like, oh, I know these words. And sanity check. So my brother is just flaming me on some stuff lately. And he got on me about mental health. And I literally run an entire county’s mental health thing. Anyways, it’s just like laughable for him to talk to me about this as if he has authority. And to notice that people don’t understand the terms like non-compassimentous. Like not of sound mind. We have these things that have been set as a standard that are being attacked now at a federal level and at a huge level and on a thought level where people just without noticing, state an argument that completely undermines them having any say in the matter. If what you said is true, why would you have any authority? Because most of the executives, and what’s scary is Foucault of all people called this. And that’s why it was, I wanna bring this up to you because you have done this little thing before and I was just interested. So in the Peterson-Rovecki-Pageot talk, they go into Foucault and Graveyard, right? Yes. Am I correct? That’s the right one? Yes. Peterson basically says, what could possibly good in there? And this is where Peterson’s wrong. I think you agree with Peterson, but I disagree. And it’s strange because it had been Peterson-Pageot and then Rovecki on the other side. And then on this one, it was Rovecki and Pageot saying, no, evil is not a thing. Evil is an absence of good. Those are different arguments. I didn’t read that into that at all. Okay. Okay, okay. What did you read though? So I can… Okay, so what I heard from Peterson was what I will call tentatively a perfect argument for evil, right? A perfect discernment for evil. And the reason why I call it that is because it is a derivation of one of the forms of definition of evil that I have, right? So all my cards are on the table. No, this matches what I say. It’s just a more specific version of it. So hold on, let me finish. I’m gonna sit back for like minutes. I want you to like hit me. Okay. Is that okay? I’ll hit you with it. So what he says, and this, it relies on axioms. It relies on axioms for sure. Not saying it doesn’t, but I’m saying these axioms are correct and are valid, not only that they’re valid, but they’re able to be validated. So that’s two different statements. They’re valid and they’re able to be validated by observation. And so what he says is that there is a place that you can go that is so dark that you know you’re in the darkness. And there are things that you can do that you know that you are increasing that darkness. That formulation is correct, valid, and easily validated. Now the problem is, the problem for Peterson is where is that line? Where is the boundary? Now I would say that is an invalid question. And I will just state that axiomatically and my proof will be why are you going anywhere near darkness? If you’re not moving towards the light, what the hell are you doing? Now that doesn’t, if you’re not moving towards the light, that doesn’t make you evil, but it does put you in what I call the neutral state. And most people are most of the time in the neutral state because we don’t have a choice. People who are not ever in the neutral state, we call saints, right? Or who are almost never in the neutral state, we can call them saints. Easier. We have a psychopomp. When Peterson was called a psychopomp, he blasted and said, please no. Right. That’s a psychopomp. Psychopomp is somebody who goes into the underworld, can come back out and usually bring something, not fun, not what you wanna be. So yeah, you’re tracking with me a lot more. Right. That’s my answer to the neutral state. And so this, I don’t think is correct. Evil can exist because the possibility for suffering exists. I don’t think that’s correct. I think that, look, if you wanted to criticize Peterson and I don’t think you ever should, Peterson says life is suffering. Well, no, you shouldn’t. You shouldn’t. What he’s doing is work. His art project. He’s doing something that works. Like I can’t say that his formulation, the formulation can be wrong, but the message can be right. So his message is life is suffering. Okay, yeah. I would say that’s wrong. Life is not suffering, right? Suffering is inevitable and life is struggle. That is technically correct. No, no, no, no, no. Peterson is technically wrong. Not inevitable. I have a Christian hope. This is how I’m assuming. No, suffering is inevitable. No, suffering is definitely inevitable. No. But wait, the important point here is that Peterson can be wrong, but that can be the right formulation for people to absorb because my formulation is difficult. Hit the point at which you say suffering is inevitable like because you’re gonna be betrayed, because you’re gonna be lied to, because you’re gonna die, right? Whatever, right? People you know are gonna die. However you wanna, like there’s lots of ways you can cut suffering that seems like suffering to me, right? However you wanna do that. You have to deal with struggle and then struggle can be turned into joy or suffering. Well, that’s a lot to deal with. And a simple short message that will resonate with the most people might be like the sufferings because now you’re validating their feelings and that’s actually not trivial. Like you have to validate their feelings because they feel like they’re suffering for whatever reason, even though maybe they shouldn’t feel like they’re suffering because it could always be worse, which would be my argument, not relevant. Giving them that message is really important. And the possibility of suffering can exist because souls exist. Yeah, I’m fine with that, but that says suffering is inevitable. So I think that’s true. I think suffering is unavoidable. Just to let you know, basic formulation, if you’re stuck in that way of thinking, I think more in a constellation, not like a logical way out. For free will to exist, you need to have the possibility for suffering and betrayal and such. Now, does that mean that it needs to be chosen? Like that does not need to be, but it needs to be a choice. If it wasn’t a choice, there wouldn’t be free will. How we know there’s free will is like theodicy is the answer or the question of suffering. I’ve been laying this on every priest I can get my hands on. One has balls, Stephen DeYoung, and every other will not touch this shit with a stick. It’s basically free will. The answer to theodicy is free will. That is not an answer people want to hear because the answer to why is there evil suffering, if God is good and powerful, so, you know, aware of everything, then why is this happening? Because he really does love you enough to let these things happen. Like that sounds like, I work in the highest overdose county of Arizona, the entire Southwest. I see fentanyl overdoses weekly, all right? Like literally I see dead bodies every week. I get death threats from Gartel, I deal with lots of stuff. This is real. Like this isn’t hypothetical. This is actually how it is. And that’s why evil is the privation of good. And that’s why our job is to shine the light and to be good. The only reason to go into evil is to spread good. It’s what Jesus does when he tricks Satan and tricks hell and allowing him in is, sounds like, yes, I’ve got him, but you’re bringing the light into a dark place. The dark doesn’t do anything. Like you just have to bring the light. That’s why you go into dark. And right now the world is powering up. Darkness is the absence of light. And so when you put light into dark, it ceases. And that is why love is like light. And that’s why I’m saying these are, so I’m saying these are, if evil is a thing, if it’s ontological, then it’s something like Jesus versus the devil. But it’s St. Michael’s is the devil and Jesus the devil. Right, that’s the materialism. Right. That’s the dialectic. If you think Jesus is devil, and you’re in a dialectic thought, and you’re already stuck. All dialectics are wrong because a dialectic is a binary. A binary thinking is wrong. They can be instrumental or when you have a very tiny, tiny, tiny arena, and you know what the goal and you know what the outcome is, they’re gonna be super helpful. Like you need to have that healthy detachment and take a step back. Draco recently is- Part of the problem with binary is it’s our misunderstanding and misapprehension of how we think. Because when you look at the last stage of making a decision, it looks like a binary. Even though if you look at making a decision, that’s not what happens. There’s no way you chose between two things in the decision. That never happened. You always choose one thing over a bunch of other things. Now the way you do that is by prioritizing your list and then cutting things out and making decisions based on that smaller list. Right. Which means at the end you have two things. But you also already have something you’re just going for and it’s shimmering to you. Some things glow, especially if you’re bad for you and you know it. Right. That’s why you’ll do things that are bad for you and you’re gonna like mid-step doing terrible things. Which is like half the people I work with. I’ve been using Gabor Mate’s model of lack of free won’t. Oh, that’s, that kind of annoys me because he talks real slow sometimes, but you can double up the speed. You have to with Gabor Mate. But watch Gabor Mate talk to his son about his addiction problem. Fantastic. You don’t cry. Something’s fucking wrong with you. And I was gonna mention Jocko Willink. Jocko Willink has been doing a multi-part thing. And in the, he didn’t do it on the show, but in the text, I actually got an email back from like him or Echo or one of the guys. Because I mean, it was one word, if you know the joke in the show, he’ll load up answers that are yes or no answers on purpose. So I kind of like had this fancy thing and then just loaded it up like a yes or no. Anyway, Jocko used David Foster Wallace’s story of the fish, two young fish swimming one way and the old fish swimming the other way. He starts an entire like multi-part series on the game. And it’s like one of my favorite Jocko series ever because he’s so deep with so much stuff that if you don’t know what the hell he is talking about, you just can’t even. Yeah, you won’t be able to follow. This series is like a very good starter and he’s talking about the main metaphor because when people hear that life is a game, they get like some, not everybody, many people can turn an offense to that. No, this is very serious. Well, it is serious because this is a very serious game that you die if you mess up. And other people can have like, you can screw other people over. And it’s like, it’s a really serious game. There’s not like, but to come back to what I was coming at earlier, a logical positivist wanted to have like a sting. And Wittgenstein had this fun little point where he showed, show me the essence of the game. Right. You can’t. Like I can get, he actually thinks there are essences. That’s what’s fun. And Mr. Thomas, I guess. There are. But that’s just materialism. Like that’s just materialism. Right. And if you get past that as an old man, that’s why it’s fun to read. If you’re going to go into philosophy, read someone who matured or read someone whose life reflects their work, like absurdism or Foucault. So back to Foucault. Now absurdism, that’s a double, that’s a double click for anybody who knows how that guy died. Foucault, how, I mean, Peterson sees that there’s nothing in those graveyards happening that can have any good. And now I’m going to spin that question. If I was in that, I thought Paujo had the balls to do it, because I saw him load the power. So the most important talk between a fact Foucault ever gave was good young Chomsky. So by the way, young Chomsky, great man. Old Chomsky, I have words for that piece of shit. Piece of shit. What a piece of shit, man. Joschebach has the best burns on Chomsky. Oh my God. Anyway, young Chomsky debated Michel Foucault, and it’s a very worthwhile, it is on YouTube, watch it. If you have never watched it, you need to watch this. Chomsky leaves that saying, he’s the most diabolic man I’ve ever met, this man isn’t other conscious. He is the most amoral person I have ever been in the room with. What Foucault is arguing is power. He’s saying everything grounds out in power. If you can do it, then it was good. What is true, good and beautiful is powerful. He adds a fourth onto that third. Right, his whole argument is power. He doesn’t have any other argument. And that’s the whole thing. It’s a scary video. Now, young Wittgenstein, I disagree with, old Wittgenstein I love. Hegel, Hegel, I need to go defend Hegel, back up. If you haven’t watched Awakening from the Meeting Crisis, he does a good job there, but I’ll elaborate some more. Hegel is doing amazing for his time and place. Of people who had like everything handed to them, he was it. When he was like a young man, he had access to every single book written. Everything in China, everything. So he, even your words, watch my words. They’re all from Hegel. He synthesizes all of this. He takes all the Eastern stuff, all the stuff from Africa he’s found, all the Sufi stuff he’s found, which is just Aristotle. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He found all these things and soaked it in. Now, if you haven’t watched, the live in Hegelian. Papa Peterson got schooled by Zizek. I love Zizek. My wife calls him Snotno Zizek. I don’t want, look, he’s a cocaine. What they’re point there, the two of them were Hegelian. Peterson completely folded. Zizek fooled him into Hegelianism by lying. I loved it. Oh, it was beautiful. Look, I like a good troll. I’m not. It was like a 45 minute, oh, I’m gonna get him. Peterson, no idea. He’s about to admit he’s a Marxist. But it was also a troll. You were only with some of your parts. Yeah, but it was also a troll. So the fact that he trolled him is impressive, but also not interesting, because he wasn’t making a point. Also, it’s also impressive that I have, oh, I have a bunch of Russian friends who have dual citizenship and such. On RT, like a week and a half, like I think it was 10 days before that thing, he went and let everyone know what he was going to do. Like he literally laid his game plan out. He watched the video, he’s in the back of the cab and says exactly word for word what he’s going to do to Peterson. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The coach actually- It’s amazing. And we sent it to Peterson. Everybody was like, don’t go in. They’re like, just wait. We let him go first. Wait, don’t. Anyways, what they both conceded was that essentially, ha ha, that was intended. They are just a summation of everything they’ve ever read and every interaction they’ve ever had. Kind of an amalgamated dialectical position. Exactly. And Peterson fell into it. Peterson’s a materialist, dude. I love Peterson. But he’s a materialist. No, he’s more than that. I’m saying he’s a materialist off of the same argument you just made. If evil has function, if evil, or excuse me, if evil has more than function, evil is only function. It’s a lack of good. Nope, nope. If evil- He doesn’t want to make that argument. He does not make a materialist argument for, but look, my definition of materialism is nuanced, right? Because my definition of materialism is that material is primary. Not that non-material things don’t exist. That’s not my definition. There are no people who believe, there are no people who believe that non-material doesn’t exist. That is the name. Information. Those people don’t express. We have Dr. Singh. Information. Information, thought, formulas, mathematical concepts. There’s a dozen, right? For me, it goes to- We got the muck in the same. Right, there’s dozens of ways. So there are no people like that. But there are plenty of people who believe that material is primary, prime mover of the world. So in other words, the reason why there are bad people on Twitter is because of the platform, which is obvious nonsense, but I understand that’s materialism. What Peterson does is he makes a non-material argument. He says, there is a place that you can go, let’s say, for the words, right? That is so dark, right? And that you know that you are going to the dark place. You’re committing to it, yeah. And you are adding to the darkness. There’s no nouns there. None. It’s all action. He’s not making a materialist argument. He’s making an argument that your actions affect the world and that that effect can be, can be, not always is, but can be known by you for certain to be evil. That is correct. A brilliant Peterson axiom. A brilliant Peterson axiom. Of things that actually his work should be contributed for other than his amazing citations, everyone has a complete map of the world. It’s just very low resolution. That’s like an almost perfect paraphrase of him because I’ve said it a lot and I haven’t written down. That’s brilliant. When Peterson actually grok that in the 90s when he was teaching at Harvard, that’s why everybody should go read and reread Maps of Meaning, just the first chapter every once in a while. Just kind of the first. He rewrote that a lot. There’s not room for improvement really in that. Cause if he’s aiming at a certain thing and what he’s, it takes him a big chapter to say what you just said because yeah, and you’re having to put a lot on that. So I will kind of, I will slightly concede to that. Okay, so it’s a non-materialist argument. I do want to deal with this though. They should train. I can agree. Interfluent, nice sounding angel like sentences. The problem is that Zizek’s gain in subterfuge and subversion and look, look, I think what’s driving. I met him. Hold on, to be fair to Zizek, I think what’s driving him is nobody listened to him. And he was right about a bunch of stuff. And now he’s pissed off. He’s not trolling Peterson. He’s trolling absolutely every single person on the planet with everything he says all the time and with good reason. And I like a good troll, but he’s a coke addict and no, like I’m not a fan of doing nothing but trolling. I’ve never been a fan of him. Tobacco and Coke is how you wrote all those books? What? Okay, if you, okay, there’s like a good synopsis. I’m not going to name a channel because it’s all kind of fucked now. But if you find a channel that has videos from like five or more years ago, doing a breakdown of Zizek’s books, in particular, the sublime objective of ideology or the less than nothing one. I mean, he has a bunch, but less than nothing in particular is such a powerful argument. He sums it up in jokes now because when you’re really fucking smart, you can tell jokes that can sum up your entire big six book. So he has a joke about going to, I think here in Eastern Germany. And you go to a little cafe and order a coffee. And I’d like a coffee with sugar, no cream. And it comes back, I’m sorry, we don’t have cream. I can do sugar with no milk. And if you don’t know that, if you don’t know what that joke is saying, it’s like you’ve lived a lovely life. There by the grace of God go I, learn that and start chanting that every day. You don’t want to learn what that joke fucking means because you’re living in a bubble where it’s like, you have everything at your disposal. So then not having it just means it’s not there. But if the thing is never there, then your relation with it isn’t that it’s not there. It’s different. Anyways, he takes these absurdist jumps and he takes in neo-Marxist reading. So all the things that you should learn from these people you don’t need to read, you can just go listen to Zzak’s jokes about toilets and learn like big sick books. When he’s saying a joke, he’s telling you all the good jokes from his books and explaining them better than he did in his books. So that’s the key. Well, the book participation is different. And that’s the thing. There’s way more information in a physical reaction or a video than there is in a book. Definitionally, and this is the problem of propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge is low resolution knowledge. And that’s why it doesn’t stick with you. Yep. Well, it’s kind of, wait, wait, wait. Now I have to impose upon you because I’m reading The Republic. We’re doing the book club. It’s on YouTube, right? It’s on the Texas wisdom community. Okay, here’s my problem. I’ve never once ever in my life heard anybody mention