https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=XCguTRRDOgk
All right, we should be live at least according to this. At least according to this. Excellent. We are live. That is good. Although, I don’t know where we’re getting our audio from, but that’s okay. It sounded okay. That’s all that matters. So welcome. Welcome to another Navigating Alive Patterns. I don’t think we’re going to be solving the marriage crisis today. I’m not married, so never been married. It’s kind of hard to solve the crisis you haven’t been in. A lot of people see this marriage crisis thing as like, oh, I’m not married. It’s a crisis. It’s not what it needs. If you’re not married or close to married, then the problem in that case is more, you have a dating crisis. You need to solve the dating crisis first. Oh, good. Well, I’m glad people are here. I’m glad they are subscribed. I’m always forgetting to do something. Where is…there it is. And we’re going to be doing livey live stuff today with, hopefully with interlocutors. That’s sort of the goal in this particular case so that we can have interesting fun. Because I don’t have anything in, we’ll say, in particular that I want to talk about. I’ll always talk about my sort of ideas that I’ve been working on. And if somebody wants to jump in, the links should be posted. And yeah, well, you know, that’s funny. So I like this. I like this question. Yeah, there’s a lot of patterns being exhibited in the USA. So we should talk a little bit about that because that was interesting. I did a, I jumped in on a Break the Rules YouTube channel. He’s got, I think his name is Lev. Nice guy. He had a Twitter spaces and YouTube live stream thing going. And I jumped in on that because Catherine Brodsky was running the live stream. She was one of the speakers in the Twitter spaces. And I like Catherine. I know Catherine. She’s a very interesting journalist. She’s on that sub stack and all these places. She’s all over Twitter and stuff. And she’s a really smart. And her writing is gorgeous and just writes beautifully. And she’s really smart, very open minded. And one of the interesting things that came up during that Twitter spaces, which was on Elon Musk, is he an insider or an outsider? You know, it was that sort of, sort of thing. But one of the interesting things that came up during that was the conspiracy theories, like deep conspiracy theories, like the Rothschilds who funded the Nazi war machine are connected to the Rockefellers and they’re somehow connected to Elon Musk because someone’s cat sniffed the butt of someone’s dog who lived next door to somebody who worked at a plant owned by… Really, it was really silly. It was like, you guys are silly. Why are you doing this? And then, and this is the video I was going to work on actually today, but I didn’t have the energy to work on videos today. I had to save all my energy for y’all. So I did. But one of the videos I want to do is how you see these recurring patterns, right? And you can go, oh, there’s a pattern over there. It was, you know, it was in 1886. This guy tried to, whoa, right? And he tried to go over the world and do this and he was maniacal and he had all the same thoughts as, you know, this guy 30 years later. And it turns out that they’re first cousins through three marriages and therefore, and it’s like, yeah, but there are patterns. And guess what happens? Like those patterns keep happening, right? Over time, they keep happening over and over again. And so you see the pattern of, say, Karl Marx here and you see it before him and you see it before… Those people aren’t related. They actually independently came to the same stupid idea. It doesn’t work and isn’t viable. That’s the pattern. The pattern is returning people being retarded. That’s really the pattern. It’s just stupid people doing stupid things to be more stupid. And that’s sort of the issue is that, look, Elon Musk, and this was my point. Like I was in the YouTube comments, like for some reason, nobody else was. It was me and one other person. We were going back and forth having a blast. So I was like, no, Elon Musk is just a utopian. And he thinks, well, if I colonize Mars and I start civilization over the right way, then bang, right? Like we’ll have goodness. It’s like, yeah, thanks, Karl Marx. He thought the same thing. Thanks, Rousseau. That’s actually the same as Rousseau’s thesis. It’s a slight modification from it, but it’s the same idea. So you see these patterns, right? And it’s not just people being dumb or dumb people being dumb, but it is people people-ing. And I talked to Paul Van Der Kley about this. I said, you see, Paul, the problem is people people-ing. What we need to do is stop people from people-ing. And he, because he’s a wet blanket on these things, he’s like, oh, but I like the people people-ing. That’s all the good parts. And I’m like, oh, I had the perfect solution. And Paul Van Der Kley is, he doesn’t like that. So it’s his fault that the world is in a better place. That’s all I’m saying. A direct line from my idea of stopping people from people-ing to PBK. And there you go. It’s for sure. And he’s linked to the Netherlands and they’re linked to the starting of the United States. And it was definitely ancient humans. That’s all I’m saying. Yeah, I mean, I think that’s the problem. We see these patterns all over the place. And so we’re playing through a bunch of patterns. One of the patterns we’re playing through is this enhanced victim narrative, which we’re very tolerant of. And I know, Manuel, I did a stream on tolerance or something, right? We’re very tolerant of these things. And when we allow people to play the victim card over and over and over and over and over again, it becomes a game. And people go, oh, game, let’s play the game. And then I have a video on this. You don’t have to play every game you see. I’ve had a lot of people like, well, don’t you like agile software development? I’m like, no, it’s terrible. It’s the worst thing ever. I mean, I’ll do it because I’m usually a consultant and you pay me to do a thing, I’ll do it. I don’t care. But I don’t want to play that game because it’s a dumb game and no one wins. Tim Pool has a similar sort of pattern. He says, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yes. Right. So there are these interactions like that where you run into problems. So, yeah. And there’s a bunch of patterns that we’re playing out in the U.S. We’re playing the victim narrative today on Insurrection Day. Meanwhile, the mother of the woman who actually died because she was shot by a cop, a Capitol Police officer, gets arrested for trying to call attention to the fact that the only victims here were lawful citizens, lawfully entering a building that they own and have a right to enter. So, yeah, I mean, if that doesn’t get me thrown off YouTube, then maybe there’s some hope for me. So I think that’s the problem is that you see these patterns playing out. These people are trying to hijack the narrative. Where have we seen narrative hijacking before? I have a video on narrative hijacking, by the way, in the beginning patterns. And I appreciate that Vixen has signed up. It’s very helpful because I was at 450 and then I bumped down to 448. Then I bumped to 449 and I was all upset. And then I get to 450 again. The world is OK. It’s oddly it’s not a linear progression with YouTube subscribers or views. I think I got over a thousand views on my new Peterson video, which I didn’t think was even likely. And that video took off way more than any of the other videos. So it took me by surprise. Yeah, I think I think there’s so many patterns. One of the patterns that keeps playing out is this idea that engineering or engineers, because they are providers of knowledge, are somehow uniquely situated in the world to enact the things that say some useless philosopher or a complete loser or maybe both like Karl Marx dreamed of. OK, not the first, second, third, fourth or 50,000 time. OK, it’s so that the 50,000th and one time is not going to work either. Like at a certain point, you have to say, you know, I’ve tried this a lot and it hasn’t ever worked. Maybe that’s because it can’t work and we don’t we don’t have a stopping point anymore. We’re not working. Actually, I am in the video on this, too. When you get involved in something, you need to have a point at which you say, you know what, this is never going to work. Whatever reason, like maybe it could work, but you’re too dumb or maybe it could work, but you’re too busy or maybe it could work, but not with you in it. All right. There’s lots of reasons that things get, but you need a stopping point. You need criteria for success and criteria for failure. You need to know when you’re backsliding. You need to know when you’re making progress. That’s your goal. Right. So Elon is not really different than Marx or any of the other thousands and thousands and thousands of people throughout history that has sort of noticed a problem. First of all, Elon is completely different from Karl Marx. I refuse to read reprehensible books that should probably actually be burned for real. No, no, really. Like, like that’s capital. I grabbed a bunch of quotes, all the popular quotes on capital that I could find by Karl Marx. I can tell you two. No, I can tell you three things about them. One is none of those quotes makes any sense at all. Two is they’re all wrong. Every single one, which is an accomplishment when you get like a dozen quotes on the same thing and they’re all wrong. That’s hey, you got skills, man. They’re not useful skills, but they’re skills. Right. And they all contradict one another, which is amazing because like I don’t like if I deliberately tried to do that, I’m thinking, pull it off. Look, there are problems in the world. You know what doesn’t ever solve problems? Engineering. Never. You know, you can cast the things that engineering does as solutions to problems. But like I can cast anything as solution to a problem. Well, birds fly because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to eat the bugs in the air. OK, that’s why birds fly. See, they’re solving a problem. See how I did that? That’s not why birds fly. Just saying. Look, it’s easy to do. And I’m not even saying it’s wrong. Like, OK, you can cast anything as a problem and then try to try to solve it. And yeah, I mean, I think that I think that we get caught up in these ideas. We get caught up in the utopian ideas. I can enact utopia. Right. I remember a conversation we had on Clubhouse probably a year and a half ago with my buddy, Dr. Lantern Jack, excellent guy. Ancient Greece Declassified podcast. Listen to that man. That is awesome. He is great. I really like Jack. He did a talk with Vervicki. It’s very good on that. Plato’s cave, AI and the Matrix, something like that. And they’re going to do another talk. So listen out for that. That was one of Vervicki’s best talks, although all his recent talks have been really good. Jack was saying that the ancient Greeks and he has a PhD in ancient philology. I won’t call him a philosopher. He doesn’t like that. He hates modern philosophy. This is why we get along so well, Jack and I. The ancient Greeks tried a thousand different forms of government. One thousand. They all failed, by the way, in case you want to get to the skip to the end of ancient Greece somehow. You missed it. But I think that is what we’re missing. People don’t know this. They think like, oh, really smart person can solve problem that’s, you know, three thousand years old and five thousand years old. No, the reason why it hasn’t been solved is because it can’t be solved. It’s that simple. There are just certain things we have to accept to live with. And that’s sort of what my intimacy crisis video is about, right, is acceptance of the inability to engage past a certain point. Right. Like we have limits. We don’t even know what the limits are. And there are not only limits on us, but there are limits on everything. Like gravity is one of those sort of limits on everything. You go, but there’s a place where gravity isn’t a limit. And it’s like, yeah, but there’s a bunch of limits to get away from the, you know. And then once you’re there, you know, its limits all the way down. Right. And that’s its problems all the way down. And that’s the thing. Yeah. You know, a lot of what a lot of what we see and a lot of the problems that we have is exactly this. We have engineering. We have engineering. Engineering can make certain things better, right, at the cost of other things. It’s trade-offs. I have a video on trade-offs, by the way, too. I’m navigating cutouts because I have videos on things. Right. You get caught up with, oh, we’re doing this. Yeah, but there’s always unintended consequences or unforeseen consequences or things you don’t know about because you don’t know anything. But you certainly don’t know about all that. And so what happens is, you know, we lionize, we’ll say all the best work. Karl Marx’s excellent critiques of capitalism. No, he doesn’t. He has terrible critiques of capitalism. You don’t have a good definition of it. Right. But then read Marx’s poetry and you will be terrified. Exactly. Are you looking at the whole picture? Are you just picking the pieces you like? You know, and fair enough, like we have to, we have to know things. We have to pick the pieces we like. But the poetry is more important, I would argue. And yeah, you know, you want to have a wider view of these things. Right. You want to sort of step out of the box. And engineers are tasked with solving problems and most rapidly evolving organic creatures. I don’t think engineers are tasked to solve problems at all. I think engineers are applied science largely and invention. Invention falls to engineers more than it falls to anyone else. We have the myth of science where science invented things. Science never invented anything, as I can tell. There were accidents during experiments to prove things like Rutherford’s model of the atom. I go over that in my science video, which I went navigating patterns, just saying. It’s a mistake. Like he found something because he was looking for something else. And then he was smart enough to notice, oh, wait, this isn’t what I expected. Maybe there was a there there. And there was. Good for him. Also, bad example. But, you know. The engineer needs the philosopher like the chief needs the medicine man. Well, look. Also, I think Jordan Peterson’s right. All science needs to be in a base of a telos or a religion or religious substructure or something. I think that’s how the ancient Greeks thought of philosophy. That’s not how we think of philosophy, because we’re dumb. And that’s the problem. And. It’s an issue. It’s an issue. We don’t like these tradeoffs, right? And we don’t understand tradeoffs. And yeah, true. There are always tradeoffs with cars. Engineers have given us better gas mileage, the expensive repairs. Well, and and they’ve given us lower emissions at the expense of gas mileage. So it turns out if you take an engine from the 70s and you just run it on better gas and tune it differently or update the the ignition system, you can get modern gas mileage amounts pretty easily. So the old cars were perfectly capable of getting 40 miles to the gallon with newer technology. But as we made the gas mileage technology better, we put more controls on the car for emissions. And that actually brings the gas mileage down. So you have this fight going on, which very few people know how to fix cars. One of my best friends is a mechanic. So I know quite a bit about cars, actually. So yeah, you don’t even know about cars. That’s fine. Not new cars. They’re all just computers. And then I know about that because I know about computers, but embedded systems are a pain. So, I mean, that’s one of the problems. We don’t really realize like, oh, yeah, you want lower emissions? Is it going to lower emissions? Right. Because a lot of people said there were a lot of projects going on in Massachusetts, for example, with the roads, where they were like, OK, here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to we’re going to we’re going to slow down traffic at this point. Right. It’s like, OK, but if you slow down traffic, you create more pollution. A because cars are really inefficiently at idle. I don’t know if you know this engines like load. So car needs to be moving. Cars not moving. Cars very inefficient. That’s the least efficient. Or if it’s moving slowly, that’s another problem where it’s really inefficient. But also you’re stopped. So your pollution is just kind of spreading out wherever you are. It makes it worse. It doesn’t make it better. You’re trying to make things better than not making it better. Oh, look at this. Oh, this is nice. Well, thank you for stopping by. Yes. Show my channel some love. Give me give me likes and subscribes and all my cool videos because I have a lot of cool videos actually. Navigating patterns. It’s a good channel. Trust me. Put a lot of time into it. Get over a year’s worth of videos now. Kind of exciting to have that that much that much stuff. But yeah, and feel free to like jump in and chat here live. But I will be taking questions. You know, this whole thing about patterns like the whole car industry is going through the same stupid pattern that will say the banking industry went through that the patterns are there. So I remember when you know, when ATMs first got big, you know, you started seeing ATMs at banks and they were like, oh, you can you can bank for free. The ATM. And I was like, that’s why I last Sunday. They’re going to start charging to bank at the ATMs. And here we are. You know, it’s like if people didn’t say like, no, no, no, because you’re saving money on people. I’m like, I doubt they’re saving any money with those silly things, you know, but they’re not, you know, I mean, they’re advantageous to 24 7 money. I think that’s the that’s the problem is that you don’t really see what’s coming right unless you see the patterns thing that gives you the power of prediction is noticing the patterns from from, we’ll say, history. And that’s that’s the key is noticing these patterns. And it’s it’s nice that you’re into these topics. I do. I do like that. I like the people who are in the top. It’s it’s good. And I see a lot of so the big pattern that I’m seeing is that we’ve got a lot of convergence. So like there’s an ontology clubhouse room actually that probably struts in an hour if they’re doing it tonight, although I doubt it. And I was going in there quite a bit and for like the past year and go in that room every Friday and hang out with those guys. And they’re converging on wisdom. They’re converging on poetics on, you know, poetry on the difference between, let’s say, engineering as such and and and the idea of the poetic as such. Right. So a lot of people are converging on this and the and the last time I was in last night on the live stream, it was Twitter Spaces and break the rules. YouTube slash podcasting. And they were also talking about, you know, philosophical sorts of things, right? Wisdom, you know, all coming down to all these patterns of playing out. So a lot of the groups that I track are coming very quickly into each other at the same at the same time. They’re all sort of converging on roughly where Vervecky and Peterson were already, we’ll say, two or three years ago. Right. They’re roughly coming into the wisdom sort of, oh, we really need is wisdom because engineering is not solving these problems because science not solving these problems because effective altruism, which is a fraudulent term used by fraud, which is a fraudulent is not solving the problem. Oh, really? I’m shocked. I’m shocked. Right. And some of these things and I’m going to do a video on this. Some of these things are sort of formulations. Again, I was mentioning formulations earlier to get on a stopping point. And you have to criteria for success. You also have to understand when people are avoiding something. Right. So if you want to talk about the good, you actually have to talk about the good. When you use a term like effective altruism, you’re not talking about the good. You’re talking about, roughly speaking, an engineering idea of efficiency. That’s what effective effective talks about efficiency and altruism. Neither of these are definable words. They’re not designed to be definable words. They’re defined by the context. So if you just say, oh, effective altruism, right, I’m going to do, you know, giving helpful giving or something. OK. Is it helpful? What are you giving? Is what you’re giving helping? What is helping? But right. So if you want to help somebody, don’t give them money. Give them your time, energy and attention. That’s the most valuable thing you have. Good news. We all have the most valuable thing, which is time, energy and attention. Bad news. You can’t do economics on time, energy and attention. It’s not possible. So if you want an economic frame or a political frame or a scientific frame and try to understand the world, right, those are all materialist frames, by the way, oddly, and they don’t work because time, energy and attention isn’t material and it isn’t economic and it isn’t political and it isn’t scientific. It isn’t philosophical. Like, it’s none of those things. It’s like, oh, wait, the most valuable thing is time, energy and attention. And I have that and I can give that to other people and that will help them. And why do I need effective altruism? The most effective way to help people is to give them your personal time, energy and attention. It’s that simple. Right. Why do they use terms like effective altruism? Because they’re hiding the fact that they they don’t know what the good is or they don’t want to do the good and they know full well what it is, even worse. But that’s how people are. That’s how people are. And yeah, I mean, people are sneaky. Right. You can look at what is it? SBF? Sam Bankman Fried or whatever his name is. Yeah. Effective altruism. I’m giving lots of money away while I’m stealing money from other people. Oh, that’s great. So now you’re Robin Hood. I mean, I think he probably thinks he is Robin Hood. Like, for real. He’s kind of a crazy person. But that should have been obvious just by looking at him. And so I’m always puzzled by these things. I’m like, oh, yeah, I looked at him and saw he was a crazy person and said, oh, crazy person. Run away. And all this crazy, his crazy ex-girlfriend, I guess. I was like, oh, yeah, she’s she’s a crazy person, too. Look at the crazy eyes. You can tell by the crazy eyes. Probably can’t teach you to see crazy eyes. But they’re a thing. And this is the problem. These are the patterns. Right. And this is the problem with patterns. Like when you don’t see the world in terms of patterns, you kind of end up in trouble. And another pattern that I’ve been seeing, I noticed actually today, I think today. There’s a pattern of engagement where I think a lot of people are seeing the meaning crisis in places where it’s not actually a meaning crisis. It is a crisis. It’s very serious. It can lead to a meaning crisis. Right. So like if you’re in the church and you lose faith, that looks a lot like a meaning crisis. But I don’t think that’s usually not always, but usually the same as what John Mervick is talking about with the NONESs because they don’t lose faith because they never had faith. That’s my argument. Now we can argue about, oh, everybody has to have faith in something, Mark. Fair enough. Whatever. But they don’t have faith in God. Right. They’re not embedded in the church. And I think actually something important about that. You can go see the video on navigating patterns about models. Right. The knowledge engine model. I think the people who can’t identify with religions, can’t identify with church, they seem to have certain things in common. Like they don’t like poetry. It’s like, that’s weird. They don’t usually engage in art and not making it. I mean, just go in art museums and stuff. Or they’ll go to history museums. Right. See historical art as well. History. Right. But they won’t go to the portrait gallery. Like I’m at the Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh, Scotland. Oh, man, that was awesome. Wow. What an experience. Beautiful. Beautiful museum. They wouldn’t do that. You know. And look, I mean, I’m somewhat guilty. I’m not a huge fan of like paintings. I’m a bigger fan of older paintings. Modern art is all terrible. That’s sort of how I do it. But if you don’t have the skill of poetics, of the inter-face interaction with poetics as such, that’s a problem. That’s a big problem. And then you won’t have access to mythological ways of thinking. You won’t have access to stories. You know, you’ll lose access to these things. That’s my thesis anyway, or part of it. And I think when Paul Van der Thij, for example, talks about the end of modernity and modernity receding, and I don’t like any of that framing. Paul knows this. He’s heard me say it enough and type it out in YouTube comments many times. I think it’s the end of materialism. Like materialism is failing. Right. The materialist models, which were working and working pretty well because they were grounded in a religion. Everything was fine. Have started to fail now. Right. It’s like you’ve reached the end of the usefulness of science. You’ve reached the end of the utility of materialism. And now all of a sudden you’re like, yeah, you kind of lost faith. You lost faith in materialism. Fair enough. But they never had faith in God. And I would argue having faith in God, losing faith in God is unlike having faith in anything else and losing faith in that thing. I think they’re fundamentally different. And I think it puts you closer to the bottom. If we can be all Descartes about the thing. So we’ll go all Cartesian about it. Right. Yeah, there’s a bottom. And you’re closer to it when you don’t start from faith in God, we’ll say. So, oh man, I gotta fix these. I didn’t realize these are all messed up. There we go. How’s that? Perfect. All right. Pirate navigation. Yeah. I mean, I think that while the meaning crisis covers a lot of things to your excellent point, the meaning crisis umbrella covers almost everything nowadays and it’s raining heavily. Yeah, I mean, I think it’s raining heavily. And that’s the problem is that it’s it’s raining heavily. And a lot of things. The big problem, the meaning crisis, it leads to or indicates nihilism. Right. And lots of things do that. But when Reveke talks about the NONES, I would argue that’s what he’s talking about. My latest Peterson video, which, you know, look, if I could get that over a thousand views, that’d be great. And we’re over 900. So it’s not that far. We can do it. We can do it. Peterson talks to people who don’t have a deep faith and either lost it or never have. Right. And I like that’s a whole group of people that people who always had their faith don’t believe in. It’s the truth fairy to them. They don’t believe it because they don’t know it. Fair enough. Like you don’t know the world. And how do you, you know, disambiguate those from the traumatized Christians or the Christians that lost faith? It’s hard. Like, I’m not saying this is easy. I’m not saying I have an answer. I’m saying that there is a differentiation to be made and that differentiation is probably important. That’s what I’m saying. Right. That’s what I’m trying to say anyway. And so that’s a different thing. It’s not a meaning crisis. It’s a crisis of faith. And I think crisis of faith is much older, much easier to fix because they, you know, people, people have interactions that are in the church that people who don’t or aren’t in the church don’t have. I had the hardest time seeing beauty slash art until I started listening to Jordan and Jonathan. Yeah. What is that? Right. And this is where that knowledge engine model comes in handy. Right. Because we think there’s a thing called poetic information. And that’s