Navigating Live Pattners! (xMosxWPGj_w)

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

All right. Well, it says I’m live. I don’t know if I’m actually live, but it’s lying to me. You don’t know until things catch up. Hopefully it will catch up soon. That is taking a while, isn’t it? It always does. All right. Oh, there’s Jesse. Hey, Jesse. Yeah. Well, we’re going to do another one of these sort of live freeform things and see how it goes. So I’m going to list up some of the linky links here. I can figure out what I’m doing, which sometimes I can. Most of the time, no. But occasionally I figure it out as things start working. So no, that’s not new. Just normally you can’t see it. So when I take the force field off that makes it invisible, then you can see the real me. That’s how lizard people work. I thought Grimm Grizz would have schooled you on all this, but I can see that Grimm is not doing his job. So I’m here to fix that, I suppose. That’s what I do. Yeah. So yeah, welcome, welcome. We’re going to live navigate. I was just watching some Critical Drinker, good stuff. And then I was watching some Chris Petcow. He did a great little video thing that was cool. And there’s been a lot of dust up in, we’ll say this little corner. I don’t quite know what is going on with all the drama, because there seems to always be lots of drama. And yeah, now we’ll see how this goes. I do not know why this did not get on Jacob’s channel, but apparently it did not. That is very strange. These things are supposed to work. And yet here we are with them not actually working. So the interesting thing to me was John Vervicki’s After Sucker Cheese comes out and he’s talking a lot about the imaginal. And the problem that I have with the imaginal is that it’s in your head, and it’s only in your head. And when you do things in your head, they just work. They just work. But you know what doesn’t just work? When you do things not in your head, that doesn’t just work. And so there’s the individualism. And that’s dangerous. Because everyone’s complaining about the skills of getting along. And all these people who are complaining about the skills of getting along are not proposing solutions where we get together and get along. Coincidence? You decide. I don’t know. Oh, and someone’s here. How nice. Yeah, I know it is late in the UK. Well, the UK should get a better time zone. It’s not my fault. Although the Eastern time zone is terrible, it is miserable and stupid. They should probably cut it off at New York or on the other side of New York along the New York line. I don’t know which. Yeah, New England definitely belongs in the Atlantic time zone. Yeah, I mean, I see a lot of problems. And then the other thing that I’m seeing, trying to get across to people is that they’re talking about this little corner of the internet, and there’s two major factions. There’s the meaning crisis people and the crisis of faith people. And Manuel, Teo had come on the Discord server, and we were chatting it up with Teo. And Manuel was like, we should do a stream on this. We did a great stream. The whole thing was good. It got better as it went on, in my opinion. It might be a little repetitive. But I think refining how you’re giving the message is important. And that was on the crisis of meaning versus the crisis of faith. Meaning crisis or faith crisis. And I think there is a difference. And I think it’s important to understand that. Because I think what the people who are used to preaching, to the Christian framework are seeing is a crisis of faith. But that’s not the crisis that Pervaiki is talking about. And it’s not the crisis Peterson is talking about. Peterson is a meaning crisis pragmatist. Pervaiki is more of a scientist doing the science of meaning, which helps you understand what Peterson is doing. Which is strange that John doesn’t see the difference, at least as near as I can tell. I was listening today to Paul VanderKlay and Jordan B. Cooper and Pervaiki. And man, I wish somebody had told me how good that was. The beginning of it was kind of boring. There was no theological cage match, which just shows you how there’s all these different factions in this little corner of the internet. No one needs a theological cage match, guys. Nobody wants to see it. More disunity is not better for unity. I don’t know why I have to say that. But apparently, only pirates know good things. I guess. Obvious things. I don’t know how else to express it. Yeah. So basically, when you see this as a crisis of faith, you kind of miss what Peterson did entirely. Because you just see him as a preacher preaching. And that doesn’t seem to be what really sort of came up. And then they try to emulate him and they fail. And everyone’s like, whoa, I want to sit at the table. Well, I