that the statement of Gnosticism, the problem of children, the resolution to censorship or the justification for censorship because Gnosticism believes in knowledge, right? Gnostic children. What was the third one? Forbidden knowledge. The concept of forbidden, that’s the bridge, right? Censorship. It’s really censorship because of forbidden knowledge, right? And the idea of scale, as such, right? In other words, you can’t talk about justice one person to another. You have to talk about justice on the tail of a city. Well, hold on, hold on. Wonderful. All of these concepts are in the first half of book two of The Republic. And I have never once in my life heard anybody mention any of that being in The Republic. And instead they do this, what I would call a reprehensible move that makes them actually bad people and bad academics where they say The Republic has something, anything to do with politics. No, it doesn’t. That’s eugenics. Properties and Plato would not recognize politics if you tried to shove it up their backside. That is ridiculous. The only reason why they bring up cities is to solve the scaling problem because they have to solve the scaling problem because they can’t talk about justice on the level of a human, right? Like this is all obvious to me. It’s obvious in the text. And then when they’re doing that, they’re making the statement of the bad God, they’re making the statement of the good God, they’re making the statement of forbidden knowledge. That’s everything you need to know about Gnosticism, by the way. Everything else is driving that. Hermeticism. That’s the Hermetic loop for me. So that’s Hermeticism and Gnosticism. You’re kind of twisting. Well, Lindsay said they’re the same thing and I think he’s right. No, they’re not. They’re not the same. He says they’re not the same. I spoke to Lindsay like two weeks ago. Hermeticism and Gnosticism are not the same. I spoke to him in Phoenix. He knows they’re not the same. Hermeticism. Hermeticism is hermedically sealed. Gnosticism is a way. Anyways, there’s capital G, let’s not even. I know what I’m talking about here. What I wanna talk to you about now is- Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, am I wrong about book two? Am I totally wrong or is all this stuff like right there and nobody talks about it because they all missed it? That’s my only theory. All of them missed it in favor of politics. It’s not all missing. It’s here, they believe it so they look right through it. They believe in the eugenics neo-Darwinism. He’s a neo-Darwinist. Read it, read it, read all this as a neo-Darwinist. And then you can go, oh, okay. So why would the, I’m not speaking code, why would the fatherland and the house and the land of the rising sun, they have the exact same fucking ideology. Okay, they have the same hermetic seal. Right, right, right, right, right. They’re gold, all these people are silver and bronze. Right, but all of this is, it’s all misused. It’s all cast in the understanding of justice. Like they’re not intending to build these cities. They’re not intending to use these cities against one another to say one is better than the other. It’s a mental, yeah. But I have, so how I see the issue here is, like if I can get Pajon in person, I’m gonna be going to like Arlington next week. I’m just busy as shit, so. You should have come up to Thunder Bear, you muppet. We had him in person, he was great. I had my tickets given and I run a crisis team, so it’s not like I get paid. Yeah, yeah, you’re whining. You had tickets too and you gave them up. I had to give them to someone, fuck. I know. Recursive and fractal. All right, you do computer stuff. And recursive, let me, I’m like as quick as I can, shitty as I can, see if I can get this. Recursion is, I’m gonna put it like in a formula. I have the recursion thing, I run it, and then I take the outcome of that formula, and then I take that recursion, I run it again and I get a different outcome. And it actually kind of keeps going out. Is that like a really shitty, I’m trying to say this to a third, like a five year old, like a little, little kid. I know how to say that hard, but I’m trying to say. You keep adding the same thing, but it doesn’t, like if I keep adding two, it just plus two each time. With a recursive value. That’s not the recursion. That’s not the recursion. Okay. So recursion is a process, and there’s different types of recursion. I know, I know, I know. I’m thinking on. Yeah, that’s when it gets fun. That’s why I asked. I’m thinking, I think people are completing fractal and recursive thinking. Right, because fracticality doesn’t depend on, but most fracticality uses recursion. Fracticality doesn’t have to use recursion. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, Mark, that was a first high five in like three months from me to you. All right, good. Good job. That is the issue. We haven’t talked in three months. See fractals can just nest on themselves. If you’re into physics and you look at what Eric Weinstein’s up to, he has this thing that kind of like pops out. You go in or out of it and it pops in with information. You’re like, wait, what the fuck did that come from? Yeah. Right, right. But recursion doesn’t do that. You don’t need recursion to do fractals. That’s wrong. Exactly. Fracticality is different than mere recursion. Yes, beautiful. The way recursion works is it’s just a process that is taking an input and doing the same thing to the input. Now, you don’t have to feed the output back in. That’s fractal. Anytime you do that with recursion, you are going to get a type of fracticality. Yeah, Mandelbrot said. Now, that, Mandelbrot said it’s a great example. Exactly, that’s the visualization. Right, there’s all kinds. Not all fracticality is recursive. And that’s where people get confused. They don’t know that. This is important for people to say. So of things that’s read in Plato, I think that’s a big thing that gets very often flipped. He’s doing a thought experiment. At the end of the dialogue, what are they gonna ask? You always need to read the end first. That’s the trick. I thought everybody knew these things, but I didn’t realize. I went to a really nice school where my shirt was tucked in or I got beat. So, oops. I guess they did teach me a bunch of stuff. Yeah, they taught me a lot of boundary issues. Let me tell you. Almost had bad joke right there. Little bit of self-censorship. I am in my church right, or not my church, the church I rent right now. So recursive and fractal, that difference, I think is extremely important. Yeah, because they’re getting tripped. And I think when you think everything is a deterministic thing, all they’re trying to do is find the recursive values and stuff so they get input. And then they just wanna sit back and we’re gonna take this perfect AI thing, put it out of fucking comic books and see it fluid. I mean, I see it with Arthur Clarke, I see it with C. Clarke. But, Skyler, this is my big insight recently that I’ve been just harping on recently is people will start with the statement that the seed contains all the information to become a tree. And I’m like, no, no, no, no, no, that’s wrong. Like that’s obvious. You need gravity, you need soil, you need sunlight, you need moisture, right? Like all the information to become a tree is not in the seed, right? All the information’s not there. Most of the, and the most important information is actually reading gravity. It’s all outside. I’m gonna take Dawkins’ paper. So Dawkins’ paper finally got published, the one that he had shared to Peterson. Give a watch to Peterson, Dawkins talks to him. Just go watch it. Put it in double. In that paper, Dawkins makes a point that Peterson picks up and lays on Dawkins that he had missed, which is awesome. Essentially, if you go into the genetic record, you can go on the side of the genetic record, you would be able to see a perfect model of a map of the environment of that genetic, wherever the phenotype is from. So you can find like what species, what was the environment that the species was in? Peterson then goes, hey, you should be able to figure out what the air density was, what the gravity of the planet is. He starts saying stuff, and Dawkins is like, wait a minute. And then I’m like, I know a young earther who does phylogenetic research, and I wanna give him this. And it’s like, buddy, if the earth is 6,000 years old, here’s your way to fucking prove it to me. Right, I understand the difference between heredity and genetics and all this stuff. I send big papers to priests and pastors, and apparently they read them in Paul Newell’s stuff. And it was like, I was a couple months ago when Paul did his thing on heredity and stuff. And I was like, oh, Paul really did a good job. That was fantastic. Very, very well said. The problem with it. The information’s not stored that way. Information is passed on one way and stored another, which is why you have a morphogenetic space. I’ve been going into Michael Levine’s work for the last three weeks, a lot, way too much. And in Michael Levine’s work, you basically have those, you have a morphogenetic option space. It’s brilliant work anyways. And it’s made me less Darwinistic. But that’s the problem with materialists is they don’t understand change. They can’t account for change. Materialism cannot account for change. He, he, he, have you watched Michael Levine’s work? He shows, he makes a two-headed plethora and then shows you its DNA and goes, its DNA is the exact same as the normal one. All I did was send electrical signals to it at the wrong time so that I told it to do something. And then, now, no, he made von Neumann box. Have you seen the Xenobots? Oh my God. If you haven’t seen the Xenobots, this is the most important thing in the last three weeks. My problem with Michael Levine is that if you read his Twitter feed, you quickly realize that he’s not that bright and doesn’t understand Xenobots. Oh, I don’t wanna, Albert Einstein couldn’t comb his hair like me. Yeah, I know. I don’t give a shit. I don’t read. I called out Verbecky DeGreeves. I read Lord of, wait, I read Lord of Light and then went, oh, Verbecky’s a Hindu. He’s gonna be stuck in it. I can explain what Verbecky’s worldview is better than everyone here, including his therapist, I bet. Absolutely. Did his therapist go read Lord of Light? If he didn’t, then he doesn’t know him as good as me. Cause like, right. Well, but again- I called June 8th, 2020. I called stuff in Verbecky DeGreeves that is getting published. I remember. I am a fucking head of the whole like- I know you absolutely are. I’m a little head. No one else knew what we were talking about. But that’s the point to me. To me, that’s the problem is that these guys are getting very complicated models for very simple phenomena. Well, it’s a matter of a model. You don’t need that model. Of reality. Yeah. You don’t need that model. And look, did you engage with fallen earth creationism? Oh, scary. Did you engage with fallen earth creationism with Weston’s work? When, was it a while ago? It was on Van der Kley’s channel. He talked to Van der Kley. But I’m saying like a while ago or recent? It was a while ago. It was a little while ago. Yeah, I remember watching Young Earth stuff a long time ago on Van der Kley. I watched him engage with the- Yeah, it’s not Young Earth stuff. He’s get fallen earth creationism, which as far as I can tell is unique, but effectively what it boils down to is the world doesn’t exist until we’re conscious beings. And therefore- Yeah, it’s not often. Well, that’s a great way to resolve the problems. I wonder what- Yeah, it’s not often. What about factors determine the inherited phenotype? Like you have DNA cell from the mother and what else? Look, I have a video on this. Environmental triggers. There’s so many things that determine all of these things. Like you’ve got to understand inheritance is such a small part of the equation. It’s almost not worth even talking about. These people are focused on inheritance and it’s like, guy, guy, that’s nothing. Inheritance has two qualities. It’s unreliable and inconsistent. So if you’re relying on inheritance like Mendel did, because this is the flaw in Mendel stuff, in simple objects, it’s more reliable, right? And it’s more consistent. But when you scale up, and Darwin noted this and everybody misses, I didn’t even read his stupid book, but I read enough of his work. He knows this. His book is beautiful, whatever. As you scale up, the reliability and consistency of phenotype goes away completely. Like you can do without it entirely. Like that. So people are going on and on about this. And I’m like, you guys are missing what’s going on here entirely. And the other thing I talk about, I don’t even remember what video it’s in. Well, you’ve got to understand the change sets because if the change is just the merging of the two, that’s not sufficient to explain what’s going on, right? Because you need the random mutation. And then random mutation doesn’t have a single cause. So when you look at evolution, it gets really complex, really fast. And everybody reduces it down to things like phenotype and mutation. And it’s like, those are complex things already. You’re already, and this is where Levine comes in. When he shows this stuff, he’s like, well, look, you can’t use genetics to figure out if it’s one or two headed because when the electrical signal comes in, determines everything. I can, okay. Should I do xenobot or should I do, oh man, xenobots are crazy. So that’s the outer cell of just one frog skin using the cilia to self-propell. It has no way to propel forward. So they introduce it to neutral skin flakes. Those are a gentle cell material. And the xenobots will round them up like von Neumann bots and the next generation will keep on doing it. What the fuck? They have no idea what’s, you can watch it. You can see. It’s magic. There’s an unknown information transfer. We’re doing this. Right? And nobody understands how it works. Well, I mean. This is well known. This is where people should read. Darwin’s critiques of himself are his best critiques. Okay? Darwin had his own critiques. Those are the ones to level. You don’t even need to go. He realized, hey, sexual selection, what’s up with that? Peterson knows that. Hey, that means that there’s choice. That means, now to bring it back to what I was talking about, if you’re reading Darwinism through a dialectic, then you think that the world is an eternal, just monad thing and we’re in this flux, right? And we need to smash the world. So we need to bring the world into us, bring the world into flux. We need to force ourselves into the monad. And if you see that, then you understand the blank slate-ism. So Verbecky is dead on when he’s explaining. Blank slate-ism goes both ways. Blank slate is not just, you know, fuck, I’m a blank slate. It’s also the romantic, the world is a blank slate and I’ll project myself. I’ll express myself. So to me, these are all the same. You’re right, that’s a good catch. It’s a good catch by Verbecky. He only makes one or two, so we gotta give him credit. Oh, whatever. He’s brilliant. I mean, I have to give it a go. So I wanted to deal with the students more. I’m super annoyed that Peterson’s on. I wanted to just talk to like, Collin DeYoung. That’s all we wanna hear him talk to. Hey, you have a student that figured out the inactivist model. He got three huge models to completely sync together. What the fuck? He got predictive processing, big five and like system theory all together. What? And they’re like- A couple of guys pointed Verbecky to the big five versus the four types of knowing. Of course, he can’t match them up because his four types model is wrong. If you wanna correct four types model, you have to look at my stuff. But Verbecky, he’s using Greek. He’s using the ones that our words are based off of. It’s not his model. No, no, I know. I didn’t see it was his model. Yeah, well, you say it’s his 4P model and it’s like, well, he has four Greek words that he’s like just unpacked with the magic of alliteration and alliterative things are powerful. Like really. Right, right. But I think it’s important to go on the fractal versus the recursion. I’m very interested in talking about power more because this little corner thing, I see it as like a live thing that’s more like an elephant bucking around. And I live in- What’s your definition of power? That’s the problem. Like my problem is you have a good definition of power except for me. I spent a lot of time on that in my years. So- Are you a solipsist? You’re reminding me of that other solipsist I know that’s like actually smooth, rare. I don’t think I’m a solipsist, but. I’ve been accused of that, but no one can prove it. You don’t. So I’m gonna leave you. Yeah, not to you. Sorry. I mean, I’m boiling power. I’m boiling power down to time, energy and attention. I’m just saying that’s power. Intention? Intention? Yeah, time, no, attention. Attention, okay. Time, energy, attention. Time, energy, attention. T, it’s T, wisdom T. We’re gonna be making wisdom T soon, I promise. Time, energy, attention. Right. And then when you direct it, you get power. If you don’t direct it, you don’t get a specific type of power, but it’s undifferentiated power in the world. And that’s the problem. In other words, you’re always emanating power whether you’re actively managing it or not, okay? And then if it gets directed, it gets direct now. It’s manifest power in the world. It’s like, oh no, that’s bad. Well, it is bad because that means you have to pay attention to your time, energy and attention in order to not do bad in the world, which I would argue is the correct formulation. This is why Peterson’s formulation of evil is correct because you’re always doing something. You always have time, energy and attention. You’re putting it somewhere. Are you putting it to video games? Are you putting it to porn? Or are you moving towards the light? This is why Ethan is absolutely livid about Prager. And I guess it’s episode 10. I haven’t watched it yet. I’ll do it on the next day. My wife fucking, what? And I was like, bro, my mom worked palliative. Bro, go to a palliative care ward. Anybody who has never stepped foot in a palliative care ward has no fucking say in the conversation. Now, is pornography healthy? No, because it’s made by mega corporations designed to brainwash you and make you never stop watching. Okay, how you can prove that is really easy. You’re gonna go look at addictive porn on purpose and the ads go away. Weird. Anyways, pornography is evil because of the spirit that’s behind it. It’s like understanding what astroturfing is. Well, I think this is a corner scale. Did you understand the problem with Prager’s argument? Because there’s an actual problem in his illogical formulation. I mean, his argument was not, I don’t like most of his arguments. Oh, I mean, his argument basically boiled down to if it prevents you from something in the future, like adultery, then it’s not a bad thing because it’s a better option. And it’s like, there’s so many or somethings built in there that it’s foolish. Over and over, Prager has harped on this. If you look at a woman with lust in your heart, then you’ve committed adultery. Prager fucking picked on that over and over and over. So that snippet, if people haven’t watched like me, the whole thing three times up to date and watching it as they come out with someone they love, like I have a lot of driving to do. I listen to that shit on like fast forward as fuck, like I listen to everything. And then when it really peaks me, I listen to it and watch. And I like could tell instantly like, oh, this is gonna piss people off. Like that Prager said it, I mean, oh my God, conspiracy theorists like just having a field day. I was like, wow, I was cooking brilliant, brilliant. Yeah, the formulation is terrible, but also I see a lot of what’s going on in those are just so, I mean, it’s sad. I really liked the formula. Like I think Peterson’s doing a good job. It’s being done as well as it can be done. It’s a great talk. I’m way behind on the episodes. I gotta catch up, but it’s a great series. I’ve enjoyed the series. I mean, even though one and eight were the best so far and you could skip the rest to some extent. I mean, I think it’s well worth it. The thing, the best part of that series in my opinion is when Prager says things and not just, he’s not the only one that does it, he does it the most I would say. He says, oh, wow, I hadn’t thought of it that way. I’d always been resistant to that idea. I’ve heard it before, but the way you put it Jordan or Jonathan, because those are usually the two that give them the insight is making me rethink this. And I think we don’t have enough of that in society where we give each other credit when we agree. So we don’t simply agree and go, you know what, we agree about this. Even more than agreement. Yeah, more than agreement. What they came to terms with, so that’s the phrase I’ve been using is coming to terms. So you say navigating patterns, I’ll just start saying coming to terms. I say it talking all the time anyways. That’s fine. They’re coming to terms with the fact that there’s more than one valid way to read this and you don’t have to put them in some dialectic and synthesize them and try and get the most correct way. No, no, no, in this, you can read that the Jewish women are the ones doing this and I can read it that it’s the Egyptians. Why would I think the Egyptian women are given this power? Why would I think that? Well, because of this clue, this clue, this clue. And then the next chapter is later, the women do this, the women do this and this. And then Johnathan goes, huh. Oh, now that you’ve laid out these text points that are 10 chapters away and a book away. You’re right. In the next book that happens, in 10 chapters from now that happens and this is happening right now. Maybe there is a pattern. Jonathan’s like, yeah, I think everything’s a pattern. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everything. And pattern, pattern, pattern. That’s better than just us agreeing or disagreeing or trying to like, what’s. So I’ve become extremely anti-ecumenical and do you know what astroturfing is when it comes to non-profit? A term that like. So the grassroots non-profit just means like, so I’m in Naomi, Arizona, National Island, San Antonio. We’re being astroturfed, I love us. I’m probably going to Naomi Con. It’s gonna get me in a lot of trouble. But I’m in the state board and I represent peers with mental illness and families who have loved ones who suffer with mental illness. I don’t just say mental health conditions. I don’t like soft language, no. I work crisis, I deal with real problems. We don’t say soft stuff. What happens with astroturfing is a grassroots organization gets exuberant amounts of money from some donor. It can be as innocuous as a church or a conference of a church. So it’s like a big conglomeration of church. It’s a shell company for church or if you find out what’s going on. And then they give you this stuff and then they get you reliant on that money. They get you to like comfortable. You’re like, ooh, man, now we have three years. They gave us 300,000. You have a full staff. We got to hire. We don’t just lease the building anymore. Man, we got to build it. And then your phone comes on and they go, hey, we’d like you to change just like two or three year policy. Just like on your bylaws, you could just tweak this. And then we’ll send you the money. And if you don’t take the money, what the fuck are you gonna do? So they just have to kowtow to it. And that’s not the only way, but that’s like the, that’s the big number room. That’s like what? And that’s astroturfing. It’s fake grass over a grassroots nonprofit. So the grassroots nonprofit, like NAMI is 10 years older than I am. And huge decades of work. And now they’re saying we have to use like gender affirming care. We have to always be positive in our language. And I can’t say drug abuse. I got in trouble at a training for the word abuse. I went, no, no, no. Someone who’s using drugs to the point that they are losing consciousness on purpose is abusing drugs. I open detox treatment centers and run a homeless shelter in the highest detox or highest overdose place in the Southwest of the United States. I know what I’m talking about. I lost a brother to overdose. I know what I’m talking about. Like there are many roads lead here, but they do have some things in common. And yeah, sorry to get extra big, but safe injection sites. How do I feel about safe injection sites? Okay. I would call that enablement. How do you feel about enablement, Skyler? Yeah, I mean, it’s a fine line. Exactly. I’m like a box of contradictions. One of my best friends in the whole of the VA, down at Phoenix, is like the transgender person. And they know for a fact that I’m against like gender affirming here. And they are too. So like contradictions abound. There are reasonable people on all sides. So why the positives of them? Let’s start there. There are positives. I’m gonna use a little test point of my neighbor city. So if you Google Star Valley, Arizona, it’s a neighbor town of me. It’s like four miles away from me, but they can’t even pay their own taxes. So my town pays their taxes. They don’t even have like the stoplight street thing, taking photos for speeding tickets anymore. Just people kept screaming and winning. So back in the late 80s, early 90s, Star Valley was the highest per capita of AIDS in the entire United States. And why that was is they had no education. Everybody had been sharing needles for fucking ever. And I’m sorry if I’m person, but I don’t know if it’s for policy on your channel. I try not to be open for it. Talking about like- The problem is you can say whatever the hell you want. How’s that? Okay, cool. And then the shared needles there got the per capita such a small community. They had been using heroin together, very clean heroin, a bunch of former Vietnam’s, one out of right now in my staff, in my community. Out of my county of people 65 and over, one out of six of them are Vietnam veterans. Like that’s my community. I feel like we rock and roll here. Like everybody’s got guns. Anyway, while well left. I would love to tell the story of Gila County sometime and people are in story mode. But the policies of Star Valley basically, and we’re talking about safe injection sites, they’re not going to be able to get it off by drugs. Basically because they had to have no knowledge, nothing like that. Everybody shared needles. They’re the highest AIDS out of a hundred people in the entire country. And like health crisis to say the least, the repercussions of those are still being hit in my county in 2016. The homeless county data for the census, so there was six homeless people in the county because they can’t find them. They’re all in the forest doing drugs. They don’t want you to find them. It’s a fucking forest. You’re not going to find them unless they want you to. Like you’re not. There’s just no way, even with helicopters. You’re not in a tree or the forest. You’re not binding it. So there are things for safe injection sites. What you do there is educate and public safety. So it’s like, it’s how they’re ran. It’s like understanding how evil some of fucking planned parenthood is. And then understanding that the people who actually got it going are some of the sweetest, nicest, non-malicious people who had no idea that they were working. What you’re saying, Tyler, what you’re saying is that the telos of the thing matters more than the thing. Is that what you’re saying? Yeah, so my community has no soup kitchen, no communities, sort of CCBHC, certified community for a health clinic. There’s none in my state, much less my county. We’re just behind on a lot of these things, which what the telos of those things are matters. Okay, telos. So I’ve mentioned that training I was in. My wife and I both did that training. So I should mention, my wife is an in our own voice, train the trainer. So she trains the people who go around teaching the classes. Like she’s a very powerful story. My wife, she’s the best person I know, I’m sorry, married. That formula that they have to go through is there. It’s called in our own voice, very difficult. But it even has like, it has dark days. And at the very beginning of the presentation, we let everybody know, we’re glad to be here. Hey everybody, right now today, this is the day I’m not glad to be here. Okay, I’m about to tell you terrible stuff, but remember, I’m still glad I’m here. And no matter how bad my story gets, so I’m telling it, be present. And then my wife has in front of the groups, it’s called Crisis Intervention Teams Training, CIT. It’s for cops and first responders. Seriously, everybody should go do it and just get involved. We tell my wife’s story to a bunch of cops doing that. My wife was sexually assaulted by a police officer in her home who had been doing a case for her. So like telling that story to a group of officers, you get some emotional reaction. Like they want his name and whereabouts. Cause they’re a good cop. A good cop hates a bad cop. Anyway, very strange comment. I think he’s onto something. I took a nosed right bow. If I ever punch someone, I have to shave. So that’s like the dead tell. In Martial Arts, I have four. I love the punching people and that’s bad for me. So I don’t have a drinking problem. I have like a being around drunk people problem where I don’t even need to be drunk and that drunk guy is mouthing off. I’ll just walk up to him and talk shit because I know do good too. And I’m just choked out. Yeah, but I’m definitely not a monk. My wife wants me to be at orthodoxies. Like I hang out with them. I’m not one. I have a long journey ahead. I’m 31, very violent machination in my head all the time and severe head trauma. So I’ve got a lot of healing to do. That comment very sidetracked me with the orthodoxies comment, that was funny. Yeah, I noticed the camera thing. I thought it was just because I was on stream yard. My camera’s low res. It looks really high res to me. Yeah, it popped like a couple of times. What were we talking about just before this? We were distinguishing something or showing. See, I think there’s, I didn’t wanna get this on Jocko. So I guess I can mention this. Here’s a healthy distinguishing thing. So distinguished dichotomy from dialectic. So I think dichotomies are a healthy way to view with something because you’re not formalizing them. You’re just being as aware as you can. And they’re more of a pragmatic conceptual scheme to work in. So this is Jocko willing to talk. I think Jocko’s really nailing it lately. Of people playing the game who needs to get in the fucking, anyways, doing a lot of good. So I’m not gonna knock someone who’s like working their ass off. But like, if you do a little less jujitsu and start just a little bit more public speaking. These dichotomies he’s pointing out are very healthy very often. And then I listened to the huge civil war thing recently. And we need to have logistics in these, this little corner. So I forgot the name of the stream. I wrote it down and I can’t find it. I’m losing my mind. What’s the name of the stream? So I don’t have to. That’s what it’s called. Yeah, right now. My stream. Oh, it’s called Live Boundary. Where do you end? Boundary. Dogma. It’s all about boundary. So my first comment, holy moly, hours ago already, was about dogma. It’s just the dog, the word dogma just means like boundary. And like you pointed out, it doesn’t mean like boundary that you never. It’s more like, it’s more like in Lion King. Hey, there’s a shadow area over there. That’s not our kingdom. Stay in our kingdom. Why the fuck would you say that if you’re not instantly gonna go to the boundary? Hey, cross it. Like, there’s a healthy thing. I have a project in my head. So I told you guys a couple of times, very lovingly. Neither of you caught me, which was nice. And then I, this name a few days ago is on Grimm. I didn’t go on live, but I was just chatting and the thing, I was responding. And I tried to figure out what, cause he has these like fucking projects and branding and he’s doing his thing. Okay. What am I on? And I figured it out, I’m on the away team. So he’s playing like basically red shirts and Star Trek, the away team. And then one of the guys in the comments was like, oh, a team, because of how grandma has like a, Yeah, yeah. Wait weeks. The comment section like picked up instantly, which is where I was vibing. I was in the comments, like manipulating my thing, subverting where they were going. Oh, Chad’s coming. But interface came up and then dogma. And then in that chat, I noticed it was basically the same conversation with over here. When I saw you pick the boundaries thing, I was like, oh, healthy boundaries is literally what I’m teaching everybody in my personal family right now. They want me to come home. I’m like, there’s capture in the house. I have an entire forest I can live in. I’m a homeless dude. Like I run a homeless shelter. I don’t mind living anywhere. I don’t care. And I have these boundaries and I set them. And to have boundaries implies all these nested things. Sadly, it’s like the media res starts. Boundaries come along with other things. You need to know what we are working for. And so I’m gonna finish with this. Jaco very much talks about when he’s going through training. He didn’t realize when the people fell out of Buds. Okay, like Buds is where they lose like one or four out of five people. So the Navy SEALs, everybody hears about how we, Buds is where they lose four or five. And he just realized those people weren’t doing this. We’re all doing this. He’s on the SEALs team. If we’re picking up boats today and carrying them from one side of the thing to the other, that’s what we’re doing today. And so he just had such a simple goal-minded thing. And I’m working with a lady. She’s very goal-driven. She drives half my volunteers nuts, but she’s like the best at organizing because she just cares about results. So what results are we after? How do we have healthy boundaries? And how do we set up correct forgiveness? If you can’t have, so Greg Hurwitz, Jordan Peterson and Tajo talking, that’s fantastic. They all look like idiots now and then. That’s what happens in a real conversation. Five, you make a mistake. You look like you’re ready about that. Greg Hurwitz talking is never fantastic. Greg Hurwitz talking is like, you wanna make me wanna- They all stumbled. Even Greg was able to pull out his point well enough to get Jordan to be like, fuck. Greg’s never had a good point in his pointy-headed life. Oh my God. Fleabas wants to hear you on your, it wasn’t non-ecumenicalism. He was basically condemning ecumenicalism, right? Yeah, very much. It’s been astroturfed. So steering committees and astroturfing, when you find out what happened to the ecumenical movement, the original ecumenicals from like 700 plus years ago, good people. Modern ecumenical movement. Buddy, I have been at all of them. Guess who is a fucking, oh, I can’t even. Did you know that the highest rank of knight awarded by the Pope, there’s a high ranking Mormon attack? Okay, if you don’t know how this stuff works. What? Just, yeah, don’t. Like, trust me, it gets so dark. Oh, I live in Mormonville, by the way. So like, and I love the Mormons, they help me. Anyways, but big money astroturfing, steering committees. Okay, why I don’t like ecumenical stuff is why I joined a nonprofit and then made my own nonprofit is because I think that pretty much 95% of nonprofits since the year 2012 are corrupt. You can look at the spike of Obama, what he opened up and thanks Obama, we have a very different world for 501C3s and what they can get away with. They can be religiously affiliated without ever, they never gonna get held to the feet. Obama got them past the Supreme Court for the eighth time, they’re never gonna get held to the feet as a religious movement. So now you can disguise your religious movement as a 501C3, force people to show up to these stupid fucking cult meetings. They don’t shut the cult meetings, you force them to be homeless after you’ve taken like 30% of their income. Bro, you’re killing people. Well, look, look, look, I think of it this way, right? Which is the unhealthy idea that we could just expand the boundary and get ecumenism instead of fixing the problem where at a certain point, some of these people have to be wrong about important things because there’s a conflict. They don’t want to resolve the conflict, they want everybody to just get along. I’m like, no, the conflict, that should be accepted or resolved. I’m so triggered though, but yeah, they think they have the formula of dialectics. So what they’re gonna do is take the ecumenical movement, modern, wants to take a dialectical synthesis of all religions, Presca theologia, they have like terms. And so Vatican II, Presca theologia, all these things, they’re gonna be a nerd. Jay Dyer, I paid that man 50 bucks to do my homework, very much worth my, he’s a nerd. I got Chad based nerd, Ortho Bro, and you pay him to do your homework. And I was like, what’s up with steering committees? I’ve, this is what I know, this is what I know. And then like a couple of weeks ago, he did another little deep dive and that was thanks to me throwing him 50 bucks. And he was already like doing that, he’s reading something and he’s read Carol Quigley. So if you don’t know who Carol Quigley is, you sweet summer child, you don’t know what’s going on in the world. He was a guy who wrote for the establishment what they were actually doing. And then they wouldn’t print more than one volume or one copy of his book. Because people started reading it and being like, wait, what? Anyway, the world is so weird. Chad. I love your picture, I didn’t mean your bathroom. Yeah, Chad, bring us down to reality. I need to be in reality, my bathroom looks like shit. No, it’s not. What are you guys talking about? Really, I was at the biggest level of like the monad versus logos. We’re gonna go back to that? I thought you just go back to the management. You don’t like anything past the Greeks, Mr. Mark. All new philosophy is worthless. No, read the biography of philosophers. And like I said earlier, absurdism, he lives out. Read absurdism, then look about how he died in the car crash and be like, oh, he got Paul Walker, interesting. Kind of absurd what happened to that guy. You might say, like when you see that you get the world that you’re in. Why do you think that’s absurd? How he died? Yeah. I mean, he was getting such a, he was getting a problem similar to what happened to, I’ve been diving in all this stupid nerd stuff, sorry. I know old people, so they were alive during it. That sounds to me similar to what happened to the works of Repressive Tolerance Dude, where he complains about the people using his logic to the wrong end. He provided them a perfectly clean rationale of how to scapegoat without, okay. I mean, you don’t play on monetized on this channel and stuff, am I gonna like trigger you if I say it like, do I have to speak in code? I don’t know. Speaking code, speaking code. I’ll speak in some code. Okay. Skittles Day of Vengeance. All right. Yes. That got pushed through National Alliance Networks. More than one, I’m on all the backlogs. I got you. For our approval, as if mental health advocates are gonna say, yeah, yeah, we’re behind you. What the fuck? And guess what happened? People did. Not everybody said no. So we’re in a world right now where shit’s so crazy. Oh. Yeah. Yeah, that’s like a crazy one. Cause that’s not even like a Psyop. That’s like, I mean, I work on the back end. I got a thing and I’m like, what the? That’s the increasing chaos. Like this is what I was talking about. So three different people in two different channels who don’t know each other, all were like, oh, look at this hopeful sign. And I’m like, we’re living in chaos. You’re not. These hopeful signs are not signs of a change. They’re just the things that happen in chaos. And I hate to break it to you, but like things are gonna get a lot more chaotic before they get any. I mean, but it’s a formalized chaos. So why people feel calm though, is because the logic behind the people doing these bad things is something like, this is what Jacob and I, Pastor Paul talked about on the last stream many months back, was basically like total the privacy. If total the privacy is there, why am I not doing it? Why would I do anything good? That’s not what they’re doing, right? That’s what’s happening because they’re stuck in the pattern of