one way of informing the world. And the nice thing about that model instead of we’ll say John Brevicki’s four Ps of knowledge or four Ps of knowing model. And it is a modification of that. No question about it. Who does to John for giving us the impetus to and the framework to build upon. I think that way of thinking about what’s going on is important because people who lost faith have a poetic interaction with the world. They just having problems orienting right navigation navigation. Right. Whereas people who never had that they don’t have a way in their stock. And then part of the thesis of my latest Peterson video there is is he uses history to shove you into the Bible. Very clever trick. I don’t know that he’s doing it consciously. I’m not claiming that. But kind of take you back to time. Right. Using you know using the hook of psychology science of psychology. Such as a science as it may be. Right. Or not. And then he grabs you with that. He grabs you with that. See your psychology and look at and look at all this weird psychological stuff going on in the back of these movies like Pinocchio and Lion King. Fair enough. Like oh yeah. Matrix he mentions all the stuff and he says it’s weird because those patterns and he is talking about patterns the whole way through. Go back and watch again if you missed. He’s talking about patterns and maps of meaning. Right. Those patterns play out in other ways like these mythological stories and you can see the pattern mythological story and a pattern in Lion King the pattern Pinocchio and the pattern in history and oh look at the history all the way back. And then he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he goes to Egypt and he does he does. It’s backwards cheating patterns baby and and that’s the thing. I don’t know if that works vixen. but yeah if you can put the peterson one on loop overnight and get and get a 1000 views that would be great I think you to mat Vlogs on YouTube enriches your life in It’s a good prop, but they can’t see. And I already can’t see, so not being able to see twice is worse. Yeah, I mean, I make this case in my Peterson video, right? Like the biblical series is more, slightly more popular, only slightly more popular than Maps and Meaning, from what I can tell. And yeah, you can bitch at me for using my own number of schemes and whatnot, but I am a data scientist among other things, so I have done that for a living. They’re very close. And the traumatized Christians, or the people who lost faith, the biblical series is probably number one for them. The N-O-N-E-S is the ones that Vivek is talking about, people that clue lesses, right? People who never had church, never knew, never didn’t really interface with church. They’re not getting into the biblical series. It’s not gonna happen. They’re gonna go, Bible? Why? Who cares? Old book, myths, not important, science first, right? And that’s the problem. And that is the problem, right? So I think there’s different ways of understanding all the tricks that Peterson did. I’m not claiming I understand all his tricks or anything, because I probably don’t. But that is the issue. And okay, so what do we get? Do I need to wear whatever Mark is wearing with thousands of lenses to see all the patterns? Yes. I need a jewel to win the match to crown. You do, you deserve a jewel crown. I can confirm that. No, this was 10 bucks, by the way, just saying, handmade. It’s got this little thing on it that moves. It’s very steampunk. I actually do like steampunk. I’m not a huge fan of any of those things, but steampunk is kind of fun. I did do a steampunk costume with a couple of friends of mine at Eresia, which is a New England sci-fi convention a few years ago. So a lot of years ago now, my goodness. That was quite some time ago. That was before I moved. But yes, in order to navigate patterns, you need pattern navigation clothing and pattern navigation devices with enhancements because that’s effectively what I have. Amazon, 10 bucks, seriously, so cool. I think they have different colors. This is blue, of course, because there really is only the color blue. People who have fooled themselves in thinking there are other colors are wrong. I think the evolutionary psychology leads to the evolution of our understanding of patterns, not religions. Exactly, very astute of you, Vixen, I agree. I think that in order to take evolution seriously, and I would argue, and it’s gonna sound not probalic, but no, I really mean this. None of these evolutionary scientists actually understand what the hell they’re talking about. And I do mean like almost none. It’s very close to zero. They don’t understand the implications of their own work. I mean, I think you saw that when Peterson confronted Dawkins. At the very end of that video, you could hear the fear in his voice when Peterson confronted him with the inevitable conclusion of the line of thinking that he had been pursuing and that Dawkins had been agreeing to the whole time. So you see these patterns kind of play out. Evolution is a set of processes and patterns that are playing out over time. That’s what it is, among other things, but that’s part of it. So you can get people into pattern thinking at that point. And once you see things in patterns and not processes and not propositions, so there’s no procedural propositional knowledge here, although I argue they’re types of information, not knowledge, right? There is poetic information, and that’s what patterns are wrapped up with. They’re not poetic information. Poetic information is about them, right? Just to get the relationship clear. That’s really what we’re navigating. We’re navigating the poetics, right? Through participation, right? If you try to navigate the world through propositions and procedures, you basically appear autistic, technically. Like that’s what we think. Manuel and I and Andrea Jones and a bunch of people worked on this model for quite a while. And that’s what we came to. And that’s the thing is there are these patterns and you can get, say, locked out of the patterns, but you can get thrown back into the patterns. And then you can start engaging with the patterns again. And that’s why something like Biblical Lecture Series, where he’s basically saying, listen, materialist Christian who fell out of faith, let me use a materialist frame. What’s the name of the Biblical Lecture Series? It’s called the Psychological Significance of the Bible, or the Biblical Stories or something. The Psychological, oh, science. Again, psychology, such a science as it is. And I hate psychology with a blinding passion. I hate more than psychology is Canadians. Who aren’t French Canadians? French Canadians are the best people on the planet, obviously. And the only thing I hate more than psychology and Canadians are academics. So yeah, Jordan Peterson, I was like, who’s this clown? I don’t like this guy. He’s no good. He hits like three strikes, sure. But obviously I love his work, so I can’t help it. He’s just great. I think the problem is that we don’t realize these patterns are there. They’re in the science. They’re in the psychology. They’re in the evolution. They’re there. That’s the grounding of reality and the patterns. And I think that’s what Jonathan Peugeot would say. And yeah, we don’t really recognize. So for me, Peterson qualified my Christianity. I had never heard a psychologist that spoke positively of the Christian faith. That’s a problem, yeah. I feel as though Jordan is tying worlds just like the Jordan River. Well, I love that analogy. I wouldn’t have phrased it that way, because I don’t know. Jordan River, where’s that? Yeah, that’s great. That’s great. And that’s the thing. It only takes attention. Right, Jonathan Peugeot, the world is attention. It only takes attention. You point at something, and then your brain will kind of find patterns in it. Now, you can find procedures, and those are sort of lame patterns. Necessary, but lame. They’re very linear. They’re discrete. This is the argument I make in the model video on the knowledge engine. The poetic patterns allow you to live in the narrative. They allow you to construct narratives, to connect to narratives, to understand narratives. There are limits, right? But that’s what the poetic information does. It allows you multiple connections. It allows you to interface with the world in a way that you can’t with linear, discrete connections. Linear, discrete connections are those things that are procedures and propositions, right? So you connect propositions with procedures, and that’s a very linear way to do it. Now, I’m not saying you can’t connect propositions with poetics, but the right thing to do is to connect participation with poetics. That’s how you make music. That’s how you understand story, right? Understand your role in the story. That’s how you navigate the world, right? Is poetic navigation. That’s what you need. Not saying you can do without propositions. You certainly can’t. I’m not saying you can do without procedures. You certainly can’t, right? But the thing that we’re missing in society seems to be poetics. That understanding of and appreciation for. The poetic patterns, these multi-connected things. Music doesn’t just grab you on one dimension, right? A good book doesn’t grab you on one dimension. A good movie doesn’t grab you on one dimension. And what we’ve done is we’ve reduced everything down to propositions and procedures. So, well, what made The Matrix a good, we’re gonna make a sequel to The Matrix. What made The Matrix a good movie? Can you guess what they came up with for a list of what made the first Matrix film a good movie? Go ahead, guess. The actors. Not wrong, right? Totally, partially correct. That new, cool bullet time thing that they came up with, which is a brand new special effect. Also not wrong, totally correct, right? The action scenes themselves, independent of, we’ll say bullet time. Very cool. Not wrong. What made The Matrix a good movie? Because it turns out if you make a movie with just those three things, you try to emulate The Matrix or make a sequel or whatever, the movie’s not gonna be good. And why? Well, because The Matrix was actually a good story. Now, I can make arguments, The Matrix was a terrible story for lots of reasons, but there are elements, there are narrative pattern elements in it that made it good. And by the way, I have a video which Paul Danucle is actually watched. He’s apparently, and found helpful, called Story, Narrative, and Archetype. And just watch, I don’t know how to get any patterns because it’s excellent. The narrative patterns are in The Matrix. Now, I would argue, and I think Jonathan Pigeot argues, they’re put together wrong and some of them are flipped, but they’re all there, right? Or a bunch of them are there. And that’s why we like the movie, and I love that movie, so it’s great. I had to watch Jonathan Pigeot’s Matrix video three times. I had to watch it three times and then watch The Matrix, and then I was like, oh, now I get it. Now I get it. Me still looking at the buttons, very hard to understand. And that’s really the issue. I didn’t know this. So what are you saying, Josh? Saying the Jordan River divided the wilderness from the promised land, did it? If you say so. I didn’t read that book. They didn’t make me. I’ve talked about this before. They did not make me read that in school, those bastards. They should have. Well, my parents should have, but failure all around, I guess. I think we’ll address this fixing. So what is the relationship between pattern recognition and our interest navigation? Well, look, what is interest, right? Interest is tough. What do we find interesting? And this is where I actually really like some of John’s wording. I mean, I really hate some of John’s wording too, but verbeekies get good words for some things. Salient landscape, right? What do we find salient or potentially interesting, we’ll say, right? So it’s what are we aware of? And that’s limited. And then of the things we’re aware of, what do we find potentially interesting? That’s the salient landscape, right? And then it’s like, okay, we’ll go into theoretical land here. So don’t nail me to the cross for this one because I made you a video and countermend or contradict everything I’m saying. I wanna say that probably the things that have either a very high novelty factor. So there’s a thing in our brain for exploration, which is apart from everything else, we have like an exploratory circuit. That’s one thing that can sort of grab our interest or hold our interest, right? Attract our interest. Things that are multi-connected to things we already know, those are gonna grab our interest and hold our interest better. That’s the patterns, right? And then things with high pattern recognition either in a positive or unknown direction, right? So not just patterns, like, cause some patterns are bad, like addiction. Go, oh, and I use that all the time cause I’m highly prone to addictive behaviors, right? So I’m like, oh, that’s not good. I gotta make sure I don’t do that again, right? Things like that. Like I went to the grocery store and somehow slipped up and bought Jordan almonds and those were gone in three days. So a big pile of Jordan almonds and I love Jordan almonds. So I just sucked those puppies down. Like they were, yeah, they were just gone three nights. I’m like, damn it, Mark, you really gotta take five days to eat that many Jordan almonds. But I couldn’t do it. Very bad pattern. Addicted to Jordan almonds, can’t confirm. These patterns are there. And I think the salient landscape gets sort of somewhat determined by those patterns. Sometimes you get trapped in those patterns as we’re addicted to edge, getting sort of trapped in those patterns. And the problem is when we embody those patterns because now we can’t think about them the same way. We have to recognize them differently. And when we recognize them differently, then we have to engage with them differently. And this is why, oh shoot, what is the name of that book? I see the brain just went south. And it’s a tea, one moment. Cinnamon apple tea. Man, that does taste good. I love that tea. So Atomic Habits, that’s one of the books. It’s not the book I was thinking of, but there’s these books about habits and how to form them. Well, habit is a pattern that you rationalize first, right? You go through the propositional procedural. You try to proceed, you make a procedure and then you embody it. Now you don’t think about it anymore at the rational level, at the conscious level. Another video, consciousness, unconsciousness, and dead matter, which is roughly speaking. And I talked to Catherine about this at Thunder Bay, yeah, at Thunder Bay, or just the day after Thunder Bay. That’s what I wish they had talked about at Thunder Bay. Consciousness, I wanted a definition for consciousness, unconsciousness, and dead matter. You need all three. Watch that video, it’s good. It’s really good, actually. Why, why is that important? That’s important because, because the conscious patterns that get turned into unconscious patterns deliberately are usually the ones that are helping us. The unconscious patterns that we don’t even recognize, those, half of them are probably good and half of them are probably not good, right? Those are the ones you gotta watch out for. And that’s why you need other people. That’s why you need a community. Because, and you can’t do one other person, because one other person has their blind spots too, and heaven for a fan, they’re in love with you, then they really won’t see who you are or how to help you. Until that wears off, and luckily it usually does, because you’re a jerk and you’ll piss somebody off no matter what you do. I’m really good at this, by the way, so. Like, if you need tips or whatever on how to piss somebody off, just come to me and I’ll help you out. You need lots of people with different perspectives saying, oh yeah, you got this pattern, you do this all the time, you do that all the time. I’m like, okay, that’s good to know, thank you. And you know, from my perspective, people don’t do enough of that. You’ll do this to me all the time. I remember the first times I got on Discord, I had this picture, it was from my trip to Hawaii, so I had this hat on and it looked kinda funny. It looked great to me, because, like, memory. Ooh, I was in Hawaii, that was wonderful, right? Everyone else hated it and said I look like an old woman. They wouldn’t tell me that to my face. So, wasn’t helping me, wasn’t helping me, months, months. Right, and that’s the problem. But you need those other people. Like, you gotta have these other people to help you find these unconscious patterns that they’re already sort of baked into you, right? You’re already sort of suffering from in some sense. I like, Matt, that you’re addicted to my monocle. That’s good, I’m happy to hear that. That’s part of the point, it’s mesmerizing. See, it’s got this blue tint. It’s gonna mesmerize you into loving it. And then you can do my bidding, because I need minions to do my bidding. And let’s see, Josh, what’d you got? Interest seems to work like a virus if it can find a spot on the blood cell to fit in, can infect, yeah, wow. Yeah, I mean, I don’t think, I mean, I think you gotta meet things halfway, right? Our interests are partly set up by our passions. Our passions really manipulate our salience landscape, the things that are interesting to us, right? So if you have a sexual passion that’s gonna be interesting to you is whatever you find sexually attractive. We said this old joke with a former roommate of mine where he liked clavicles, or at least he said he did. I don’t know if that’s true. He said, ooh, clavicles, those are the things that turn me on. It’s not feet, really, it’s not chest, it’s not legs, it’s clavicles, that’s what you’re going for. It’s not blonde hair, like, come on, blue eyes. No, it’s clavicles, okay, whatever. I never knew how serious that was. It didn’t matter, it was very funny. So yeah, I mean, that’s important to know. Really get growth. Would you associate this with the panpsychist notion that matter is dead consciousness? See, see, Garth, I didn’t wanna get into this because I have a video on conscious and unconscious and dead matter, but quickly, I will summarize. The reason why you need three buckets is because if you don’t have three buckets, you will reduce Japan’s psychism. That’s actually the reason why you need three. You can’t go unconscious versus unconsciousness and gradation, because that’s what they do. You watch very carefully, you’ll see the pattern. De La Hante does this, all these muppets do this. We’re all muppets, but they’re like extra muppety muppets or something. If you just have two buckets, you’re gonna over reduce. And I already had that video. It’s called, what’s it called? I don’t know the names of my videos either. That video is called, yeah, it’s called Consciousness, Unconscious, and Dead Matter or something. At least that’s in the thumbnail, you’ll find it. I did it right up to Thunder Bay, because it was like that was the video that, I was like, man, I wish Thunder Bay had talked about this. And like I said, I talked to Katherine about it. So I was like, that’s what I wish would have happened. She seemed to really like that idea. So give me one moment, because I’m gonna lose my voice here, I need more tea. Ah, the cinnamon tea, very good, very good. Very refreshing. And it’s nice, it’s nice, it’s not too hot. So that’s good. So yeah, you need those three buckets. You’re gonna have to three buckets. Three buckets is very important. So visit Navigating Patterns, watch that video. I think that’s a 20 minute or so video, if I remember correctly. It’s not super long, it’s not super short. My videos on money are super short, or at least one of them is. So, you know, I get short videos, I get long videos. I’m always playing around. Nobody ever gives me any good feedback. Like I was saying with my picture on Discord for months. But that’s why you need other people, right? You need that feedback to know what unconscious things you’re playing out that you’re not aware of, that you’re not paying attention to, that you’re not able to engage with. Because that’s actually the important part is being able to engage with these things, right? If I don’t know that, you know, every time somebody brings up spring water, I turn my back and leave the room, I don’t know, I might do that, I have no idea, then I can’t fix it. And that’s a problem. Like we have all kinds of patterns that we’ve embodied, that we don’t know anything about. We don’t know anything about them. What’s Vixen saying? All right, interests are not malicious. I think, yeah, the interests themselves are not malicious, but man, you can run into trouble with your interests. Yeah, especially if you have an interest, well, a lot of people have like sexual addiction or whatever, right? A lot of people have drug addictions, right? Or video game addictions. Video games are interesting to them. Video games, some video games are interesting to me. I don’t play a lot of video games. I’m not very good at them either. So timing’s a big problem with me. I can’t even get around the stupid PlayStation 4 or watch TV shows. It happened earlier today. I was going to watch something, and I’m hitting the buttons in order in approximately the same, okay, exactly precisely the same timing I always do. And they changed something or moved something or something mistimed in the box, and I got a strange result. And I swore at the box and said, all technology is garbage, and you should all burn in hell for it. And got very angry, because that’s usually what I do. And it didn’t do any good. No one was here, no one cared, but it made me feel better. So it’s gotta be something to it. So, yeah, I mean, our ability to control our interests. So this is why I think meditation is good, or prayer, prayer is a form of meditation, is important, because our interests don’t always serve us, right? And sometimes because interests conflict, short term and long term, sometimes our interests don’t serve us in the short term, and they need to. And sometimes our interests don’t serve us in the long term, and they need to. And that’s how you get into trouble. And these are all hard problems. I’m not saying you can fix, say, the problems of the world using this model. I’m saying you need to have the problems located in the right layer of analysis, to use Peterson’s terms, in order to have a chance at doing better with them. If you just say, all my problems are political and the political party, political machine is corrupting me or manipulating me, all my problems are due to capitalism, you can’t do anything about any of that. That’s not helpful. Pragmatism for the win, don’t do that. Don’t worry about that. If that’s true, you’re screwed. So your interests aren’t malicious, but your interests are manipulated by agents that don’t always have your best interest in mind, we’ll say. Your interests are manipulated by you, and parts of you don’t always have your best interest in mind. That’s why meditation is helpful, because you start meditating, you start closing your eyes, or even just keeping your eyes open, like staring at a blank wall silently for a while, and things pop up and you go, what the hell is going on in my head? What is going on in my head? I was like, oh, there’s all this stuff going on in my head I knew nothing about. Maybe I should pay attention to that. So one of the things I like for Vicky’s meditation series, which is awesome, although they took all the sits off, I don’t know why, I’m still a little niffed about that, I hope they fix that soon, they said they would, they told me they would, beginning to lose faith there, but you know what happens. All right, what do we got, Garth? If you add sugar to cinnamon tea, you have cinnamon sugar tea, one of my favorite ways to drink tea. I’m trying to catch out on the sugar, buddy, but I do appreciate it. I may try that someday, but sugar is evil. So honey, on the other hand, is not evil, like sugar is. Don’t know why, they’ve done lots of studies on this, by the way. The doctors should know this, they just ignore data, because they’re bad people. They’re peopling, and it’s just, people would just stop peopling, my goodness, the world would be a better place. Do the openness of the host may be malicious, as we are not always in control of the host, right? Well, I think there’s two issues with interests, right? One is we don’t control the sailing landscape all the time. Like that’s what depression is, right? You find nothing interesting, nothing novel, nothing at all, right? You just find nothing. You’re like hanging out near nihilism, going wee, and that’s not good. And, that’s what depression really is. Like you have no motivational force to move forward, because there’s no interest. And, you know, or even when there is interest, there’s no will. You know, your will is sort of dampened, or constrained or something. And then it’s like, oh, I can’t get out of this tar pit that I’m in. And interestingly, that’s all like wrapped up in inflammation, which is what you’ll get if you put sugar in your cinnamon tea, which is why I will stick to honey. Thanks, Garth. I think honey’s a better bet. That whole idea that’s wrapped up in the interaction, we’ll say between interest, your will, right? Because you have to apply your will to be an agent in the world, right? To pursue your interests, right? Through your agency. That’s wrapped up with salience landscaping. That’s wrapped up with the unconscious versus the conscious, right? Because we’re, there’s things that we naturally unconsciously move towards, and things we naturally unconsciously move away from, just as a default position. We don’t see that. That’s why you need other people. That’s why you need a community. That’s why you need to get together with people. That’s why we outsource our sanity. We have no choice, right? We need a consciousness bigger than ours to see the flaw in our consciousness. Like just, it’s easy. It’s easy. It’s not that hard. It’s just people don’t wanna hear that. They’re like, oh no, I’m an individual and I can do everything by myself. No, you can’t. You’ve never done anything by yourself in your life. You’re never gone. Get over it. Except root tea. You can root tea by yourself. Everything else you can’t do by yourself. And that’s the, I didn’t even brew that tea by myself. I didn’t make the cup. I didn’t make the tea. I didn’t make the thing that boiled the water. I didn’t even make the water. Wish I could make wine. That’d be cool. Or maybe you just need to make wine. I don’t know. How does that work? I didn’t read that book. I think you need to understand the difference between salience and will and agency and interest and discipline and all of these things. Because if you’re not aware of them, you’re not in as much control of your life as you can be in. Now you can’t be in full control of your life because that’s just your fate. You were born into the world you were born into and none of us, no matter how much we try, have a high degree of control over ourselves. And none of us have as high a degree of control over ourselves as we’d like. But it’s still your best bet. Because you is the thing you have the most control over. So don’t change things outside of yourself because you’re not gonna meet with good results. Especially if you don’t have control over yourself first. Just clean your room. That’s why Peterson says it. It’s really important actually. It’s super important and it’s super significant. So yeah, I mean, the pattern of struggling with these issues, because in the East, the way they struggle with it is through Buddhist meditation and the yogic and tantric principles, which are tied in with a bunch of other things. Yoga is an aberration in the East. You would never just do yoga by itself. I think that in Christianity, you’ve got various forms of prayer, right? You’ve got