https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=4vIqwwOPy0o
Hello and welcome to Navigating Patterns. So what I have for you today is a bit of an unexpected treat. I recently had a conversation with a man named Philippe Lewis and I’ll give you a little bit of his background in a bit but I just want to tell you how this came about. I have a friend Kira who facilitated this conversation between Philippe and I and we really got into ethics and morality which is kind of a fun topic among other things. This conversation was unscripted very last minute. We had delayed it from a previous time that was scheduled and it was just wonderful the way it unfolded and Philippe agreed to share it and Kira was with us so that was nice just to have that extra perspective on these topics and Philippe Lewis is a relationship educator and the creator of Exquisite Dark Love which supports men and women in making better choices for being sovereign individuals in their relationships. He’s also the founder of several Facebook groups including the attachment community. This Facebook group happens to be the one where Kira ran into Philippe and where she sort of thought that I could offer the most help in discussion and it was lovely because Philippe and Kira were very patient with me during the discussion as I sort of helped them understand you know my conception of ethics and morality and hopefully I’ve given them better tools to talk about such things and hopefully those tools will be available to you as well. As always my definitions you like them keep them you don’t like them throw them out or better yet modify them for your own use. I really hope you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did. Thank you. My level of understanding of ethics at the philosophical level is very much not related to anything academic or any or and not much reading of books so it’s just my own my own version so I’ll just preface that. Okay. Yeah that’s sort of bigger but it’s a you know it’s like sometimes I encounter people who’ve done a lot of actual research and a lot of reading I’m like I’m feeling a little sort of underdressed. Yeah I don’t I’m not an academic I haven’t done that much reading but okay cool plenty of research and hashing things out so. Oh for sure yeah a lot a lot of the ways that I engage in my own research if there’s such a if there’s such a thing that I’m doing is is by like you know thinking about things putting the words out on Facebook because that sort of became my microblogging platform and then people start to engage in conversations and I’m like oh that’s an interesting point and I you know some people post to get to get to get thumbs up or likes or agreement I’m mostly posting because it’s an active conversation in my head and I tend to approach my inquiries because that’s really what they are not from a from a perspective of what’s happening you know what do I think is happening rather than a moral approach which is what’s right and what’s wrong because I think even though I’m not too much of a more relativist I do believe that everybody’s got their own version of a moral framework that they engage with and to understand why there’s conflict I think it’s important to know that. Yeah I don’t I think actually our primary problem is people don’t have a moral framework at all they just think they do and then when they run into conflict everything blows up because they can’t square the circle and that’s when you transgress right right and then all the sudden it’s like oh good so we have a lot of people that come into the discord server and it’s from the way I see it they’re unethical they can’t resolve ethical questions because right sense of ethics even a little bit so they do have some some kind of framework but it’s a shitty framework that doesn’t that doesn’t work right. Actually most of their arguments yeah most of their arguments boil down to if someone did it in the moment it must have been right and I’m like okay so you’ve never acted unethically in the past yourself and they’re right well no that’s not possible and I’m like it’s not possible act unethically so do you have a sense of ethics right no the answer is no and they’re never in a position to judge anybody else right unless they nail things down with like well you know the Sam Harris trick where you go well if this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this then on ethics right it’s like oh okay well maybe but right but you can’t really do that in real life. Would you be willing to just define ethics really quickly the way you see it so I saw we’re on the same definition. Yeah I use a two-tier system where ethics is the ideal and morality is implementation and so the reason why I do that is so that if you implement something incorrectly through a mistake but you actually intended the ideal then I can forgive you and move on but the ethics the ethics are the ideal and they’re a landscape they move around right and so that well what do you mean by ideal so so in an ideal situation everybody gets what they want from that situation right I see I see okay and so the ethical behavior is the one that gives the maximal stuff to the maximal number of people right and then there’s still a tension there right because people aren’t equal right and that’s where the that’s where the landscape comes in people aren’t equal situations aren’t equal the same situation across times not equal right so it’s everything about it is moving on all three planes even ideal is difficult to nail especially you know in situations where yeah like what you I mean you have to define some kind of like the most people or the most effective like for me I use it you know maybe maybe it’s similar enough I use like what’s the most effective thing that you can do in that particular moment and situation given given all the variables but even that’s kind of a matter of mastery of understanding of what that’s like that’s the right that’s the problem that’s why people are unethical because they don’t have an understanding at all of ethics right and if you don’t have an understanding of what ethics might be right and you can’t resolve ethical questions then without the understanding it doesn’t even matter if you have if you had put an ethical structure or ethical framework because you don’t have the way to measure within it and then ethics as an ideal the ideal I like to use is cause the least harm and the reason why is because you’re in trade off mode all the time and so right never like do the best good for everybody it’s always well cause the least amount of harm in the situation and then you know arguments about well you know is the least amount of harm harming nature the least or harming people the least right there’s there’s all those considerations or not feeling good enough or you know feeling triggered like especially in the social justice movement these nowadays a lot of it I think initially it was about doing the least reducing harm happening to groups of people but these days it seems to have devolved into everybody’s feeling is feeling good they had no they had no ethical system at all or framework or sense of ethics and that’s what happened is it becomes parasitic on lived experience okay but that’s just phenomenology well and this gets right into an interesting point which is what they value more than what what it seems like people in that group value more than anything else is safety slash security and and and if you’re if you’re valuing security or safety above else then how you know how do you like how do you navigate that because if if that’s what you value above everything else then if you’re uncomfortable in any way then then then then there’s something wrong and okay and and this is something that where where it sort of bridges into the conversation about attachment which is because Mark and I have had conversations about attachment theory and the difficulty of valuing security you know that if you if we if we think of attachment theory as valuing it’s putting security and we would have to get into the definition of that and everything else then you end up with a situation where maybe there’s a different way of framing some or languaging some of the stuff that we talked about in the attachment right right right yeah so I I want to go I want to go back to the the piece around sort of harming the list the least people so that puts a focus on harm right as a value and if you put and and the way I define a moral framework is that it’s a list of values in order of priority and I referred to Lacoste he produced a really nice paper like 20 years ago that sort of defines the two primary moral frameworks that are in our active in the US which is one is the the district fodder moral frameworks would then then gives you sort of the right on a political level and then there’s the nurture and parents on