don’t understand why my message isn’t better. On and on and on. So I don’t know what to tell you. If you’re misreading something for three years, you’re misreading it. Like, no, really, you can be wrong about things. So all right, let’s see who we have here. Hello. Hey, Mark. Howdy. I remember you. Do you remember me? Not off the top. Not under that name. Not at the top of my head. No. Yeah, I was at the Thunder Bay Conference. I just remember seeing you. Yeah. Oh, okay. Well, lots of people saw him. Yeah, Thunder Bay was weird for me, right? Because I walked in with Ethan and the absolute first thing that happened to me was somebody said, Mark, I know you. And my brain went, wait, this is a person I do not know and probably have absolutely never talked to. Because I would remember. And I’m used to meeting people online, but it didn’t really occur to me that I could meet people that knew me that I never talked to. And my brain was like, oh, no, what do I do? I need new protocols. So, yes. Yeah. Yeah, that’s true. Yeah, it was a real shock, actually. Yeah. Like, that’s what this online thing, it’s putting us in a strange place. Yeah, no, it is. It really disrupts a bunch of things. Yeah, so what’s that tell us? Right? Right. So, Mark, is Ethan not here? Oh, he’s in the chat. He says you’re Elizabeth. So, yeah, I did figure that out. But where is he? Where is he? He’s watching Jacob’s stream because he’s not really my friend. He’s my fake friend. He sent me books and they’re up on the bookshelf and you can probably almost see them in there. And yet, he’s betraying me by not watching on my channel. I don’t know about this guy. I think I would kick him off my Discord server. Are you talking about Ethan or are you talking about Jacob? I’m talking about Ethan. I think Ethan’s great. Yeah, he’s an intelligent guy and he sees a lot. It’s cool. And he doesn’t, he knows where they’re. They’re a lines man and he just, he lets them be where they are. So that’s cool. And he told us we had to come to this. He told us we had to come to your live stream. So here we are. Oh, good. Yeah, like there’s a long story. Did you actually listen to any of that? He said he sent you the conversation between John Anderson and Oz Guinness. Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was an amazing conversation because it sounded a lot like some of the stuff I was talking about when I talked to Adam on my channel about the French Revolution. So I was like, oh yeah, no, this is exactly what we were on about, about the misunderstanding of the Enlightenment and how that led to revolution and why that was fundamentally different. I didn’t think of the three revolutions as contrasting the way Oz put it, because I don’t know about the English Revolution, but I was like, oh yeah, the more you learn. Yeah. I just thought it was fascinating. Hey, Jesse. Finally, you made it in. All right. Now I get Jesse and Elizabeth. Two of them can fight for attention on their topics. Hey, hey, I was looking at your story about Thunder Bay. I have not watched those videos yet because there’s too many videos to watch. There’s just too many videos. Thunder Bay was great. I mean, it was some of John’s best work, actually. I mean, I’m still angry at his opening, but that’s not entirely his fault. So that’s okay. What do you mean? What are you referring to? John framed everything for the whole conference by A, going first and doing it in the way he did, which is fine. It’s Catherine’s conference. I think things would have gone better if that hadn’t happened that way. But whatever. I mean, it is what it is and what happened happened. It’s fine. What did you enjoy most about it? Yeah, I thought it was great. What did you enjoy most about it? About the conference? I can’t narrow it down to one. I mean, it was a conference for the people who flew in and went to the conference. For me, it was a huge adventure. Google Maps sent me a year-end thing where I’ve been around the country and it was all over the place because I drove from South Carolina in two days to Southwest South Dakota, met up with Sally Jo, who I’d never met before, stayed at her house for a few days. I hadn’t driven through the Midwest since I was young really, so it was lovely to drive through the Midwest, the United States. It’s an experience. All the parts of the US are so different. So that was fun. And then I hung out there. I got the book so right that she made for the conference. Beautiful little books, beautiful. And brought those to the conference. And on my way, I picked up Ethan at the airport and then he gave me basically six and a half hour lesson on sort of the artistic symbolic side of the philosophical movements. Like the art sort of runs in front of the culture. And you can hear. So he’s