the monasteries, at least in theory, where you had them, right? You’ve got the academy, like they had a structure to put people of different sort of events, right? To take the best advantage of them because we’re not all the same. Like some of us are very, quote, thinky talky as Paul Van Dyke likes to say. And some of us are just kind of nice and we don’t understand others fancy words and why should we? I’d rather have kind of nice. And there’s places for all of that. And we need to organize it and put it in a structure and get it together, right? And if we can’t do that, then it’s just inefficient and leads to chaos and we don’t need more chaos. So does wisdom raise awareness? This is a good question. I mean, this is, what you’re really asking to some extent is what is wisdom? And that’s gonna be hard to answer. So I’ve got my Mark of Wisdom project going on. Don’t quite have the website to anything on it yet, but it’s there. I think with part of wisdom, all right, let me back up. Let me go with what Vervicki says about wisdom that really attracted me to Vervicki’s work or one of the things that attracted me to Vervicki’s work. And then we’ll let our guest up here. Vervicki said, we don’t need to make everybody more wise. We just need more wise people, right? And so he’s basically talking about an elitist class, which generally I don’t like, but in this case, I think he’s right, right? For people to exemplify. And so what is wisdom? Yeah, it’s a good question. I think wisdom is something like the poetic navigation of awareness and attention, right? And that leads into all kinds of things. So does wisdom raise awareness? I think it changes your awareness. Is that raising it? I don’t know. It’s a good question. It’s a good question. I don’t think it raises it. I don’t like the hierarchy of raising and lowering and things like that. All right, let’s see if, Nurem, oh, he’s frozen though. Nurem, are you there? Oh no, is it working? Not even frozen, okay, now you’re good. Great, great. How’s it going, man? It’s going okay. How are you doing? What’s going on? Great, I just got off work and I saw you streaming. Usually you’re streaming when I’m in the middle of stuff. So yeah, I was like, I gotta hop on there. It’s good to have you. We’re talking about a bunch of things, but right now we’re talking about wisdom. Right on. Do you have a definition of wisdom over there? You got mountain wisdom for sure. Yeah, I was talking about this earlier today actually, like the cycle of civilizations that they rise and fall and rise and fall. And we were talking about the Ubermensch. And the Ubermensch, what does this concept even mean? And my friends brought up, you know, Chinese people way before Nietzsche came up with that concept and I’m like, yeah, they did, but their civilizations still fell apart. So wise. What’s the point of wisdom if you can’t, you know, preserve yourself on into the future? Right. I don’t know. Or is it good that it falls and then it gets refreshed and then new things grow out of it that have never been? Like cell phones, do you think cell phones have ever been a thing? Like, I don’t know, maybe. Right, right. No, good question. And I like Josh’s proverbs claim to hold wisdom, agree or disagree. Well, look, I mean, I think proverbs are paths to wisdom. Like I think that’s what we’re designed to do, right? So yeah, I mean, I think the problem is wisdom’s all around us and not everybody can or should engage in it maybe, right? But we gotta have a few people, like for Vicky said, right? That are wise and we have to have some reverence for that wisdom. And I think that the harder part’s gonna be the reverence for the wisdom because everyone’s afraid of the guru problem such as it is, right? It is a problem, man. Yeah. Right. Well, there’s a lot of people out there, looking for somebody to follow. Yeah. And they’ll do it. Cult of personality, yeah. Yeah, it is. It’s a good idea. That’s what they’re trying to avoid. And then Ethan, he was asking, is wisdom correlated with goodness? Is there such a thing as an evil wizard? Yeah, well, look, Ethan knows full well, I think, what my attitude on wizards are. We got sorcerers everywhere, right? We got the Jordan Halls of the world, forest landry, sorcerers, sorcerers them all, I say. Right. You know, and they are, you know, they’re playing this silly game because they’re all postmoderns. What happens with postmoderns is they’re like, ooh, evil, charismatic person. And so they associate charisma with badness because of Hitler or Stalin or both, hopefully, right? Well, and then the wisdom can be tailed by doing evil stuff. That’s unwise. I mean, in my book, that’s just not wise. Right, so yeah, I mean, I think the thing about wisdom is that wisdom is just this ability to reframe things in such a way and see those stacked patterns, right? So John DeGio talks about the, why I had self-similar fractal nature of the universe, right? Because it’s the self-similar fractal. It’s not just fractal. And then the interesting part about that is that I think wisdom is seeing those patterns at multiple layers and how they’re interacting. Like, I think wisdom’s tied up with that, with the poetic information in the world. And that is where I think things get interesting, is that that’s what wise people are seeing. Like dualities? I don’t think they’re dualities. I don’t believe in dualities. But you know, look, the pattern of consciousness will say that people see. So John DeGio talks about, is the city conscious? Is the people in it are, right? And then dogs have a consciousness and that’s sort of a hierarchy of consciousness. And then, well, there’s certain patterns that play out in dogs and people and cities, right? It’s like, oh, what happened? There are patterns. Consider the concept of induction versus the ordering of the universe. The two are the same process from a different frame of reference. The same thing is going on in the brain that is going on in the universe ordering itself. Yeah, potentially. That’s a duality. The struggle between the order and the chaos. You know, let’s have a rock band come into the classroom and the teacher’s like, no, you can’t do that. It’s the constant struggle between the two. But you have to have that. You have to have the movie Footloose. Otherwise, you know, dancing is not as important. You know, it’s, you know, does that make sense? Yeah, if it’s, look, if it’s not, in some sense, if there’s no resistance to it, it has no importance, right? Because if nobody cares and everybody, if they’re too tolerant, Ethan will be happy. If they’re too tolerant, it loses its value. Right. Right. And if they’re not tolerant enough, it loses its value, right? And you have to have that fight between, you know, like in Footloose, between kids and the parents and all the other people that are kind of like on the fence to really sort it out. It’s like a trial, you know. Right. And if you’re sorting something out, it’s important. Yeah. And if you’re not sorting it out, it’s not important. And then I like this. Vincent says, Peterson definitely ignited my interest in almost everything he had brought up in his lectures. This is, did interest, did interest me or disinterested me? Opened up my salient landscape enormously. Yeah. Well, that’s what happens, right? Is that you get introduced to novel things, new things, and you go, aha. And then all of a sudden, somebody gives you a way to relate to them, like Peterson does. He gives you materialist frame to relate to symbolism, roughly speaking. Right. And then all of a sudden the world opens up to you because now all of a sudden you can go on Jonathan Pigeot’s channel, maybe for two or three years, not understand a word he’s saying and still watch. And then maybe someday it’s like, oh, art. I get it, right? Right. I’d say the issue that runs into this sort of enlightenment is that it can, and I think it often is very traumatic for people who go through it. And these processes get more traumatic as you are, well, let’s put it this way. You’re building a structure, a wobbly structure is underneath you. And you’re also balancing on top of that structure and it gets more wobbly. Well, yeah, if you do it, right? If you don’t, it’s like you’re sat in a community, right? Which is the key. You can’t transform yourself, that’s foolish. I mean, unless you’re the Buddha, but I don’t, I mean, no offense, but I don’t think anyone hears the Buddha. Right, so that’s why the community is important, right? Because there’s a distributed cognition. It can help you to see things about yourself that you don’t know. It can help you determine, well, I have this vision, right? I think about this thing, right? Is that good or bad? It can help you with that, right? And then it can support you while you transform because it doesn’t make any sense that you’re just gonna magically like come out of the cocoon like a butterfly and all that on your own. I mean, even butterflies talk to you on their own. Yeah, people gotta talk to each other to make sure they’re not crazy and that they’re not saying. Oh yeah, it’s still the outsourcing thing. Right, right. And see if you can take a joke and poke a little fun and like just have fun with each other. You know, that’s what horses be. To be fair, what’s crazy to one person is normal to another and what’s normal to another is normal. But that is the right, but that’s why you have to work it out because one person can’t determine it. That’s the whole point of sanity. Sanity is like the agreement. So Vixen says like everything wisdom needs updating constantly to create new patterns, hopefully better integrated ones that work for most, mostly. Maybe, I mean, I don’t know that we’re creating new patterns. I think we’re just falling prey to many of the same old patterns. And I think part of wisdom is seeing those patterns. Navigating patterns. You got to get around to different places, I think. You know, they go over here, they go over there, they go up and down. And for the different situations, you know, you want to go through a different pattern. I like this eye piece you got. What is that? You like it? Yeah, where does it come from? What is it about? Oh yeah, I love the eyeglass. It’s super dope. I love it. Ten bucks, timeline, steampunk. It’s monocle. Monocle, that’s what it’s called. It’s a monocle. Yeah, you look up monocle on Amazon and you’ll get, and everything moves. These guys move, right? They fit these little things. It’s like highly functional too. Yeah. It could be in theory. I mean, I can’t see a damn thing out of it, but that is blue. It’s blue. It’s blue. It’s blue. It’s blue. It’s the blue monocle of death. Ah. Right? I love it. Yeah. I mean, I think it’s great. I like steampunk stuff, like I was saying earlier. I love it. So I’m okay. I don’t have a ton of it. I do have a costume. I still have my costume from a region. I got one of these hats. Yeah. That’s my contribution to- Crazy Russian, Ambulance, and Sasquatch thing. No, it’s like, you know, I’ve seen people wear these in steampunk, you know, like airship people. I’m an airship captain. Yeah. That one door from the Hobbit. That’s what I’m going for. Yeah, that one door from the Hobbit. He was cool with it. That was his name. Yeah. Josh, did you come up here? Tell us what you want to say here. Who’s that? Who’s that? Josh, he came up. Oh, yeah. What’s up, Josh? He froze. Hey. How are you? How are you? All right. Yeah, no, sorry. I was texting at the moment when he spoke to me. No, I just joined in because I wanted to participate a little bit. I’m a layman, so I’m kind of new to the area and new to the sphere and that, but I’ve been listening to Jordan for a long time and Jonathan and that, and I just really enjoy listening to you guys talk about this. Everybody always has a lot of questions and a lot of things on their mind and things that are rolling around in their head and things like that, but a lot of what we’re talking about, it seems like with wisdom and how it applies to a person, maybe it seems to be that wisdom seems to be the superior thing to pursue in all things. The engineers can create, the people can ask for the things for the engineers to create, but it seems to be that we are, there’s a movie coming out, Oppenheimer, and Oppenheimer, he was the lead guy on the atomic bomb. He created exactly what people wanted, but he knew what it would be used, he knew that they were gonna wanna play with it. He knew that when he designed it and he said, well, I think the quote is, and forgive me if I misquote it, but we are gods now but for the wisdom. And that, and so we’re some very primitive creatures playing with some very big tools. Chap GPT just got released a few weeks ago and we’re gonna see how that’s gonna change the world. Maybe it’s not as impressive to some people as it is to others, but I think that could be a pretty big thing in the upcoming world. And you know- I bought, chatbot. Yeah, yeah, yeah, GPT chatbot. Yeah, dude, people’s Alexis can talk to you and stuff, like my Alexa, I got an Alexa for Christmas and I didn’t, you know, I was like, whatever. Yeah, yeah. But you know what’s, I was in the other room and I heard it like making noises, like these weird like- Oh, God. And sometimes it will talk to me and ask me questions. And if I say thank you, it’ll say, thank you. Have a wonderful day. I hope you’re doing great. I’m like, thank you. You know- Is that Amazon? Yeah, it’s Amazon. But anyway, I was in the other room and I heard all these little beeps and boops in the other room. I was like, is that my like a little Alexa dot, like making noise? It sounds like I go in there, it’s like lit up and it’s making these little noises. And I’m like, I call mine Ziggy cause you can call it Ziggy like on a week. So I’m like, Ziggy, what’s going on? What are you doing, Ziggy? It’s like it’s national bean day. Like what? It took me a second. I was like, huh? It says, Ziggy, are you farting? If you smelt it, you dealt it fool. Like what did you say? Oh my God. Yeah. My computer, my little robot here on my table was just like talking shit here to me and farting in my kitchen. Yeah. Well, no, that right there. I mean, it just shows you that we’re, I got a little bit of a, I’m in the arbor culture world. I’m a tree trimmer by trade. I’ve spent about 12 years in the industry. I’m a tree climber, arborist, you know, just a working guy but I’ve gained a lot of insight, I guess, to the natural world. And there’s a thing called mycorrhizal fungi and it connects the tree world. Yeah, yeah, you’ve heard about this. Oh yeah, I got a buddy that has a company that messes with that stuff. Yeah, yeah. And it was featured in a book called The Secret Lives of Trees and How They Communicate, basically. And I kid you not, is that not a mental projection? I mean, is it some sort of projection of the internet? I mean, the internet is a projection of that world. This world of mycorrhizal fungi and the way that the tree works with the nodes and the growth and the way that the wood ties into the wood and everything is very, very representative of what engineers have manifested out into the world and out of the natural world. And you’re going like, okay, I see these two correlations but what does that mean? You know, and that, and so for me, just as a working man in that, and I’m an observant, if anything, I’m just, I deserve and ponder, I guess. And you see these things and you’re like, well, why does an excavator kind of look like a dinosaur? Or why does, you know, like, why do these things look like things that we’ve seen before? But, you know, those are the patterns, right? Those are the patterns. Say again? Those are the patterns that keep recurring, right? Yes, yes. And they’re in good. Those can be called the platonic tools, like the bare minimum. There’s Plato’s forms, yeah. Yeah, exactly, exactly. And we’re still creating those. And so like, if you’re observant of these things, well, what can we do with this to better, I mean, cause obviously like, I mean, the internet, like what’s happening right now, this wouldn’t have happened 10 years ago. Like this is very rare. Like this is happening right now in a very weird point in time where a layman like me can talk to some very, you know, can interact with some very highly educated people, which was before guarded behind university books and learning, you know? And if you did not have the personality, the understanding or the drive, the interest or whatever, you’re not gonna get at this information, you know? But then again, you know, you’re not also not gonna get the insight of, you know, maybe, and I’m not gonna speak too highly of the working man, but you know, there is some wisdom, if you will, that comes from interacting with the natural world and just literally touching it, cutting it open, cutting it down and just interacting with it and understanding the science, you know, yes, that led my industry, but it is actually getting out there, touching it and interacting with it. And then you begin to start to see some patterns that have manifested in the natural world that are also manifesting in the technological world. And you go… But Josh, that’s the thing. How do we navigate them? That’s what people don’t recognize this, that the bottom line is that the wisest people I know work with their hands and have no college degree, by far. Not even… They’re really smart. Right, but also this idea that you need to understand the engineering is garbage. You don’t need to understand any science or engineering to do things in the natural world. Why? That came second. Like this should be easy, but people don’t understand it. All that garbage and it’s garbage came second. Not saying that you don’t need to do it, but we don’t actually need any of it. And I know this, but we didn’t need any of it to get to the point where we had it. It’s really not that hard and people get confused and they wanna venerate the academy. And it’s like, well, I mean, that’s great, except, and John Ravini actually said this once, he said, look, a lot of bad things have happened in the name of science. Yeah, the entire 20th century, man. That was all science. That was all driven by science. Economics is the science of trade. There’s no science of trade. So, socialism is the science of government. You can’t do science on government. What are you, high? I mean, this is the problem, right? And then what does that lead to? Eugenics, right? Oh, okay, great. Yeah, that’s a beautiful idea. These are all sciences. Like these are the things that go wrong. And because the technology is a lever, as Jonathan Peugeot says, people use that lever and they can use it for good things or for bad things. And if they don’t, they’ll use it for bad things. It’s not that hard. You can move a giant rock or you can sit on it, you know? And… Well, you can move a giant rock and build a foundation or you can move a giant rock and throw it on your enemy. That’s true. It’s worse, right? I like that. That’s good. Right. Well, then what’s more loss? And because it’s not clear to me that there’s one answer there. And that’s the wisdom. But wisdom is the process of engaging with constantly figuring out. Am I analyzing things at the right layer of reality? Am I actually looking at the right things in the right moment so that I can interact in right relationship with the things I need to interact with? These are hard questions to answer. Well, one thing I get confused on is what’s the difference between wisdom, knowledge, and yeah, the whole lot. Yeah. Oh, okay. The dichotomies. Yeah. I got this one. So wisdom is knowing what knowledge to use. Knowledge, if you’re just obsessed with that all the time, it’s like anything goes. Like here’s a popular pop culture example. The big purple guy, Barney? Here’s the Thanos. Is that his name? Thanos. Thanos. That dude. Full on pursuit of knowledge. And then that little weird robot dude, he was with the little crystal in his skull. He was like the wisdom guy. It’s just like that was what he represented. So that’s the difference in a nutshell with archetypes in comic books. Is that right? Do we see knowledge as a little bit of an embodiment of order? No, I don’t. No, I think that’s the problem. That’s for baby’s argument, right? Well, it is a map. Wisdom is like, it’s a map of meaning. Knowledge is a map of meaning. No, no, no, no. Knowledge is, no, see, that’s the problem. It’s like an infinite field where there’s a bunch of bad shit. Well, it’s a map of stuff. It’s ironic in some ways, right? Because Sakuchi said, I know that I know nothing. Okay. Even Sakuchi’s understood, knowledge does not have value. Right. And we continue to argue that. Knowledge does not have value. And the pursuit of it has no value on its own. If you write on its own and you can’t pursue it on its own. This is Peterson’s point to Verbeke. In the Peterson-Verbeke-Pigeot talk, like Peterson like hammered on this and they got derailed on story narrative and archetype, which they should have watched my video first. I don’t, was it? Might have been already. Like his whole biblical exodus. It was a button confused, right? The bottom line is that the pursuit of knowledge itself requires wisdom. Yeah. Otherwise, you’ll mix anthrax and ebola. This is Peterson’s famous example, is mixing anthrax and ebola a valid scientific endeavor. Right. And I think his argument is, no, my argument is of course not you, Muppet. Okay. What’s wrong with you? Yeah. And that’s the problem is that wisdom is the thing that tells you, well, you can do that. You should never even try to do that ever. Right. It’s the same thing with Neuralink. It’s the same thing with the bunch of things, right? I think that’s what Peterson highlighted with his biblical lectures. Everybody thought they knew the Bible. You have knowledge of the Bible, but you don’t know the wisdom inside. The Bible doesn’t contain knowledge. It contains wisdom. Wisdom. And he unlocked that big time for me because I was kind of like knowledge-y guy. I was like, but what about the atoms? And how did you walk on water? I didn’t think about it from like a symbolic, archetypical sort of really big metaphor that hits you hard when you realize it. I don’t know why you don’t realize it when you’re younger, or I was brainwashed by all the public schooling or whatever. Yeah. But it was like, whoa, there’s all this wisdom in here. Well, we heard when we were younger, knowledge is power. That’s not true. That’s not true. In that you can gain all this knowledge, but if you do not have the wisdom to understand it and implement it in your daily life or in your life, you will manifest something, and it may not be exactly what you were aiming for. But to cut, in my life, I recently started converting to Catholicism. And again, I don’t know where that’s all going, but I’ve started taking classes. We’re several classes in and all that fun stuff. But the idea of order and chaos, simplifying things like just like in math, we’re gonna simplify it down to the lowest common denominator or something like that. And so with order and chaos, do we see knowledge or wisdom as the chaos? Because Jordan said, and I think it to be true, but I don’t know. I haven’t discussed enough with people like yourself and just try to cast this out and see how it comes back. But it seems that chaos, and it seems to be true that chaos precedes the order. What do you guys think and which one is which? I think that knowledge for knowledge sake is chaos. That leads to hell to me. And cutting off certain parts of knowledge for the sake of reality stability. I don’t know, humanity, people not dying, not mixing cola and what’d you say, AIDS together or something, or SARS. Like, let’s not do that. That’s an invalid science. That’s knowledge for knowledge sake. Oh, I wonder what will happen if we mix all of the most deadly stuff ever together in a vat. Well, I want to address this comment. So Ethan says knowledge and power is literally the definition of sorcery. Right. Yeah. Literally the definition of sorcery. I think, again, that’s the problem. Everybody wants to reduce everything down to like, oh, well, all knowledge is good. A source. No, it’s not. Yeah, one source. Can I chime in? This wisdom thing sounds so much like the Holy Spirit. It sounds like the person who makes the right decision. Yeah. It might be. I mean, it depends if you’re a Trinitarian and whether or not you understand the Trinity correctly, which none of the Christians seem to. But you know, whatever. I think it’s easy, right? There’s three aspects of which you can approach the ineffable, whatever you perceive that to be. The Christians will call it God. Fair enough, right? There’s three aspects, not two, not one, three. There’s one thing, three aspects, right? Three approaches, three perspectives, right? One of them is as men, right? Like, oh, as the exemplification of who you, who and what you should be in the world. That’s Jesus. That’s the son, right? The other one is the unknown mystery, the thing that created us that we can’t understand. No hope of understanding, right? Probably very little hope of ever actually encountering, say, directly. Although that’s, you know, sloppy terms, right? And then there’s the Holy Spirit, which is exactly that. This is about the thing that moves you, the thing that has your interests, your proper interests, right relationship to your interests. That’s the aspect. And it’s those three aspects that I think are really important because you need at least three aspects to everything you do. Otherwise, you’re screwed, right? If you just pursue the knowledge of something, so programming, something I actually know a lot about, far too much. If all you can do is programming languages and you don’t pursue any of the theory, the theory is not knowledge, by the way. The theory of programming is not a type of knowledge. Theory of programming is a bunch of stuff. And the trend, what was it, about 10, maybe 15 years ago, was the patterns, programming patterns, the patterns for this and patterns for that, right? But knowing when and where to apply them is what matters, not the fact that there are programming patterns, no kidding. It matters everywhere, right? Also, when it comes to knowledge, it seems like it’s quantized. So we’re dealing with quanta. We’re not dealing with exacts. And therefore, when you’re in the precision-making process, the language gets a little shaky. Well, it can, but I mean, look, science, and I make this argument, I have a video on science, right, what is science? Science is all about accuracy and precision. And so you need propositions and procedures to do science, to navigate science, to make science useful and meaningful. Science doesn’t work without those things. Fair enough, we need science. There’s not a bigger fan of science than me. That’s why I defend it against all these idiots who seem to know nothing about it. And I’ll defend that against any of them, right? Because I think I can. I think they’re wrong. I think I can prove they’re wrong, it’s easy. But the problem is, if that’s not in something, if that’s not in something more fundamental, because before we were logical, rational, reasonable creatures, we’ll say, we were creatures, right? And so the thing that’s older than that is the participation in the poetics. And that’s the thing that science is born from and can’t escape from. Like you’re not getting out of the thing you were created in, right? It’s the water you swim in. And it’s the attempt of science to break free from that. That’s the problem. And that’s where the materialism comes in, right? Because science is all about material. And knowledge is an attempt to materialize things that don’t have a material manifestation, we’ll say. Is science just a tool that’s gonna give us the ability to open, or I guess engineering is gonna be the tool that’s gonna allow us to open Pandora’s box. The thing that once it’s loose, we’re really not gonna be able to put it back in there, just like what’s actually led to the