religion. There’s something dialectic. They don’t know what good is. They don’t know what good is. They can’t put a positive forward, logical positive and died. Wittgenstein killed it. It’s Herbstomp’s. He wrote the thick books and then destroyed it with good enough. Boom, the Herbstomp on my career. So that’s all a philosophy. Why Mark’s mostly right, even though I disagree with him, about modern philosophy is because of Wittgenstein’s life. Mark’s point is that. That’s why I can’t think he’s wrong. I just disagree with him. Fair enough, you’re allowed to disagree. What are we talking about? If you can follow Skyler, you’re a better man than I am. You’re a bad man. I thought of grammarlier, I thought of many a things because I see- I can follow Skyler. I just haven’t been listening. I just came out for a smoke and by dropping- Yeah, I’m all over now. Well, it’s good to see you, Shad. Yeah, I need you to- I listened to Paul Kingsnorth earlier today. I haven’t found my feed for him. It was Kingsnorth and some other dude that I’ve never heard of. I think it’s on my feed too. It was really good. Kingsnorth said some things in that conversation as this was really resonating with like, holy shit, dude. He’s saying what I’ve been thinking for a long time about. He was in the whole global trap. Yeah, Paul Kingsnorth, he’s amazing. But there’s something that he mentioned about, I can’t remember the exact phrases he used, but the- I’m just gonna paraphrase. Something like the zeitgeist of people in the society today, maybe the Western society is one of, the underpinnings are all therapeutics. And I was like, yes. I mean, I’ve been saying this for a while. The unintended consequences of the the formation of 12-step programs and what that did overall to the culture and the unintended consequences of basically, basically like something very, very mysterious and semi-controlled, then breaking out into like the field and then people in the medical field taking the terminologies and those concepts and then twisting them up and then repackaging them and then now making a huge market out of these therapeutic language and things like that. And basically, and I also heard, I heard Sally talk about people’s scare or discontent around the self-care and self-love and like I’m one of those people, but I think it’s misunderstood, right? Cause I do believe we should take care of ourselves and we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves, all that stuff. The problem is self-care, self-love language, it puts self at the top of everything and that comes out of the therapy. So Mark has this thing where he talks about middle out and it’s in media res, it’s like middle out. I think there’s good ways to do middle out and what you just said about self, self’s not the center, it’s a center of being. And I think that’s what therapy helps you, what a good therapist can do, it’s helped you realize that you are a center of being. You’re not the center of being, however, you have a part to play and other people can take your perspective. You can do your best, I can stop and do my best to see what Mark would think. Right? I got like a pretty nifty burn on Mark a while back and then I was like, damn, that applies to me. I did a five hour car ride today and all that I was thinking about, not all, way more than I was comfortable with was a burn that I laid on Mark months, months back, which was something like, very intelligent people are often dismissive of preloaded arguments. So that’s why I hear self helps us and it’s like, it just irks me the wrong way. It sounds like a formula and you can’t have a formula for something that’s like alive all the way. A formula is for something. And that’s the big difference between, I think probably what people encounter in therapy and what you would encounter in a religious context or community or like a good, somebody who’s well plugged into a 12 step program. It’s like, cause like therapy would have me work on me. Right? And it’d be like, do things, Chad, so you can work on yourself, be a better person and the 12 step community and like good religious communities will say, stop working on you. Work on your relations with others. To live by these principles that we have and go help other people. Yep. Be related. Oh, and you’re making perfect sense to me. So tracking a bunch of stuff. I’m gonna go back to the NAMI stuff. So I love National Alliance of Mental Illness, free nonprofit. They have support groups everywhere in the country. You need support groups, you should go to them. They even have online ones. You can go to mine. If you go to Arizona, to Payson, you can join my online support group. I hosted this one on Monday, last Monday one. Anyways, in those support groups, this is exactly what Chad was just saying. You have two basic program breakouts. We have peer to peer connections and we have family to family. And in the family to family, what you talk about in this support group is the relationship you have with those around you. And in the peer to peer, I frame it and now they’re taking up my phrases because it’s an actual grassroots nonprofit. Not just my phrases, but in the peer to peer, it’s about your relationship with yourself. You have, that’s why, I mean, if you ever wanna watch a really smart series by Verbecky and feel dumb for a while, the elusive I with Greg Henrique. Very fun because that’s what I sit and think about. For fuck’s sake, I can remember my dad, he’s a physics professor, on the ride home from church one day when I was in like, I had to be eight or nine years old. He’s saying, you know, just giving me a thought experiment of what would happen if like the sun’s gravity turned off, if the light didn’t. Like how far would you go out, would it hurt if it, what happens if it turns back on? Anyways, that gave me a weird way to look at myself. And the Solomon effect is the technical term that Verbecky used. Do you remember that I’m talking about that, Solomon effect? So I’ve had this idea, I was gonna lay it on what’s in that, but I’ll give it to you. I was gonna, I haven’t gotten a third alliteration, so it was gonna be Solomon something stream. There’s an accidental. I don’t know. But Solomon stream where you have to speak with, in the third person. So Skylar would have to be talking like this the whole time. And it’s like, boy, that makes, after a minute or two, because I turn off my screen and on these, I can’t. So when I’m on a Zoom call, even when they have me present, I turn off my self presentation. Real easy for me that. I fucking hate this stream yard, anything. I wanna put like a sticky note over my thing. On this one, I tried for like a minute. You don’t wanna turn off his camera. He wants to turn off him seeing himself. I just don’t wanna see me. I just wanna look at you and Mark. He wants us to see him, but he doesn’t wanna see him. Well, it’s a good practice. It’s a good, it’s a good opportunity to practice something. Okay, we’re gonna talk about boundaries real quick. I got, I got. So I’ve talked about boundaries before in the past and as it relates to men dating women. And I think that it’s an important thing that, well, it’s something that I’ve learned. I learned not to be reliant upon whoever I’m going to be dating. I’m not going to be reliant upon their boundaries, their relevance to some degree. Boundaries are about what I set for me that I don’t cross. That way, I have an opportunity to grow in different areas. So here might be a solution to all of the crises. Because I’ve been thinking a lot of all the crises, because we’re crises-centric. So OK, whether you like it or not, or OK, how about this? Whether I like it or not, I’m going to join a church and stick with it. Whether I like it or not. Also, I’m going to, I’m probably, here’s something I’m going to do. I’m going to be checking out very soon. I’m going to potentially join the Lions Club. Why? I don’t know. It’s a part of the community. I’m going to try to have children. That’s another boundary that I’m going to try to adhere to. They sound like goals, but they’re more like boundaries. These are things I need. And I think that if people were to adopt these ideas and these boundaries, some bitch in my automatic light, go on. If you adopt these boundaries, if people were to adopt these kinds of boundaries where you get in, and you stay in, and you participate, things get better. We don’t have to worry about somebody having to try to create an arc or whatever. But we’re not going to do it because we don’t know how to fix ourselves. So things- No, it’s not. No, we don’t want to submit. The submission came up earlier with Sally Jo. I understand. I don’t want to submit. We don’t know how to do that. What I mean is by we don’t know how to fix ourselves, and we won’t fix ourselves, is we don’t know how to submit. Because we’re unwilling to practice asceticism to a degree, different ascetic things. So yeah. What’s our relationship with ourselves? I say that to people every two weeks. So I get the offer a lot of light bulbs go off. When people stop and go, because they don’t like self-care, and I’m like, well, you care about all these things, and they rely on you. So distinguish yourself from me, from I. We have that phrase, me, myself, and I. Stop and listen to that. Me, myself, I. I’m the one that’s always doing the thing, but myself is something different, and me is something different again. What the fuck is going on? It’s almost like there’s a turn of the year in something. There’s a god that I worship probably more than anything else, and it’s called Apple. And YouTube. And I spend more time on it than I spend actually seeking God. And that’s a fact. It’s a sad fact. So now how does that shape me? It turns me into a fucking wacko, dude. Somebody’s afraid all the time, self-centered, and distracted, and pulls me away from my feet on the ground. I mean, these are all things that I know the solution, but I’m not willing to submit right now. So it is what I’m going to do. You already said some stuff. What was that? What you were doing or planning? Now I’m confused. No, so I am a member of a church. Yeah. I’m there tomorrow. I’m going to participate in peeling some potatoes for the pancake breakfast thing that we have on Sunday. On Tuesday, I’m going to probably go try to check out this Lions Club dinner. It’s a men’s club, by the way, which is good. I want one of those. Yeah. My community is so small, sadly, that the Lions and Lioness merged. But the lady who’s the treasurer of the Lioness now, the Lions, have merged. She’s also the lady who used to run the county thing, and she’s the president of the nonprofit that I made. So the Rotary Club, Tijuana’s, Lions, if your community has one, go attend a meeting. They have a public one quarterly, I guarantee. Just show up and be like, hey, what’s going on? I asked the dude, because I met him at the church. They’re providing the tent for our church thing. Is there one in my town? He’s like, no, not anymore. Unfortunately, the women sold off everything and destroyed the one in my town. Well, they decided to have a co-ed Lions Club, and it destroyed everything. That’s what I’m watching happen here. That’s why I mentioned it. You need to find that, as you said, you need a men’s club that’s healthy. Why? Because women need a women’s club. And they talk. In fact, they’re separate clubs. It’s just like one club that’s properly organized. So I’m going to say, they do good things in the community. They’re non-religious. I like that. There’s going to be people from the Catholic church there. There’s going to be people from the Lutheran church there. There’s going to be people from different church, people from no churches. We’re all there. In that way, that’s kind of cool. That’s as far as maybe ecumenicism needs to go. That’s good stuff. Yeah. But let’s face it. I had this idea or this thought the other day. I thought, because people keep saying that the protest needs to end. And I was thinking, I think it already did. We just are not willing to admit it to ourselves that it has actually already ended. We’re just like in any church where we have people bickering to other people in the church. And so in a way, I mean, in the West, we’re just a big, stupid, strange church. Hey, man, the great resignation, when I first heard that phrase, it sunk in me. The word rock means you understand something in your stomach. Yeah. When I read policies that are wrong, I get sicky. And I can’t eat when I read a policy that’s wrong. When I first heard that, I got that feeling. And you are so correct on this, Chad. It’s something you need to be careful with, of course. Duh. But the way to be careful with it is doing what you’re doing right now. And Larry’s telling some other dudes to have to deal with this shit. The reason why I think that I believe that this is true is if you ask the nuns or the clueless, they all believe that there’s just the Christian. For the most part, they don’t know the difference between a Protestant and a Catholic, or a Catholic and an Orthodox, or a Mormon and a Baptist. They don’t know the difference. All of this is those Christian people. Look, I think the fundamental problem is that Protestants in particular like secularity, because they believe that secularity and ecumenism are the same thing, or that secularity is a solution to ecumenism. And I think actually that’s wrong. And the thing that saved us this whole time, and actually, it’s actually Adam about this, I think it was today or yesterday, the fact that the country’s so big is what stopped the battles between Protestants. And it didn’t in the beginning. When our country was first formed, before it was a country, the Puritans were fighting with the Dutch. All the religious groups were actually, there were people dying. It wasn’t any better than in Europe until they spread west. And I think that that only works for so long. And that maybe, and I mentioned this in the monologue, and this is a concept that Manuel came up with, not me. Maybe we have reached the limit of civilized conflict. And now we have to go into the mode of violent conflict, because we just might have run out. Like I don’t buy this ecumenism one bit, because again, some of these people are clearly wrong. They’re clearly wrong. They can’t be compatible. Right, so like the religious in this country don’t have to pay its taxes, right? Like if you’re a, basically, so all the Christian churches out there don’t have to pay a tax. Wait a minute. Churches don’t pay taxes anywhere. Wait a minute. I wanna just mention in my point five minutes ago, and then I’ll shut right up. Thanks to Obama, 501C3s don’t pay any fucking taxes either. Their religious organizations too now. Of course. That’s what I was thinking about. But that’s a universal, that’s not a US thing. That was in Europe long before. In fact, tax money was collected to support the church in Europe. That never happened here, but it happens in Europe to this day. Right, but those are often churches that are state-owned churches, right? That’s my whole point. It’s not, in Europe it’s worse. Here they just don’t have to pay taxes. In Europe, taxes supported the church. Whatever reason, it doesn’t really matter. Right, so. Not a small one. I don’t know, this is a weird concept. Maybe a stupid one, but all the churches are under this umbrella of not having to pay taxes. That makes them odd entity, even though they’re all separate. It makes them odd entity. That’s what I mean. Like the process has ended, and we just bitch and moan. And we will like to say, I’m actually. I don’t think the protest has. Who put 22 billion into ecumenical back in like the 30s? I think it was a David Rockefeller. Weird. Some guy who’s never been in the church in his life. Yes. Since he gives the. We realized he could make us change our church policies by having a fellow go to a group meeting and telling people you’re not being Christian enough. Right. Oh, that’s not very Christ-like of you. Right. Those terms came out of ecumenical councils from people one-upping each other on their Christianity. From people one-upping each other on their Christianity. I feel you have to be careful in any group. Bro, that’s just. That’s right. No more talk. That’s what I see. Materialist. Yeah, and then I see it happening in this little corner. I see it happening everywhere. I don’t see this as a place that happens over there. Materialism that causes the problem. Well, my friends, I gotta go night-night. I think it’s more than materialist. I mean, I think it’s built in. Like. I don’t think it’s built in. It’s not built in. It’s materialism that causes it to do that. I need you to explain that one, man. Cause I don’t see how materialism alone are. I must be missing a link in your argument. Look, the materialism is the belief that the primary mover is material or physical or an object. Yeah, that’s physicalism. It doesn’t mean reductionist, physicalist, right? To Vervege’s point, no such thing as reductionist, physicalist that doesn’t exist. Because there’s no way that you can cast the world phenomenologically as something that doesn’t have thoughts or doesn’t have information or doesn’t have formless things, right? And I mean that in the modern use of the term form. The ancient Greek term should be idos, not form. And so what that means is that when you look at the world that way, you need either a direct material cause, right? Or a proxy for one, like money, right? And so money is non-material, but because it represents material, it is a materialist way of looking at the world. And therefore, when you put it in that frame, you run into all these problems. And I think actually that’s the problem of recasting things as in terms of economics, right? When you cast it in terms of economics, you’re just using a materialist frame to try to understand something. And that’s why all organizations that don’t pay taxes are not the same. Like that’s not ecumenism because they still have disagreements. And they’re unresolved and unaccepted. It’s both of those. It’s both, that’s the problem. Yeah, I mean, Christ says the poor will always be among us. So if you think you’re gonna stop homeless men and stop people from being poor. Right, you need to accept, right. Instead of trying to solve it, you need to accept it and take the sacrifice that is required to take care of those people. And so that’s where your pious and their not. You work harder so you can give more to them. Is your working harder to give more? Well, you’re working to give anything to them. And that’s more than the church is doing. Church is ignoring them. And fair enough, they don’t have monasteries. But you know, my aunt was pissed off at my talk with Father Eric, which I posted I think earlier, right? My aunt was pissed off because she said, well, the church is helping the homeless people. And I’m like, all right, you’re talking about materialist needs. And I get that. And I’m not saying no to any of that. But I am saying, I’m talking about affluent people who have spiritual needs. And the church is not meeting those spiritual needs. And that is the job of the church. You know what the job of the church isn’t? To meet material needs. It’s to meet spiritual needs first and foremost. And look, some of this is the fault of George W. Bush, who acquiesced to the left, which is what I hated about him. He did it again and again and again. And because he did that, he destroyed the church’s ability to engage in the spiritual enhancement of the people it was serving. And that, it has to do that first. And if it’s not doing that, it might as well not exist because the government can provide for your material needs. I think you went from being Lutheran to Methodist right before you decided to announce as running for president. Anyways. Jesus wasn’t worried about his 501C3. Well, Chris, it’s just not written down in the book, but he might have been worried. We just don’t have a record of it. I like the U2 quote, right? The God I worship ain’t short of cash, mister. Well, part of the problem is certainly out there. Frontier, okay. Yes. Frontier, Dr. Jim was on recently. That man’s brilliant. He was talking about Westerns and wars and spies, to that guy. And that’s what I think a lot a lot. I live in Gila County. Can I have like a quick story time? I don’t have to, but. No, it’s all right. It’s probably a little sense