putting on pieces of classical music and going, you can hear this, you can hear that, and here’s when it happened, and here’s what was good. He has all this perspective that I don’t have. That’s the guy. I need to talk to this guy. So I get this six and a half hour crash course lesson on my way up to Thunder Bay in sort of a brief history of music. And then I get to Thunder Bay. I have this radical new experience that I’ve never had in my life with people knowing me. And I’ve never even talked to them at all in any medium whatsoever. And then I’m just flooded with meeting a bunch of people that I wanted to meet for a long time. Because I’ve always wanted to meet John DeFoscio. And I hadn’t actually bumped into Paul Van de Klaan in person, even though it was pretty tight in some sense for online. And John Brevecky, of course, I’ve wanted to meet John for a long time. So that was wonderful. And I got to meet Catherine. And yeah, I mean, there were so many people. So yeah, for me, it was a big adventure. I get to stay in a hostel, which I’ll never do again, but was lovely. You should meet that once. Yeah, I’m never staying at a hostel again. The communal experience that I expected to be there, that should have been there, really wasn’t there, which was too bad. Like, you know, people weren’t meeting. And maybe that was just because I was staying extra long in the Abbey and stuff like that. But yeah, it was interesting, all the stuff that happened. And there were a lot of things. It was rainy except for the last day. So we ended early on Sunday and I went out, got to use the camera and take pictures. And then the journey back, I went north over Lake Superior, down through Michigan. And I had never been that route before. And I stopped along the lake and took beautiful pictures. And it was an unbelievable experience. It was great. Every part about it was magical. And in the conference, I got to hear some new stuff, like Mandral had some new stuff about consciousness. And you know, there was some interesting framing. So there was a lot going on. It was lovely. I got to meet Sevilla, who’s actually watching. So that’s nice. Yeah, I met a whole bunch of people. Actually, one of the best, one of the highlights of the whole trip, honestly, I’m not exaggerating, was Sevilla said, oh, Mark, it’s nice to meet you and blah, blah, and I was sitting at the table giving out the books. And she said, would you like some tea? And I was like, actually, yes. And she went and got me tea and I was like, this is great. This is the best day of my life. Because normally I have to get my own tea. So, you know. Hey, Chad, good to see you. Oh, there’s Chad. You’re one of my favorites, Chad. You know that? Chad Thank you. Yeah, you’re the one conversation, the first conversation you ever had with Chris Petkov. That was like one of my favorite things that ever happened in the corner. It was awesome. Oh, thank you very much. That was just, that just happened. I’m not really very tech savvy. And I was playing on my iPad. And all of a sudden, I’m in this conversation. So it was really, that was a made, actually, you know what, that I was thinking, I think that’s what we’re missing. I think we’re missing and Mark was just talking about the music and, and how it was even gave you the whole, the whole course, right? And we’re missing, we’re missing the artistic piece here. We’re missing the images. So I think, and we’re also missing the feminine, the entire, nevermind a little corner, nevermind a little corner, the entire thing is missing the feminine. So it’s right here. It’s right here. Well, I don’t know what that is, Mark. That’s a book. Yeah, this is Sally Joseph. You didn’t get one at the conference? No, no, I was giving them out at the table. What’s going on? Well, what are you showing me? And why are you showing me that? Well, because that’s art. And it’s, and it’s got the, I mean, Sally Joseph’s mostly female, I think, as far as I mean, she had a kid, I’m assuming, you know, I mean, I even checked with her pronouns. I think she identifies as an attack helicopter, though, an Apache attack helicopter. No, no, I’m not talking female. There’s not female. But there is the art, right? And there is the divine femininity, I would say, in that art. Yeah, but it’s not just that all of North America, in my humble opinion, is, is totally without an artistic tradition, really. I mean, you’re much better off in the States than we are in Canada. No, but it’s highly significant, because we’re not surrounded by images that have told these stories for hundreds of thousands of years, right? And so I think that’s why one of the reasons why, why John Vervecki goes on about the over overdosing of the propositional is because, in fact, we don’t have enough images, we