the left and and what he shows is that they’re there they’re the same values were in a priority and that gives you essentially how to act most effectively in any situation now he also ends up showing in that same paper that or actually in a book that he wrote that he wrote called moral politics where he ends up showing that research shows that the strict father-parent model is not as effective for people to develop for people develop mentally in terms of how they end up being effective sort of humans later on the nurture and pen does a much better job like you know within your your your son into submission doesn’t work as well as we thought yeah big surprise but having said that there needs to be values and so even in ethics I would imagine that there needs to be you need to say this is the most important value that we’re gonna try to maximize in this one second third this one fourth right right well that’s the problem with those things right it right keep them static right if they’re static they’re not gonna work and then you know I would say that Skinner BF Skinner is the king of of nurture Kenner’s yeah yeah Skinner’s it I mean he did a lot of good things in psychology but he did a lot about psychology right and one of the things he did was he he had a theory that if you don’t punish your children and you only use reward then everybody will be a good person and of course he did that experiment and it failed right and other right done did it after him and it also failed right and so the other end of the coin doesn’t work either and it’s it’s I have a son and we’re having that’s not exact problem with just the reward system he needs to he needs to feel some level of pain in some cases otherwise it’s just like you keep giving him more right well in the end and the bottom line is according to evolution that makes sense like pain should be more important to you than reward I just showed right right the negative things are the things that kill you so those are the things you have to pay the most attention to yeah that way yeah so you know definitely if I’m level evolutionary biology standpoint it’s more adaptive to stay away from the things that are painful and to move towards the things that are rewarding but yes if you only use reward in evolutionary biology the second part’s not true it’s just the whole game and evolution only away from things that kill you yeah it doesn’t say anything about the things that make you better it only says things about what well because everything’s gonna get wiped out every once in a while by a gamma ray burst or whatever it is so so seeking pleasure doesn’t give you advantages in those situations but survival does right survival is the only thing it’s not the it’s not it’s not being pitted against anything it’s not a dichotomy survival that’s it right because it’s survival plus randomness equals evolution or something right basically not dying is enough to to kind of keep you around and and evolving because you’re still you’re because you’re around right and then maybe over work if you’re dead that’s right that’s right and maybe over time you kind of like the survival rate of some smarter sort of sub strains of or not strains but sub subgroups actually ends up being higher and then they stick around longer or more effectively than others so in a way right well yeah exactly because the lizards had us for a long time and then they all got wiped out by whatever they got wiped out by snowball or meteorite volcanoes I mean in a way I mean it’s that and that’s a usually the way I teach it and hopefully I’m not wrong with this so I’m gonna put it on table in front of you is that the the lower layers of our brain are still in charge of the higher layers it’s just allows us to do things more in a more sophisticated way but it’s still about bottom line it’s about the lower layer of the brain which is about survival and then how we survive is you know the additional layers yep that’s that that’s almost certainly true yeah that’s not about but that’s not about reward at all it’s just about right basically effectiveness at the or it may be ethics if that may if that makes sense add the bio at the at the primal level right so Jordan Peterson talks about about ethics in terms of what happens with rats if you you know if you don’t write a smaller rat when yeah 30% of time they won’t they won’t play anymore why because they’re not growing learning and getting anything out of it and so that’s right the change rate is zero for the not for the evolution because evolution is generational but for the adaptation it’s the local adaptation that matters and that’s the part that people confuse with evolution all the time they say oh local adaptation and therefore it’s like no local adaptation nothing to do with evolution totally different time scales it’s more about the variability within the range of the of the individual that has that has been born right not right not on the time scale of generations right yeah well it’s cool because as humans because we’re able to build sort of sort of build knowledge into things like books and and media and and also build things that will with that will stand multiple generations we’re actually able to the adaptation gets to pile up on top of what was built it’s not you know we’re evolving faster as a result I mean and not not biologically but but but through but but by by piling up on top of the knowledge well yeah now whether or not that means we’re gonna survive this this iteration as anybody’s guess yeah I mean I think that’s the doc that’s the Dawkins thesis right is is that right but but I don’t I don’t know the Dawkins right I mean Brett Weinstein called Dawkins out for it of course now Brett Weinstein is making the same the same error actually saying we have more more control of this evolution than we do but but I mean that see that goes right back to ethics so what has been adopted for humans has been cooperation per se and so the highest ethic from an evolutionary standpoint and I’m not making this case but I’m saying you could make this case is cooperation right right so it is this idea of being together with other humans and so that would say that what you don’t want to do is be on your own right you want to be in a relationship and you want that relationship to be couched in a community and you want that community to be couched in a larger group etc right so you want these group structures because that’s what we’ve evolved and adapted to over the span of evolution so far yeah but tribalism can still operate under that that assessment oh yeah no I mean I’m not speaking towards tribalism I mean I don’t particularly like that term although I think I know terms with where it came from I think I have the problem with tribalism is that the it’s a it’s an asymmetrical relationship and it’s a negative relationship with everybody who isn’t in your tribe right right it’s very black and white but the world doesn’t work that way fortunately I have a series of videos I have a YouTube channel called navigating patterns okay in there I have a series of videos I’m actually working on the last one now I just did the slides last night where I’m making this case for why you can’t do that binary you know sort of adjustment you know at that scale where you’re where you’re talking about us versus them and how to get out of it like there’s just it you just need a perspectival shift and all of a sudden that goes away instantly and I think beautiful part I think what was that awakening for me crisis what’s his name the guy who did that that you sent me care yeah yeah vervekey would you know probably call it out like scaling out like okay now you have a little bit more perspective that actually if all these groups are able to work together it’s actually gonna take us even further and you know evolutionary or just keep us alive longer instead of destroying keep us alive longer right and I think that’s why but that’s why you have these these groups that have formed around say marriage right around government right at local level government at a broad right because having those larger groups with similarities and not too many differences in them actually makes a difference in terms of the survivability of those patterns we’ll say over time yeah a Keegan has these different levels of neurological development I think it thank you calls it and you know this there’s always this sort of like you’re inside the thing and then you kind of shift your perspective to okay you have these things that are happening and now you can see the larger the larger it’s another form of scaling out obviously and and it’s and it supports having also being more flexible around diversity the diversity of perspective the diversity of approaches diversity of moral frameworks which I which I see is is inevitable even if those more farmers are non-existent