of what you were just talking about, with moving West or whatever. We don’t have a place to go after the Civil War. I live in Gila County, G-I-L-A. So the Pleasant Valley War, if you look up the Pleasant Valley War, you’ll find out why we’re the 48th state, even though we, I mean, the Mexican American War happened. Every other place got claimed, and Arizona was just a territory. Why that was, was because of logistics. No air conditioners, so you can’t really live in Phoenix yet. Prescott is the capital of, the seat of where they’re gonna have this state. And they’re trying to get our state to be ratified, but they have to show that the capital can display its sovereignty over the county. Well, Gila County has the two berries in the, and they’re just not having it. There’s two families that are in a feud, and they’re both fleeing from the Civil War, yada, yada. But the lawman got stuck up from both sides when he came to Gila County. He got his gun, he basically just sent home with nothing but his clothes, and was like, if you come back, we’ll just kill you. You have no authority. And that delayed our state being a state for 18 years. That mentality of frontier mindset, is completely absent to some people. They think that the world has parking lots everywhere, and has been like evened out so when it rains, it just like gently moves to the side. Like the last fight in the matrix, where it’s Neo versus like a billion agent Smith, you know, just standing there, and everything is just soaking, it’s completely saturated wool. But the saturated world is flat, or on a grid that’s saturated. And it’s like, that is the frontier we have now basically made for our city. If you go to Phoenix, Arizona, it’s the perfect encapsulation. Frank Lloyd Wright tried his best to prevent it. And they just like took the part they liked, and cut out every part of life and love and energy. And they’re like, let’s just make sure everybody has a strip mall. Everybody has a shopping center within a couple miles. Everybody has, make sure within your section, you have one of these within this many miles of you, no matter if you are. And then we’ll all be happy. If your Amazon package can be delivered within two days, and the whole world’s Amazon package can be delivered within two days, we transcend. We just like humanity 2.0, we all done. Because we’ll be freed from the bad God’s constraints. Because we’ll have managed those constraints properly by remaking the world in the utopia. It’s very non-stick and people don’t understand that. Yeah, but why they can’t see it is because it’s a hermetically sealed argument. So I’ve been using the term intellectual incest and then hermetically sealed. Intellectual incest, I love that. Well, look, it’s just a closed world system. When we talk about closed world, that’s what we’re talking about. Yeah, yeah, Isaac Howard. Well, because, well, look, you get certainty, right? And you get accuracy and precision, because you need accuracy and precision to be certain about something. You get that, that’s what science gives you. Granted, it’s just that science can’t grasp any of the important things of the world, because it’s materialistic. And so it’s pure materialism, and it can’t ever be anything else. Like it can’t even apply to most material things. That’s the thing that really wrangles them. When you point that out, it’s like, yeah, sorry, science doesn’t know. Doesn’t have an idea. Sorry. So it doesn’t even handle all of the physical world, and it can’t handle any of the non-physical world, or non-physical aspect of reality, or however you wanna frame it. And it can’t define reality. It can’t do any of those. It’s useless. Yeah, without a space for concepts, or I mean, Yoshabok has something where you need to be able to set up a parameter where things are getting. I’m talking at a technical. No, no, but have you seen his Twitter feed? He’s another one that’s like, how are you this long? I don’t go on Twitter. Mark, have I ever been on Twitter? I live in the mountains away from all these people. Like when I see him on Twitter, when I read him on Twitter, I lose my sense of sense. It’s bad. He’s dumb. Yeah, I don’t care. He can shit on Noam Chomsky so well that I’ll forgive. Unless he can outdo Chomsky with just let them starve in their houses if they don’t get the shot. Unless he can outdo that, he can make Klonoff Chomsky all day so well that I love it. And then watching Bernardo Kastrup shit on Yocha while he’s missing the thing to shit on Yocha for. And even Bernardo Kastrup. Kastrup’s another one. These guys. They’re all, I mean, I bet if I go on your Twitter feed, you know who’s Twitter feeds the impeccable? You’re so dumb. It’s like, yeah. But for a system to be able to do these things, to be able to move into a non-morphogenetic, I’m getting big words. I’ll try and get smaller. To be able to move into a place that you don’t have to live in, you can think, I can make a world in my head that I don’t have to live in. There’s no consequences. And if I live in that world, it’s, you know. And so Yocha is like, he has the best explanation of that. He’s like, no, how I know we’re in a simulation is because I can make a set of things that completely can’t work, but I can just do it in my head right now anyways. And that’s, he thinks that means we live in a simulation. Like that’s- No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Only a simulation can be conscious. Consciousness is not a result of physical process. Brilliant. I think even Donald Hoffman agrees with you. It’s completely different angles. They have completely different ontologies. It’s like towing to Lawrence Krauss. I was on a Lawrence Krauss stream and I got banned from Lawrence Krauss’s streams in one comment. Cause I said, you know, your creation of, you know, from nothing or whatever, the title of one of his last books, second to last book. Like, thank you for giving a Christian’s like a perfect argument for ex nihila creation. Walked from the channel, like, woo. Sense it a little bit. No, I like that idea. We must be living in a simulation because reductionist physicalism doesn’t work. That’s- Go to actual- Awesome. Only a simulation could be conscious because, I mean, it’s brilliant when you have it, but then you’re like stuck like, fuck. You think that’s where he’s wrong. Cause he kind of like- Well, the definition of simulation is something that isn’t conscious. So that’s the first problem that comes up. Well- Yeah, there are other problems. You can simulate things though. And so he has a way to get away from the harder problem. Like he actually grocks the hard problem. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He’s just saying, let’s not do that. It’s just, right. But the problem is they’re assuming it’s a hard problem. It’s not, it’s a two second problem. Yeah. But it’s funny cause you can take Joschebach and you can, like Donald Hoffman. And if you understand the hard problems of consciousness, there’s a conference, kind of Phoenix, look it up, yada yada. They laid out these two problems. There’s like the problem and then there’s the hard problem. David Chalmers, blah, blah, blah. These two people have complete, perfect airtight refudiation of David Chalmers. Yet they don’t agree. They’re completely incompatible. In fact, one of them is rather hostile to the other. And then Bernardo Contra completely disagrees with that. He completely sidesteps the whole thing. But that’s the problem. Like people don’t get this. The world is asymmetrical. There aren’t opposites to things. That’s just wrong. There are some, but it’s not like, that’s not the world. The world isn’t all that. No, actually, actually, Skyler, I think actually this is the trick. There are opposites to aspects of things, but there are no opposites to things. But then you’re, that’s scary to me. Hold on, let me finish. The correct naming definition of something. The correct naming of something. In other words, when you have the right name, the right oneness of something in the world, cannot have an opposite. It can have something larger than it that is the opposite of most of it, but it’s not an opposite because on the negative side, it’s actually larger because there’s more evil in the world or more potential for evil than there is good. In other words, there’s more bad than good. And what most of the world is is neutral because there’s not two of anything. And it’s that lack of symmetry. It’s the lack of symmetry that creates life and the world and reality. Because the two world mythology cannot be got around. There’s definitely a two world mythology. And then because there’s a two world mythology, reality is the combination of the two worlds. And the thing that creates that is us, it’s consciousness. And that solves all the problems. It’s a very simple model. It doesn’t take much to understand. And once you get it, it’s like, oh, okay. So there isn’t a symmetry, right? This is the, why is there more matter than anti-matter in the universe? It’s a dumb question. There obviously is and therefore, right? And then it’s like, oh, okay. If there’s an asymmetry there, then there must be asymmetries everywhere. Yes. And then that means that nothing has an exact opposite. And if it’s not an exact opposite, that fixes the problem. Because now you’re like, oh, okay, there’s no binaries. Yeah, but the aspectual argument just is where you get told the property. That’s where I can accelerate good by doing evil. Because I’m creating more space for good to respond. That’s why I disagree with Jordan Peterson. Well, how are you equating it to total depravity? I don’t understand that. That’s like a late stage one, sorry. But see if I can get there easiest. So, total, if I’m… Hmm, too many ways to… Why don’t you just give me your definition of total depravity? Because as near as I can tell, when they say total depravity, they just mean original sin, but that’s a different problem. Oh, yeah, yeah. Total depravity is something like, if we are saved only by God’s grace alone, then we are saved only by God’s grace alone. So, total depravity is something like, if we are saved only by God’s grace alone, then works don’t really equate in, therefore, that’s where that logic leads. Does that catch why I’m saying that to that now? Or no? Yeah, total depravity is right. But the problem with total depravity is that that argument means we’re not agents in the world, and that can’t be correct, and therefore. Using Augustinian logic, Luther was an Augustinian monk, they are using Augustine’s provisional sin doctrine, the Orthodox and all the other Church Fathers live a multiple fall. Right, well, no, no, I mean, I think, well, this is the problem. I agree with Phlebas, total depravity means sin impacts all areas of life. That’s just a restatement of original sin. That’s why I started with that, because they’re not saying anything else, right? They think they are, and they’re spreading it out, and saying total depravity means we have no control over being saved. Which means you’re not an agent in the world, and that can’t be true, because you definitely are an agent in the world, and therefore, the extension of their argument is incorrect, and when they say total depravity, they’re actually only referring to original sin, but they’re trying to be smart about it, and create a theology out of something that has no theology, and therefore, they’re showing that. Out of Augustine’s original sin. And this is Augustinian original sin, just the apple, and that’s it, which is not a full Christian view. That is, that’s reifying, and making doctrine off of a reified thing, and ignoring new dramatic stuff. It’s a series of obvious and foolish mistakes. Right. That shouldn’t matter, well, because you should just take it as an axiom, and stop there, instead of trying to roll it back. Yeah. When does the bread become the Eucharist, or when does life begin? Yeah. The exact question. There’s the Gnosticism. I can show people. I need to. There isn’t a difference in those. Right, but that’s the Protestantism, right? That’s the Gnosticism. Just all Protestantism reduces to Gnosticism, because they have to know, they have to know what they’re signing up for before they’re baptized. They have to know whether or not, and when the bread turns into body, and the wine turns into, they have to know these things. And if they don’t know them, and the way you know is, you use the material book, the Bible, to get to God. And it’s like, no, that’s all crazy Gnosticism, and it can’t be right. You just need a new plan, because you’re gonna reduce to Gnosticism every time without meddling. It’s also hermetically sealed, because that’s why you can’t get into this. Gnosticism. Right. The Hermeticism, which is like, there’s no argument out of that. There are places to go. So I’m trying to get your argument better. Let’s see if I’ve gotten it. Okay. People who are communing with evil, are going to that place that reduces any optionality. Some, I would say, I would say it this way. I would say, some of the evil, right? Not all of it. I’m not making a universalist, all-encompassing argument. Some of the evil is definitely people who know they’re doing evil, by way of going someplace as far away from light as you can get, to increase that darkness. To do something so dark that it makes the darkness darker. Or keeps the darkness going. It doesn’t have to expand it, but make it deeper. You just have to keep it going. What popped in my head is, in Lord of the Rings, Melkor, the deceiver, the Satan figure, when humans and elves start popping up on Middle Earth, he comes out as a very illuminated thing, and he gives them stories about how the other high beings are going to torture them. Meanwhile, that’s what he’s doing. Well, look, I have to defend Jacob’s version. Because again, the thing that people like Vandu Klay don’t understand is that when they make the total depravity argument, they’re reducing agency. And when they reduce agency, you’re saying, you have no control over being saved. And that brings you away from the responsibility of doing work, and that is new work. I’m with you, but let’s do this. So what I argued in Jacob about so long ago was about the influence of Newton on, so Newtonian physics on Calvinist theology. And Jacob’s like, what are you fucking talking about? And I was like, you don’t, you sit down and listen. Because Calvin is trying to understand this thing. God knows everything. He now has this trap where he thinks space and time are a thing. Calvin is around when we are just getting the ideas of space and time. We didn’t have Einstein yet telling us that’s not a thing. It’s space time. We’re at the early stages where it’s space and time. And then you have him in dealing with that. Then you have generations of his theologians going forward. And then you have this fucking brilliant guy, Newton. Had a comment earlier that I’ll throw it now about Newton. Who Newton realizes that there’s scary action at a distance. Yes. And that I can account for it with math, but that can’t be right because action can’t take place from a distance. But then when you go down to the micro level, have you ever touched anything if you actually technically, no. Well, that’s Zeno’s paradox. That’s just, they just keep rediscovering Zeno’s paradox and not understanding what it means. It’s exactly, but it’s also, I can show you Einstein’s show you a strong force, weak force. Trust me, you break that rule, shit goes down. It’s not a rule you break on willy-nilly. But laws of physics can’t be broken. That’s why they’re the wrong term. A law you break, you get punished. A law of physics you break and you didn’t break the law. Go show me something unnatural. It’s, well, look, look, it’s the lack of distinction between the law of God, which is unbreakable, right? Or a law of nature like gravity that is unbreakable, right? It doesn’t say it doesn’t have exceptions, right? It just says it’s unbreakable. Like there’s no place where gravity doesn’t cause the phone to fall. I can get balls of water to go upwards with two speakers playing with each other. Right, right, but that’s not breaking the law of gravity. It’s not breaking the law of gravity. It’s adding another law that’s overriding the law of gravity. Right, but that’s different from the law of man, which is derived bottom up from action. And we don’t make that, this was in the monologue, we don’t make that distinction. We don’t make the distinction between those things. And that’s part of the problem, is that we keep using the word law in two different ways. And the law of God is non-negotiable, or semi-negotiable maybe, but the law of man is fully negotiated. Like it’s not based on axiomatic assumptions. It’s based on participation. And it’s not, you don’t follow a law of man. What you do is you follow the pattern, and when you break that pattern, right, you break, it’s effectively a rule and not a law, right? Then it’s adjudicated in a court. So the law of God is not adjudicated in a court. And so they’re not the same thing. And we just have a deep confusion about that because it’s called subcognitive grammar. We’re equivocating on the word law. Calvinists do need to know exactly what happens. The Dutch Calvinists split, right, over, they’re constantly gonna split over everything. They’re constantly gonna split over everything, like, because they’re Protestants. And Protestants can’t hold things together because they refuse to submit to a structure. It’s that simple. They just refuse. And then they whine about the fact that the thing they had been so precious for however many months before. Yeah, they see the Latin structure in everything. So they can’t recognize a healthy structure. It is instantaneously see the Roman imposition. But they’re perfectionists by design because their interpretation of the Bible is primary. And look, like I had this, I’ve had this argument with three different Protestants over the past three years. And it’s very hard to get them to engage in fair enough. Like I’m not saying they should engage because we just beat the crap out of Emmanuel and I because they’re wrong. And they know they’re wrong. They do crazy things. Like they say, well, everything after the Nicene Creed is bullshit. And then they pull in things after the Nicene Creed. Oh, these are Protestants. You have to pull in interpretations from either Calvin or Luther or both. You have to. Otherwise you would have had a hand on it. If they think that Mother Mary had more than baby Jesus, if they think that the Theotokos bore other children to Joseph, you’re a fucking idiot. And I love you. That’s okay. Even Luther, go read Martin Luther, the Augustinian monk who started the pulpit. He understood that she’s a temple priest and she’s gonna remain a virgin her whole life. She’s married to a widowed man. She has a family. It’s way deeper than all of that. It’s way deeper. They claim that the reason why the Catholics are wrong is all stuff from the Nicene Creed. And I’m like, but dude, you’re arbitrarily picking stuff after the Nicene Creed. And you don’t realize it. And then when you ask them why they hate the Catholics, they come up with a bunch of bullshit things that never were in Catholicism at all, ever, ever. It’s just all stuff they were told as Protestants to hate Catholics. And I’m not saying they don’t have any points or they’re wrong about everything, but I haven’t found any critiques that are correct. It’s like, well, like at some point, like when they give up, but they won’t give up because they’re all ad ad adax. I don’t know if you saw it, but any place we can work on that, but he’s just crazy about it. Well, I mean, the hermetic, you’re hermetically sealed when you do these things. You’re hermetic. It’s the only way to go forward. But Jaco Willing talks about detaching. And there’s why I think the Solomon effect and why I think some things are very important are it helps you see where you’re at, where you’ve been, where you’re going. If you’re always in your own perspective and you can’t stop and go, hmm, I wonder what my best friend from high school would think of me right now. Right. He was here. Stop and do that. That’s fucking healthy. And like, let it hit you. Don’t be like, ah, nevermind. That’s what you’ll want to do instantly. And you’re like, no, no, no. What would, you know, I had a lot of talks. I