don’t, and the artists, like, it’s, it’s very important. It’s really important. The thing is, I think everybody needs to start traveling. And I mean, it’s really like people need to get like you were talking about hostels, well, too bad. Doesn’t matter, stay in a cheap place, because people need to go to different places, they need to see different cultures, and they need to have, like, they need to open up their vision, because we’re also siloed. Yeah, thanks, Chad. Don’t do it, like those flowers, don’t do it. There we go. Little beauty. Yeah, I think part of the problem, though, is just just art is not going to do it. I mean, because part of the issue is that we’re, we’re missing as a, as a, you know, as a culture, as a Western culture, we’re missing lots of binding elements. And if you just do something, quote, artistic, I didn’t say Jeff, I didn’t say Jeff, I just think that’s one of the thrusts. I think it’s one thing that needs to be no, but it’s really important. Oh, no, I agree that it’s important. But my problem is people are talking about, oh, we need beauty. Oh, we need art. Oh, we need no, no, we need the binder for all of those things. And then we need to submit to that binding. And then we need to do the art and the beauty and the symbolism and the rest of it. Right. Because that’s not how reality works. Come on. I listen to you. Everything’s based on aim and aim matters the most. Exactly. But you won’t know. That’s for the hemisphere, man. That’s totally left hemisphere. That’s not opponent processing. No, no, no. That’s not how it works at all. I believe in opponent processing. That’s fine. Chad, help me out here. You’re moving into the linear sequential stuff. No, that’s Peterson’s aim thing. I don’t agree with that at all. I think it’s, you know, the whole thing is the tension, the tension, if you like, the relationship, as you say, between these, between being, as you could say, or beings. And I wasn’t saying just art. I’m seeing clearly the problem with vision, however one wants to understand that word. If you’re not surround, if you don’t have images, if you don’t have architecture that’s reflective of the deep patterns, it’s like psychologically, it’s, your perceptual system is misaligned. John Verbecki needs to go to Europe for a year. Seriously. Where do we lose that cultural root? When was that? When can you pinpoint it? Was it in the 60s? Was it in the 40s? Was it 1910? No, I mean, Jesse, tell me what you’re asking. What you’re saying is part of the problem in culture right now is we’re working this artistic thread that brings things together. So when did we lose it? Well, I agree with, I agree with, hi, I agree with Pajow. I agree with Jonathan Pajow. I think we lost it at the end of the late medieval. For sure. I’m the lady who reads Dante, right? I’m a Dante aficionado and actually the person who clued me into this was Francis Schaeffer, who was the man who with his wife started La Brie, he heard that community. And he wrote a book, I actually gave it to Peterson before he started on his book tour, but he was probably, I mean, he wouldn’t have read it, probably just not with all the books he received. But I gave him one of Schaeffer’s books, which is called Escape from Reason, in which he actually answers your question, Jesse. He’s trying, Francis Schaeffer was studying the culture and he was trying to figure out exactly where things started veering off. And he maintains it was the late medieval. Dante is actually the hinge between the, between the was and what was well contained. And then gradually over 700 years, we, everything, everything became just embodied, I guess, because of. So Schaeffer said, and I’m talking to Pajot, Pajot did a little, a little lecture. I wonder what Ben Powell is doing. He’s doing his cultural history and trying to trace these threads. Have you watched that? No. Very, very interesting guy. Very good guy. We do have some. I think you’re missing out the romance. Clearly. If you want that synthesis project, you need to include the romantics. That’s where I would say the artistic project of the West falls off the map. I would say the medieval period. That’s just my argument. We are working on. We’re in the process right now of writing a series, Lost Cause. He’s in the chat right now, but him and I and a couple of other guys are working on a project right now. It’s kind of taking a while, but we want to make, we want to try to make sure that it’s at least decent before it goes into the production and the recording of the actors and the music and all that stuff. So we’re working on the episodes right now and it should be an interesting project when it’s finished. It’s been really cool because like that aspect of getting together and actually trying to create something. We