people still operate as if they have a more framework as shitty as it might as it might happen but that’s a mapping error right so you’re assuming they have it because you can map it but that doesn’t mean they actually have it right because again but that’s something that they have some belief system that are based in some values right it’s not it’s not just it’s not random it’s not complete noise like actually actually often is random like when you actually talk really oh yeah you’ll find out it’s random pretty quickly yeah I do this all the right you talk to people and they you say all right well how come when when this person says this thing and they’re talking about the same thing as this person that you’re interpreting it differently and then it just turns out that because they’re random like they don’t have it they don’t have an ethic they don’t have a moral framework or is it that they don’t have the language to describe it no it’s random it’s the same it’s the same it’s the same condition and a different answer and so that’s effectively random from any point of view because you’re not hanging it on anything but if you were to spend enough time talking to someone and getting to the point of saying of you know like we’ve been doing of like what is the trade-off of like well in this case I’m prioritizing this because this connection no no I actually yeah I do that they can’t explain it because it’s they don’t have it they don’t they literally don’t have it they don’t have it okay okay so what you’re saying is that is there there’s a lack of moral solidity or some version of that right don’t yeah if you assume you need morals and ethics to make decisions then you’ll come to the conclusion that everybody needs everybody’s acting morally or ethically right fair enough or they try or they try yep fair enough but if you assume that they don’t need that to act because you can just act without even thinking about it which is concurrent with what you said earlier right the lizard brain just does stuff right and so if you’re not a stoic and you’re just reacting to your feelings in the moment you can’t act ethically it’s not possible you’re never rising to the to the to the to the level of cognition of ethics even you’re not you’re not even close what could you could you then say would it be part would it be fair to say that they’re acting out of a more primal version of ethics you know like that I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know level no I don’t think that exists I think and I don’t think anybody would argue with that I think that people believe that ethics roughly speaking is the thing that one of the features that differentiates us from lower creatures which is not to say local just don’t have an ethic for Vicky actually goes into this in awakening right he talks about it in terms of consciousness and and you could extend that same argument to ethics I don’t know if he makes that argument or not but basically I think he does though right basically the the fact of reciprocity in chimps shows that there’s some kind of ethos there right and then we get in like the rads and you know even if that’s at the primal level there’s kind of a you know the rats that do work that do learn to play together do better and so as a result by the by the very force of how it happens they end up right you know it ends up being better than if they don’t play right right right there’s definitely a Piagetian aspect of the development of ethics there’s there’s plenty of evidence for the physical manifestation of lower-level ethics we’ll call it so right lower level okay I can I can work with that so lower-level ethics versus what Philippe was saying which was more primal ethics yeah well that would be people are coming in and they’re acting and they they can’t articulate it they might be acting from a lower level of physical ethics versus they don’t have they’re just reacting at that point that’s the thing yeah they’re just in survival mode right but it’s not consistent like it’s not predictable right and and therefore it’s a not a framework being on a process and see not something you can use I guess it’s not useful because it’s not reliable but how do you determine who’s got who’s got it and who doesn’t got it well I mean it really is the reliability and consistency that matters okay so you’re looking for a rely it’s a reliable behavior right if that’s not just survival right if but you can make a simple argument if the thing’s not reliable you can’t care about it because there’s no there’s no point interacting with something that’s unreliable like it right there’s no there’s no point in behaving as if something unreliable is real because well that’s our definition of real ethical framework reliability is is high on that list no well this too you you’re mixing the result with the statement right the statement of reliability so for example if an evolutionary biologist makes an argument for evolution it’s based on reliability that’s survival of the fittest and it’s literally reliably the case that the fittest survived right it’s a reliability argument and then you make that same argument for ethics now if you’re saying there’s a value called reliability there is right and then how that fits in the ethical framework that’s a different question but you can’t confuse those two things well so I have a quick more along the lines of integrity yeah I have a question so you know if I interact with a dog and the dog is or my cat for that matter my cat’s pretty reliable right I know when she’s gonna show up to ask for food I know how she asks for food you know if I fuck with her while she’s asking for food I know there’s a point where it’s gonna be too much it’s just gonna bat my head you know what that point is I get better I get better at determining what that point is and I bet oh I yeah yeah well no I mean I know it changes it changes as expected right but I do learn about her and and her responses are not completely random that’s what I’m saying right right well the cat cats have an ethos yeah and that’s why we’re that’s why they’re pets and that’s why we interact with them yeah yeah if they were completely random well no I mean I mean even snakes I don’t have an ethos but they do engage in a particular way and you just stick your hand in the case while there’s a live rat in there they’ll bite you but otherwise they don’t it’s not completely maybe maybe maybe not I mean indeed the people in India might disagree right the snake charmers in do things depends on the thing right that’s that’s the thing I mean that’s an ethos right and it’s manipulatable right but the the the animals can’t break that right so that’s your lower level biological reliable ethics right there yeah yeah that’s what I’m talking about so as opposed to what right which is if they know they’re doing wrong and they do it anyway right that humans are able to yes so there’s a humans are able to overcome or override their their primal ethos if you want to call it that way or they have more than primal ethos as a result of the level of consciousness they have and that would be my argument right is that consciousness and ethics go hand in hand and you need more consciousness for more ethics basically right yeah and and having said that I mean I’m when I look at society with laws and and sort of rules of engagement whether there’s social they’re not they’re not embedded into law but there’s the the law seems to have been created to the sort of kind of nudge people towards a sort of a you know a safer a safer way of co-living culturally and I think that’s backwards actually so again I have a video of this on my channel yeah I got a bunch of little videos on yeah there most of my shorts yeah I think the way it works is we do these things and then we codify and the reason why we codify them is as pointers to strangers children other people and reminders to ourselves right right and so there’s no point at which something like the the law of man will call it because we need to differentiate it from the law of nature which a lot of philosophers don’t know how to do and say the law of man is never something that’s coming down on top of us that just never happens which is it coming down what do you mean right it’s it’s not constraining us it’s pointing away it’s providing an ideal right right it doesn’t prevent us from doing things like like we were just driving right and there’s these little signs by the road that have little numbers on them yeah I don’t have any attention to those yeah okay that’s that’s human law I just ignore it because whatever and if there are consequences there are consequences those are two different questions right and that’s where people get confused so like I had a guy a few weeks ago a very nice guy on the discord channel and he’s like Jeff Bezos has his hands and everything