know what you would think. Like, you would think of this. And then you can move because I want everybody in this little corner to do a chat and do it, which is go join your Lions Club. Go join a nonprofit or some shit in your community. Do something. Submit. Submit to your church. Submit to any church and submit, right? Did you see the dust up with Sam Adams and his claim that he was excommunicated and all that nonsense? He’s a Unitarian, right? Yeah. What happened? Somewhere in my head. He claimed he was excommunicated and then admitted that what he was describing had nothing to do with excommunication. And then said- Excommunication from who? From his church, from whatever church he was. So then he says, oh, they still want me there and they’re still willing to give me the Eucharist. It’s like, well, then you weren’t excommunicated. Then you weren’t excommunicated. Right, like, what are you talking about? And then he says, I wish there were an authority to appeal to. Then he goes into the story of how he deliberately chose a church that was non-denomination. That doesn’t have authority, yeah. And then he says, you know what the real problem is? I talked about my views with my pastor. He said everything was fine and everything was okay. And the Board of Elders knew about my YouTube channel and didn’t have a problem with it. And then of course, the pastor changed and the Board of Elders changed. And I’m like, this is why Protestantism doesn’t work because it doesn’t have a tradition that it carries down for even one generation. Never, never 30 years, never. They’ve changed in that time. And then I was pointing out to him. And so he’s playing the victim card. And I’m like, you’ve got to be kidding me. If this were a secular thing, you’d be pissed. But when you play the victim card, you expect all kinds of special favors. And oh, poor Sam. I’m like, you did this to yourself and this was inevitable because Protestantism is like this. And then I pointed out the real problem with Protestants that bothers me more than anything else is that all Protestant denominations seem to believe somehow that if you are around somebody else, whether you speak your ideas or not, that your ideas will infect that other person through magic. They all act that way. And so the thing he’s actually complaining about not being thrown out of the church, they said, you can’t play music in the church anymore because of your views. And your wife can’t watch children anymore in the nursery because of your views. That’s it. That’s all that happened. And now he’s upset. And it’s like, well, you kind of did that to yourself and it was inevitable. There was no way in hell that that wasn’t going to happen. It was definitely going to happen. Maybe it took less time, maybe it would have taken more time, but it was going to happen because you’re in a Protestant church. Like Protestant churches aren’t denominations. They don’t have long lasting statements of faith. They don’t have long lasting anything. They can’t do that because they’re not submitted to a higher structure because they give every individual the right to interpret the Bible themselves. And so they prattle on about bad Bible interpretations and every single Protestant has a different interpretation of the Bible. I’m like, they’re all right. The argument you’re using there, I’m pretty sure. I think the argument you’re using there is best formulated by Harold Bloom, was an English professor at Stanford or one of them, but he’s an actual Gnostic. Like his self-proclaimed view is a Gnostic. And he claimed that the Baptist church, I was raised in the Baptist and many others, like Mormons and stuff are a Gnostic. And I need to help James Lindsay distinguish Gnosticism and big G, small G, and then Hermeticism. Because when you say hermetically sealed thoughts, people are, I think that’s the only way, because Hermeticism is sort of like the system that keeps it going, but Gnosticism is the thing they’re looking at. They see this thing and you only see what you’re already looking at. So they see that there’s a thing behind it. They see this. Why you can’t get them out of the Bible interpretation. How about this guy? When you create a closed system, Gnosticism is inevitable. Yeah, because there’s someone outside the system who knows it. And that’s what I mean by they’re the same thing because one leads to the other. One will always lead to the other. All of it. One is a function that leads to the results of the other. Yeah, that’s what I mean by that. I actually think that’s the argument I heard out of Lindsay. Now I could be wrong, but that’s what I heard. That’s right. That’s what he’s trying to say, but he says they’re conflated and I’m not gonna unpack them right now because they don’t have the time. That’s usually what he says. I got on the talk with him recently where we did have the time. And what you’re able to do is like, there’s Hermeticism, which is like a hermetically field argument of some sort. That really, you need to have catchphrases for these things to cement in your head. So for me, Hermeticism is intellectual insight. It’s when I’m able to idea wander, I can put the citation daisy chain going where I’m actually just citing my professor’s professor, but I don’t fucking tell him anything. And then all those references and stuff that I’m citing are actually all from these three labs. I know everyone there. None of their work cites anything outside of what we already know. We have no inward streams. For the work of Yoc Paintsup, he’s still publishing. His paper that just came out, it’s about top down versus bottom up predictive processing. And it is, I’ve read it like three times and my brain just still can’t. First of all, the dude’s obviously like 200 IQ, but he’s talking about emanation, emergence, all that stuff at the biggest level possible. Like Yoc Paintsup really knows what he’s talking about. And you can find all these papers online. Your taxes pay for them. You should know how papers work. This is very strangely, Mark, because I’m… You’re not trying to go for branding or for certain things. You’re doing the more to the Peterson approach of individually helping people. And then you don’t care if they subscribe to your channel and come back every time you stream. If what they got was useful and they’re out doing something useful, then that was the success. Leave the Discord servers, leave the stream, leave the YouTube, yes. So you have freaks like me who are never in, and then I pop in and I go bye for a couple of months and I pop in. And I keep an eye. And when everybody’s doing something, I’m subscribed to all your guys’ shit. So when you’re all looking at something, like Chad mentioned in that video, it was on my stream and I almost watched it with Kingsman, Paul Kingsdorf. Because Paul Kingsdorf was raised a globalist. We’re all gonna save the trees by making the new technology that’s gonna save the planet. We just need to all be hippies, technological hippies. And then he popped into reality one day and was like, holy shit, this doesn’t make any sense. Like, it just like, whack. And more people need that. And if you’re helping people do that, I’m not against your mission. Grim is off doing his other thing. And I realized what Grim is up to. I finally, finally get a click type, Sally. I have your box somewhere. Look at this. Yeah, I don’t know what Grim’s up to. I wouldn’t, look. Yeah, I can try. Maybe, let me, I’ll try in a moment. So Grim is gonna use, okay, let’s all shit on the Stoa for a sec. But there’s some great content on the Stoa also. So you can do both. I’ve had heated conversations with dude. He left first. Sting. But Stoa has a good channel format. When their channel is running properly, it’s when they invite people to talk about stuff they haven’t published, they haven’t shared yet. What are you thinking about that you’re not sure about, that you’re just kind of like feeling? That’s when Stoa was like fucking, so they have a Daniel Smokkenberger. And this is when Daniel Smokkenberger was like producing a bunch of shit and couldn’t let anybody know. But he’s literally like making a Netflix documentary that can explain to plebe what’s going on. And he’s not even putting his name on the project at all. Like, dude, Daniel Smokkenberger’s playing the shit close to his chest, props. He has this thing called converting Moloch from Sith to Jedi. And the metaphor he uses is who could beat Emperor Palpatine? Luke couldn’t. Luke couldn’t go cut him up. You had to have Darth Vader baptized. Now this is my, if I get to talk to Daniel, I have two words for him. I’m gonna go, baptized betrayal. That’s Darth Vader. We figured out that story. How do you defeat the evil emperor? You have the proper turn of a betrayal. How, I mean, that’s the only way. I mean, that’s a fucking head and talk. I didn’t think of that. But he didn’t say that. That’s me thinking about shit he said two years ago or whatever. And I, like when he said that shit, I was like, whatever he’s talking about is important. He can’t even explicate what he’s saying because it’s like on the tip of his. But that’s what I see is happening over here. And I think Graham is doing that. Well, he’s a, I mean, Daniel’s much more. Do you like this framing? Because I hate this framing. I don’t think this framing is good. The good, bad, and the right. I don’t get the framing. Yeah, I know. I think it’s contradictory and therefore I’m not in. Yeah, I mean, I just thought he’s, he’s not even a bad man. He’s someone who’s, he’s okay, if you know Carol Quigley, Carol Quigley is important world figure for stuff. He wrote Tragedy and Hope, Big Sick Booth, Look, Explaining What Happened, How the Vatican Banks Work, How the OSS was, Socialist Fabians, they went in. Well, look, yeah, yeah, I don’t wanna get on that rabbit hole. That’s a rabbit hole. I wanna point out, the problem with good bad man is that you’re assuming that you can judge an action as bad on some material basis. It’s a problem of materialism. Badness is not in the action. That’s an error. The fact that you killed somebody is not bad in and of itself. And it’s not intent, cause you can’t get it intent. And it’s not end result because that’s ridiculous, right? It has to be, it has to be, is it oriented towards the good? And so you can imagine that if somebody breaks into your house and threatens your family with a weapon and you kill them, that you were doing that for the good. And so the fact that they died because you killed them doesn’t make you a good bad man. You’re still a good man. You didn’t do anything bad. Killing is not bad. Like this is the problem. The overly dogmatic thinking lead you into these weird contradictions of good bad man. It’s ridiculous. It’s just insane. The goodness is in the action, not in the implementation. Yeah, I see it as formulaic. And I think more of a, I think in constellation is like the metaphor. So I live where there’s stars outside and I point people at a Ryan’s belt when I go hiking and stuff with them. Like I take people out in trucks or I’m walking with my homeless people in. I didn’t ever got to say what I thought Grandma’s doing, but I think like this and then I can go back to what that is. I point about Ryan’s belt and a lot of people know that because I’m in black at least. Thank God they at least know something. So Ryan’s belt, the belt of this hunter, Ryan, and Ryan is hunting, right? He’s doing something, which means there’s a thing he’s hunting over there and he has stuff with them. So he has dogs, there’s a deer over there. Once I show you a Ryan belt, I can show you a lot of stuff because I can show you a lot of stuff. I can show you a lot of stuff because his belt means he’s wearing pants. Okay, who wears pants? Humans. What do humans do? Hunt and gather or they die. Okay, so there’s like really basic stuff that you can show. So what I see Grim doing and why I brought up the baptizing betrayal type thing is he’s me if I was 15 years older and didn’t get a wife who just like me and her somehow, the stars did their thing or whatever. Because I’m totally susceptible to be like that. I have no real impetus to go do stuff. I could ride this life out on his email. And that has nothing to do with my skin. It has to do with the fact like where I was born, who my parents are and like I got adopted by my grandparents off the bat, bro, I got it better than everybody. Like people get adopted by your grandparents you’re either really, really bad or have it really, really good. That’s what happened. I know the staff, I work with them. I know it. I got it really, really good. My parents moved zip codes to make sure I was eligible to get into a certain school. They did a lot of sacrifices that normal parents couldn’t do because they had already raised children into adulthood and they could see this whole thing and they’re like, fuck, we’re doing this again. Let’s go here. Like they got a completely different way of viewing the system. So all of a sudden, now this, I don’t, are you in your 40s-ish? I don’t even know. I have no idea how old you are. I do have an age. That is correct. There is an age. 40s-ish, up, down? I’m not going into that. Oh my God. That means, tell me your real name. I can go figure it out. Last name and whereabouts. You can, just don’t tell me. I don’t want to. Okay, I’m 31. Okay, I was born in 91. So I have a very weird thing because my dad’s a Vietnam vet. I was raised by a bunch of World War II vets and Korean vets and Vietnam vets. So none of my friends know what the fuck I am talking about ever. They just don’t get it. Because you don’t make any sense. Well, yeah, but all the vets I hang out with get at me just fine. Yeah, yeah. Well, because they’ve been through some shit. Yeah. No, I took vets all the time, right? And they, we totally get it. The people who don’t get it are the people who grew up in affluence, right? I was homeless. I’ve lost everything three times. Yeah, I was the poorest kid in my whole place. My parents tricked the system. My parents were brilliant. My dad was a professor. He never got paid well. The economic crash happened. Guess who lost a bunch of money? My dad’s retirement fund. And he trusted the system. My dad’s like totally got betrayed by everything. And here he is doing his best to help me. I mean, that’s timeline wise is weird, but that’s why I, to talk about anything like this, to talk about what I’m about to say, I have to make it personal to me. I put it in the game. That’s me. I see it that you and Grim are somehow doing a very similar project. There’s like over the last few months, I’ve been real bird’s eye, barely been on Discord. I think I had some talks with Andre one-on-one, but you guys are doing it literally from such, I’ll even use what you said earlier. It’s like, there’s a different aspect completely. You’re avoiding all branding and stuff, but you’re wearing a monocle. You look like a James Bond villain on purpose, right? A pirate, man. I get it, but it’s like, you’re leaning into, you’re not, if someone makes fun of you for that, it’s not gonna stick. You’re like, I don’t know. Yeah, it doesn’t work. Look, Sally’s got a lot of influence over this whole project. So yeah. Okay, I didn’t know all that, but yeah. See, I didn’t, but. Look at the map. Look at the thing in the corner, all that Sally stuff. Yeah, so there’s steaming, there’s these things, but I’m someone who like, I’m literally, tomorrow I have to hang out with the Republicans at the Reagan luncheon. I’m sorry. I can’t watch my aisles out. I’m sorry for myself, I’m brutal. I’m a sunflower. Whew. Can I give you this? I’m friends with other signups and stuff. Yeah, I’m going, I’m the guest. No, no, no, no. A list of people you need to take care of. Oh, I mean. Cowards, they’re a bunch of cowards. Unprincipled cowards. Won’t stand up. Not all of them, then. But see, there’s go-able ones too. That’s what’s crazy. We got a lady to come out of retirement and she’s the only one doing anything, but she just doesn’t. Okay, there’s a movie called Amsterdam. It’s George W. Bush all over again. Over the left has a point, and so I’ll give them what they want because I don’t have standards. You’re one of them. Stand by, you muppet. What the hell’s wrong with you? No, hold the line, hold the line. Don’t listen to these idiots. Their critiques are invalid. Yeah. Stephen Coughlin, having been now completely into his stuff, Stephen Coughlin has based his fuck, by the way. Holy moly. Worked for the defense secretary, used to work in the Pentagon. He understands how this stuff works. They’re using this as a smoke screen, smoke smear, and that’s why I think both of you guys are good at calling out smoke smear. Does that, is that making any sense at all yet? Well, that’s correct. I’m able to work with people who hate each other. That’s correct. My board is a bunch of people who hate each other, and then the only thing they agree with me. Did you see the stream that I went on Grimm’s channel? Yeah, I saw a very bad face. Yeah. Oh, okay, good. Well, yeah, where he raged, created his own stream. I’m like, your own channel, that’s fine by me. I don’t know what it is. Exactly. Right, well. That’s why I was extra interested. I think there’s something between you two with the smoke and mirrors. Well, part of Grimm’s problem is because he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist, he thought I knew a bunch of stuff that honestly, I looked at it three times, and there was no freaking way that I could have made the connections that he made because he had forbidden knowledge about the person in question that I didn’t know. I didn’t know his real name and his online name. I didn’t know his online name. I’ve never seen him before. I have no way to, and there was no way I contend, and maybe I’m wrong about this, but it doesn’t matter. The first point’s enough to hold. I don’t think there was any way by looking at the comments on his video that I would have known that he was talking about me and my stream. None of those connections were there. None of them. So he’s all upset about something, and I’m like, dude, I don’t even know you. And I was legit like, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I have no idea what you’re saying. I wanted to facilitate the whole time because I’m like, I’ve watched bullies come into this little corner, and if I’m not there or someone snappy isn’t there, they can get a little foothold real quick and they start spouting off some really dumb shit. I called out two or three on streams, one on Manuel I proudly did, Kim. Be blissfully ignorant, bro. Do it. I know too much. Don’t do these things. When this IDW thing started, I was like, I was running, Eric Weinstein’s glossary. I met all these people. I had lunch with them and met them and they’re full of shit, almost all of them. Very few are not full of shit. Andre is so real, it hurts. I’m like, how are you in here? Who are you? You’re like an alien. Chad, real. I’m like, again, what’s going on? Yeah, don’t use Discord. Yeah, I’ve been like, I get dragged into individual ones. And then a long time ago, we had a response. What was it called? Accountability group. And the people from that accountability group still call my ass on shit. It’s amazing. They’re the only ones that I’ve like, you know, you can find my number on my Zoom app. You can Google my name and find my phone number. By the way, since they kicked us off of Awakening, we’re kicking everyone’s ass for attendance on Mysurf. We’re blowing away BOM, we’re blowing away FDMC. I’m like, you guys did it to yourselves. You’re so anxious to rebel and get your own way that you’re screwing up. And that’s fine. Super fun three months. That’s what I’ve seen in this whole thing is, I’ve been away. And I think there’s, I mean, I’m gonna sound like an actual conspiracy theorist. So like, breathe with me now and then conspire. I genuinely think that there’s people who love you and him not being able to get anything done together. Should you two be working together? Oh, we’re both. But you should be able to contribute and help. You should be able to recognize you’re definitely part of this project. You’re on that one. There are agents of chaos everywhere. And we identified one early on. We can get thrown off of FDMC until a woman made an accusation against him and then he got kicked off. But it was too