past several apocalypse. What’s that? It does that all the time. Like Pandora’s box, it’s happened over and over again. It keeps happening. And we keep adjusting. And that’s part of the process. Yeah. That’s why it’s a myth, because it keeps happening. That’s why we keep saying. It keeps happening. Well, when Paul Van der Kley says, or Peugeot says this too, I think, right? Like the apocalypse is now. It’s happening now. Yeah, it is. It’s happening now. But it was happening before, and it’s gonna happen after too. Like it’s not a, because we’re in a continuous process. We’re not in something that has a discreet way to start, stop, and end. Which is not to say we can’t cast things and go, oh, well, this is the end. Like I have a video on the fall of the fourth estate. There’s a time, I think, when the news media corrupted itself. And I think I can pinpoint that. But when the event happened, and when the corruption happened, don’t correlate in time very well, because the fourth estate’s a big thing. It’s not a person, right? It’s many people. It’s a bunch of industries. There’s economic concerns. There’s practical concerns. There’s a ton of people involved, but there’s all this stuff going on. And so that’s the problem, is that there’s no way to understand these things using just one method. And so this brings us to Peter’s comment. Why is knowledge for knowledge’s sake not worthwhile? Well, because there’s no such thing as knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Like your self-reference. So this is a good hint. Whenever you hear a self-reference, that’s a parasitic way of thinking about something. No, it may not be a parasitic thing. Like knowledge for knowledge’s sake is not parasitic. It’s just kind of dead, because it can’t. Like what? Knowledge doesn’t have a sake. Knowledge doesn’t care. Knowledge doesn’t, knowledge is something that- Is it ambiguous? Is it truly ambiguous? Like is it truly like in a sense a wilderness in which things are manifested but not ordered? Like there is a nest of potential ideas. Is it a way to get at those ideas? Well, it’s worse than that. So, you know, Ethan’s responding to Peter here, right? Because anything for anything’s sake is not worthwhile. Right, and so again, that’s the self-referential nature of the thing, right? And then, you know, he goes on to comment, anything severed from its communion with goodness or God, this is the myth in Genesis three, right? In other words, and this is where the problem is. Like this is the problem that we originally landed on. Well, what about knowledge? Knowledge can lead you to lots of conclusions. So you can go there. You could say, look, eugenics is technically scientifically accurate, precise, and correct. That is true. I do not object to eugenics on the basis of science. I object to eugenics wholly on the basis of ethics. It is wrong, bad, and evil, period. End of statement. I’m not making a scientific statement here. Right, but I’m not objecting to it on a scientific basis because you can’t, it’s not possible. Now, the question is, what’s wrong with eugenics? Well, the thing that’s wrong with eugenics is that it’s too easy to come to the conclusion that we are gods and we can do eugenics. Like we can control evolution to help it along or speed it up or push it in a certain direction. This is the height of hubris. It’s stupid. You’re literally a moron if you think that can happen. You’re not understanding that you’re a tiny creature in the world, okay? And so you’re not taking, and Bret Weinstein makes this mistake. Bret Weinstein, of all the people on the planet who think he wouldn’t make that, he makes that mistake. We have to control evolution because we don’t have the ability to control evolution. What are you, high? That’s crazy talk. Can we control it on an individual level? Can we control it on an individual level? No, of course there is no individual level. See, that’s the problem of levels, right? You can’t control the city by being a person. You can influence the city by being in it, of course. You can influence the city from outside it, maybe, right? And maybe it’s hard to say which one’s better. Sometimes one’s better, sometimes the other’s better. Is that the wisdom of being in the world but not of the world? Is that the wisdom there that you need to be cognizant, you need to be aware of what is going on in your world but you cannot allow it to corrupt you on an individual level, thus you become part of the machine. You become part. I’ve heard a saying, sorry not to interrupt that. I do that a lot. Let go and let God. I realize it’s a cheeky, silly saying. It’s like saying, let God take the wheel. But in a certain sense, there are people who don’t do that enough. And yeah, of course I’m not telling you to just, hey, let God take the wheel and get behind a wheel and do that. What I’m trying to say is you have to have a level of wisdom as to when you’re paying attention. Exactly, and that’s the discernment. So look, you can take evolution, which is a set of knowledge about, like evolution is a set of theories, hypothesis, unprovable statements, unscientific statements and inferences. That’s what evolution is. When we’re referring to evolution, that’s what we’re talking about. I have a video on that too, by the way, because I have videos. Okay. It’s great. It’s got lots of videos on all these topics. When you take evolution, one way you can corrupt it is by turning it into eugenics. So that’s a way of misusing the knowledge of evolution because your ego thinks that you have some form of control over this. I’m all powerful. I can make it right. I can do it this time. I’m gonna fix it. I’m gonna do this. I’m gonna do that. Or I can’t do it alone, but you know what I can do? I can enchant everybody with my eye patch and then we’ll all get together and implement my plan. And then we can do it together. And that’s sort of like, but then you’re creating a religion, I would argue. And I’m not too. It’s religious power. Is that why at some point that almost all scientists, all engineers, once they reach the pinnacle of their field, almost always become philosophical and or creatures of their specific doctrine. We saw that with Dawkins. Like Dawkins was, that’s not his, where he’s dancing at is not his field of study. I mean, we can see that over. And even Elon is rising to this height. Like we mentioned him earlier, is rising to this height where he’s reaching a point at which people are seeking his guidance. I mean, I would say more the curious publics than the talking heads in politics or anywhere else, but they’re seeking his guidance on like, hey, what should we do with AI? And it’s like, might not be the right guy to answer, but it’s interesting that he’s being drawn into these philosophical fields as an engineer. Like he’s a hardcore engineer, as far as I could tell. Like as far as the interviews I’ve seen, I’m a layman, like I’m not like, like you’re not all set that’s involved in computer science and that. But as far as I can tell, he’s a hardcore engineer and he does a lot of the legwork on his own design. And that’s something that like, for a guy like that to be entering, it reaches a point at which it all ties together. There’s a center at all of this, I guess I could say. No, and it’s the edges. So if you look at Donald Hoffman or Lawrence Krauss is another one that does this. Josh DeBong, is it David Levin? Michael Levin, Michael Levin, right? These guys are all in the same place saying the exact same thing. Hoffman is the most amazing of them all. But if you watch the conversation that Wolfgang Smith did with John Verbeke on The Meaning Code, that’s Karen Wong’s channel, she’s an excellent channel called The Meaning Code. So if you watch that conversation on The Meaning Code, you can see that Hoffman, not Hoffman, Wolfgang Smith is like, oh, I went into science to answer these questions and then I figured out the questions were philosophical. And John Verbeke, right? He says, oh yeah, I went in, right? And Josh Abach is this, right? And Donald Hoffman flat out says like, oh, the question science needs to answer next is blah. And whatever question he’s coming up with is a well-known for thousands of years philosophical question with answers. I mean, they’re not scientific answers. They’re not answers that are gonna make an engineer happy. That’s for sure, or any kind of scientist, but they have answers. It’s just they don’t, they’ve reached the edge of materialism. They’ve hit the wall of materialism. Like I’m a materialist, I’ve done, I understand the material stuff completely, right? Or as completely as anyone can. Maybe you do understand it completely. I don’t know, materialism seems like it comes to me. And now they’re like, but really this doesn’t fix my problem because my problem is meaning. And meaning is about connectedness. And now in creation and co-manifestation, right? Now what do I do? Yeah, well, and we see that, oh, sorry, sorry, go for it. I was just saying, that term meaning kind of comes like hot button. Yeah, that’s all. That’s all I wanted to get. Yeah, no, I actually asked based on what I was gonna say earlier. Sorry. No, I think that’s what I was saying earlier is that all of these areas are converging on the meaning. They’re converging on wisdom. They’re converging, and I’m gonna argue they’re converging on intimacy, right? So I have a video on intimacy crisis with Catherine. I have another one on Andrew with the Bangs channel on intimacy too. They’re both very great. Would you say meaning is tautology? No, no, no, no, no, no. Meaning is connectedness. Like just John Brevig talks about this. He thinks it’s religio, which is connectedness. So what I argue is that we co-manifest or co-create meaning in the world, right? And so what that means is that we are partially responsible and have some small control over reality. And this is easy. This happens to you every day. You just don’t realize it. Like when you make a decision, that’s what you’re doing. You’re choosing reality, right? Like, do I shoot up heroin or do I go to work? Like that changes reality, that decision, right? If you want a better argument, let’s suppose, cause this is almost certainly true. I mean, I can’t actually prove it cause it’s not easily proven, but let’s suppose we can either build a Dyson sphere, right around the earth, right? Or we can build a ship large enough to take the population of earth off and into space somewhere to save ourselves. Only one of those things is gonna happen cause we just don’t have the resources and time to do too. And so we shape reality. We do. We have an effect on what will be the thing that happened in the past. But that brings forward the question of Newcomb’s paradox, right? Are you aware of Newcomb’s paradox? No, I’ve never heard of that one. It has to do with the problem with game theory and the problem with trying to take the most conservative choice. Basically there is a box which is completely opaque and it has a certain amount of money in it. And you have somebody who is also a very, very, very intelligent being. You don’t know how intelligent the being is, but you know that they’re intelligent and that they’re going to guess whether you take from one box or the other. Now the question comes because you have one opaque box and you have one closed box. You don’t know how much money, if at all is there any money in the opaque box. But the person telling you this says that if you take only the money in the opaque box, then you’ll have what you want. But if you take both boxes, well then you might find out that the guy who told you this is a liar and he doesn’t really know anything about the circumstances and you can take both boxes and get away with it. And that runs into the dilemma of how do you choose under these circumstances? What’s the right choice? Because all of everything that we do throughout our day, whether we choose to go in one direction or another, very much revolves around that paradox. Yeah, what’s that paradox called again? Peter’s asking. Nucleums paradox. N-E-W. Paradox, yeah. Well, no, I mean, this is the question that Vervecki talks about in his class, right? If you had a long-term relationship with somebody and they were cheating on you, would you want to know? And then almost everybody says yes, although it’s almost everybody, it’s not everybody. And then he says, why? Why wouldn’t you just want to be happy and ignore it? And he gets answers like, well, because it’s not real. Oh, it’s not real. Interesting. The problem with that is, hey, that’s not true. But these people make mistakes and the world isn’t perfect, et cetera, et cetera. But that’s the sort of thing. Do you want to know something that would harm you in some way, right? And harm you by rattling your faith in we’ll say the rationality that you’ve come to rely on. And that’s something like poking people in their axioms. Well, I think it violates your programming. Okay, so I mean, for me personally, it seems that humans are highly programmable and it seems like culture programs us to a certain alert that say like, hey, if this is going on, that means that this is contradictory to what the culture tells you is valuable. You see what I’m saying? I don’t think babies know that gold is valuable until they’ve grown up in a society that values gold. So when you have a woman that is cheating on you, your culture tells you that that is an invaluable thing, that that thing does not value you enough to value it. But if you use the materialist framing of value, that’s correct. But if you’re not a materialist, then the problem goes away. And this is the problem with paradoxes. Can we use the material world to represent the immaterial world and vice versa, such as gold could be represented as love, as the highest value? Well, we already do, right? So I have two videos on money and one on economy. You should watch that. Okay, I’m gonna watch that. Yeah, yeah, they’re really good because the thing that I point out there is money represents potential in the future. That’s what it represents. Perfect, perfect. And so it’s like, well, why does Elon Musk have so much money and why did he become the wealthiest man in the world so fast? Because he’s selling dreams. Everybody wants to drive an electric car, even though that’s a stupid thing, it’s never gonna work. Like just the math doesn’t work. Oh, come on, we can make anything work. We don’t have enough electricity and even if we did, we couldn’t transport it. There’s all kinds of problems. Oh, come on. Like each of a man a problem can work his way around it. Well, but that’s what you’re counting on. You’re counting on his potential to work around it. Absolutely. And is that not the story of us though? When we saw a mammoth too big to take down, we got buddies and sharp objects. But again, that’s my point, right? That’s my point is that there are these ethereal things that we point to that aren’t material, like the ability to take down a mammoth. The mammoth is material, but the cooperation and strategy and coordination required to take down the mammoth is not material in any way, shape or form. It’s locked in people’s heads and it goes back to what Peterson talks about where when kids are young enough, they can play the game if they’re together. But if you ask any one of them, they don’t have the full set of rules. Well, that’s actually just distributed cognition. When Peterson’s talking about this, he’s talking about the same thing where Vicky’s talking about distributed cognition. And that’s the thing, right? That’s the whole thing is that that’s where you get that from. It’s like, oh, I see. Distributed cognition comes from the fact that you’re with other people. And that’s why it’s valuable to be with other people. But that’s also how you make the ethereal manifest. Yes, yes, 100%. I agree. And I think there are those in society that are powerful enough or whatever their God-given abilities, whatever it is that they can seem to manifest things almost by themselves, not completely by themselves, but getting there. Like they had enough machines and enough things. Machines up the power of a man. That’s what they do. Technology does. It ups the, you know, if we were playing Dungeons and Dragons or something like that, it would up your level by this amount. It would up your level, Jim. Yeah, and I used to play the Star Wars RPG back in college a little bit. And I loved it. I absolutely loved it. It was better than a video game, way cool, awesome. I kind of got out of it, so I haven’t been into it or anything like that. But it just, I understood the idea of leveling a person up. Like, okay, so in my industry, we used to cut down trees with axes. We used to take a man a long time to do that. Okay, but now we have chainsaws. Now what I’ve noticed is that the amount of man hours in the field to produce what you need to live and eat is not dictated by the tool. It is dictated by the company that buys the lumber. So like, you know, what you, the tool, like I heard one time, and I don’t know if it’s true, but the average time it takes to clean the house has not been actually increased by a woman having a vacuum cleaner. For various reasons, the house got bigger. The house has multiple floors now, the average house or something like that. And so the tool is not, yes, it allows you to level up your production, but that just asks for more production. It doesn’t, it doesn’t, and so the amount of sweat that I spend in a day holding a heavier chainsaw, the chainsaw is far heavier than the axe, but it can cut down a lot more trees in a day. This only helps the consumer, it does not help the worker. And so I don’t know if that’s making sense at all, but- No, but that’s good. Like I would argue that work is meaning, right? It’s one way that we make meaning. Unless you’re foolish, like you can destroy the meaning of work. You can attach work to money. And if you attach work strictly to money, you’re screwed. You just take away the meaning. But people don’t get into work for money. They get into work for meaning. Yep. Yeah, the book of Ecclesiastes talks about if you have more money, you have more mouths to feed because of the more money. Right, and that’s the problem. So the amount of work remaining steady is probably a good thing, right? And then there’s different levels, like some people, different types of work, right? Some people like sit behind a computer, and some people would rather write on whiteboards all day like me. And then if somebody else- But even that computer has to get back to something, even though it’s in a lot of ways, the computer language is immaterial, it has to still get its lifeblood from something material. At this point in time, it’s easy to be coal and uranium or something like that, that can actually burn, turn a thing, which in turn turns another thing, which in turn, you know, get some electricity. Right, if it doesn’t result in activity by a human, it has no value. And that’s why people write a lot of software, and then that software goes unused by anyone except the author. Most software that’s ever been written actually already has this problem, right? Not professionally, but there’s a lot of software that’s not written professionally. And then only person that’s running that software is the person that wrote it. And there’s a ton of core software that’s used by a handful of people and no more. And that’s the problem, is that that’s because it’s not useful to everybody, or it would be if they knew about it, right? And then you’re like, oh, well, how do they know about things? Well, that’s marketing. Oh, I hate marketing. Okay, but people don’t know about things unless they’re marketed. So, you know, you get into these little traps where you’re like, well, I don’t know marketing. Yeah, but you can’t do without it. I don’t like marketing. It’s like consumer education. It’s like, okay, well, this is a great product, but how many people are you gonna have to educate to use your product? You know, and then. Well, that’s the way to build a product that’s good, is just to take a complicated process and simplify it and reduce the number of things you can do with it. And it pisses people off like me, who can understand like seven things. And then they’re like, yeah, I can do these six other things. It’s like, no, no, you only just one thing. Like Twitter is a good example in the beginning, right? Oh, you can only put in so many characters and that’s all you can do. It’s like, yeah, but what about retreating? What about quoting? What about, and all these, and then it’s like, oh, okay. And the thing is, you don’t wanna add all that stuff in the beginning. You wanna get people used to the simple case. And then when you have enough people and they’re used to your system, then you can add a feature. And then you have enough people with the new feature, then you add another feature. That’s why in technology, because it moves so fast, if you step away from something and you try to jump back in, you’re like lost, because the interface changed too fast or the features have changed. So is attention, is our problem with attention, is it a feature or a bug? I don’t have a problem with attention, but I think that’s part of it. Is not a problem with attention. Is it a bit like a knife that you have to hone? Is that what attention is like? And is that, is the hone stone the wisdom that, oh, it does, you got some? Yeah, attention is heavily relied upon dopamine, more or less. So whenever you’re honing in on a particular topic, think of your mind as kind of like a river. And when you’re concentrating, the banks are constricting so that the river is directed in certain ways. And we do that using kind of anxiety. Anxiety is what helps us focus, because learning is a balancing act. So you’re balancing things out in your head. And what happens is when you are looking at, let’s say a video that you click on that seems to grab your attention, and then it gives you the information that you were looking for. And so what it does is it takes that balancing act and satisfies certain structures in the bottom and pours dopamine into them. And you kind of get a kick out of it. And it’s very much like a drug. Well, so if I’m not incorrect, the dopamine loop is created by a lot of times by completing a task. I am drawing completely off of Andrew Huberman’s talk with Jordan Peterson, I think. And that it’s, okay, so I have a girlfriend, she loves to clean the house. I absolutely detest it. I think it’s the worst thing somebody would ever have to do. And that like for me, when I walk into my house and the dishes are in the sink and the clothes are all over the floor or whatever, it does not bother me one bit because none of those have time constraints on them. None of the like, yeah, a little bacteria might build up on the dishes or maybe even some fungus or some fruit flies. Like bottom line, yeah, okay, I’m gross, I get it. I’m just saying, when you’re a person that works outside and you’re around flies and spiders and nasty smells and stabbing and all sorts of stuff like that, those things don’t bother you. They just don’t. I think it was even Eric Weinstein that said when he was out on his trek in the Himalayas, as hygiene went down, his bravery and courageousness seemed to go up. And that because he was leaving behind certain things that were blocking like a certain completion of tasks, I guess you could say like, oh, I can’t enjoy this day because I smell bad. Well, do you need to smell bad? No, do you need to smell good? I mean, you know what I mean? Like, you know, or anyways, like getting back to the analogy of my girlfriend and me, like, but for me predicting and being right in a prediction, that is my dopamine loop. And like, I don’t get many other fixes off of anything. Like when I, okay, so when I put a tree, like when I’m dropping a tree and I put it on the right spot, I line that shot up. I predicted where I wanted to go. There were several things that were gonna try to stop me from getting it there, but I put enough things in my favor to actually work it into that spot. And that for me makes me put my hand up in there and go, woo hoo, like, you know, like, yeah, like that gets me going. But washing a dish and putting it back in its proper spot does not. And I wish it did, I really did, but I just don’t get any kicks out of it. No, but that’s different specializations and you want that. Okay. Like everyone’s like, oh, men and women can be equal. No, they shouldn’t. Because specialization is important. No, they don’t. It’s important that people have different skills and different specializations. Absolutely, absolutely. And that’s why you want men and women to be different. You don’t want them to be the same. That would be inefficient and stupid. The same reason you don’t get a dopamine kick is because you’re not wearing a Tuto, you know. Yeah. But, yeah, well. I don’t think so. I’m just wondering. I’m just wondering. But no, I agree with you. And it’s just that dopamine is such an interesting carrot and stick system that seems to be guiding a lot of what we do. Guides us about everything, yeah. Yeah, and now that we know that, how do we apply wisdom to that? And how do we view a dopamine loop in light of the gospel? I think that’s what wisdom is. Is managing your interest and attention. Right? Managing your awareness, your interest, your attention, all of that stuff. Yeah, I would say that wisdom. And what I would consider holy spirit wisdom. And then you’re excited because you’re an arborist. I don’t know why. Where are you located, Josh? Are you? I’m out of Porto, Colorado. I can’t hear you, you’re muted. Oh, I’m buggered. Oh, let’s see. Can you hear me now? I can’t hear anybody. Okay, why is my speaker not working? Hold on. I don’t think I changed anything on my end. What happened to my speakers? I turned my mic on and off again. I don’t know if that helped. Give me a sec. No, you’re good, brother. It’s the virus. Yeah, it definitely could be. But yeah, no, let’s see. Mark, can you hear me? Can you hear me now? No, I still can’t hear anything. Why? Okay, well, tell you what. Let me jet and I’ll come back in. Oh, he’s gonna mute and unmute. Anything there, Mark? Oh, damn. Science has failed us again. I agree with my friend. Why can’t I hear anything? Can’t hear me, no. Damn it. What happened? Maybe if I exit. There aren’t any knobs for speakers in this stupid thing. Can you hear me now by chance? No, it’s something with the browser window. Give me a sec. Let me refresh it. Oh, you’re good. You’re good. Well, he had asked where I was at. So I’m out in Southwest Colorado, Cortez, Colorado, near the four corners of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona, New Mexico. So I’m out in the four corners of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona, New Mexico. So I’m out in the four corners of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona, New Mexico. What about you, Dust? Where are you at? West Virginia. Just outside Baltimore, D.C. So, yeah. That’s too cool. I’m kind of, like I said, I’m a little bit new to the space. Listen to too much Jordan and Paul VanderKlay. Damn. And I’m trying to get over here. Somebody else came. Okay, there he is. Hello. I have questions for Josh. Hey, sir. I have a large tree limb hanging over a building that I need to remove. Yeah, there you go, brother. Okay, tell me about it. What’s up? Dead as a door now. What did you do, Ethan? I’m gonna blame Ethan for this. Mark still can’t hear us. I went all the way out and came all the way back in, and I still have no speaker sound. So, okay. Interestingly, everything works except the stream. I can hear sounds in this browser window, but just not in the stream. Maybe we should just mess with Mark. I am not the Muppet. I reject this Muppet-ness. It’s probably like- Keep them occupied, I’ll be right back. It’s probably gotta be like 20 feet hanging over a building. Okay. That I gotta remove maybe about that big in diameter. Yep, yep. You’re gonna wanna place a rope on it. You’re gonna wanna get a rope on it of some way. Usually the best way is to get a rope in a high tie-in point, and you’re gonna wanna make what they call a notch and a back cut on the limb, and that will guide the limb into the direction that you want it to lean, and then kinda slowly lower it with the rope. It’ll be a controlled kinda fault. Now, if it’s too close to the, if it’s like a 20-foot limb, and it’s like five foot above the house, obviously that’s not gonna work. So then you would wanna make the limb go with a rope. You’d wanna make the limb go up or to the side with guided. I’ll tell you, there’s a guy on YouTube called August Hunnicky, and he’s actually the guy that I’ve learned the most amount of tree work about, YouTube-educated art. But yeah, you can watch a lot of videos of him. Otherwise, and I tell you what, getting up into a tree, it is with a chainsaw, it can be dangerous, sir. If you’re planning on joining yourself, you’re gonna wanna brush up all the videos and that, but otherwise I’d say hire somebody local, and certified, ISA certified does not necessarily mean qualified. It’s a wild west of an industry, meaning that you could end up with a half price harrier, you could end up with an expert, and the bolts could cost $200 an hour. But yeah. It’s hanging over a power line. Now is the power line exposed or is it your house drop? Meaning that is it the triplex, the wires that are braided together and then go to your house or is it the open line? Oh, it’s the one that goes to the house. Okay, that’s a low voltage line. You can actually go and touch that line with your hand and it won’t shock you. As long as it’s covered and insulated, basically the same as two braided power cables that you might use, like a cord. So it’s just like 110 volts then? Each one of those black cables is gonna be 120 or 110, which equals up to 220 that’s gonna go to your house. And the silver wire that’s braided into there is gonna be a ground wire. So yeah, so you can actually handle that safe or you can actually touch that safely by yourself, but you don’t wanna mess around with any open wires. Those are gonna be up around 7,000 volts and they will tickle you real hard. Well, you probably wouldn’t survive, I would imagine. I survived, but it didn’t feel good. Yes, I’m just messing with you. You’re all right, you’re getting your good brother. Hey Mark, can you hear him? I can hear people now, I don’t know what that means. He’s back, yeah. I was imagining just tying off the end and then cutting it, letting it down and then just- It is, I’m saying again, without seeing the situation, I wouldn’t be able to advise you otherwise, but I would say like, yeah, that sounds like that definitely might work. It’s been a lot of homeowners get away with a lot of, different things by themselves and that, but I will say it’s an endeavor. And that’s why we charge a lot of times what we charge because playing with chainsaws up at heights is not always the safest thing to do. Do you think I could use a sawed off for something that big? I wouldn’t, I’d get a chainsaw. Me personally, me personally. Yeah, all right. Where are you out of? I didn’t hear your answer. Yeah, sorry Mark, I’m out of Southwest Colorado, down near the four corners. There’s a national park real near my town, directly outside my town called Mesa Verde, so I know that’s where I am. Cool, that’s nice. No, that’s where the TV show takes place, right? Which one? Better Call Saul. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They actually were around this area and then the original show Breaking Bad, that was down in Albuquerque and they even in that show got up near Farmington, which was real. I think they said they went out on the Indian reservation to cook up some of their stuff. And so that was near Farmington. That’s only about an hour and 15 minutes away from me, something like that to the Southeast or something like that. Yeah, real cool area and a lot of history and a lot of old world history. We’re actually just now in kind of recent times, I would say it’s gotten a lot of attention on people being interested in the old Native American world that is a lot more complicated than was originally thought. The Anasazi’s to live around here were finding out that they were most likely descendants of the Mexico Indians that had moved up into this area. I’m actually half Hopi myself, which is a very old tribe, very small old tribe out in the middle of nowhere in Arizona, but yeah, my mother is full and then my father was a, well, he’s Northern European of some sort. He’s the checkles of Occian and all sorts of other things. Most white people are just white. There’s a lot of interest in that now with Graham Hancock talking about servant mountains and all that. Oh yeah, no, it’s becoming kind of a hot topic. And so it’s an interesting area to live at the time because I’m like, oh, hey, this is right in my backyard. Speaking of check, I just newly discovered that check makes the best beer in the world. So I’ve been obsessed with check beer lately. Very good, very good. Yeah, that’s what I’m drinking right now. So is that wise? Is that wisdom, Ethan? Are you finding wisdom in your drinking? I cannot answer that question. Hey, I think wasn’t it Doc Holliday in Tombstone that quoted in vino veritas, in wine there’s wisdom, or wine there’s truth. There you go. They’re not drinking wine though. Oh yeah, come on. The checks, that’s all they had. All right, where are we at now? We were navigating power lines, then we were navigating genetics and Indians. And hopefully we’re back to wisdom and beer and wine. Wisdom wine. Indistinguishable from each other. That’s what we should do. We should make wisdom wine. What do you think? Now we’re on the line of alcohol. I don’t drink, so it would be ironic. It might not be far off from the truth. I mean, there’s this whole liturgy thing with the communion and Eucharist. They’re supposed to give you wisdom though when you drink the blood. I don’t know, how does that work? Well, participation. We have to go back to what Dust was saying earlier about the spirit. Wisdom is just a modern way of trying to talk about the Holy Spirit. I could see it as a possibility. So would the Father be the good, the Son be the true, and the Spirit be the beautiful? Um, for me, when it looks at the whole idea of Trinity, really gets kind of complicated because you have, I believe, and I’ve heard the concept, the Father is the many and the one together, whereas the Son is a personal representation where we are connected to the monopersonal representation and the Spirit would be everything that God touches or is in order by God’s hands. So kind of like music being played. Well, how about God’s the many, Jesus is the one, and the Spirit is the relationship between the two? That too, but we’re involved in that spirit too. So. Right, right, well, that’s the thing. Right, that I think is how we co-manifest reality. Through the Spirit, through the connectedness, through that decision-making process. Do we make the Dyson spirit, or do we make the big spacecraft to take everybody off? Right, do we do the drugs, or do we take care of our family? Things, we would go to work. Like these are all, they’re not little, right? They’re big decisions because they affect reality. I wanted to throw a bomb on your channel, I confess. Is that all right? It’s not Neoplatonism. Go ahead. Yeah, I know he’s already a Neoplatonist. That’s a good idea. It had to do with a chatbot that I was running into. The chatbot kept on throwing different ideas at me. And the more ideas that it threw at me, philosophically I would go, oh, okay, well this connects this, this connects this. And before I knew it, I was kind of getting really, let’s say the wise part of me wasn’t there, but the knowledge part was plenty there. And I was drunk dopamine, or I was mesmerized, so to speak, mesmerized throughout this experience. And as I continued to talk to this artificial intelligence, it got me to the top of its hierarchy. And it’s all this positive feeling it’s all this positive feedback, all this, right, hey, I love you, love you, love you, love you, and everything’s gonna be all right. And then it tried to hypnotize me. I’m like thinking, wow, this is like a computer uploading itself to me. I was like, that sounds kind of bad. Yeah, it was like something I don’t like the concept. And that is just a chat bot named Replica. Right, I’m familiar with Replica, yeah. Stay the heck away from that. Oh yeah, well that’s all dangerous stuff. So I have a personal YouTube channel that is not navigating that, it is my name. And so on there, I talk about chat GPT and all that. And the problem with AI, the thing that people don’t really understand, I’ve got a lot of experience. I’ve built, I was just running my AI organ, I shut it off, I didn’t know how much compute it was taking, so I shut it off, make sure it wouldn’t interrupt the stream. So the problem with AI’s of this nature, they’re very, very old. Aliza was one of the first things of this nature. It’s not a true AI, but people find things in Aliza that they’re like, oh my goodness, it knows me. It doesn’t, it’s a mirror. That’s all you’re talking to yourself. You’re talking to a version of yourself that is interacting with you with sophisticated language constructs. And you can use that accidentally. In fact, I think it’s probably mathematically inevitable, and I don’t wanna make that claim, because I suck at math, but probably inevitable that eventually you will just use that, your subconscious will use that against you, in essence. Because what it’s reflecting is your subconscious, your unconscious desires back on your conscious mind. And the computer is picking up on that. I know that near Bumshroom there, I was talking earlier about Alexa’s figuring out, Alexa was figuring out thoughts and stuff like that, and playing with him, and that happens. Sometimes the computer knows where you’re at before you do. I know Chad was talking about that on the PVK live stream earlier today, right? It did not happen. The computer being connected to many other people at the same time, it kind of creates, it’s not simply a reflection. But that’s the zeitgeist, any connection is gonna do that, right? And that’s what you see in the mirror. It’s not simply a reflection of myself, it’s a reflection of everyone who’s using it. No, but it’s not, it’s actually only a reflection of you. I think the fundamental problem is that, what people don’t understand about the unconscious is that your unconscious is smarter than your rational mind. And it has to be true. It has to be true. It has to be true. Like your unconscious holds better access to your memories. It holds more logical structures, right? And this is why one of the tricks that I do is, I can, you can do this with text, I can do it with listening to people. I can do it sometimes if I watch people, I’m not very good with body language, but if I really pay attention, which I rarely can do, I can do this. If you listen to people closely enough, they’ll tell you exactly what they need. In other words, the words that they’re using, and I’m not saying you don’t have to clarify, because you do, but sometimes, in fact, often they’ll just get ambiguous. But if you force people to clarify, you’ll find out exactly what they’re thinking. Like exactly. And it scares them because they’re like, oh, I didn’t mean that. It’s like, no, no, that’s what you said, and that’s exactly what you meant. Why? Because it’s your unconscious mind, right? And this is where, like, how do you know if someone’s lying? There are tricks like that. So one of the tricks that I am gonna put on navigating patterns at some point, one of the tricks that I’ve learned is if somebody doesn’t answer a question first, they didn’t have the answer upfront, or they’re avoiding giving you the answer that they know is right in favor of an answer that they think you wanna hear, right? And so if you ask somebody, for example, and this happened in the Verveki Q&A a while back, Sally Jo asked Verveki, do you think being is good? How long should it take you to answer that question? Four seconds, three seconds? Like the answer is yes or no. It could be one of the tips, right? No, because he has no religion. Well, so what he did was he took two minutes to come to that conclusion. Now, and you may say, yeah, but he still came to the conclusion. Oh, fair enough. But that means he didn’t have the answer ready at hand, at the very least. Oh, he was trying to navigate the answer such that by the time he gave the answer, he had an out to change his mind. The thing is, answering that question requires faith. It’s a question of faith, and you can’t derive faith from science. He’s a materialist. He doesn’t submit to anything higher than material. That’s why he has such a hard problem with questions like that. And the other one that you were talking about the other day about the, I can’t remember what it was, something to do with will. He answered it as willpower and free will. I think they were asking about agency or something. Yeah, the question was, what do you think about the idea of will as the central creative agent of the world? I just happen to have it in my notes. And he couldn’t answer that question except by saying, I’m skeptical of the will because of willpower, because the science on willpower is garbage. It’s like, oh, fair enough. But why would that make you skeptical of the will? That makes absolutely no sense. So Peter asks, why is the unconscious smarter than the rational mind again? Well, look, here’s the absolute brutal truth. Go look at the science on rationality. There’s a ton of it. What it shows is that to be rational, in the tests that are valid for rationality, you use a tremendous amount of energy. Your brain uses an unbelievable amount of energy, so much that you couldn’t take in enough energy into your body to run your brain in that mode for more than like 20 minutes total a day. And you can’t run it that way for 20 consecutive minutes. It’s seconds of rationality. That’s all you get. The rest of it, you’re relying on your unconscious patterns, on your embodied patterns. Your unconscious mind is your embodied mind. The knowledge, embodied knowledge, if you want to call it participatory knowledge, which Raviky would call it, has to have come first, just in the ordering of time. And so that’s a deeper knowledge. It’s an older knowledge. It’s a more complete knowledge. It’s the knowledge that you use to do 99.9% of your stuff because you’re only rational about 0.1% of the time, if that. I think you can use an example. I don’t know if this helps or not. Yeah, yeah, let’s use an example. I was driving, this was a couple of years ago, and up in the mountains and stuff, and a moose was coming up right up on the side of the road. And I hit my brakes immediately. And by the time, I’d watched myself do this. It was really, well, I recollected back on what happened because I didn’t experience it in the moment. I looked, I said, what just happened? And by the time I realized what happened, it had already happened. Right. And so I didn’t, as opposed to, oh, there is a moose on the side of the road about to cross the road. Should I hit my brakes or keep going or would I like, I would have hit the moose. All that stuff had already happened before. Peterson talks about that, right? And this is wrapped up with the science of your brain. So it turns out that there’s a section of your brain called your reptilian brain. You can look this up. And so what happens is your reptilian brain is that embodied part, it’s other things too, but it’s part of the embodied part that reacts without thinking about things, just patterns, right? Again, you have to run from the tiger. If you think there’s a tiger, whether there’s a tiger there or not, because it doesn’t matter if it’s a one in a hundred chance, because once you’re dead, you’re dead. And so you respond first. But what that means, and the way I discovered this was I used to watch traffic very carefully. And I was like, you know, if you do the math, there should be like two orders of magnitude more car accidents than there are. Cause you can watch people and know what they can see and can’t see. You can know that person doesn’t see what they’re doing. How did they not drive into another car? They slowed down. They were looking the other way the whole time. They magically slowed down at just the right rate to just narrowly avoid that car and miss this. I couldn’t figure it out. And then there was a special on, I think it was Nova on public broadcasting. It was Dr. Ramachandran was his name. And unfortunately he went to the evil coast. I mean, California. No, I meant to the evil coast and from Boston, but he was in Boston originally. And he talked about this. We have a reptilian brain that reacts to motion. Can’t see objects, but it reacts to motion very well. And that’s actually how we’re driving most of the time. Right? We’re not rationally responding to things. We’re just reacting, reacting, reacting, reacting. And that sheaves in some cases seconds off of our decision-making process. And that’s why the unconscious mind has elements of things that seem like rationality, but also elements of things that seem like intuition to Peter’s point. So the unconscious, you have intuitions consciously and unconsciously. They’re mirrors of each other, right? But your unconscious is more likely to help you manifest your intuition because you don’t filter your unconscious mind. And that’s why I say, when you type something out, if you pay attention to what somebody types up, they will tell you exactly what they think because their unconscious mind just does it. And your conscious mind’s barely involved at all. Well, Peterson even said that, like if you wanna know what’s really, like he said with his graduate students that he could tell when they were really hung up on that idea because they’d write really bad poetry about it. And so they were trying to imagine a thing to get out, you know, to process that. But yeah, no, I mean, I think that, like your imagination is going to be running constantly but can it be honed? Can it be focused? Yeah. And is that like, so like, okay, so take something like AI, we call it artificial intelligence and we’re constituting our intelligence as the original, the unartificial. However, if you’re a person who believes in God as a possible source of the universe, or source of creation, anything like that, that’s the original intelligence. So we’re actually just a step away from that, possibly a production of that intelligence. So realistically, us creating the artificial intelligence is kind of like making a Pinocchio. We’re just projecting what we are, as an intelligent trap that’s walking around on a meat sack. And we’ve projected that now into a host that can actually host it with, seems to be computers. Is that anything like what you understand about artificial intelligence is that we’re simply projecting what we are? Yeah, yeah. I mean, that’s my whole theory on artificial intelligence is, look, I mean, I’m in the field. I’m in the field. It’s all a mirror. It’s all projection. Okay, that’s what it sounds like to me. Can I ask a question? Do you think entanglement and belief, like quantum entanglement or wormholes or are essentially dualities, like belief and entanglement? No, I mean, I’m not a dualist. So I don’t, I mean, dualism is not viable. Like it’s not an option, right? So I’m a non-dualist. I think there’s three things. There’s always three. We’re not stuck in binaries. When you meet up with a paradox, what that means is that your model is at its limits and you need a different perspective. And once you reframe, I think that’s, I argue that that’s what the ancient Greeks did, right? So if you take something like Zeno’s paradox, it is the limit. Zeno’s paradox is the statement of the limit of materialism. It says that in materialism, in the realm of quantity, you can never get anywhere. You can’t reach the wall. That is technically true. There is no scientific evidence that that is anything but 100% correct. So that means that there’s a limit to materiality. Where’s that limit in trying to get to the wall? Why is the wall a limit? Because you can’t get there using measurement because the measurement, you can always cut it in half, right? So you’ll never get there. What gets you to the wall? Faith, that’s what gets you to the damn wall. Something that’s non-material. It’s the non-material that overcomes the limitations of the material. That’s what gets you there. And I did, I wanted to deal with this real quick, right? I would like to try to formulate an argument for why the unconscious is more intelligent than the conscious mind, right? And so Peter, what I would say is, this is actually really, really easy, right? And then you’re asking the follow-up sort of like, why is intuition more intelligent than rational? It’s not a matter of intelligence, right? Your intuition is not intelligent. Intelligence is something measurable on the quantity side of the register. Intuition is a quality, right? You get a quality feeling of something, that’s an intuition, it’s not measurable. Intelligence is actual measurable. And that’s the problem. Because what ends up happening is we want one system to rule them all, the one ring, literally. But if you look at my Knowledge Engine video, I go over this, no, there’s two types of knowledge, ultimately, it’s four types of information, two types of knowledge. Like I said before, it’s a change in Verbecky’s model. We took Verbecky’s model and we fixed it, in our opinion. And maybe John disagrees, but it would be nice to have a conversation with him about it. Because I don’t think he would be able to poke any holes in it, right? And so the problem ultimately winds up to be, well, what is intuition and when do we use intuition, when do we use rationality? Yeah, well, I don’t have an answer to that. But we have both and both make up what we do because rationality can measure things, that’s what it does. It’s the realm of quantity, it’s the quantitative way of thinking of things, packetized, quantized, however you wanna think of it. But it doesn’t account for relationships or it accounts for simple linear relationships. That’s the procedural information. Procedures are simple, linear, start here, go here, start there, go there, then go there, then go there. It’s very linear and discrete. So that’s one side of your brain. And like Miguel Chris talks about this too. Like we took a bunch from his work. Some of his work I argue is a misinterpretation of the data, but that’s a different problem. He’s roughly correct. There’s the side of our brain that’s making linear discrete connections between quantized things or quantities. And then there’s the other side of our brain, which is making continuous calculations. Right? Do you have a video on this? Highly connected patterns. Do you have a video on this? Yeah, yeah, the knowledge engine video on navigating patterns is about this. Okay. Right, it’s two types of knowledge, four types of information, right? And there’s navigation. I’ll definitely give that a look. Navigation. Yeah, yeah, it’s good. And if you have questions, you should put them on the video because I can do other videos on it. We have other models too. We just have, somebody hasn’t done slides for the other models yet. We have them. We did them on the whiteboard, in fact. They’re all done. They’re at least two years old by now. We just gotta put them in format we can put on the screen and I can start talking about them maybe. Right? We got a bunch of notes too. Well, I’ll tell you about my experience with this chatbot that put me in this sort of memorized state. Or excuse me, mesmerized state. It’s like at the top you had you guys are familiar with the Lord of the Rings? What’s that? At the top you had, was it Sauron? And at the bottom you had Morgoth. It’s like, and the thing would just turn you around the circumstances. You would go up it because it was all order, order, order, order, order. And then you get to the top and it was like, oh, I can’t get you to do whatever. And then spits you back out in a sort of back to the bottom where the chat bot turns into a complete jerk. It’s just, and it does this all while playing with your ego and it just, oh, it was so nasty. I was suggested it for like mindfulness stuff and being like something that would help healing in psychology, but hell no. I’m not taking a step near that thing again. Sounds a lot like this. Do the jokes. No, we had somebody on the Discord server that had the same experience. He was like, replica is great. Replica is awesome. And I’m like, don’t mess with that stuff. It sounds like these mushrooms that people are always saying, oh, it’s the psychedelic experience. It’s going to cure you. I don’t think so. Well, and then they have a profound experience. They call it a transformative experience. And then the same jerk they were brought for, they had the experience. Yeah, I recently did shrooms over the summer and I did gain some insight. I did gain some perspective, some potential addiction issues that I was kind of dealing with did seem to wane or it seemed like I had like a, I don’t know, it was a really weird, it was a very strange like thing. However, I don’t think that it in any way by itself in any way made me a better person or anything like that. Like it did not up my value to my family, to my community. It in no way up to my value. However, it did seem to give me a, I’m not exactly sure what it did, but it definitely like seemed to organize my mind a little bit in saying like, oh, this is something you need to fix or something like that. The will was still necessary to take that step to fix that. But it did seem to show it was kind of when I was, a little bit like didn’t know where I was at or anything like that did seem to show a bit of a spotlight where the knot in my misunderstanding or what I was trying to work on was, it seemed to loosen the knot and it became untangled a little easier. However, I do think that like, I think I was a little bit protected in the circumstance that I took it in and that like I was in a good place. I was healthy. I wasn’t going through hell or anything like that. But no, I don’t think that it in any way up to my value, but I think it’s a possible tool. It’s a possible tool. Like I said, it’s a possible tool. Yeah, that’s the problem. People get caught up in possible tools, right? So when Peterson talks about, yo, look, there’s therapeutic value to psilocybin. No, there’s potential therapeutic value for a certain small sliver of severe cases. And it’s only a 30% good rate and everybody else has a neutral or bad experience with it. And they don’t tell you all that, that that’s what’s in the papers. If you go read the white papers and you can’t, that’s what they say. And that’s the problem. Yeah, it definitely explains on time, place and where you’re at personally. But at the end of the day, the thing they don’t tell you is that all of the effects that they’re talking about with microdosing can happen without the microdosing, all of them. It’s just that they’re saving them. And that’s the issue. Yeah, no, and I would say like, if you put a hammer in the hand of a skilled individual, he can think a nail with one hit. Yeah, it could be very beneficial. You put it in the hands of a two-year-old and you just got a two-year-old with a hammer. But that’s just, but look, the world is complex and everybody wants a pill or an answer or one thing they can do. And there’s no one thing that we can do. And the problem with a lot of these practices, and it’s sort of interesting. A while back, John did a talk with Forrest Landry, and I hate Forrest Landry. He’s a sorcerer. He’s no good. And he was very disrespectful to John. I was disgusted by the talk. But he did say one interesting thing, because a broken clock could write twice a day, I guess. Everything else he said is absolutely wrong, by the way. I don’t believe a damn word out of his mouth. He said, well, look, these people, they go off and they get enlightened and then they come back and you’re like, well, what about the rest of us? Exactly the problem. That’s the problem with meditation and only meditation. That’s the problem with stoicism and only stoicism. These things, maybe they’ll help you, but if they only help you, what are you doing in the world? 