and he’s controlling me and I eventually just said yeah just don’t buy from Amazon kid and you’re all done right right but they but you know if you pretend like these quote powers and principalities this term Paul Vanderklaai uses a lot yeah but you pretend these powers and principalities are actually controlling you then you’re gonna you’re gonna be a victim but they’re not actually controlling you like just don’t buy from Amazon and Jeff Bezos is control over your world is basically zero I mean I ended up proving it to him by grabbing my Alexa which hasn’t been turned on in three years and literally living room I just behind me on camera I was like there you go Jeff Bezos who owns who now yeah well the laws are useful to more as a more as a guideline right they’re not controlling laws of nature control you I guess in the sense that if you throw yourself off a building right chances are you’re gonna fall to your death you know what’s so much later there there again they’re not just guidelines but they’re so they’re pointing at the ideal they’re giving you a way to orient right they’re giving you a way to orient they’re giving you understand the cost because that’s a right deal I don’t know if you read the book Freakonomics no no yet oh great book great but they’re with his class so one of the things they point out they’ve got this wonderful example where they had a daycare center right we drop off your kids and then you come pick them up and and parents were picking up their kids like 15 minutes late and they’re like this is ridiculous we’ve got to do something about this so what they did was they said if you pick up your kids 15 minutes late you have to pay an additional $50 so what happened as a result of that oh yeah more people picked up their kids late because now they had a boundary oh I’m happy to pay 50 extra dollars if I could be 15 minutes late oh well and it depends on what the punishment is right if the punishment is high enough then you’ll see that curve go down wait but but actually that’s not the way it works because people are just willing to pay anything to be late like that’s that’s what actually reliably I mean yeah after a certain point maybe but but but then people cry oh that’s outrageous a thousand dollars pick your kids up late and then they do right and so there is this interaction where like those tricks stop working at a certain level right they only work within a tiny frame and then it’s actually better to get them with shame on picking them up late than it is for giving them a trade for picking them up late that you can shame it’s about in an affect theory shame is one of the affects it’s one of the early earlier it’s one of the affects you know that basically it’s one of the only social ones the rest of the ones are all they’re all you know they’re all related to your senses like disgust the smell so you don’t die when you eat the wrong food but you know this one is a socially it’s a social one so shame has been used since the dawn of ages to right and you don’t people don’t get rid of it because it’s in that’s that’s part of the physical lower layer ethics right that we were talking about earlier exactly that’s definitely part of that is right and it can yeah I think you’re right about that although I’d have to think about it a lot more shame is probably the only one that’s based on that evolutionary leap towards the cooperation that we that we definitely require and that’s what binds us in these relationships like that’s where the relationships come in is that you need those relationships and then you could very easily jump in I’m not I’m not necessarily saying this is true right but you could easily jump to the conclusion which may be correct that you need you need shame in a relationship to have a healthy relationship otherwise you’re not you don’t have boundaries and if you don’t have boundaries you can’t be in a relationship because there’s nothing there yeah it has got to be something that you feel at a primal level that’s threatening to your life in order to be like okay you know I’m gonna stay away from that like the rumble strips are you know on the side of the road and a raft or the rumble strips there’s like a massive ditch which is very common in Costa Rica by the way so you know you don’t ever want to get off the road because usually there’s these math because it rains a lot so but yeah so if if the laws point at an ideal then the laws codify at some level it’s sort of general moral framework or a frame of ethics but not I don’t think I’d see I don’t think they rise to that at all right I thought you’re talking about the ideal right isn’t that isn’t that ethics points at an ideal I think ethics points at an ideal but I think laws point at conventions and and what they do is they codify the conventions within the space and the problem with ethics is that ethics roughly speaking the only way to talk about ethics and there’s arguments about this but I think they’re all stupid is virtues you have to you have to discuss virtues to even talk about the ethical landscape and what that looks like and then and then you can get to values and how those values are in relation to one another and then the implementation that’s where you get into the moral ideal okay so what would the conventions point towards like conventions for what what’s that what’s the point of convention well the behavior within whatever group you’re talking about so federal laws in the US right point to when you’re behaving as a citizen what are your you know duties and obligations roughly speaking right and what are the punishments if you go outside of them that’s what laws point yeah right and then at the state level we have the same thing and then at the local level we have the same thing and then we have and then and then there’s but there’s duties and conventions that aren’t codified that are actually stronger than the legal ones right for sure right that’s the whole thing is that that’s where things get messy because social conventions yeah and then this is where the problem is so I was in I was in a discussion with somebody on a clubhouse probably a month or two ago and he he he likes Immanuel Kant who I think is ridiculous but not everything he says is wrong but like basically people and people don’t understand him misstate his stuff so his whole thing was you know you you need a way to step outside of the system you’re in and then he thought a system was something like an army so if you were in Napoleon’s army and Napoleon gave you a bad order you need a way to step outside of that in order to judge it right and then right and I think this is ridiculous by the way right because what he was doing was he was putting laws he was confusing natural law with the law of man and then and then putting that at the top and saying well you have to be able to step out of it and therefore and then that’s what gives you the ability to say no to the order that the general gave and and I would say no no no it’s all bottom up like we have to have a personal sense of ethics right of the ethical landscape and additionally of the morality which is the implementation well I disagree with this but how am I gonna implement my disagreement right so one way to implement a disagreement might be well I’m gonna go to the military so in the US you can you can be a conscientious you know exempt or exempt or right and then not not not serve right so you can do you that is a thing it’s very hard to do but you can do it you could say no my religious status which is interesting it’s a religious it’s a religious argument I because I can’t kill anybody I can’t serve in the military and they say right so you’re you’re you’re stating you’re kind of on moral grounds yes cannot kill people and that goes up if you do it right I imagine it’s probably a process if you do it right then it stands above the law right that’s right and I want to bring in something interesting here which is one of the things that they’re starting to identify with PTSD is something called moral wounding which is that you can you can experience trauma from having violated your own morals right that’s what Peterson talks about or having violated morals that you didn’t understand you had or something right like if you don’t again if you don’t have that ethical framework and then you see somebody or you do something that is beyond something you knew about or were capable of then yeah that’s what that’s roughly what causes PTSD as near as anybody can tell right you know I I still think at some level people have even immature versions of a moral framework that maybe is more random that when it’s less when it’s more mature but I do think I I don’t think they go from completely random to not random at all I think it’s there’s a trajectory to it and it starts with with the with this sort of primal primal ethics or