had like an idea of something in mind and we started that and we’re trying to move towards that. It’s a challenge because I don’t think any of us have ever worked together in a writing team. So that’s a challenge, but it’s been pretty cool and it’s been one of the things that has helped to kind of step out of the propositional. Another thing that I’ve actually done, I know I’ve been talking about this a lot lately, but I started actually writing handwritten letters to people that I’ve met online here and that’s been a way to step out of the proposition and into some sort of different procedure so we can be have some sort of embodiment with the world and then the relationships that we have on here. And then a lot of the stuff I try to do on my channel is something like art. I don’t know if it’s exactly art. I know that Verveke was talking in that Jordan Cooper Paul VanderKlay video about an art project that he was contributing to talking about the Wastelands, which is an Elliott poem. I did my own little version of that using some clips from the OA and a Skiya video and this video where this guy’s doing a dance where he walks up the stairs and he falls off and bounces back up. So that’s a kind of an artsy thing to do. It’s fun. I think it’s good because I think a lot of the thinky talky stuff, I think anyways for me it can feel like I’m drowning sometimes when I’m doing that. And I think honestly a lot of the frustrations that I have when I start to pull apart from the community has a lot to do with that because I start to take the thinky talky too seriously and it’s not, you know. Yeah that definitely makes sense. I mean for me this is all about the poetic, right? Like there’s a poetic set of information in the world. Writing letters is less procedural and more poetic than an email. I mean in email there’s a person to send to and there’s a place to put that name, right? There’s a subject, right? And then there’s a body, right? It’s very procedural. Whereas a letter is like well how do you open a letter? What do you do when you open a letter, right? Like how do you, when you’re writing this, what’s the greeting? What’s the interaction? These are all poetic ways of interfacing with things, right? It’s poetic information and that’s why we modified John’s model a bit. And it’s not knowledge, it’s information, right? There’s four types and that’s very important, right? And then I would say the propositions are already broken and that’s the problem is they’re not anchored with art. But I would also say that because they’re broken, you can’t anchor them in art. So if you look at some of the newer art that’s out there, for example, and there’s tons of it, like there’s actually more art now than there ever was before, the problem is most of it’s complete garbage. It doesn’t point at anything good. So they unveiled a new statue today in Boston Common and because I’m from the Boston area, you know, I caught wind of this and I looked at it, it’s terrible. It’s just four arms clutching, arms, arms, there’s no bodies. It’s completely disembodied. And you know, when John talks about the imaginal, and this is Chris Petcow’s little video that he released today was very helpful. When he talks about the imaginal, he’s just talking about disembodiment. And it’s like, well, yeah, I mean, you can get very artistic in disembodied land, but the problem with your head is everything in your head is either right or easy to fix and then to be made right. Okay. The real world isn’t like that. Right. I can imagine all day long what Thunder Bay is going to be like. And the minute I walk in and this guy named Eric, who I’ve never talked to before says, Mark, I know you. Until you have that experience, you don’t know anything. Like you don’t know how to deal, you don’t know the experience exists. It’s an unknown unknown, right? You can laugh at Donald Rumsfeld all day long, but he was right about unknown unknowns. They were there. And there’s a lot of stuff that we just don’t know. And because we’re not interfacing with the stuff we don’t know, and the vast amount of it, for example, we don’t realize how stupid we are. And it’s very hard for us to be humble. The humility is difficult to get at when you’re taught all the answers and they’re always correct, rather than being rated by the results of your actions, right? Like 4-H club and Boy Scouts and things like that, that it turns out I did when I was younger, right? Going to summer camp and learning how to water ski and archery and whatever. Right. And there’s lots of things like that. Learning martial arts, like I did. You can’t do that with a book. You can’t do that in your mind. You can’t do that by yourself. You can’t do any of those things that way. And that makes all the difference in the