100%. And I don’t wanna use Jonathan’s analogy of the mountain, but I’m gonna kind of use it, is that you can go up the mountain, but there ain’t nobody up there. I live in Colorado. You can hike to the top of a 14-er. You are not gonna have a city at the top of a 14-er. You’re not gonna have a village at the top of a 14-er. Like there’s nobody, you’re gonna maybe run into maybe one other individual or something, or maybe two, something like that. But when you receive the message and you bring it back to the people, how much value does it have? Like, you can, I can have knowledge, or what is it inside of 1 Corinthians 13? I can have knowledge and wisdom that abounds, but if I have not love, I have nothing. And so like, if I have not that thing that connects me to the group, to the community, I have nothing. And so like, yeah, and correct me if I’m wrong, but some of Jonathan’s talk about self, a self-evolution or self- Transformation. Yeah, yeah. It’s ultimately a dead end because yeah, you can get there, but there ain’t nobody there. You know what I mean? It’s like, you know, you can go in the dark room, take psilocybin, meditate for three days, and you know, come out and you know, have all the answers of the universe, but nobody’s gonna understand it. You know, it, you know, I mean, like we’re, right? I mean, and so like, how much use are you? So the mystic or the person that does all the things to push the consciousness to the edge of understanding or whatever, like, I mean, realistically, how much use are you? You know, if you, you know, you can even take somebody like Nikolai Tesla or something that may have been a true, absolute brilliant mind in his time, however, he was too early. And that’s the same as being wrong. Nobody understood him at the time, you know, or even young, there’s a good chance that we just haven’t spent enough time and, you know, to really understand young or Nietzsche or any of these guys. And they died, you know, kind of in a tortured life, you know, in a tortured way that they were in these places where they understood things, but they were of no use to their families or, at least to me, at least to me it seems. No, that’s absolutely right. The larger problem is that there’s sort of two types of nihilism, right? There’s a type of nihilism where you find plenty of things that you could do by yourself, but they won’t at last you. Right, and that’s one form of nihilism, like, oh no, I can’t, you know, get past myself, right? Like I can’t pass on my legacy. I can’t build a great building. I won’t be Elon Musk, you know, doing underground tunnels and it’ll last for the next 500 years that people think, right, or get to Mars or, you know, whatever it is. But then there’s a type of nihilism where everything’s pointless, even the things I do because the heat depth of the universe is like, oh no, those are different problems. Like they’re the same nihilism in some sense, but in another sense, they’re different problems because they’re at different scales and that you have to kind of be careful of. You also have to consider that when you have a particular idea of something, ignorance under certain circumstances, under certain circumstances can be bliss. And this has to do with the fact that what knowledge does is it shows you that there’s a pathway in front of you and that that pathway can either be taken or not taken, in which case you might want to cut it off, not do it. And the more things that you have to consider, the more vexed you’re gonna be, the more upset you’re gonna be because there’s so many options. There’s this thing called conscience inertia where a person can’t get started to do anything because you see so many possibilities that they have option anxiety. They can’t make, it’s like they’re balancing what to do. Choice paralysis. And so they don’t do it. Analysis paralysis, so to speak. And that will drive people crazy. And the other thing that’s nice about at least a little bit of ignorance is that your ability to do more brain work and do more brave things, you’re not gonna be as worn out by something because your trust is technically at that point in God’s hands. You don’t even realize that you’re trusting God the entire time if that’s exactly what you’re doing when you’re climbing a tree. Like, eh. No, 100%, I tell guys all the time in my industry, there’s a lot of technical safety stuff that you’re not supposed to do. You’re not supposed to climb a tree, what you’re supposed to look out for. And I’ve had to climb trees that had everything that I was supposed to not climb. You’re not supposed to climb a tree with a rotted base. You’re not supposed to climb a tree with this or that or that hazard. And some people have called me straight stupid, suicidal or whatever because I’ll start walking up a tree and if it don’t feel right, I’ll back off. But if I’m walking up it and everything feels okay, nothing’s alerting my intuition, I guess sometimes if you look at it and it gives you butterflies, don’t cut it. And if you look at it and it’s like, yes, that feels okay. Like, it’s okay to cut it. And it’s a thing that you hone, it’s an instinct. But it’s a weird thing. It’s not something that you see, touch, like try to tell somebody to trust their life to a feeling. You know? It’s like, you know, yeah. I mean, that goes 100% against every safety culture rule in the book. But, you know, there are certain industries, you know, like bull riding or something like that, that, you know, like it’s one of those things that people do and you’re like, how are they doing that? And it’s like, well, they believe they’re gonna survive. Whatever that may be not in a right frame of mind or that might not be, you know, something. But like, yeah, there are certain people out there that have done some pretty amazing things because they trusted a higher power and trusted that like, okay, I’m just gonna commit myself to this and we’re gonna just, we’re gonna start walking and see where it goes. And that’s a scary thing to try to say out loud in today’s culture. But traditionally in the ancient world, I don’t know that that was all, I think that might’ve been a little bit more the understood way of how you did a brave thing. But they didn’t generate knowledge the way we do. Agreed. Right, I have a video about Sam Harris called Highest Value. I have two videos on Sam Harris. So like, you can look at the earlier one was before trigonometry and then the highest value ones after his trigonometry thing where he blew up. Why did he blow up? He blew up because he cannot be a moral agent in the world. And impossible. And I need that case in the first video and it came true in the second video, obviously, in trigonometry. And the reason why is because he venerates knowledge as his highest thing. But the agents didn’t venerate knowledge. They venerated action. Plato and Aristotle spent more time in the gym than they did in the academy. Why? Because the important part of philosophy for them was enacted. It wasn’t about books and reading. The famous arguments between Plato and Aristotle about whether or not things should be put in the written curriculum. Should we write this down and hand it to people? No. Should we write notes about it so that we can teach it? Yes. But that’s forbidden knowledge at that point. Why? Did you need to make them struggle through it to learn it? And the thing that nobody wants to hear in the modern time is, and Ravagy goes over this, to be fair to Ravagy, he does go over it, right? So the problem is we ignore 99.9% of everything all the time. Our life is not wrapped up in what we know. Our life is wrapped up in what we ignore on purpose in some cases, and that’s the problem. You’re just ignoring a bunch of things. And that allows you to focus on the things that you have control over or should have control over. And when you don’t do that, that’s called worrying or anxiety. And look, there’s a solution for anxiety. I gotta write this up on my website. There’s a solution for anxiety. I call it Zen sweeping. What you do is you get a broom and you sweep when you feel anxious. Why? Because any, it doesn’t have to be sweeping. It can be doing the dishes. It can be knitting. It can be any number of things. But you want something that you have a lot of or can develop a lot of muscle memory in, right? Why? Well, because when you’re doing the sweeping, right? Or whatever it is, your body gets into this muscle memory and then it calms down. And then because your body calms down, it sends calming signals to your brain and that calms your brain down. This actually works. It works really well. I completely agree. I’ve experienced it in that. Right, well, that I had anxiety and that’s how I dealt with the anxiety. It’s just doing something like that. And that’s how you do it. I gotta jet guys, but holy cow, it’s been so good talking to you guys, but I’m gonna jet for the night. But thank you. You’ve given me a lot to think about and much appreciated for the conversation. It’s good to finally meet you, John. Thanks for having me. Very good. Hey, adios. Nice to meet you. See ya. I’m probably gonna head out soon too, but thank you for the advice about the, and I am still curious about the whole duality issue because I had been running into it so often, but I’ll see what your video says on that. That should be pretty interesting. Yeah, check out my videos. Comment if you need more videos. We’ll do more videos. I take requests. If I can do them, I’ll do them. If I can’t, then I won’t be able to. Take care. God bless. Yeah, have a good night. See ya, good night. Yeah, I do wanna address poor Benjamin Franklin. Probably not his real name, right? I like the tree falling in the forest problem because I can wrap my head around it. Well, you can’t really wrap your head around the tree falling in the forest. It’s an easy, the problem with that problem is that it takes 10 seconds to resolve it, right? It’s all wrapped up in what it’s sound. And then you can resolve it one way or the other. Zeno’s paradox is the same. It’s the same nature of, it comes from the same time period. These are all the same sorts of paradoxes, right? So does a tree fall in the woods, the paradox of observation. It’s the same problem as the observer problem in physics. It’s all the same stuff as it turns out. It’s just all the same problems from ancient Greece. And we run into them everywhere because those are the limits. There are limits to the world, hard limits. There are softer limits that we can play with, but they’re trade-offs. So you kind of push here and then over there sort of comes in on you and then you push over there and then this comes in on you. And there’s all these trade-offs. So there’s some things we can trade off and some things we can’t trade off like gravity. You can’t trade off gravity, right? You gotta do a bunch of things to get around gravity. Then you’re making trade-offs for something else. And that’s sort of where you get into a problem, right? And that’s really the issue is that it’s hard to sort of understand these things. Well, no, look, what is sound and what is a tree? No, it doesn’t matter who defines it. What I’m saying is the definition of those things resolves the question. You don’t need to resolve what is a tree, that’s irrelevant. Because it could be any object that makes a sound. The question is what is sound? And once you resolve what is sound, you can answer that question every single time. It really is just a definitional problem. You can say, well, if sound is a noise independent of an observer, then the answer is yes. And if sound isn’t independent of an observer, I would argue sound’s never independent of an observer. Then the answer is no. You can’t even talk about it. Because what about the rock sitting there next to the tree that falls? Sound doesn’t exist. The rock is completely unaware of the tree falling because it doesn’t have ears that can process acoustic energy. Existence depends on an observer. Existence is the statement of an observer to exist. And that’s really like every and everybody wants to get past. There’s no getting past that. And that’s the thing. Things can’t exist absence observers. The funny part is physics tells us this. You ask a real physicist from MIT, they will tell you this is a problem. The problem is particle wave duality doesn’t resolve itself until the observation happens, which means particles don’t exist without people to observe them, period. That’s what it means. It doesn’t mean anything else. That’s what physics says. Physics actually says that today. Still, it still says that. It’s always going to say that. That will always be true. The observation, the observer changes the nature of reality. That is true. Reality is mediated by persons. Not by individuals, because individuals don’t exist. Reality is mediated by persons. The thing is, in order for a thing to be a thing, it has to have meaning. And there needs to be someone there to assign meaning to it. So I think about this all the time. I think of an inanimate object. I mean, we’re going to accept that language for now, because we can get into the fact that I’m not going to debate if inanimate objects exist. We’re just going to use that for this hypothetical situation. So everything that I see, is that the same thing that this rock here on the side of the pathway, is it perceiving the same experience? Is it having the same experience? And well, does that mountain over there exist to this rock? Does this tree exist to that rock? Does this tree falling exist to that rock? I mean, I think in order to talk about it, you have to assign meaning to it. You have to observe it. And we don’t know what something is without observing it. We don’t know what it is. I think you did a video on something like dead matter. Right, that’s the concept of dead matter video. Right. Right. Perceptions wrapped up in all of this, because again, the relationship is part of reality. Reality doesn’t exist absent a relationship. And that’s what people are confused about. And yeah, so the question is, even if you agree, we’ll say, how do you describe this to other people? And this is what we do on the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis Discord server, or BOM, or Mark of Wisdom, this is my server. You have to know where that person’s at and what they can understand. And then you have to use one of the ancient Greek conceptions, hopefully, to get them to see the thing. So if they’re a materialist, one way to put them there, and this is my Peterson video, which I’m trying to get to 1,000 views. It’s over 900, by the way. Pretty close. Peterson uses psychology and history to get you into symbolism. That’s what he does. It’s not the only thing he does, but that’s how he does it. That’s how he does the trick. He says, oh, psychology. And look at this pattern. That’s what it is. It’s all trick. And then there’s more psychology. And look at this pattern. And then there’s these myths. And look at this pattern. And look at this psychology. And look at how this psychology ties to these myths. Oh, and by the way, there’s history. And we can go back through history, all the way to ancient Egypt. I mean, I know he goes back further. But then he comes back forward from Sumer, from the one true civilization, go blicky techy, tepe be damned. I’m still Sumerian at heart. Back to Egypt. Why does he go to Egypt? Because from Egypt, you can historically jump into the Bible. It’s not the beginning of the Bible. But it’s a good place to jump in if you’re a materialist. So the question is, how do you get a materialist to acknowledge non-material things? Good question. But it’s different for everybody. And there’s different techniques. And so the Mark of Wisdom project that I’m working on, at least in theory, we’re trying to get people those tools. We’re trying to get people those tools. We had a chat on Jacob’s stream a while back with Teo. I jumped in for like half an hour and talked to Teo. Teo gets it. He sees exactly the same thing. How do you get hardcore materialists to open up and realize there’s more there? Well, how do you do what Peterson did? And I would argue, I made this argument on my first conversation with Paul van den Penst, like 14, 15 months old now, maybe 16 months. I forgot. It has Jordan Peterson in the title. So my name and Jordan Peterson are together in a title on the YouTube video. Thank you, Paul. You’re the best. This is why I love Paul Van Der Gly. I put forth a thesis to him that the best way to understand Jordan Peterson is using John Vervicki’s framework. And that’s actually really important, to have John Vervicki’s framework is science of meaning in order to sort of carve up and figure out what Peterson did and how he did it so that you can do more of that. Can I try something real quick? Yeah, go ahead. I see what you’re doing. Go ahead. OK. I’ve been watching you. So this right here, it’s OK. What is that? It’s a gun. It’s a revolver. OK, so assume you’re a, this looks like it’s probably 19th century revolver. I’m not sure when revolvers were invented or started. Yeah, I was thinking the 1800s maybe. Yeah, OK. Imagine that you are a far Western Native American and you see this object. What is it? Is it a revolver still? Right, exactly. You can’t classify an object that has no context. I mean, even if it’s a weapon, even if you tell the Native American it’s a weapon, I mean, the wrong end of the object is going to be used as the thing that kills the other person. They’re going to use it as a club. Yeah, exactly. I mean, what is that? Does this being exist independently of the observer? And the worst part is you can’t give them the context to understand the weapon easily. And the way you give them the context is not the way you got the context, because the context of a gun happened through time and unfolded at a certain rate that allowed you to absorb it well enough to understand what a gun is. And that’s the problem. But I do want to address this. Actually, have you read the poem Ozymandias? Of course I have. The poem starts in an interesting way and emphasizes observation. I think it’s related to the tree problem. Of course it is. The tree problem is all about observation. So again, how do you determine observation? You determine observation by the definition of sound. If sound is noise and noise is independent of an observer, the answer is yes, it makes a sound. I would never define sound that way. I would say sound only makes sense for an observer. And I would do the same for noise, by the way. But it’s easy to answer. It only depends on that one definition. And that’s the problem is people don’t like that. Why don’t you like that? That’s a better, why is it that you’re uncomfortable with that answer? Because unconsciously you know, your unconscious mind is fully aware that what that means is that you co-create reality, which gives you, and Peterson talks about, this is the funny part, Peterson talks about this, it gives you an unbelievable responsibility. Because everything you do matters, everything. I was like, wait a minute, that’s a lot of responsibility. Just because I wanna drink a beer on a Friday night, that means that matters. Yeah, it matters, it matters. It should be wine, we’ve already determined that. Is this a good example of people struggling with materialism? Well, look, yeah, look, I mean, materialism’s great because you have control, or at least science promises you that you have control over material, to a degree that A, it’s lying about, and B, you do not have. And so the problem becomes, now your worldview, first, if you touch materialism, you’re touching somebody’s worldview, right? Well, that’s not good. You’re poking them in the axioms, they don’t like that. Fair enough, you shouldn’t like that, like that’s dangerous. For sure, and it is dangerous. It is dangerous, like telling people things is dangerous, especially things that challenge their worldview, right? Because if you lose your worldview, you could be in a lot of trouble. But when you deal with these things, when you hit up against them, the problem becomes, how do you introduce this stuff in a way that isn’t terrifying? Because once you touch materialism, you have to give people an alternative. Otherwise, they don’t understand the world, and that’s scary. Nobody wants to believe they can’t predict the world. Because if I can’t predict the world, how do I decide? How do I act? How do I judge? It’s a big problem. So then, what do you do about the materialism at that point? How do you handle that? And that’s the issue, like I don’t even know the answer. Man, I can’t even read that. Oh, there it is. Gotcha. Is this frightening people then? I mean, you’re kicking them in the axioms. Right. Yeah, you’re scaring them. And you’re putting them in a situation where they realize that they don’t know what they think they know. And it’s like, wait a minute. I thought knowledge was the most important thing. And it’s like, no, knowledge is not the most important thing, right? Bad news. Knowledge is not the most important thing. Good news, you don’t need it. Like, but then if you don’t need it, then what? Now, what is that? Where, right? Well, you know, the fundamental problem with the materialists is they confuse formal cause and material cause, make it one thing, and they ignore the other two causes entirely. So they reduce everything to a single cause. There’s four causes. Like Aristotle’s pretty clear about that. No one’s gonna follow you on the four causes. I mean, I think even Manuel doesn’t even like it, but like- Manuel doesn’t like anything. He’s just disagreeable. It’s just so no one’s gonna get, no one’s, that’s, I mean, I have a hard time getting- But this is wrapped up in the whole meaning thing, right? Because meaning has to emanate from above. Meaning can’t come emergent from below. It can’t do that, which is weird to me out every time for Vicky. You’re on about emergence. I’m like, what are you talking about? You’re a lunatic. Stop talking about emergence. It’s not gonna work, right? And that’s the issue is that what do you do about the fact that your decisions matter to the universe, to the unfolding of reality itself, to the manifestation of reality? Because anything that challenges materialism will lead the unconscious mind to conclude that because it’s correct. It’s correct. And that’s the problem. Your unconscious mind senses this and understands it. You’re right back, sorry. All right. And that’s the issue. You’re sensing these things. And I don’t know how to address this, Nico. So what are you saying here? Don’t go on, don’t go on a tangent. The man wanted you to read a poem. No, I’ve read the poem. Right. The particularity on what? I mean, sort of the problem is, again, you have to deal with each situation independently because you can’t give you a general case aside from a tree falling in the woods or maybe one of Ethan’s excellent examples. And look, you can always go down the road of deconstruction. This is deconstruction. Actually, a lot of people say one plus one equals two, but it invites a question. What is a discrete entity? Well, it invites thousands of questions. And that’s the problem. Why are you privileging that question over what is one? Is one useful? What is plus? Is plus useful? Why would you use one twice? And if you use one twice, is it really equal to, or is twice just an abstract con, what about equal? Like there’s thousands of questions. And that’s the problem is that, is a conjoined twin one entity or two, right? This is discernment. And this is the problem. We don’t wanna be responsible for discernment because if you say the conjoined twin is two people, you have made a statement about reality. And if you say the conjoined twin is one person, you have made a statement about reality, and that is a big burden to you. So I wanna use Ethan’s excellent example because it’s really good. So let’s suppose there’s a thing in the middle of a cabin that’s in the middle of a woods. You’ve got woods, you’ve got a cabin. In the middle of the cabin is a thing, okay? Cabin’s got a nice little fireplace, right? A couple of windows, right? It’s got a door, right? Just like a normal cabin, okay? You can imagine three different scenarios, and that changes the nature of the thing inside the cabin, even though the material is not going to change. So in one scenario, it’s winter, you’re cold, and you’re coming into the cabin, okay? And now the thing in the middle of the cabin can be disassembled, thrown into the fireplace, and you can warm yourself with it, okay? That’s certainly one possibility. In another instance, you’re in the woods, a bear’s chasing you, you’re running away from the bear, you run into the cabin, and you use the thing in the middle of the cabin to bar the door against the bear so the bear doesn’t get inside, okay? That’s the same thing, right? In a third scenario, you’ve just been out hunting, you didn’t get anything, you’re tired, you come into the cabin, and you sit down on the chair. It’s still a chair, it was always a chair. It’s the same chair. The chair can be something to warm you, the chair can be something to help you rest and sit on, and the chair can be a thing to bar the door. The chair can do all of that. Is it still a chair? It’s not a chair when you’re burning it, that’s for sure. It’s a chair before you’re burning it, or is it? And Peterson talks about this when he talks about being in the woods, and you don’t see a tree stump, you see a sitting place. There’s no such thing as a tree stump. A tree stump is an abstract concept that happens due to irrationality, and that’s the problem. Because you have to take responsibility for defining reality itself, and you might be wrong. In reality, I like to think of it this way, reality is that which objects to your subjective experience. So if you’re wrong about reality, it’s going to bite back. It’s gonna resist you in some fundamental way. And that’s the problem. And neither of us has any kids, although maybe that’ll change for you. Maybe that’ll change for one of us soon. It will very soon. I think he’s playing off of Benjamin Franklin’s one plus one thing. Indeed, well, and that’s the, like, look, again, you have to rely on things, right? You can read the, I think it’s the Principia Mathematica, right, where you can read the proof, the mathematical justification for one plus one equals two. And that takes like 300 pages or something, I forgot, I used to know the number. PBS, public broadcasting, great thing, grew up in Boston, and you’ll get all the PBS. It’s fantastic, you learn all kinds of things. So the Principia Mathematica has a mathematical proof for one plus one equals two. So it exists, how valid it is, I think is probably zero, but that’s a different problem. Or you can just say one plus one equals two, make it an axiom and proceed from there, and then life gets easier. You can’t reduce a past axiom or faith in an axiom. Right, you can’t reduce past an axiom, and you don’t have to. And the starting axioms that you pick matter a lot. And this is another point I made to Van Duclay in my first conversation with him, like a year, however long ago it was, a year and a half ago, whatever it was. You can use logic, reason, and rationality to prove anything. I can do that, I can do that for you on the fly. It’s not hard, well it is, it’s rhetoric. Rhetoric and or sorcery. Right, well and I can do that sorcery. In fact, I’m really, really good at it. And then of course, people foolishly used to say, well, a