whatever we want to call it at the moment and it kind of evolves from there through the different different stages of development well there’s certainly there’s certainly an evolution and and development I think one of the problems the deep problems that everybody makes I know one of my one of my one of the only philosophers I’ve actually read any of is Ayn Rand and one of the deep criticisms of Ayn Rand which is a very famous criticism is that you know it doesn’t work for kids right and then I kind of say name me a philosophy that accounts for children go ahead I’ll give you all the time in a world because there isn’t one that no philosophy accounts for children that that’s not the give me an example sorry I’m not following well well so Ayn Rand is all about you know individualism and objectivism per se is all about like just being on the ability to be on your own whether you’re on your own or not it’s not relevant right but the ability to stand on your own two feet not rely on other people it’s a very non cooperative ethic in some sense in another sense it’s actually way more cooperative right because she talks about selfishness as a virtue which I think is correct it’s certainly correct evolutionarily otherwise we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t have a core component of first right and the ethics give us the ability to override it interestingly maybe over other animals because self-sacrifice in other animals is rare I don’t think it’s not zero but it’s really rare and in humans it’s actually not rare at all right right part of them that goes on in at various levels but even at the level of physical harm and including death sacrifice for a greater the group or for for just maybe another person yeah yeah yeah so for the sake of exactly and that’s that’s a social evolution right there you know unless there’s a sense that there’s others to actually group with that’s back for that’s back to that cooperation and shame idea right form of cooperation through shame wow that’s interesting right right well it’s true I mean that’s that’s what gives us the the willingness to cooperate is Shane right otherwise where’s the driver right there’s no driver without that so so right so in Ayn Rand’s world if you misinterpret her and most people do right you’ll understand selfishness the wrong way and you’ll think no no no that means that kids can’t you know because they’ve never survived on their own right they have granted right like so prove that right so whatever right like it’s a dumb argument because all philosophy suffer from that same thing philosophy does not is not designed never was designed or intended to solve problems through all phases and stages of physical and mental development across right the entire human race that’s not the experiment of philosophy at all and so it’s a bogus it’s a it’s a bogus way to talk about it but it’s interesting that we have so even the fact that we raise our young at all like is kind of part of whatever that ethic that larger ethic is like wanting better for your children than yourself is certainly a human ethic that animals can’t there’s no way animals have a way to do that right possibly have a conception of that because the capacity for attraction so mostly right yeah if you live on the savanna as an elephant your baby elephant isn’t gonna get a significantly better life through your means like you know that can’t happen it’s not it’s not an option so you can’t you know they can’t imagine something that doesn’t exist or at least right very much I mean right it could be argued that dolphins and chimps can at some level yeah yeah you right you imagine again well but there’s has to to your point right there has to be a development cycle and right part of the development cycle of moral and ethics has to start when your children and go up sure absolutely but that doesn’t mean that you actually develop what we would call say non low-level ethics right I don’t think that there’s many ways it could happen that you could just be told a bunch of things for example and given a bunch of propositions to live by but the problem with propositions is that they’re too totalizing and they don’t allow any any interaction with potential and so when you have a bunch of propositions that bump up against each other and they will and you don’t have a resolution for them you can get random behavior whereas if you do have a resolution for them now all of a sudden you have something that’s reliable like oh if if somebody offers me five dollars on the street and I don’t know them do I accept it like that’s an ethical question there’s a real ethical question there whereas if somebody offers me a thousand dollars with their friend of mine and I did them a favor right now I feel this reciprocity idea right I want to feel shame for turning them down when they’re trying to become more equal with me by giving me money in exchange for just being a friend or something specific I did or whatever it is that’s interesting that you speak of that because the lack of I’ll say to that article to great super dry but very very good I refer to it all the time he speaks of the moral books and the moral books is like I owe you some version of like I owe you when you did something for me or you did something wrong to me now you owe me right to balance the moral books it’s a very much an account an accountable sort of an accounting system of favors and but it’s all it also works with virtue like if you’re virtuous you can actually read we fill your your recipe yeah it’s all right it all falls under with God and then and then what I do with that is I say look this is why people misunderstand competition the opposite of competition is not cooperation in order to cooperate you need competition because competition contains the scoring system that gives you that accounting for the books right right and then so yeah it comp the cooperation is quote higher than competition but relies entirely on competition you cannot the two are not an opposition they work together to allow each other to function to allow for cooperation that I’m at a higher level to allow for chemical right that’s like reciprocity doesn’t work without scoring and the minute you score you’re in competition mode and and cooperation the result of competition and then they’re not in opposition anymore because they never were really it’s just a confusion that people have right well it’s and you can bring it all the way back to the two rats you know playing together and and you know what causes them to want to play more want to play less I mean there’s this sense of the competition of a competition but it’s also like the possibility of learning and rising like I want to try again I want to try again I want to try again because it’s part of the game and it is not learning yeah the little rats not learning anything because he’s just getting trounced right away then there’s no point there’s no competition yeah it’s not a competition anymore that’s how we talk about it right and so that’s so you need the cooperation to have the competition to learn the thing like they’re they’re just intertwined together and then that again that goes back to cooperation and then if everything is a competition between you and nature you and other people then you’re never safe like you can’t ever be and being you know interesting you’re gonna get weakened because you’re not in competition that makes you stronger like that’s what competition that gives you signaling to tell you how to get stronger and so that’s where my argument against safety comes in as you have safety is the highest virtue then you have a problem because you’re gonna weaken yourself and if you you know safety is not a one-axis thing you you can feel safe emotionally you still feel safe physically you can feel safe you can feel you can feel safe in in the moment right whereas you’ll safe along a term right there’s that whole time component so there’s lots of aspects to safety and if you hold those aspects highest above everything else then what happens is whatever flaws you have that you were bumping up in the in the place where you where you had a problem those never get addressed and that’s right that’s an issue right because you never have the cut you never you’re never really competing against anything you know to overcome to yeah exactly in order to overcome the the weaknesses all the signaling is gone with that with no feedback feedback is signaling all the signaling is gone and so if you’re in a relationship and somebody’s doing something and you don’t like it and you want to flee to safety you leave the relationship where you solve that problem and caused about a hundred worse problems in some sense right first of all you still have that problem and maybe it wasn’t a problem but maybe it was like you don’t know anymore right and so you get the