world. And that’s another reason why I think I was doing the letters thing was I felt like that’s something that a lot of us began life with. And we’ve completely stepped away from it almost entirely. And I thought, well, there’s something that I had a little experience with that. And so I wanted to do some of that. And the other thing about a handwritten letter is it can’t be reduced to ones and zeros unless, of course, the guy on the other end just decides to throw it away. But even still, the experience of writing is a completely different experience. There’s a lot different kinds of thought and all that, like you’re saying the poetic there. And I mean, I also get the sense that there’s a real potential where something like that could actually go away forever. Something as simple as a handwritten letter could actually go away forever if we don’t do it. And like I said, one to a couple of different people, I don’t have autocorrect. My grammar is terrible. My punctuation is trash. I have cursive in the middle. I have uppercase, lowercase, all that stuff. So it’s really imperfect. But the person on the other end gets to know me a little more. They get to see my sloppiness a little bit. And that’s okay. It’s vulnerable. It’s vulnerable. Well, but it’s not, yeah, I don’t, it’s vulnerable, right? It’s authentic and real, because people are not the perfect things that the electronic communication medium would have you believe, because we’re way better in electronic communication, like autocorrect, spell check, formats, like I said, with the email, like they have subject lines, and then you can organize your thoughts and your thoughts are pre-organized by the computer automatically, just by any procedure. And because we’re very procedure oriented, and this is really one of the weaknesses of John’s work, we are just flooded with procedures. And people treat things like the law is a procedure. The law is not a procedure. I’ve been to court. I’m still in the middle of a freaking lawsuit. There is no procedure there, my friends. I mean, most of it’s not the procedure filing the paperwork and the formal introductions and going, most of it is not that. Most of it is this messy, ridiculous, insane garbage going in a thousand different directions and people not knowing what to do. So, Mark, with what Chad is doing and what you guys are talking about with art, is this corner, corner of the internet, corner of the internet running into the same mode of action that the early tropes ran into and where they developed icons? And then we even see St. Paul writing letters, I beseech you therefore, brethren, his letters, handwritten letters to the other churches and that. Are we running in… You’re going to think in a different way than I am, Mark, and everybody else in here actually is, but is there room for homage? Are we paying homage to our ancestors and following their path? And is that a possible North Star of the direction of the art that gets involved in this corner of the internet? Do we pay homage to the previous ancestors? Do we follow their path? Do we write the letters? Do we create the… I mean, that was my point. That was my point. You need a name. How do you have a name? You have to have a ground to stand on. What’s the ground you stand on? The ground you stand on is the common historical grounding of your ancestors. Why? Because you’re not here if not for their sacrifice. And this is why humility is important because you have to understand that all of this stupid stuff that you have, electricity, internet, the worldwide web, this great microphone, my little trinkets, I get trinkets all over the desk, Sam Pellegrino, which I mean, if you don’t drink Sam Pellegrino, I don’t know what kind of person you are. The page with your walls. We don’t have this. We don’t have this, any of it, without our ancestors and their sacrifice. We have none of it. Zero percent of this happens. Okay, now, if you’re off living in a cave by yourself, feeding yourself, that’s fine. A, you’re living the life you want to live. B, I don’t have to hear your stupid theories. Okay, so go do that if that’s how you think the world works. But that’s not how the world works. When you have that common grounding that you accept, look, maybe you didn’t have a choice about being born, but you’re here now, so screw it. You didn’t have a choice, like you’re here. When you accept that, now you can have some humility and some gratitude for what was sacrificed to get you where you’re at. And so if you don’t ground the art in that and aim it at the good or the true and the beautiful, then the art isn’t going to work. It’s not going to have the intended effect. That’s the point I was making. That’s exactly the point I was making, Mark, initially, that we’ve lost the tradition