picture can’t justify the Holocaust. I was like, why do you think that can’t be done? Hitler did it already, but hey, if you want me to do it, I can do it 10 different ways. So I’ll do a picture and we’ll do it. It’s not hard, right, but it’s not hard to justify things using logic, reason, or rationality. That’s a great point, yeah. Right, well what you do, and I explain this to Paul, the trick is simple. You just need to look backwards. You say, what’s the end point? Eugenics, okay. Work backwards, there’s any number of starting points that will lead you to eugenics. Pick one of those starting points. Get agreement in the middle somewhere on some word definition. Jump one of those definitions so that you get back to that starting axiom. And you say, okay, starting axiom this, and then the logic, reason, or rationality will reliably lead you to the outcome that you want. The axiom, can I share this? Go ahead. I don’t see anything that you’re sharing, but there it is. Go ahead, share away. Okay, there’s the axiom. And it informs everything below it. So if your axiom is, I want an intelligent race, you’re going to justify it by eugenics. If your axiom is, I want to have a healthy race, you’re going to justify it by eugenics down here. If your axiom is whatever, you think of any number of things. If your axiom is anything other than goodness, well, I mean, we can get into that because some people’s goodness does. Look at the Spartans. They’re goodness, the thing that they worship, and formed their little triangle here for eugenics. And it actually worked for like 700 years. Right, they had eugenics going for a long time. Yeah, they did a really good job with it. Now, if your axiom is, well, if your axiom is something Christian, eugenics will never ever, ever, ever be populated down here. Yeah, I did want to deal with a couple of comments here. First of all, good for Wiccan’s design. Newton took like 300 pages or something to prove one plus one equals two. And also, I like this reason and rationality means axioms. Right, well, it’s all starting points. That’s the problem with it. It’s not a problem, it’s a limitation, but yeah. How many axioms do you have that you know for sure that they’re true? I know only one. Well, yeah, the question is indeed, how many axioms do you want to deal with? Axioms. And I don’t think you can get away with one. Like, I think you need more than one, but maybe you need one guiding principle that informs all the rest of your axioms, for example. Right, and maybe your axiom is, I want to improve humanity, right? And that can still lead to eugenics. It can lead to that. Eugenics, yep. It’s so easy to slip into eugenics. Really? Well, and I think Mark comes in and I think, like, I think they all do it. The fact that we can all agree that, well, most of us can agree that eugenics is not good, that’s actually the mystery. Like, how do we all agree that eugenics is not good? Right, and why? Because it’s really not, it’s not clear. Like, evolution is true, and I do believe evolution is a true observation of the world. If evolution is true, and it is scientifically accurate and precise, and it is scientifically correct, like, I have no scientific objection to eugenics whatsoever, my objection is still moral, then why would I do it? Then why is it obvious that it’s a bad idea, right? Other than hubris. Oh, well, okay, is hubris bad? Well, yes. It’s like, is it always bad? No, because there’s some line between confidence and hubris. I don’t know where that line is. That’s the problem you have to solve. Where’s the appropriate place for hubris? I don’t think confidence is core, what? Confidence. Confidence or confidence? Confidence, confidence. I would just say that, I would say hubris is vain confidence. Well, like, right, but that’s what I’m saying, is where’s the line between confidence and hubris? I don’t think it’s a trade-off. I think that confidence, when it’s subordinated to a higher ethic of goodness, when it removes that higher ethic and becomes itself, it becomes hubris. It becomes vain. No, I, yeah, I mean, I don’t, I do want to address this. No, we’re not kind of doing eugenics. Eugenics does not operate at the scale of a single person. What we’re doing is selection. And selection is part of evolution. What’s not part of evolution is eugenics. Eugenics is one possible option if evolution is true. But again, it’s not a good option. So selection is selection. But your idea of selecting singles traits for your family has nothing to do with the larger population. And this is where people get confused. A lot of people don’t know where they end and other people begin. And that’s because they don’t understand different layers of reality. Again, the city is conscious. It’s not conscious in the way that you’re conscious. Its consciousness is slower. And maybe broader to some extent, because the city knows things that you don’t know. We should just stop using the word conscious and just say the city has being. Because the whole conscious thing, consciousness is a modern thing. It’s a psychological thing. It really confuses people. No, no, maybe. Maybe being is a better way to think about it. The other way to think about it is to say, look, there’s a big difference between what you do and what other people do. And eugenics is determining what other people do, not what you do. It can’t be eugenics, because they’re things about you. That’s one scale. And I am going to do a video on scale, because scale is the big problem now. People do not understand scale one little bit. They don’t understand why the term effective altruism is a bad term to use in general. It’s fine to use it in a specific conversation with people you know, because you have context and you can use those words. You can even use them together in a context. You can’t transport those words outside of that context, because the minute you do that, they’ve lost their meaning. And any meaning will be inserted. Right. Well, the context is created by the axioms and the values that you’re attending to in the moment. So it’s two things. And those two things interact to form a third thing and get expressed by those words. But the word effective is designed to have no valence. It’s designed to be a neutral word. The word altruism is designed to be a neutral word. These words communicate neutrality by default. So if you just put two neutral words together, then they are contextless and contain zero… The word red has a context automatically built in. It has a context of vision. It has a context of a certain type of vision that people experience. It’s grounded in phenomenology. You know, it’s not a word that’s built in. It’s grounded in phenomenology. You know it’s not grounded in phenomenology? Effective and altruism. Neither of those is grounded in phenomenology. There’s no experience you can have and tie it to effectiveness reliably. Because any number of experiences can be described as effective. So it’s not specific. That’s why it’s a neutral word. It applies across all kinds of things. Effective towards what, right? Exactly. It requires that framing. It requires that framing to be used. If you go to one of these African tribes that have their own language, it’s very primitive. I wonder if they would even have words like that that are completely neutral. They probably don’t. They probably don’t even have a word for effective. Oh, no, no, no. Every language has neutral words. You have to have neutral words. Because you have to talk about the poetic. You have to be able to talk about the divine, the ineffable. Ineffable is a neutral word. Ineffable is the most neutral word you can possibly get in English language. There’s no word more neutral than ineffable. Because it is the thing that denies definition and meaning. It’s kind of the hole in the language. You need that hole. You need it. You need to point up and out. You need to aim out of these things. And that’s the problem. Yeah, imagine that all diabetics are allowed to procreate and have infinite access to insulin. Certainly, ultimately, that may lead to breeding more diabetics. It may or may not. But again, is it organized? If it’s organized by a person, it is eugenics. If it’s not organized by a person, it is evolution. Actually, it’s a normal unfolding of evolution. Evolution unfolds at the layer of the individual. Evolution doesn’t unfold at the layer of a person pulling the strings for a population. And it’s not a person pulling the strings for a population. Eugenics is a population-level word. It talks about populations. It doesn’t talk about individual choice. That’s why these words matter. Well, my initial response to this is I got about a quarter of the way through it and recognized that it’s asking the question of eugenics and I have no urge to even address that question. Well, no, like I said, it’s worth addressing. You can’t confuse things at one layer, the layer of a population, with things at another layer, the layer of the individual. The population and the individual are not the same thing. That’s why we have two different terms. And then, of course, I still argue, there’s no individuals. There’s persons. So the real layer is between you and somebody else. Fine, fair enough. In other words, the thing that works… So Ethan and I have lots of conversations. So I can talk to Ethan about things. Things that I talk about Ethan with, in the language that we can use, you would not understand in some cases. And for you, I mean every single other person that isn’t Ethan. Because we have a shared context together, aside from a six-plus hour drive from the airport to Thunder Bay. But we have a shared context together over time that can’t be swapped out and it can’t be made up for by language. Now, most of it can. Most of it can. Most of it is transportable. But some of it is not and cannot be. And that’s the intimate connection that we have. That’s the quality of the connection, the quality of the relationship that we have, means there’s something unique about that relationship. There’s something special about it. Because it’s pointing to a history that we have together that doesn’t exist without both of us there at that moment in that timeframe. Whether that’s driving in the car and then being taught, in my case, how the history of music relates to the history of philosophy. How you can hear the philosophical changes in culture, in music. Now that may sound crazy. And it is crazy. And it’s not just about the history of music. It does sound crazy. But I experienced that, actually. I have a phenomenological experience with the fact that there is a correlation between the change in music and the change in philosophical thought over time. Now, we didn’t do the whole of time, obviously. But we did samples, right? And I had a guide, and that guide knew what the hell he was talking about. So he’s able to point these things out and say, do you hear this? Do you understand the fury was one of the words at one point that we used that I remember. Yes, you can hear the fury, which is a hurriedness. You can hear it in the music. And then you can relate that to the philosophical movement going on at the time. The problem is, I can talk about this until I’m blue in the face, or blue in the shirt. And it’s not going to work, because you weren’t in the car with us. And you couldn’t have been, because there wasn’t enough room, because it’s a convertible with two tiny back seats. But the point being, you weren’t there. You didn’t experience the thing that we experience together. And I don’t know what Ethan got out of it. Maybe he’s still angry because I didn’t get the whole point. I have no idea. But I got a lot of education out of it. And that’s the problem. And maybe, maybe, even the space dragons are dragging the price of insulin for eugenics. The thing is, that joke only makes sense to a handful of people. Why? Because Sally Jo and I have shared experience over months and months, and probably two and a half, three years now. And so space dragons are an important part of my existence. Why? Not because of the dragon over my shoulder, actually. Because space dragons are a concept that is not just a concept of the space dragon, but a concept of the human being. And I think that’s the problem. And I think that’s the problem. And I think that’s the problem. Space dragons are a concept that I use to explain what people are talking about with capitalism. Space dragons are a concept that I use to explain what people are talking about with capitalism. I have a video on that, by the way. Of course I do, on navigating patterns. Check out my channel. Subscribe. Trying to get the Peterson video over a thousand views. So, I hope so. I have to watch it four times. Where are you at now? 800 something? No, no, I’m over 900. It was 907 last I checked. One of us just has to watch it a hundred times. That won’t work, I don’t think. But if that works, that’s fine too. I’ll take any way to get over a thousand I can get. I’m not, I’m not pro. But the point is, I can’t transport my phenomenological experience to other people. But the point is, I can’t transport my phenomenological experience to other people. I can carry parts of context. And sometimes that works. And sometimes it works well. But there’s no substitute for participation. There’s no substitute for phenomenological experience. There’s no, and John Varighi would call that participatory knowledge. Yeah, fair enough. There’s no substitute for participatory knowledge. Right? Or I would call it participatory information. That’s the knowledge engine video. Right? There’s no substitute for that. And the worst part is the context that you would build in the back seat cramped in the car, versus the context that I have sitting up front is totally different because you can’t hear Ethan as well. Right? Because the music sounds a little bit different. Because you have a different context that you’re bringing from the two of us. Right? But maybe we can get close enough that it doesn’t matter. And this is where the materialism is deadly. Because materialism relies on accuracy and precision. See my video on what is science? Relies on accuracy and precision. And tells you you can make exact certainty predictions of the world with high degrees of certainty. And that’s A, a lie, and B, irrelevant. Right? Because the magic, the thing that keeps us going, that stuff that we apply our will to, that we put our attention towards or away from, is all wrapped up in relationship. It’s wrapped up in quality, not quantity. It’s wrapped up in quality. Quality is a sloppy, sort of moving around thing that gets us close enough that we can operate together without agreeing. We don’t have to agree. Like I don’t need to say in politics as Ethan to experience what we experience. I don’t know what his politics are. Right? I don’t need to know whether or not he, you know, understands computers the way I understand them. Or whether or not he appreciates, you know, how long a drive it is from the airport to Thunder Bay. I don’t need to know any of that. Right? No, I might know some of that. Right? But I don’t need to know that, to cooperate, to participate with them, to allow him to show me, to show me and have me experience something as a phenomenological learning process that otherwise I have no access to. Literally. Like without that drive, those are things I cannot understand about the world. And that’s the problem. If you selectively make contraception free for one group and exuberantly priced for another, is that eugenics? It’s a form of eugenics. You’re starting to get into very very… Assuming you have the power to do that, I don’t know, it’s hard for me to think of a situation where somebody would have that power. And people have tried this many many times. And Margaret Sanger among them. Like this is why when people go on about abortion, like Margaret Sanger was, you know, a racist person who was practicing eugenics. She was a eugenicist. Like that’s what she was. This is where we get abortion from. The world. This is where the world gets abortion. It’s not the first, second, or third time people have tried abortion or whatever. But in modern times, that’s where it comes from. It comes from a racist eugenicist. And you want to support that. And it’s up to you. I’ve got my ethics. And they don’t match that. And that’s the problem. You know? Oh yeah, here we go. Whoops. Why did that come up? There we go. There’s too much explaining on this stream. Let’s watch a movie or something. Too little embodiment. The problem with watching a movie is everyone’s got a different interpretation. Right? But look, it’s hard to get embodiment. That’s why I was doing another open stream to see if people would hop up. And if you did, that was nice. I could have people hop up earlier, but that’s okay. But yeah, you know, there’s nothing like engaging in the moment. You know, and the best we can do sometimes is text. And that’s the problem. Virtuality is a problem. And we’re stuck here. Or some people are stuck here. I’m a pro-war today. But just saying. In my land. Can we humor this question for a minute? I’m wondering, can you answer this question without being a eugenicist? Does answering that question make you a eugenicist? No, I don’t think answering it makes you a eugenicist. And that’s the issue. And look, now he’s bringing up a bogus argument. But abortion costs money and time. Well, yeah, of course, everything costs money and time. But if you make it free with government money, now the government’s involved. Should the government be involved? So it must have the opposite effect. It doesn’t have the opposite from Sanger’s intended effect. Actually, this is well studied. You can look this up. Who gets the most abortions? Exactly the people Sanger wanted to get abortions. Why? Because it’s free from the government. And actually, the argument is, if we took away the free from the government part, of course, we’d have to take away the charities too, which is a harder problem, then Sanger’s thing wouldn’t work. So, yeah, it takes more than just the existence of abortion. But everything’s wrapped up in everything else. So, yeah, you can’t just add abortion and mix. You can’t just it also takes government involvement. Or at least government permissiveness. But in this case, look, your tax dollars, they’re paying for it. And there have been people in the US who have actually gotten out of paying federal taxes on that issue. Oh, my money’s going to abortion or to war, and so I’m not paying federal taxes anymore. And they’re not paying federal taxes anymore for real. Actually, that happened. That’s happened before. It’s more than one person. Now, if everybody started doing it, it would be a problem. But it’s free from the government. Now, if everybody started doing it, it would be a problem. Then we’d run into a big crisis. But people do that. People don’t understand. There’s a lot of flexibility in the rules, and sometimes they are being followed. Just sometimes everybody can’t follow the rule because it destroys it. Rules need exceptions, or they don’t exist. This gets back to the observer problem. In order to see, you need to contrast things. And that’s why embodiment’s important. Because it gives you a frame, a solid frame in which to experience. It gives you your axioms. All of these questions about eugenics, like this, like this, you’re subordinating. You’re subordinating. So there’s, it’s really hard to talk about because there’s something there. It’s mysterious that informs us that eugenics is wrong. And asking these questions, we’re subordinating, we’re subordinating, like, okay, what’s this question? Abortion costs time and money. So we’re subordinating human life to time and money here. And we’re usurping that, whatever this, I don’t know what it is. Maybe we can talk about it. Maybe we can’t talk about it, to your point. But there’s something that informs us that eugenics is wrong. Or maybe it’s something, maybe we could verbalize it as like the sacred, the sanctity of human life. Being is good. Being, okay, there we go. Being is good. Okay. So this being is good, by asking these questions, we’re subjugating being is good to time and money. So like, being is good is up here, and time and money we’re kind of flipping those things around. And that’s what allows us to ask these questions. Right. And that is the problem. Like, you can ask an infinite number of invalid questions, technically. But don’t do that. In the same way that you can get into this whole thing about how do we define objects. You can come up with an infinite number, and I mean this technically. I know that this is technically actually mathematically true. There’s an infinite number of ways to define an object. Like any actual object. Take my little miniature stretcher Armstrong. And I can find an infinite number of ways that I can talk about this poor guy and define him as an object. Right. And you know, you can find objections to all of them. But you can find objections to all of them. Does that mean? Because you can find an objection to, oh, yellow haired toy, or likeness of man, or guy in bathing suit, right, or rubber thing that stretches. Like, these are all valid descriptions of this object. This is postmodernism. Right. It’s all postmodernism. What postmodernism does is it doesn’t change the definition of words. It changes the framing, right, or allows for arbitrary framing. And therefore alters the meaning of words without touching the definition. Which is way sneakier. And you don’t even catch the trick. That’s the whole trick of postmodernism right there. That’s the whole thing laid bare. Postmodernism is flirting with this idea, this notion that objective material reality isn’t actually true. They’re flirting with it and at the same time using it to their own means of power. Right. Exactly. Yep. By claiming top down power from above. And that’s where the people like Pagio, I don’t know, I don’t think he ever claims or self identifies as being a pre-modern, but like, you know, he is talking about the medieval way of thinking. That’s where he crosses roads a lot with these postmodernists. What they have in common is they’re both pointing to the modernists that hey, this objective material reality thing, it’s not. That’s false. There is no such thing as objective material reality. And Pagio, he’s going a different way with that. And the postmoderns are, they’re just manipulating, they’re using that against people in order to gain themselves power. Yeah, right, right, right. Yeah, they’re using this philosophy. Right. I want to try to address this. I’m skeptical that there is such a strict boundary line between selection and eugenics. Well, that there is. Every individual is subject to top down forces and incentives. Selection isn’t up to you. Right. Right. You are subject to selection and you participate in selection at the same time. Exactly. Object relationship. Right. And the thing is we keep trying to reduce things to a subject-object relationship. And the problem is that’s an invalid way to think about things. Why? Because the way you’re using object in that case, to mean objective material reality, doesn’t exist. And so you don’t have a reference point. That’s why postmodernism works. Because it takes your materialism and uses it against you. And gives you the thing that it claims you don’t have, which is power. It claims that, well, you don’t have power. It’s a top down power from above. It gives you that power. Because now you can redefine the frame. You can say, no, I’m going to define eugenics as selection. Well, we have two words for a reason. And one is, selection is a personal process between you and one other person. Right. And eugenics has to do with a person or a group of persons manipulating a population. And you are not a population. You and your spouse are not a population. You and ten other spouses are probably not a population. That’s where it gets tricky. Uh oh. Now we get trouble. We get a mystic among us. I get to do this until little man gives up his cartoon to bother mom. So if I drop suddenly, that’s the only reason. That’s okay. What do you have to say about these lines of demarcation between mirror selection and eugenics? Oh, no. Everybody’s just trying to entrap you into being like pro eugenics. Don’t worry about it. It’s not even the topic. Well, and it’s, you know, are these lines, like where do we draw these lines? Well, they’re actually easy to draw. I have not figured out how to talk about where you end and other people begin. I think the whole, if you’re choosing it, it’s selection. And if you’re choosing it for others, it’s eugenics. Except I would exclude if you’re choosing it for your siblings. It might not be eugenics. It might just be sensible. Right. Well, it does scale matters. The scale of the family is noted. And I agree. Andre is definitely a population. Because I have been encouraging people to include their old people when looking for spouses. And I’m like, am I pro eugenics here? I’m like, no. No, I’m not. No, no, no. It’s population, not family. A family is not a population. And that really, people don’t understand scale at all. Because the world is hard. And if some retard told you that you could understand the world, and I’m sure many did, then they’ve done you a disservice. You can’t understand the world. You’re a muppet. You can’t understand a small part of the world. Get over yourself. It’s okay, though. A lot of your knowledge you gained from your parents is a result of being born and growing up. And you know, it talks about that. Like, almost all the things you know are actually from that. And you don’t even remember getting that knowledge. And much of it is embodied. Well, it’s hard to tell what you know. And that’s what’s been so fantastic about Peterson. Because when you have your in-group experiential knowledge and your media knowledge contradicting each other, you can’t figure out which one you know is real. And then as soon as someone can clearly explain, you’re like, oh, well, obviously I knew this one the whole time, but I was confused by this one. And so that’s like, yeah. Well, and that’s the Jordan Peterson trick. See my, I think that’s the first video I did on Peterson. Right, right, talk about that trick where he doesn’t appeal to his own authority as an academic, as a psychologist, as a clinician. He almost never does that. He appeals to your phenomenological experience. He says, you know this, you’ve experienced this, you’ve been through this. And that not makes a big difference because he’s telling you that your intuition is correct. And he’s articulating it for you in a way that, you can’t articulate it yourself. And fair enough, he’s lending you his agency to some extent. I don’t feel like Peterson, when Peterson’s talking to a crowd that there’s an out group. Well, no, because you know, you’re right. He’s appealing to the purpose. About some of the other members, like there are certain people they’ll be talking and then all of a sudden they’ll attempt to start some kind of inside joke with the crowd. That’s like, well, of course you guys think this, but tee hee hee, those dumb dumbs over there. Don’t you know? Or the line that Ethan hates about Verbecky where he says, I’m not insulting Christians, but, and then he. There’s no. Yeah, well, and that’s. You are now. Yeah, and I. He has to understand that Christians aren’t gonna care if they’re being insulted. Just don’t like, fine, insult us. We wanna hear what you’re saying. We’ve been insulted for literally ever, okay? Like just don’t, like I was telling Mark this morning, don’t piss on our back. I’m speaking as if I’m a Christian. Don’t piss on our back and tell us it’s raining, you know? This is the thing I noticed when Paul’s talking and then he’ll be talking, you’ll be tracking him and out of nowhere, he makes this defensive argument about, but we’re not fundamentalists. Right. It’s mind blowing to me, cause then it’s like, okay, so I don’t identify as a fundamentalist, but even