next relationship you have the same problem only now it’s worse because you feel justified so right now you flee to safety you get well you’re just never gonna be in a relationship at that rate and I’ve seen that happen before for sure there’s a teacher of mine would say safety is a feeling and security is an illusion and you know his sense was you know safety is just how you feel I mean and it is not directly connected to it’s not an objective perspective it’s always right right and so it’s and it’s you can’t have you can’t have total safety right you can’t have zero harm because then you’re losing all the signaling and you need that signaling to learn and grow and change and and become an end you need that signaling know you’re alive effectively and and that’s when people get emotionally dead and that’s what happens that they’re not seeing emotional signals so they can’t respond emotionally to things right so so and maybe that’s the point where they caught they they start to seek challenges because they want to push against something they want something to push against or relationship that will right that will shake them up wait or or something physical like Trent Reznor right like yeah I hurt myself today right like oh why did you hurt yourself because I’m emotionally dead yes that’s exactly right you know there are whole songs about this right so yeah that happens all the time yeah it’s interesting because there’s also the version of I always get hurt and that feels like the normal for me I mean I’ve certainly people gone through a lot of trauma and their normal is to get hurt and if they don’t get hurt it’s actually feels abnormal so they sabotage the relationship or they or they they yeah they just yeah just create conflict where there wasn’t any because that’s because they grew up in an environment that was I would call it overly overly competitive in terms of emotionally competitive like who’s winning emotionally and emotional bodies constantly like at war with each other and and they and they and they interpret that they basically there wasn’t enough collaboration for them to really learn from it it was always competition and there was never a point of finding out like how do we work together so there wasn’t learned there was no learning around collaboration yeah yeah that can certainly happen I’ve seen that yeah that’d be that’d be my perspective on it at least having been with partners and lovers who are very very chaotic and very emotionally who’ve grown up with a lot of like from an attachment perspective like the people are disorganized or fearful avoidance you know they grow up trying to love somebody who’s hurting them all the time and so they and so they kind of connect their version of collaboration is fighting yeah yeah right right well that’s yeah that’s that’s their norm yeah you kind of expect people to go towards their norms so yeah I mean I don’t think that I don’t think the attachment stuff and I haven’t I haven’t looked super deeply into it but I but cares got me on the group and you know I’ve seen I’ve seen a lot of the posts and stuff I don’t think that particular map is wrong or in any way or anything like that but again if if you know the concern that I have is if you’re seeking safety you’re not necessarily right if if if because safety can feel like leaving the relationship and maybe that short-term safety from the trauma from the immediate problem but it’s not long-term safety because we need to live in groups so and if you’re not dealing with that then it’s a problem I think that group and at least the way I’ve created it and the way I support it is is you know if people have to I have to have to be on the path of self-responsibility first of all they have to kind of learn about their own coping mechanisms and then learn to overcome them towards the secret towards a more secure nervous systems which includes self-care and and self well self and other care because it ends up being a kind of a social interaction at least some of the time and also regulation so again self-regulation co-regulation and and sometimes auto-regulation which means you have to do it by yourself but they it’s the overcoming of the coping mechanisms that are constantly about survival into something that’s more collaborative ultimately so I think one of the things you know so one of the things that’s happening right now is there’s a lot of stuff happening in my world and Mark is helping me untangle where my you know what what my values are and where my values lack boundaries not you know it’s it’s not just where do I lack boundaries but where have I not put bounds around the things that I value because like one of the pieces that I have is a tendency to value compassion above everything else to the point of I don’t put boundaries around what what that means yeah you’re agreeable yes and I’m and I’m highly agreeable and so there’s you know those things create a situation where I am not able to effectively advocate for myself and I and so then I get I recently got myself into a situation which I was not able to advocate for myself and so like I had to and then I had to remove myself and like you know there so you know but figuring out where you know I think it would be an interesting thing to introduce the concept of vert you know virtues into the attachment conversation because you know instead of like for me learning okay I want to tap into the virtue of courage versus you know it’s like I want to feel safe well I desire to feel safe well okay but maybe what I need to tap into right now is the courage to feel what I feel the fear and do something anyway and so how do you you know and so intro like that it seems like there’s an important component to that it seems like right that it I’m starting to come to the conclusion or come to a realization that this may not be entirely the case but sometimes what we see as attachment wounding is actually that interaction of where moral bound where that where those boundaries are not are rubbing up against each other and an inability to navigate though that moral that that moral edge hmm yeah can you give an example like I mean I think you gave one in terms of not being able to advocate for yourself right yeah so an example being that so we’ve we’re recently doing stuff with polyamory and it and there was a situation where yeah I couldn’t add like something something was happening and I realized that it wasn’t that it didn’t work for me and I was trying to add and I was trying to articulate that there was a problem and I couldn’t articulate that you know okay there’s there’s something there’s this line that that I feel like has been that I’ve crossed that I don’t know how to articulate that it’s been crossed okay so what would have been what turned out what will be or what would have been the the the right way to articulate it in in this context in this context and that’s what I’m still trying that that’s what I’m still working on is figuring out it’s like okay so right now I am being able to say I am struggling to be able to put my put the compassion I want to have for you aside and and advocate for myself you know it’s like I I feel like I’m really strongly I want to I want to have compassion for where you’re at and at the same time by having compassion for you I am violating my own boundaries and so how you know and so being able to articulate that and that doesn’t but articulate that in such a way as to not make the other person wrong for what they’re doing so that we can navigate that that lie I have a question so for me when you say having compassion it’s just kind of feeling for the other person or feeling what they’re feeling or some version of like understanding their pain or feeling their pain or or feeling their pain with them right that for me that doesn’t necessarily mean that if I have compassion doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m gonna change what I’m doing right boundaries come in like you have to know that and then look you can’t be responsible if you don’t understand what your responsibilities could be and what would and understand your decisions around them so one thing for example like if if you have a couple and the woman decides she wants to stay home say with the child like that there’s a bunch of decisions there they got made right and maybe they got made without an understanding and then if other partners and understand that and doesn’t value oh well you’re just home with kids all day right now I’ve got a mismatch right but right but that but you can’t tell somebody in that situation no no you just take responsibility take responsibility for what like they don’t necessarily know and this goes back to can you be ethical if you don’t understand your ethics if you don’t understand what your what virtues you’re holding up to change and manipulate the value system because