late. And then he slimed his way into BOM and he’s still running around causing trouble being an agent of chaos. Gotta say blessings, blessings to the creator, Mr. Joe, our atheist demiurge of BOM. The private conversations I’ve had with that man sometimes, muy bueno. Cause I would just be like, hey, is this guy a troll? And he would just let me know where he’s at with him. With no filter. It’s like this, cause he trusted me enough. I didn’t just pick names and I was consistent. We need something like that. You need, it can’t just be him now. He’s busy. But I think the flaw is fundamentally in who is being caught by Van der Kley. And I think it’s all rebels. And so they’re all like crying on each other’s shoulders and stuff now. And it’s like, well, that’s great. But we need people who can build things. And people who can build things are not rebels because rebels can’t build things. Because you’re too busy going, two bricks. No, we can’t have two bricks. It’s like, oh, sheep. What is wrong with you people? They’re so prone to criticism that they can’t put anything positive forward. And that’s where I see all this going though. So I’d like to put that out there. I could name at least one, but you don’t even need to. And then yeah, Joey’s boss. Seriously though. Watching people. What was the conspiracy theory? There we go. Answer the conspiracy theory question. Oh no, where was I at? I know too many. You didn’t answer. You said I’m gonna sound like a conspiracy. Well, I think you were just pointing. There are people actively conspiring. Yes, there are. Many of them have three letter names. It’s like fucking weird. No, no, no, no. The controls are lazy. I get that. But I’ve called some of these people out literally years ago and they destroyed YouTube channels just by appearing on them and messing with the guest and the person didn’t realize what was happening. And the channel’s gone. And I’m like, bro, I sent you 10 bucks in a patron so you just read my comments. Don’t let him near you. And to watch that happen to people on Good Faith is painful. So YouTube, I actually think are in Good Faith and it’s driving me nuts because I’m like, okay, I’ve gotten a lot of progress in my local community at getting people who are completely at ends, like all the best groups. They used to just not, they would on purpose make their events at the same time. So you had to pick which one to go so they could call you out for not showing up there. Right. That’s fucked up. If you’re doing that, I don’t like you. Even if I agree with you, fuck you, I’m not hanging out with you. I’m not hanging out with you. I’ll go do my own shit. I’m here every day doing my thing. Come join me. And that’s what I see you both doing. But it was also, there had to be some shit going on. Like the whole framing of it because I was watching it live. And like I saw it live. There’s 15, like before the thing happened, I stopped it. And I was like, wait, this thing’s wrong. And then I didn’t read anything. I came back like 45 minutes later, realized, oh, it’s pretty short, started watching it. And then I was like, ah, I was right. Something is fucking wrong underneath. What’s wrong is the conspiracy theorist doesn’t realize that he’s being manipulated. And people try to manipulate me and it never worked. And I’m just like, I don’t know who you think you are. Or who you think you’re up against. But your tricks are not going to work ever. And I will keep on with that. Your aspect disguising is powerful, Mark. The aspect disguise that you have, I mean, your strength is your weakness. And you’re at least not shy about that, right? Like it doesn’t even offend you when I’m just like, and that’s what you do. And I can just make fun of you at the word and it’s like, and we’re on. I don’t have to like, cause you’re a man enough to not fucking care. You’ve been in Boston, you’ve been made fun of before. Well, and look, this is something Sally Jo was saying, cause she just figured this out not too long ago. She said, I have told multiple people, and she’s done it in front of us. You can tell Mark Emanuel that you disagree with them and you don’t know why, and they will just stop and move on. And no one would do it. No one. They would not do it. They would insist on continuing the fight, even though they had already lost and could not possibly win. And we wouldn’t- Whenever I win with you guys, it’s because I actually will die on that hill. It’s cause I’m not trying to beat you. It’s cause I will die on this hill. And so you guys lose. And we think that if you’ll die on that hill, that we’re going to find where we’re wrong, right? Yes, that’s the correct thing to do. It’s not a problem. You’re supposed to die on the hill, and we’re supposed to kill you. And if we do, then we have to wonder if we’re right or wrong. That’s the correct thing to do. Let’s not name drop. There was a German girl for a while, or something German or European or something. And I said over my dead body. Do you remember that? Are you here? I mean, the person lost their fucking mind. That was anahita. They were so offended. They worked in a trans thing, and we were talking about trans children. Yeah, that’s anahita. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Over my dead body. And I was like, I’m not saying over your dead body. I’m not saying over your family’s dead body. I’m not saying over, saying over my, I am willing to die over my principles, which means you would have to kill me for them. Totally flipped out. And you just said you would, and you realized that you are willing to kill me because I believe something different than you. And if you can’t come to terms with the fact that I am willing to die for them, there’s nothing I will let you fucking kill me. I won’t even fight back. I’ll stand there and tell you why I’m going to let you kill me for it. I won’t. There’s other things I’ll kill for, very few, but like, oh, it was very funny to me. And it’s like, let me see, like, oh, oh, you’re an elitist to the degree where your judgment of how I should see things determines if I am valid in what I get to do. I mean, whoa, that is so, that’s hermeneutic, hermeneutically sealed thought completely. Look at this, Guy. Look at this. Sally Jo is admitting she deliberately, needlessly trolls me for no reason. Just for quote, good measure. Whatever that means, whatever. I mean, it’s so not a problem. It’s really funny when people get upset too, because we’re usually just like, yeah, whatever, man. And they’re like flipping out and we’re like, it’s not a big deal, dude. And yeah, they can’t let things go. There we go. You know, we kind of properly come at these, like. Theo is correct. I have thick skin because I understand real struggle, right? And I’m on a discernment mission for better discernment, right, for others and myself, like mostly for others. So I would like to put this out here into the little corner. I’m a facilitator, I got trained facilitator. I genuinely, because I like did a deep dive, I have an account that I’ve never had anybody link back to me still. And it’s been since like the very first weeks of IDW, bullshit. So I have my little ninja account and I’m not gonna say, but I know something fucking up. And it’s not like, what’s funny is it’s like, here’s the two people calling out smoke and mirrors in this little corner the most. Right, right. It’s like everybody else is watching the magic show and you guys have night vision goggles. You’re like, there’s a fucking wire here. There’s hinges right there on the door, guys. Like that’s not a wall, that’s a door, there’s hinges. And everybody’s like, no, you talked about it, it’s a door. There’s no door there, what door? And it’s like we’re arguing about the door swings in or out and I’m like, bro, it’s a dual hinge. It swings in and out, it doesn’t matter. You can push or pull it. Fuck. We’re arguing about the wrong thing. Well, and right, they worry about the detail. Well, this is the same trick that people use to redeem people when they say, well, you don’t know if they’re evil or if they’re incompetent. And I’m like, no, no, I don’t care. They have to go and either event. Like why are we wasting time trying to figure that out when we already know the correct course of action? And then on the backside, you can figure out if you wanna try to rehabilitate them and what that would look like. I don’t care about that. And people flip out. I’m like, no, no, no, do the thing first and then do the other thing. Could you find, so live at the Lowe’s is one of the best things on ancient faiths. L-O-U-H-S, they’re a couple out of Florida. Very based couple, like super good. When they talk about marriage, orthodox, they mentioned that like when you get married, there’s now a third entity. Yes. There’s now the marriage. Right. The devil gets married. The devil now gets a double because if he gets you to go to heaven and your partner doesn’t, he also gets your marriage to not go to heaven. Oh, okay. I see. So like when you’re going into marriage, there’s actually more risk and the devil is going to have more leverage and gets more out of it. The risks are higher and there’s more in it for the devil to go. I love that. And that’s what I see is happening here is you two should not be arguing all the time. Respectfully. Someone primed him, someone on purpose didn’t prime you who should have primed you. Because if you had been primed and he was primed, that could have gone. If he wasn’t and you weren’t, that would have gone. I know how to set people up for meetings. Literally what I do for a living is make sure the right people are in the right room at the right time. They all have the little bit of what we’re gonna do, but they don’t know exactly. But this is kind of what we’re here for. Right. And then don’t let them talk. You have to set it and then you sit back and then you just let them go and go and go. Well, somebody has to set the container. Yeah, exactly. And I see it was framed. I’ve watched the manipulations. I go in front of judges and watch this shit happen live. That’s exactly what I saw here is, oh, there’s someone who sees that here’s a bunch of people who are not being paid any money, highly motivated, getting stuff done in their communities, encouraging others, doing everything possible to help, doing it poorly, but if they’re doing it, no one else is doing fucking anything. Okay, how do we stop this? How do we stop this? You just go in and cause the most stupid, petty, fractious, detailed, art, minutiae things, even though you guys agree on like most of the, and this is me and Jacob, like me and Jacob have shit to handle, but I’d still want to have dinner with him. He’s respectful enough, but like, bro, the Talmud is fucking evil in my opinion. It says I don’t have a Nefesh. So sorry, I can fucking show you that. So if you say that’s a holy book and that I don’t have a soul in your holy book, fuck you. Straight to your face. Sounds good. Fair enough. And he says that, but he didn’t even know that Paul and Stephen had the same rabbi. He said I was lying. And then when Stephen DeYoung told him that, he had to go, hmm, maybe that weird guy up in the mountains in Arizona is not full of shit about everything he says. Since Pastor Paul and our preach, Stephen DeYoung, and pretty much everything he opens his mouth about because he keeps his mouth, usually he’s quiet. And then when he talks, he can’t shut his fucking mouth. Right. Maybe. So, and that’s me showing love and respect though. It’s like, he’s also nice enough. He didn’t say ball of Tarsus when he was talking to a, yeah, it’s California. Thank you. California, it’s a team of DeYoung. That’s probably a lot of it. When I explain Mark to people, I’m like, have you ever met someone who works at MIT? Because if you haven’t, you don’t know any, you don’t know what I’m talking about. They’re their own priest class. Noam Chomsky discates if it’s real or not. That is the way that place works. Noam Chomsky is God of MIT. So that little Boston clique, if you know that, you can just fucking do something. But if you’re blind to it, you don’t know what’s happening. And you, I mean, one of our very first discussions, you described the movie with Affleck and what’s his name in the bar. He’s like, no, it’s real. It’s like, you said it, not happens fucking. No, no, that, yeah. Well, I mean, allegedly it was a fiction story that Matt Damon wrote while taking a course at the community college across the river in Charleston, actually. Right, and I was like shocked. I’m like, wait a minute, you went to Bunker Hill and wrote this? This is amazing. But actually that sort of thing happens there. I used to hang out in Harvard Square all the time. Like, I know these people, one of my best friends, B-H-K-M-I-T. In fact, today we did an event at the university in Columbia and I had never been on campus before. Because why would I go to a campus? I know campus is better than most people. I grew up in Boston, 30 colleges and universities within 10 square miles. I’ve probably been on all the stupid campuses in Boston at least once, Harvard and MIT many, many, many times. The traffic was crazy. I was like, ah, I didn’t know where I was going. There was construction, I couldn’t find parking. It was nuts. And I was like, this is the South? This is nothing like this. This is like Boston. I was like 10 minutes in panic. I was like, when did I end up in Boston? I got away from it. And then I was like, well, this isn’t that bad in Boston, 20 minutes a circle in the car to find parking. And then I get into the building and I’m like, because it was just like my childhood. You know when I was younger, when I used to cruise the halls of MIT and Harvard for no reason, right? And go over to the lab and talk to people and just hang out. So it was very comforting at that point. But yeah, that was the funny part with that whole thing. Oh, here we go. You’re the only reason for after midnight internet. Look at that. Very sweet. But I see that as your strengths. When we have a bully in this little corner, we need people who can fucking call a spade a spade. And not like I deal with fucking psychopaths and stuff. I can call a spade a spade. Yeah, really bullshit. Nope. But there’s a pattern of academic bullshit. And if you know what it is, then you can spot it. And I know what it is because I’ve been around academics a lot and I’ve been around, people don’t understand. You know, they’re like, Eric Weinstein’s pretty smart. And I’m like, eh. I’ve been around people smarter than him my whole life. So to me it’s like, well, I mean, he’s all right. But at the end of the day, nah. Nah. I mean, Eric is not in the way where it’s like, he’s like a crux pointer, a case study though. He’s such a useful, because he actually has better math than the math they’re teaching. Yeah, yeah. But because they say it’s not perfect math, they won’t teach it. Even though. But that’s always the problem. That’s always the problem. That’s gotta be annoying. Look at my stuff. Skyler, look at my stuff. I’ve got a bunch of stuff that’s way better and nobody will touch it. And then, you know, when people don’t understand. They have to go through channel. But they don’t see the background. Like you’re not. He went through channel. He played the game and was screwed over. That’s different than what you and I are doing. I don’t know. Like my brother is like, what are your credentials? He got mad at me because we talked about an overdose. And I’m like, Roy. When you play that game, you get screwed over. My best friend told me this story. No, he didn’t tell me this story. I pieced it together. The same one there. He wouldn’t tell me. He went to University of Pennsylvania. One of them. I forget which one. One of the universities in Pennsylvania. And his professor stole all his work, all of it, and presented it as his own entirely. And that’s not unusual in academia. And that’s the problem. Is that if you play in that space with those people, you are going to end up getting screwed. Because it’s very much a matter of who you know and who likes you and who’s above you and who can steal your work. Because most people suck. Now, my stepfather, my stepfather had an unrecorded IQ. You guys were all impressed by like Derek Wines. I’m sorry. I knew three people with unrecorded IQs. Three. Okay. And a lot of the ideas I talk about, I talked about with professors at school. This is not new to me. You hearing me is new to you. These discussions are not new to me. I’ve been having them since I was homeless and before. Because I was in on that crowd before I got kicked out of my house and lost everything the first time. So these discussions are not new to Mark. They may be new to you. They’re not new to me. And even with my limited reading, because I refuse to read the Western canon, roughly speaking, not all of it, but almost all of it, people get confused. They get confused. Been trying to do meaning art since Owen Benjamin, Baer’s Madness, then Portal, then BOM, then sorting myself out, Group Two and Three, NP is the first movement that has been consistent. So many new ideas. Right. Right. Navigating patterns is the set of new ideas. Virtue by Seven will be amazing. There we go. We’ll get there. We’re almost there. Wisdom Tea is next. We’ll take over the world with Wisdom Tea. I just gotta get some wisdom funding for Wisdom Tea. Okay. I’m gonna step aside for just a sec with my mic on you. And you don’t have to land the plane if you don’t want. I have to be up for literally like, you don’t have to land the plane if you don’t want. I have to be up for literally like hours and hours. I guarantee I’m not gonna be going to see people radio. I woke up like three hours ago. So. Fair enough. I’m gonna say like, stars for me to catch up. I’m gonna land the plane real soon. So go right ahead. I noticed that when I’m on the thing finally. I’m like, I didn’t hear, I was in your vault. I’m like, whoa. What projects or kind of thinking about the right verbiage. What things are you trying to navigate? And I don’t want to like, I’m thinking if you can give me like a thoughtful answer in a minute or two of the arching one. So for me, I, Skyler, I found National Anthem and Togo Myth. They do education, support and advocacy. I actually believe in that mission. Especially the original. Like I read the original round the table. There’s a group of parents. These kids are getting screwed over by the system for mental health. They figured if we make an organization when we talk to them, they have to respond. So that’s a good thing. Proper. Good job them. So education, support and advocacy. So supporting people who have no idea what’s going on in the system, family members in crisis, whatever. Educating. What is out there already? What can be done? What do we actually already do? And then advocacy. If you know stuff, how can you go help the people who don’t know what’s happening? And maybe prevent stuff from happening. Like upstream. Those missions hit for me. And then when I noticed now they’re getting astroturfed and like there’s a new one coming in that undermined. They actually are dialectically opposed to educating. If I’m making sure people don’t have access to some stuff and I can’t be educated. I’m advocating. I can’t be advocating for for-profits if I’m advocating for peers. For-profits advocate for themselves. Peers don’t have anybody advocating for them. Why the fuck would I advocate for a for-profit? So they’re twisting the words, but using the same thing, which has allowed me to kind of make my presence stand out. In this little corner, I’ve seen this very consistently how I view it. Hours of talks, yeah, and other people’s channels, sporadically. Something like it’s a living thing. And it’s actually moving somewhere. Some people really don’t like the fact that it’s moving because they just want to study it. They’re so analyzing things. They don’t understand how to watch something move and learn from it. They need it to die so they can dissect it. You study the muscle tension on the ligament. And it’s like, bro. Right, right. How do I know bees fly? Cause they make pollen into honey. When you answer it that way, instead of, well, their wings and the bulbous and the bow, it’s like, bro. Phenomenology, not the theory that you didn’t experience cause you don’t experience them flapping their wings. You