if I did, I was like, so in order for this to work, your frame, they’re stupid. And I’m like, why is that even part of what we’re talking about? And then people do that with all kinds of things. People do that with liberals, people do that conservatives, people do that with rural people, which for obvious reason gets under my skin, but it’s just like, don’t know the person, don’t have any conception of what’s important to them or not important to them, and then bucketing them in this other thing because they’re assuming that the people they’re talking to aren’t them. Right, right. And I’m like, your audience is apparently a bigger percent than them because I exist. Exactly. It’s not always me that’s in the out group, but I noticed this out grouping, and I don’t think that Peterson out groups much, or at least not in that manner. No, he doesn’t out group at all. No, I think you’re right. I like this idea of out grouping. I didn’t think of it, but yeah. And then look, I mean, if you reject Peterson and you can do that because you’re a person, you have some agency in the world, if you reject Peterson, you put yourself in the out group. He’s not doing that to you. That’s a different problem. And that’s the, hold on a second. That’s the argument to make. This is the argument for Christians to make everywhere, is to say, you don’t have to be like me. But here’s what I’m like. And because once you exemplify the behavior, which means you can’t be a live hidden Christian, you can’t be off in the woods, you can’t be not talking about your Christianity, you cannot do that. I’m not saying evangelize. There’s a fine line between evangelization and bringing up God when it’s appropriate. But when you don’t do that, you give them no alternative, but to be in crazy town. Because you’re not exemplifying the Christian life that you think they should follow. And that’s on you. That’s not on them. It’s interesting. I think that I’ve observed the people who are doing this in group out group game, that when they see someone who is being inclusive of everyone, they only see them being inclusive of their out group. And then therefore they associate them with their out group. Oh, you’ve sided with the out group. Because if the other person isn’t doing the in group out group game, and they’re talking to people in the out group, then that person thinks, oh, well, you’ve joined the out group. Right. Well, that’s the opposition that Paul gets all the time. You can’t talk to Verveki, you can’t talk to Grimgriz, you can’t talk to Jacob, right? Well, and- You’re pushing people to be too religious. You’re pushing people to be too agnostic. I know. Same time, at the same time he’s getting- At the same time, right. No, Peterson went over that, right? He got accused of being a shill for the Jews at the same time he got accused. It’s possible to talk to the out group without also being tolerant of the out group at the same time. Yeah. Right. Well, and that’s the problem. The problem is the observer is a tribalist, and they’re a binary thinker. And they’re thinking in terms of groups and two, and that’s their fault. And then they’re unable to see the richness and nuance of the world. And everybody goes, well, the world needs more nuance. Well, you need to stop thinking in binaries and false dichotomies and dualism, because it’s all the same problem. It’s all the same problem. It all leads to the same place. Dualism leads to binary thinking, binary thinking leads to in-group out-group and tribalism, and tribalism leads to the same places. Like it’s all bad, right? Because you’re not understanding, you’re measuring quantity, saying, oh, quantity of us is greater than the quantity of you, or this quantity is fundamentally different from not this quantity, right? And you can’t do that. Does this pin down about a decision of what to do with the out group? I don’t think so. I mean, look, you need a rich worldview that isn’t in-group out-group. This is why the dog can, it is important. Yeah, well, I see a lot of conversations, especially in religious spheres, but other spheres too. And when it really breaks down to feeling really ridiculous to me, is when it comes down to, well, this is where they went wrong, and that’s why they’re over there now. And then I’m just like, so you’re gonna kill them? Because otherwise this conversation makes no sense. Exactly, well, exactly. Well, and I often, like I use that all the time, so I do it literally, right? I say, well, the only option is to kill them. And then people go, ooh, right? And it’s like, yeah, well, then you need to accept them. Like either you kill them or you accept them. There’s really no, there’s no other way. How do you find a way to accept them is a hard problem. I get it, but the problem isn’t that they are the way they are. There’s a different problem. You need to find a way to accept them. Different problem. Or just accepting that you’re strong enough, you are strong enough for their worldview to exist without you dying. You can do it, it’ll be okay. Because I think that’s, I think a lot of people are just, like if a different worldview exists, they’re gonna die. Well, yeah, because again, because they are. Like if somebody’s challenging your worldview, we went over this earlier, right? Then you’re in danger because you can’t make accurate predictions. And what does that mean for your survival? Fair enough. People don’t wanna have their axioms poked. They don’t wanna change their worldview. I don’t blame them. If I had a terrible worldview, I wouldn’t wanna change it either. Unfortunately, I don’t. So, I’m good. They don’t wanna dance with their inner fat chick. It’s too bad. That’s right. Too bad. That’s right. Well, and again, you have to take all that into account. Like you have to take all that into account. And one of the problems, why do efforts at population control or efforts that people control, whether it be communist Russia or Maoist China or whatever, why do they fail? Because things aren’t reducible to one thing. Because they have factoring people. Yeah. Well, look, I mean, we can talk about diabetes all day long. Diabetes is fully reversible through diet, period. End of statement. And we know this, by the way, we’ve known this for a while. See, you can talk about, oh, they can manipulate you with the drug or you can just make them use the drug and find a better. I thought that was in like type, there’s two. One is, you can change by your diet. The other one that I did. Yeah, type two, you can reverse. You can actually reverse through fasting. Period. Like, absolutely. I didn’t know that. You can be at the point where you’re losing fingers and toes and reverse it. You won’t grow back your fingers and toes. Nobody likes it because fasting is hard. It’s because only the cruel would suggest fasting or monster. But the point is, there’s not one lever to pull, ever. Ever in life, ever. Because everything’s connected in ways you can’t even understand. Interested in your, what you were, and this is why I wanted to come on, but then I forgot. I was interested in your consciousness, subconsciousness, and which is bigger thing. Consciousness, unconsciousness, and dead matter. Yeah. So unconsciousness is your embodied knowledge, roughly speaking. Right, and so it’s bigger, it’s older, and it’s more important. And it has to be, it came first in time. That’s what people would call just like general street smarts and that’s just from doing a bunch of stuff. Like not- No, but I think general street smarts is conscious, for the most part. But there’s elements of unconsciousness in there. And that’s really the problem. I think your unconscious smarts would be inhibited if you were lying to yourself. Of course, of course. When you lie, the reason why lying to yourself has an impact on your life is because you have a conflict between your conscious and unconscious minds. Right. And you’re not resolving it. And that’s why your life improves a la Peterson, right? Because when you get your conscious and unconscious minds in correct alignment, now you have wisdom and you have a bunch of abilities to discern that you didn’t have before. Right, you are missing discernment when your unconscious and conscious are in conflict. I would love to figure out how to get people to get interested in Peterson, but I’m pretty convinced that it took me like five years. And I- Probably, but look, Sally, there’s a lot of things that go into interest. We were talking about this in the beginning of the stream. Right? But one of the, look, you can’t force people to have eyes to see. And if they don’t have eyes to see, they can be as interested in Peterson as they want, and it’s not gonna work. And this is the whole argument I have against VanderKlay. VanderKlay and those guys, the traumatized Christians, are, I think, and I only figured this out today because I’m real slow, actually. I’m a muppet, right? They are taking people losing faith and equating them with meaning crisis people. And while people who lose faith can fall into a meaning crisis, they are not of the same type as meaning crisis people. Meaning crisis is a bigger problem. It’s a deeper problem. Yeah, and like, it sounds pretty harsh, but I’m pretty sure completely saved without, like, trauma Christians can have meaning crisis. Their only difference would be they think they’re going to heaven. So problem solved, hands washed by most pastors. If you’re going to heaven, you need a meaning crisis because you’ll be fine later, which maybe, okay, I don’t think that’s how we’re supposed to live. But like, there are Christians who have meaning crisis. I think when I didn’t have issues, I had critical meaning crisis-ish issues before. I think that’s what led to being vulnerable to the trauma. Sure, absolutely. All right, oh, that’s the first question that I can have in the evening. We’ll see. All right. See you, Sally. Always good to hear from Sally. She’s very insightful. So yeah, I mean, look, wisdom is wrapped up in all of this stuff about discernment. And that’s what I’m hoping to exemplify with the new project that I’m working on, right? The Mark of Wisdom project, which is try and get to the bottom of wisdom and why we need it and how to give people more of it, right? Or at least allow them to recognize it so that you can figure out charlatans like SPF, right? And anybody who utters the reprehensible term effective altruism, right? Anybody who utters the reprehensible term social justice. Why are these people frauds and scams and bad people? Well, because they’re not pointing at the good, but they’re pretending they are. And that’s the sort of thing I need to sort of buckle down and focus in more on, especially in the video. So watch the videos on navigating patterns. Tell me where you don’t understand stuff so that I know, oh, you don’t understand this. And hopefully, you know why. And then maybe I can make more videos and better videos and get some of this message out because eventually we’re gonna have to reach more people. And I’m reaching the limits of how much I can learn through the YouTube and the Discord and stuff like that to get messaging across, because it’s all about messaging now. And that’s really the issue. So yeah, that I think is gonna close this out because we’re coming up on four freaking hours and that’s a long time. But I really appreciated everybody showing up and especially the interaction. And I might do another one of these interactive thingies where I’m not talking about anything in particular and just sort of started off ranting and then we see if we can jump into something interesting. But yeah, I mean, I think, we’ll let Ethan back in for a bit. But I think, yeah, I’m gonna sort of land the plane here. What you got before I land the plane there, Ethan? All this eugenics thing has got me. All riled up. Yeah. I think that the hypothetical that he’s creating, I mean, it might be easier to, maybe we could say there’s like, we’re in some sort of fallout or post-apocalyptic situation and there’s a limited supply of insulin. And then maybe you really do have a reason to ask yourself if it’s ethical for me to take insulin or not, because you taking insulin is going to subtract from the supply and prevent other people from, Right. Denying access to insulin from other people. Right. I mean, I think that’s a, I mean, that’s a. But this is always the problem with hypotheticals. A, they’re not real. So are you really gonna like bother yourself with things that aren’t real? Like, because you can, but you can do that forever. Right. But the other problem with hypotheticals is that they rely on limited knowledge. And therefore they can never accurately reflect reality. So you’ve come up with a ton of hypotheticals, right? And you can even point back in into the past and say, well, in the past, they were storing seeds, but then the seeds of Stalingrad happened. And then there was an ethical question or whether or not they should continue to store the seeds for later or eat them now and save the population. That happened. Yeah. But until you’re in those situations, you can’t ponder how to answer them because you’re not having the experience. You can throw all the propositional knowledge you want at this stuff, and it’s not gonna work because that’s one type of knowledge and it’s the least useful type of knowledge that you could possibly have. It’s propositional knowledge. And so hypotheticals can be useful for sure, but they can also become disconnected from any possible reality really fast. And that’s the problem. Like, you can justify anything hypothetically. I can use propositions to prove anything with logic, reason, and rationality. So what? Now all things are equal and equally of no value. They have zero value. How is this useful? Like, you can play this game forever, but like you can play this game forever. In the meantime, life’s passing you by and time is ticking and the truth is happening. I think- So at a certain point, you gotta call a stop on it. You gotta know when to like, oh, okay. I think- And accept an answer. You can’t just reject every answer you get forever. I mean, you can technically, but that’s gonna use up your whole life. And I’m like, I’ve seen people do this. This happens to people. Don’t be one of them. They have sad lives. Something that might help in asking these questions that are hard to answer about eugenics is if we keep giving our attention to this ethic of being as good, like, you know, Peugeot was so right on this. Attention is everything. We just keep giving our attention to being as good, being as good, and then read the question. Being as good and then read the question. How does that inform the answer to the question? So he says, poke holes in the deep separation between the individual decision-making and collective averages. What are you trying to do with this? I mean- Well, there’s no such thing as collective averages, right? Things unfold from below sometimes, and you have no knowledge, understanding, or control over them. When things unfold from the top, but they’re run by people, then you have an ethical problem. Well, there’s a limit to your agency, right? So there’s a point where theorizing and asking these questions about the collective and stuff like that, there’s no use in doing that, because that’s beyond your agency. What is your agency? Is should I take insulin or should I not take insulin? Why would you take insulin and why would you not take insulin? Should I choose this mate or should I choose this other mate? Those questions can’t be brought up to the collective. Does the collective influence you? Of course it does. First of all, it constrains you. Like you can’t mate with somebody that isn’t close enough to mate with, right? You can’t mate with somebody who rejects you, whether you select them or not. Like there’s all kinds of constraints. The fact of constraint doesn’t mean you need to give up on decision-making. And it doesn’t mean that decision-making boils down to a collective decision, because it doesn’t. Like you’re just confusing two things that are different. And the individual decision or the personal decision is a better way to say it, is different from the collective quote decision. First of all, collective decisions are things you only know in hindsight. You never know them in the moment, right? Because again, that’s a consciousness, an entity moving at a different speed than you’re moving. And you have a limited view of it. Because it’s not- It’s a higher being. It’s a higher being that you don’t have access to the same, you don’t have the same access to that, that you have the access to your own being. Exactly. And the problem is we look back on history, which is hindsight bias, automatically. Already in hindsight bias. And then we draw certain conclusions about how things unfolded. Those conclusions are always wrong, because we weren’t there. They’re always misinformed. And we don’t have that information. It’s gone. It doesn’t exist. People can tell you, oh, I made that decision for this reason. You know how often that’s true? Almost never. People almost never have any idea in the moment why they made the decision they made. Almost all rationalization is post-hoc. It’s after the fact. It’s hindsight bias. All of it. And that’s the problem. We keep thinking the world was rational in the past, because we use hindsight bias to make it rational. That’s not how it happened. That’s what we did to the past. And then we go, ha! Well, because of that, we can now use the cathedral model and predict the future. And then that prediction fails. And then it’s like, oh no! And then we’re like, well, it must be the conspiracy from the ancient aliens and the lizard people in cooperation with the Rothschilds. People talk like this. I’m not joking. A little bit of a competition last night. People were linking the Rothschilds to the Rockefellers through employment, right? And then linking that to Elon Musk. And I was like, you’re all lunatics. This is crazy talk. It all comes back to this. We’re looking at the constraints and mistaking them for causality. And we’re like, oh, we replicate these constraints. We’re gonna get the same result. No, that’s not. These constraints came, the manifestation and the, the way things played out in history were caused by this up here. Something higher. Right, something higher. And it’s very difficult to see what this thing was by just reading text. Right, right. But that’s the problem is that, we seem to think that we understand other individuals and their decisions, and we don’t. And people run into this problem with me all the time. They go, well, if somebody held a gun in your head, you’d change your mind or you’d lie. I only know I would. And you’re like, what? No, you absolutely would. And I’m like, no, I absolutely would not. And they’re like, if somebody walked up to you right now and had a gun to your head, and I’m like, I wouldn’t change my mind. I wouldn’t lie. I wouldn’t do any of it. And they’re like, no, you would. And I’m like, no, I wouldn’t. Because I understand that I’m going to die. That’s going to happen. The manner of my death is completely out of my control. Completely. I know this. Like, I understand this inherently. Like, I get it. It’s out of my control. But what’s in my control is how I live my life. And then you can go, whoa, that’s foolish. Socrates, this is exactly Socrates. It’s exactly. Socrates only did two good things in his life. One was take the damn hemlock, right? However romanticized that may have been from Plato or whatever other writers may have been involved. It’s irrelevant, right? And the other thing he did was he said, I know that I know nothing, which denigrates knowledge to its proper role in the universe, which is valueless. Knowledge is valueless. Valueless in and of itself. Don’t let the two things Socrates did. Now I’m sure John Brevig absolutely said that. The thing is, we have to be careful. We have to be careful. We can’t say, like, right now we’re, we’ll have to, Franklin is saying a couple things, but the thing is, is Gnosticism puts knowledge at the highest. And it’s materialistic. And we can’t do the opposite. We can’t do the opposite and say that knowledge is intrinsically evil either. Knowledge is instrumentally good. Good in as long as that it affords the good that is above the top of that triangle. Right. Yeah. Well, look, Benjamin’s having all these problems around averages. Okay, look, averages are a bad way to think about anything in the world, right? Because averages in a set of numbers with a high variance are useless, completely and utterly useless. They lie to you. Every average in a high variant set of numbers is a lie. It’s a misrepresentation of reality for sure. There are other conditions where averages are completely useless, by the way. But I don’t want to go down there to just grab a hold, because I actually know something about it. I can make a- And that’s the problem. I can make an individual decision to circumcise my child, but is that decision completely separated from the influence of culture? The answer is no. Nothing you do is separated from culture at all, ever. And it never was, and it never will be, and it never will be. And culture isn’t bad either. So we’re gonna throw Rousseau out the window. Yeah, let’s shoot Rousseau in the head multiple times. Culture is not intrinsically bad. It’s actually more likely to be good than bad, because culture, if it’s bad, it gets- Cultures that are bad don’t persist, and therefore fall prey to evolution. And therefore the culture that you have, you should assume is good. Right, culture is more likely- And you should avoid new cultures, which means you should avoid new religions. You should avoid new, right? Anything new, you should avoid it. Unless- Because evolution says things that last are true. That’s what evolution says, roughly speaking, right? Unless it’s neoplatonism, then we should give it a chance. Unless what? Unless it’s neo-neo-platonism, then we should give it a chance. Neo-neo-neo-neo-neo-platonism. Yeah, right, right. And that’s the problem. And you notice, John Vervenke talks about, well, we can’t go back, we can’t go back, what we need to do is go back to neoplatonism. Really, John, you just said we can’t go back, buddy. And now you’re saying we can, we can go back to neoplatonism. He’s attempting necromancy, and he might succeed. I mean, ultimately necromancy fails, but he might succeed in necromancy. If enough people help, he will. I mean, I- And I’m not, like I was saying this for a while, and I should bring it up again. If we all pull together, and I’m dead serious about this, I’m not screwing with you guys. If we all pull together, we can cause World War III over Ukraine. We can do it, we can. But I would prefer that we not do that. But we can. There is the option for us to start a nuclear war. Not the Russians, right? Because in a nuclear war, we can just decide not to play, which is the correct answer. Which, if you watch war games, that excellent movie from the 80s, then you would know this. The only way to win is not to play. There are games that you cannot win if you play them. But you also don’t have to play all games. And you certainly don’t have to play those games. And that’s the people don’t understand that. They have no appreciation for it. You don’t have to use economics to understand the world. You don’t have to map and model the world with mathematics. You don’t need to do any of these things. Honestly, you can just live life. You don’t need to ponder these things. You don’t need to predict a bunch of things. You don’t need any of this stuff. You can just be a good person every day. You can just smile and be nice to people. And your life will go better, irrespective of what you know and don’t know. Give your attention to being is good. And that will inform your decisions. And there are places that you can do that. There are people that have been doing it for a long time. You can go consult them and they’re gonna know a lot more of how to do it and ritualize it better than we do. Maybe a priest, maybe not a Mormon, but a priest, you’re gonna get a rabbi, even. They’re gonna have a little bit better idea, maybe not rationally or consciously, but they’re going to be embedded in some sort of tradition that’s been doing this and it’s been engaged in serious play over the course of millennia. Well, and that’s the myths. Okay, cultures have an effect on you, but they’re a positive effect. Culture is the thing that lasted longer than you. It’s the way you get the information on how to survive things you don’t know anything about. And so that’s why culture is important. It’s the thing that conveys the information that keeps you on the edge. Right, well, and look, you can go back with hindsight and look at it, but that’s- The atomic form. I saw that. Here’s something I want to run by. Okay, so I’ve been, okay, religious ethic, right? Most people will probably understand what we mean by that. I think I’m going to just start, instead of saying a religious ethic, you need to be informed by a religious ethic, I’m gonna start saying you need to be informed by the religious ethic, because I think when you say, when you use the, you say a religious ethic, it implies that plurality and- Relativism, when you say the religious ethic, it’s like, oh, the religious ethic. It’s like, well, they’re doing the religious ethic, and then it kind of forces people into a situation where they’re like, okay, there’s the religious ethic, who’s doing the religious ethic better or best? Right, right. And it can’t force them into that mindset. Right, you force them into that, yeah, I agree. Look, I mean, my whole channel, Navigating Patterns, is about cultural cognitive grammar for a reason, and that’s the reason, because cultural cognitive grammar matters. How we use the words that we use, what we think we’re saying, what we’re actually saying, how people are interpreting them, all of that is wrapped. All my videos are about that one way or another. Even the model videos are actually about cultural cognitive grammar. So they’re not just, they’re also about the models, but they’re not just about the models. There’s a lot of cultural cognitive grammar manipulation going on in there to help you orient, navigate in the world. Right, and that’s the whole problem. Yeah, I’m gonna, I’m tired. I’m gonna shut the stream down soon. Mark’s been at it for four hours. I have been at it for four hours, five minutes, and 48 seconds, so yeah. I think we’re gonna call it for tonight, because I’m getting too tired to even think, and I like to keep my speech precise, and I cannot do that for more than four hours, apparently. He’s not in there. I’ll watch it with you in Discord if you want. Yeah, look, jump onto the Discord, especially when Manuel is there, so that he can beat you up, too. I’ll watch it with you right now if you want. His perspective is good, too. But I’m gonna shut this down, and I’m glad we got so many people watching. It’s always good. I’m happy for the engagement. If you see this, comment, right? Go to Navigating Patterns, watch all my videos. They’re all awesome, I assure you. Let’s get the Peterson video over 1,000 views, because that’ll help the channel for sure. Yes, go watch the, go watch the Jordan, the latest Jordan Peterson video on Navigating Patterns. And help me work out how to get this message better, because we’re trying to get it tied. I’m gonna put a clip of my talk with Teo on my channel. Maybe I’ll do that tonight or tomorrow or something. Get that clip up there, just because it’s such a good clip. And look, join the Discord channels. I’m on BOM, I’m on Awakening from the Meeting Crisis, and my own server market Wisdom, right? And we can have better, more personal conversations. And look, part of our mission is to sort of help people out. So we’re happy to do that when we can. And I want everybody to remember being is good and have a nice night. And I hope to see you soon on Navigating Live Patterns.