then I can’t negotiate because you don’t have boundaries so you need all that stuff in order to be responsible for your actions and decisions and and all of that and so I think that’s more what we’re what Kira in particular is pointing towards is that right you know if you don’t you can’t be responsible for things you don’t understand so you have to have that understanding and that understanding actually requires you to have this relationship with these values right and that these boundaries ahead of time and then in any relationship once you’ve set the boundaries for yourself they have to move and change based on the other person and if you don’t go through that process you know and then it doesn’t matter how many you know I mean maybe you’ll get lucky and you’ll just my boundaries and their boundaries will work or they’ll capitulate to me but it changes all the time so right could change but even if it doesn’t like how many people are gonna get lucky is it gonna be 1% probably not so most people are just gonna end up in these serial relationships where they keep bouncing up against the same problems because though you don’t even know how to be responsible for themselves so what you’re speaking of to me what I call that sort of having a relationship to those values and sort of it sort of doing it responsibly that’s what I call sovereign it’s like making better choices for yourself and for others in the relationship that you have with them which includes essentially your moral framework engaging and dancing and moving together with their moral framework and the adjustments that need to be made as you move or hopefully the moral the ethical the ethical landscapes the same or at least you’re seeing it the same way and then what that because I think that there are there are points negotiation possible right like certainly and I mean you can do fake cool fake examples like you know alcoholics who are reformed can’t be with alcohol like that’s just never gonna work right so and and I know that’s a contrived example but it’s a real example something that that absolutely does happen happens with drugs it happens with it happens with you know polyamorous people can’t be with people who want strict monogamous like there are hard limits right that whole ethos around having a similar like ethical outlook I think that’s really really important and then the way that interacts is that is that you still have to have values and boundaries and they have to be renegotiated sovereignty is not something you’re born with and then understand it’s a skill right you have to right you have to develop that skill and then what’s the development of that skill to get you into the point where the maps for attachment actually work for you right well there to me that the way I’ve sort of codified it is through that is what I call the journey to secure the stages of the journey to secure were with sort of like the stages of development from unconscious on unskilled unconscious to to consciously unskilled to consciously skilled to unconsciously skilled some version some kind of why as sort of a general sense of you need to develop awareness in order to develop skill around how you engage with others and if you’re always in your coping mechanisms you don’t even realize you are it’s not it’s never gonna it’s never gonna go over well because it’s either gonna be you’re lucky or you’re not lucky but but you’re at the mercy of what’s happening below the consciousness level right so I actually looked at that it was an interesting it was an interesting way to frame things so the problem then is there’s no definition of security there and if people are just fleeing to security there’s lots of ways to do it and the group for them that’s what I’ve been telling people if you’re trying to keep you’re coming here and security or safety is your is your top value this is not the group for you but but it is in your chart so that’s the problem is that they’re seeing that and it’s very prominent because it’s at every stage right yeah that’s it’s not a bad right oh I see what you mean right right so moving towards a more secure nervous system doesn’t mean that security is a thing it’s a relative perspective again it’s like it’s secure your feet right you reliably developing developing the kind of skills that leave you to feeling more secure more reliable that’s essentially it but it but if you if that’s if you’re if you need that when you first join when you join the group then it’s not that’s not it because this is that this is a it’s a it’s a it’s a it’s a terrain you join a group the group is a terrain where you encounter different people and different things and in so doing you develop the it’s you know it’s like this like play it’s like the rather the smaller rats playing with the bigger rats it’s the it’s the it’s the place where you you basically do it your experiment you be in conversations and you learn to be more aware and you and you enter in the practices of of engaging with others but from the perspective of your coping mechanisms will come up and then you have to overcome them yeah yeah yeah I think the the conversations I saw were all around hey I’m at this point in my flight in my flight to security is like well that doesn’t make any sense right and then and then other people are engaging and that means they’re validating and encouraging that work and it’s like yeah but but they need to already be there right is what you’re saying and fair enough I agree no no I think if they if they’re below the level of consciousness that they have coping mechanisms this group’s not gonna be for them I see I the group is for stage two moving on and if they if they have zero awareness I think the group is gonna be difficult or if or if they’re they’re moved by too much too too much coping or too much insecurity that they’re not aware of yet I think the group is gonna be difficult for them but it’s all about the amount of stretch people are able to withstand and that was the whole conversation around trigger warnings and content warnings but it could be people be around awareness right that’s my point is that if people aren’t aware that of all their coping mechanisms people aren’t aware of their ethos right they’re operating on right but then how do you determine now or lacks there one of a way to filter people out of the group who don’t belong there I mean we do the best we can via letting people know what the group’s about including the virtues to to work towards and if they’re like what the fuck is that about or you know I need more than what is given to me then you know regularly we let the we let people in the group know that they have to they have to live up to the agreements of the group which do require them to to work towards self-responsibility and be kind to each other and and and a few other rules which I’d rather call agreements but you know rules of the group if if they feel like it’s gonna be too difficult for them and sometimes it happens some people are on the group and they’re like I don’t understand why just what’s going on with this group and you know why you guys doing this way and I’m like look at the rule look at the rules in the agreement like if that doesn’t jive with you in some ways or it doesn’t feel safe to you yeah then this is this is this you know this is not the place for you there are say there are groups that are safer that are that are more that are for people who have PTSD or CPT SD and and or who have psychosis and this is not the good for you I mean sometimes we have to literally tell specific people this you know you might want to self-select out of this one we love you we’d love to have you but if it feels too intense for you that’s not it this is not it and even even the ability to discover or at least to receive somebody else somebody else’s feedback that this is may not be the group for them that’s that’s the piece of awareness they might not have and then and then they’re like well I don’t understand what you’re saying I’m like well if you’re having a hard time and it’s consistent like you were talking about consistency right or reliability you’re reliably having a hard time in this group and you don’t really enjoy it and you don’t feel like you’re getting ahead of the game it’s like it’s you know it’s like going on there on the playground where all the boys are 15 and you’re 10 and you’re trying to play rough with them and you don’t get your ass kicked no no I yeah I agreed like I said I mean I saw a number of conversations where I was like look at these people in their journey to security and they you know the advice seemed to be more on the yeah just get the hell out of the relationship and get safe it’s like what it’s well I mean if if you’re if you’re constantly if you’re constantly in overdrive or in overwhelm or in some level of a trauma state yeah I