don’t, but you do experience their sweet honey. And so this little corner to me is about noticing what is the honey out there and reaping the benefits. And then not shitting on other people’s thing. That’s what I’ve enjoyed it from the beginning is I’ve been able to defend my positions while kind of going against others, but not like attacking. It’s kind of like what you said. If that person’s willing to die on the hill, let’s go find out where he dies or where he kills me. At least in the state fight. We’re not actually drawing knives on it right now. Let’s do that in an argument, fake argument, or be entertaining these ideas and see if we can. It’s just those projects. So I got Grim. So I got Grim to say what project I think I’m on. That’s the OA team. So I’m out doing the thing. He talked to Raj and some other people. I really clicked with Raj. I like Sikhs. Can’t tell. The Sikhs think I’m the Sikh, which lets me feel good. Because like Orthodox people think I’m Orthodox. Sikh people think I’m Sikh. Yeah, yeah. Hey, I’m… Sure. And… Yeah, I can join on Discord. I can join on Marx or whoever. I’m on every single one of them. A scholar of nihilism is usually my thing. And I usually have Skyler somewhere in my name. That OA team is what I see. That’s a project of him that I can help. For you, I see it, you’re kind of, you’re aware of the Bertrand Russell, the Russell conjugation. You’re trying to avoid that dialectic of how we say the thing can flip the way we’re able to even consider it. Stop terminating cliches. Just end the conversation before they start. And so I see that as your, but to me, and then Grim, that’s the way I see the bridges between you two. And the guy goes out in the field most of the time. And I come back and report, and then I go back and back in the field most of the time. And you guys don’t ask for reports. You just know when I have a report, I’ll come back, and I’ll go back out in the field. I work on the forest. I drive a Jeep into the forest for a living. I’m comfortable with them. This is what I’m kind of doing. And as I said earlier, the smoke and mirrors, I think you both have that talent. I don’t want you to like, I don’t care. I see wasted potential. I see something actually on purpose fusing this. I see someone getting their rocks off, being able to like cause drama over people who are actually doing some good, even though they’re doing it in silly ways. Yeah, look, Joey went into this, right? He said, those people hate success. And that’s why DOM is no longer. And then they blame Jacob, which I think is hysterical because Jacob had nothing to do with it. It was gone long before they got rid of Joey. They got rid of Joey, whether they realize it or not. That’s what happened. And that was shame on them for letting that happen, but they did. They let another agent of evil into the club and they didn’t see it that way, but they don’t understand what’s manipulating them. And this is the problem with products. Joey protocol, by the way, I know it’s not your favorite, but descriptive and prescriptive. Watching people’s light bulbs. Like Joey, he had a lot of practice with that little stick. He’s very healthy. That was a good thing that could have been going on. I said it recently to someone and he didn’t know what I was referring to. And I was like, how are you in the world? How do you have more access to the server than me? And you don’t know what I just said. What the fuck? No, because they’re not. What the fuck? No, they’re not. They’re not in the spirit. No, you’re not in the spirit of the club. They’re not setting, right. But the problem is, you can’t manifest a spirit properly. Yeah, we’re all in the club. Yeah, there’s a little spirit. There’s people I distrust. I’ve mentioned it and I saw him on one of the streams recently and it was very good, I thought, Andre. That’s actually one of the reasons I’m here right now, because of that stream, to be honest. I just very clicked with him. He’s a raw person and I gave him my heads up. And so when I heard him saying on that stream, he apologized to me too without even saying my name directly. He’s like, I don’t need an apology. He didn’t do anything wrong to me. I’m just saying. He doesn’t even bother me either. Exactly, I’m like, you’re too nice, dude. And they’re using you because none of them want to do this difficult thing. Right. Like that hurts me. And so watching someone like Andre not be protected gets me angry. I take people out. You hurt someone I care about, I fucking get rid of you. So if I come in this little corner, I actually will get rid of you people. Like I don’t play. This isn’t just a game. Well, and we shouldn’t. Like that’s the problem is too much tolerance. It’s way too much. And so I’d like to, I know you want to wind it down soon. So I just really want to clearly state, I don’t care where we do it, even on Jacob’s channel and have Jacob and me duke it for a little bit and calm down and then have you two come on and have Jacob just sit there and quiet and have me facilitate because I genuinely think something’s conspiring. The word conspire means to breathe together. Okay. We’re not breathing together. And that’s crazy. And there needs to be movement. I love my theory. My main theory is something like a diaspora. I think this community, the healthy way this community is gonna function is to come together, break apart a little, come together, break apart a little. And not in like some weird dialectic, no, just like look at the diaspora in the Bible. There will be a core group of people who kind of just won’t shake. There is a, right, but you still need a common tell us. Exactly, there needs to be that core group. That’s exactly right. And that’s what’s missing because nobody wants to submit. They don’t want to submit. And it’s like, well, but if you’re not gonna submit, you’re not gonna build something because you need structure. You need to submit to the structure. You can’t build something bigger than you. So Sally and I, I’m gonna just lay my cards on the table. So Sally and I hate the wedding track, marriage. What is it, one? The one for married people. And I can’t even look at it after a while. Yeah, yeah. There’s a bunch of single people talking about it. And it’s like, bro, how about, I made a post that got in trouble, got me like flames. I was like, how about only people who have marriage license get the fucking post on this channel and the rest of you shut your fucking mouth. Like, what the fuck do you know? We figured out what that was, right? I said they shouldn’t be in the marriage crisis. We did dating crisis. And Sally corrected me and said, no, no, no, this is the hollow crisis. They won’t even get to the dating phase. And she was right. They won’t even get to the thing. But they’re gonna tell you how to. This is great. Yeah, the hello crisis is perfect. It is perfect. They’re not even saying hello to women and they’re worried about marriage. I’m like, dude, you’re so far away from marriage. You have made much. Yeah, this one isn’t fake. It got like blessed by a dude and I had my whole family there and stuff. Right. And that’s the problem. But they tolerate that. They talk, I had to go in there and get rid of a mink cow by basically forcing the issue, right? And then Catherine comes in and gets rid of him, which just must have absolutely burned his balls. I was like, man, a woman just kicked you out of a Discord channel and you’re basically a misogynist. I’m still happy about that. I’m just happy that that happened. I’m like, this is fantastic. It’s like the Norm MacDonald book. They will not hold up standards. None of them will. And this is their problem. And then they go, why can’t we all get along? We were getting along, good things are gonna, and I’m like, no, that’s not how it works. You have to submit to the common good. And I think, look, Grimm has said before that Manuel and I are a bulwark against the flux. The flood of information is basically what he was talking about. I didn’t understand that at the time because I have a hard time following Grimm at times. He’s hard. I’ve reached out to Grimm many times. He’s asked me to do things and I’ve done literally hours of work at his request and he just doesn’t reciprocate. Yeah. I’m not mad. That’s honestly what I told him. I’m willing to engage. I’m willing to give you long comments. I’m willing to post them and then you can ignore them and make me post them somewhere else and I’ll do all that. I wrote it all down. But the problem is I’m not getting any feedback back. And it’s like, well, at a certain point, this isn’t worth my time because I can get feedback from other people. Or if I’m not gonna get feedback, I can at least do the things that I think are helping even if I never get the feedback. But Grimm is not one of those cases. I’m not saying I’m never gonna talk to him or anything like that. I’m just saying at a certain point, it’s gonna be like, this is a waste of my time. I can spend my time, energy, and attention on something else. And that’s more the issue. The project should be maybe not aligned, but they’re not even parallel. But to me, I know they’re pointed at something that’s actually the same. Well, you have to point at the good and you have to submit to pointing at the good. And you have to come to some kind of agreement. And this is the problem with Christians in general, materialists in particular, and Protestants, is that they will not hold a line. They will not create a boundary and defend it. And if you’re not gonna create a boundary and defend it, did you have to be mean to defend a boundary? Oh, well, you have to be a good, bad man. It’s like, well, I don’t care what framing you use. At the end of the day, if you’re not willing to stand up to your principles, you’re not principled. It’s that simple. And standing up for your principle means sometimes you get to knock somebody out. Sorry, it’s gotta happen. And you get fed to the lion, as you know. I mean, that’s genuinely how it is. You’re going to get eaten, some of you are gonna get eaten by lions, but you’re Christians, that’s what you’re for. But you should choose that. You don’t have to like cry while it’s happening. You can have pity on the people. The way it doesn’t happen in the moment is that you choose it. Like the act of choosing to get in front of the lion and risk being eaten, reduces the chance of being eaten. And they do not wanna understand that because it doesn’t reduce it to zero. They can’t have certainty they’re not gonna be eaten. And they’ve got families or whatever excuse of the week. It’s like, well, that’s great. But still, A, the lions are gonna eat you. If your argument is the lions are gonna eat me last, I got news. You’re not getting in. You’re not getting in. You’re not passing the pearly gates. You’re not getting into heaven. Sorry, you’re gonna be judged harshly for that. You are, I’m sorry. You’re not following Jesus at that point for sure. Good luck, good luck to you. But also, no, I’m not a fan. You guys are the ones volunteering to be for lions, be for lions. And if you can’t do that, just admit it and don’t call yourself Christian. And that’s fine too. And they can’t levy the same claim at me because I don’t claim to be Christian. And there you go. I don’t know, Teo. I don’t think the corner is growing. I think the corner is getting smaller. I think there’s more people claiming to be in the corner, but they have no comment. Yeah, they’re on the spirit. If you’re on, how about this? If you’re on the bridges of meaning admin and you can’t explain to me the difference between description and prescriptive, then you shouldn’t be a fucking admin on. What are you doing? What are you doing here? You have no idea what it is. And there’s weird things happening. So I got, the last time I checked, which was 10 hours ago, I have 989 views on the live stream from last week on Spirit and Egregore. Most of them are on Jacob’s channel, which is a bit vexing. Sign up for Navigating Patterns. Jacob told me again, he’s gonna throw me off at some point, although after he saw the 600 plus views that my live stream got, and I don’t think he’s realized he’s gotten seven subs out of that. Maybe he’ll change his mind, but yeah. I mean, I’ll probably. Okay, that is probably why I’m not. See, you guys have, people here are doing that. Chad and I are. Chad’s kind of like my workhorse sometimes. Because I have like two or three video ideas that I’m like, I’ll have him do it eventually. Like he’ll get bored and need something. And I’ll be like, here you go. You can do the thing I wanted. Right. That’s making a lot more sense to me though. Cause I just don’t have that. I’m too busy. I see how astroturfing and steering committees work. And so I’m like actively, okay, if that’s how you’re playing this game, I’m playing. Count me in. Like deal me in. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you’re not playing this game, everybody gets screwed. So I realized my moral strength is to determine to do something and to continue. But once I start, I can’t stop. So like I know the way I am. So I don’t start most things. Have I? Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Because I do not stop. And that’s why coming into this little corner, if I come in, I’ll define what the little corner really is. I talk to everybody in the background, all the fucking time. How many of you went and started a nonprofit that like is getting internationally recognized within three years of existing, all because of talking on the internet and being like, you know what? I’m quitting my job. I’m gonna go ask the churches to pay my rent. And I’m tired of people freezing to death in my community and dying of overdue. I’m gonna go start a soup kitchen. Okay. That’s what everybody needs to go do. Go check your community if you don’t have a soup kitchen or a lion’s club or Kiwanis or something. Figure out why. Why did they get stopped? Oh, they went co-ed. Yes. That will destroy an organization. They destroyed boundaries, right? All. And they tried to make a bigger boundaries. They need a more about boundaries. Yeah. We need a chief exclusive officer. That’s my position. If I’m coming in the little corner is of Eric Weinstein quote. And it’s a chief exclusion officer. If you’re gonna have a chief inclusion officer, then I have to have one also to have a chief exclusion officer. That’s me. And if you’re against our mission, the fuck out of here. Go do your own thing. Get out of here. And it’s driving me nuts that I see like people who are on the same team fighting against each other. And it’s just such a waste of. Right. Yeah. Right. I gotta land the plane. Cause I’m gonna follow. Yeah, yeah, I know. I know. So no, that’s great. Yeah. I mean, I think that again, and I gotta clip this out. I keep, I’m just been so busy. I keep losing track of what I need to do. There’s a clip from two weeks ago about the wisdom communities. And we’ve got the Texas wisdom community, which is YouTube channel on the discord server that’s up and running. And we’re doing the Republic book club on it. And those are being published on YouTube channel. And that’s the wisdom community project. I have a nice summary of it. I’ll have to clip it out of the video from a couple of weeks ago. And then I’m working on the wisdom tea company, which is gonna be slow to get off the ground now because I’m now busy trying to make money because if I don’t make money, I’m not gonna have a house or a car or a thing. Yeah. Right. So I’m trying to get that rolling and the project remains, the project is probably going to somewhat more, right? Because discord is basically dying. And so we can only use discord for certain things, which is fine. And we’re gonna continue to do that. My discord server, Mark of wisdom is going absolutely nowhere. And maybe more people will join or whatever. We have all the people now, basically all the interesting people and that’ll continue. But what is this? Oh yeah. Skyler look at the virtue cards, most in-depth image. Yeah, the virtue card project is coming on quite well. Virtue and vice. Yeah. Yeah, that’s all on vice server. We’ve got it, it’s very well organized for collaboration. We’ve had good collaboration between a bunch of people. And that project is all about getting some of these pragmatic ideas out on the street that we’ve used for Vicky’s work to develop, right? And keep discord dead. Yes, keep people out of discord. And putting this stuff into practice in the community. So the other thing I’m working on is a cafe where I want people to show up and we’ll have conversations on a stage, but also over the internet so that we can do the sort of question and answer style stuff that Ted talks don’t do, right? Cause Ted talks are just these one way conversations. And so those are the projects I’m working on. And if I could get the tea and the cafe funded, that would be great because then you would have people interacting in person. Yeah, the cafe one is it’s formatted tangentially sort of like what you do here with a little monologue and then it opens up to however. Yeah, well there won’t be a monologue though. It’ll be a dialogue between people. Well, as I say, you could start with a little dialogue or monologue. It needs, no, no, it needs to be produced because I wanna have conversations between two or three or four people, maybe two on the internet and two in person or three in person and one on the internet, whatever. I wanna do that because like Jonathan Haidt, I got to talk to Jonathan Haidt once on Clubhouse. He came to a group of 15 people on Clubhouse and we were, he gave a little talk and an interactive talk with somebody else asking questions and then we were allowed up on stage to ask him questions and I got to ask him a question. He said, well, that was a very good question, Mark, I hear a lot, which I’m very grateful for and then he answered it and it was wonderful. He didn’t fully answer it. Like fair enough, I don’t ask easy questions, that’s for sure. So I wanna bring that to everybody but it needs to be produced because the thing that happened to Peterson and Charlotte before the fake news virus scam, which is very interesting is they had everybody, you had an app on your phone, everybody got to ask a question and they curated the questions and figure out which ones were actually the same and then took the top 10 and asked them of Peterson on stage. I wanna do something like that locally on a local scale and have people there in person, but have it produced so that you end up answering people’s big questions and I think that’s doable. It would just cost a little money to get on it. Narba, N-A-R-B-H-A, Narba, that’s what we’re using now. So Narba is the backing for a bunch of mental health clinics and stuff in rural areas. So they need to be able to do telemed. So they’ve been pioneering telemed for over 15 years. Narba has the backing for this and they’re where we can start with that. Like I know the dude on the backend of that and that’s exactly what it’s for. We’ll chat on the discord at some point in the near future and we can go into details. But with that, those are the projects that I’m working on. So that’s what we’re trying to get. It’s always good to see you, Skyler. It’s earlier for you than it is for me. It’s really late here and I gotta go to bed. But thank you everybody for watching. Almost, we’re probably gonna break a thousand on last week’s live stream. I finally got a video over a thousand at Jordan Peterson’s district. Thank you very much. Let’s push all my other videos over a thousand. It looks like we’ve got a thousand on the Andrea with the Bangs intimacy talk. So thank you for all of that and I hope you continue to engage and I’m looking forward to doing this next week. We’ll probably be back at the 7 PM time frame. I will be on the road. So it might not happen, but I think I’m gonna, the next two weeks I will be able to do the stream. I’ll just be on the road when I do it. It’ll probably be a shorter stream cause I’ll be not at my house. But yeah, we’ll see you all on the discord or on the next live stream and have a good night. And it’s always good to see you. And it’s, you know, keep on trucking. We’re doing stuff. It’s gonna happen. Thanks, Mark.

Petersonsphere Navigator

Explorer

Live boundaries, where do you end？ (i_0DUda822U)

20 Most Similar

Backlinks

Graph View