mean it’s you know if out of your 100% time awake time you only have 5% of it that you can think straight it’s gonna be difficult to move forward oh yeah no of course but I but I think you know I think so part of the awakening from the meaning crisis lecture series from John Vervecki right so yeah you know he’s he’s basically stating that the big problem is people don’t know enough about themselves and about what they want and where they are to make these difficult sort of decisions around right right right and engaging with them and I would say that’s tied up in all this if you don’t understand the meaning and value of the relationship you’re in then you’re gonna have a hard time negotiating that relationship but I think that’s the default state for almost everybody and that’s really the difference is that they’re never gonna get to that point of sovereignty I mean most people I mean you question one of their ideas and it just falls apart and they get angry yeah well now I can’t have conversation with you anymore I agree and it’s that’s it’s the difficulty of I don’t know what to call that sort of up leveling anyone who is in a state that would say like deep stage one with stage zero where they’re unaware of zero skills if having an ethical system that works that exists that’s mature if that’s non-existent then they’re like zero skills and shit is just happening to them and then they’re unaware of that and so even if you tell them in their face they’re gonna be like you’re full of shit and you know you know it’s like what’s the path of being at levels at stage zero to to anything more than that sometimes it takes like hitting rock bottom it takes a particular experience I mean there’s their hero’s journey where you hit the abyss and you’re like oh shit I do have resources and then you kind of express them and then you kind of you start the trajectory but how it seems like initially that that the the gravity of the of the of the self is very it’s very hard to break from initial I mean even like you know Keegan would say that most people at level three but reaching but very few people are level four even less level five so right and it’s still a bunch of people stuck at level two which is the narcissistic phase so to get free from that is really really tough and I don’t think we can count on people to get it to to get to break free from that gravity right no idea yeah and indeed there’s a deep narcissism problem in our societies right and to what extent does being in a traumatic situation you know induce narcissistic thought processes I would say thing it increases it because it brings you closer to survival right yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah if you’re in a trauma state you’re in survival mode soon survival mode is like it’s me versus the world I just need to survive right and that’s that’s the tribalism right there yeah I’d add a And to what extent and knowing your the level of your capability to engage with someone who is in trauma and if you don’t have the level of skill to engage with someone that’s in trauma you might accidentally induce trauma within yourself that’s sort of or more with them what was that or more with them because you know eventually you’ll flip out because they’re just throwing so much shit at you that eventually you’ll be like I can’t deal with this shit anymore and then you know more trauma yeah and it might it might throw you into trauma even if you’re pretty stable in the first place and you sort of devolve for a time even though inside of you there’s still there’s the there’s the understanding of how far you’ve gotten so that doesn’t go away you don’t forget that but it could it could take you down they could cut you at the knee for a while until until you manage to you know crawl your way back of the hole of what do you call that narcissism or survival you know the initial crawling out is I think it requires a huge amount of work and a huge amount of effort and huge amount of energy and then when you’re out at least you know what’s possible right or sometimes you see it in others it’s that’s what I think that’s where inspiration comes from you get inspired by where somebody has gone and you know it’s possible at least with them so maybe it’s possible for you but until you experience it in your body and your nervous system and your and where you kind of relax at that level of grounding or goodness or or quiet quiet goodness like and I think there’s philosophies that are relate to that that’s sort of like quiet abiding to me that’s that’s sort of like that’s what it’s pointing to it’s pointing to essentially deep inner security but until you’ve touched it and felt it and know it it’s it’s damn near impossible to get to and most people don’t yeah well that’s that’s a very religious framework by the way but yeah I agree yeah no I mean I’m talking about like the emotional labor that a person has to do to go from deep trauma all the way to deep to to deep quiet goodness secure secure feeling feeling of security that that doesn’t just get ripped away you know when there’s a sound coming through when somebody taps you on the shoulder like yeah that takes yeah you’re in that you’re in the religio as John would call it at that point you’re way yeah yeah yeah I mean that’s pretty far out but but even to be able to conjure it when it’s needed like okay your shit happens somebody cuts you off on the highway and you need to get back to okay I’ve got this I can breathe I can think straight I’m not in trauma state anymore even that for the first time for a lot of people that’s damn they’re damn well need impossible yeah no I I agree yeah they’re in reactive mode they don’t have a sense of their own sovereignty and and person in relation to others right and therefore the world is basically me versus everyone else and that’s yeah what’s that is that the red meme in the spiral dynamics yeah yeah yeah and you know of course there’s a bunch of other other ones but you know it’s being in survival mode at that level takes it takes a lot of energy to escape that to to escape the gravity of that but I think it’s do I think it’s doable and I think you know the goal the goal of the group to go back to the group is it’s for people to at least gain enough awareness that they can start to catch themselves because they’ll recognize the pattern of what’s been happening or they’ll see the pattern of somebody else and say oh I’ve seen that pattern too oh I’ve done that pattern oh it’s normal oh okay now I can catch myself and maybe initially catch yourself three weeks later and then you catch yourself three days later and catch yourself three hours and eventually catch yourself in the moment and then eventually you can kind of foresee it yeah and that kind of foresight is is that’s where the goal is that’s like that’s level four in the in the stages of you know the journey to secure as I have defined it you know you can you have foresight around how bad things can get and you can actually brace yourself or orient differently not just in the moment but ahead of time yeah yeah orientation is a big theme on my channel so yeah I’m looking for it through listening to you because this has been really great and unfortunately I have to go but this has been fantastic I had no idea when Carol mentioned it like the first time we had to cancel because I had a shitty day as all hell I think that I think that’s what it was and I was like no way in hell I could have a remotely intellectual conversation because I was very much in the you know some kind of trauma state having done a lot of fighting and I can’t remember but it was not pretty so thank you for your patience and rescheduling this and thanks Kira for supporting it’s happening again for your pleasure it seemed like it was an important conversation to me it seemed like an important conversation to have just because in terms of the level of both of you guys it seemed like it was gonna be something that could that would be fruitful no I yeah I really appreciate that I mean I appreciate little intellectual conversations period for me it’s like I don’t care if we agree or disagree like I’m gonna learn some something and I’m gonna walk out I’m gonna walk away a little smarter because I will have interacted with somebody else is a different brain so I agree you know pleasure meeting I really enjoyed it yeah likewise cool yeah I don’t know what we want to do with the conversation but you know I’m I’m open for it to be public in some version because I think there’s some really good tidbits in there yeah if you want yeah yeah maybe maybe we could do that I’ll I’ll give it some thought we’ll see what we want to do thank you so much for watching this hour plus talk I hope you found something useful here let me know what you think and as always thank you for your time and attention to this material