of art in North America. We’ve lost the traditions. We’ve lost the images. We’ve lost the architecture. It is so, I won’t swear, ugly in North America compared to in Europe, that there’s just no words. There are no words to describe the difference. And so I can feel it, never mind, like seriously, embodying when I’m in Europe, I spend lots of time in Italy, when I’m in Europe, my body changes because I’m surrounded by beauty, orderly architecture, tradition from way back, people who are versed in Dante, who are versed in seeing the churches everywhere, they go with the angels that they know so well because they see them all the time. It’s a totally different experience. And that’s what I was trying to get at, the tradition, the deep tradition that you’re not as bad off, you don’t understand company because at least in the United States, you have longer history than we do, you were founded earlier than we were, you arrived earlier. We have very little tradition up here. You had all the Gilded Age guys who bought all the art up, so you have some magnificent museums. We have nothing up here except for a few wonderful Canadian artists. It’s a wasteland. It’s not a coincidence that we’ve become so extreme in Canada. And that’s one of the things I’m talking about. But it’s a bigger problem, right? So I had the opportunity to go to Scotland. So I went to Scotland in the middle of the fake news virus scam thing and it was lovely because there’s nobody there. I’m like, the only way I’m ever going to travel is if nobody else is traveling. And I got my wish. I didn’t get to go all the places I wanted to go, but I will go to Edinburgh. Edinburgh is unimaginably beautiful. Unimaginably. It is an insanely gorgeous place. I’m not saying it’s the most gorgeous place in Europe, but wow, is it off the charts. And the problem was the place was actually filled with zombies. Those people were not looking up to save their souls and they didn’t have any souls as a result. And I’m not joking. I was there and for the first time I went, zombies are real and I’m actually surrounded by them for real. These are real mindless, I guess Grim Grizz would call them NPCs. NPCs, absolutely. Well, NPCs and zombies in my mind are saying the same thing, right? They were not mostly Scottish, but even the Scottish people that were there, and I met quite a few because it’s hard to go to museums and stuff without meeting Scottish people, a lot of them were in zombies state. In Edinburgh. Because you know, it’s hard to go to a museum without meeting a lot of Scottish people. Yes. Well ridiculous nonsense. It comes out of your now pirate mouth. What is this pirate thing you have going on, Mark? I’m navigating live. Hi everyone, I’m Grim Grizz from the Grim Grizz channel. Josh, good to finally see you. Tower house. Whoa, tower of power as I can tell. Nice to meet you. I can agree with you. Look, Grim, when you’re in these states where you’re seeing actual zombies, the people in the city are foreigners for the most part. Edinburgh’s full of foreigners. I’m like, these people aren’t Scottish. I think the best visualization is if you cut a clip from the movie from Will Smith and the iRobot film, the part where all the blue guys who are helping everybody out turn red. The people in the devices like that, if their device tells them to get that guy, you think they wouldn’t? In a heartbeat? So that’s for me the visualization that works the best. Even the recent movie Free Guy where he couldn’t convince his friend that you can do whatever you want. That was a beautiful little homage to the zombie. Christ even talked about those who are sleeping, those who are lukewarm, those who will not seem to wake. We see the zombie trope. You could tie it in a lot of different ways. The NPC, the zombie, the non-participatory, the person who simply exists. Procedural. Yeah, but in the Free Guy, the best part of that whole movie was even though the friend couldn’t be convinced that he can do whatever he wants, there’s this really existential moment in the film where Ryan Reynolds is like, dude, what if all of this is, what if he found out none of this was real and he’s like, what the hell? So what? I’m on my friend’s YouTube channel being real for him. So that’s real. I call that the buddy real scene. That’s the real scene. I’ll tell you, I’ve been navigating these patterns and working with people who are coming up with solutions and I’m currently uploading the premiere of the Fringe encounter with Eamon Wilson, a clinical psychologist who has worked with the youth, which is if we don’t get them while they’re still youth, it’s a lot harder to de-zombify them and thus Pen’s Ball for Jesus is what I show and I have a page. Absolutely. There’s a zombie motif in the Matrix 4. So the Matrix 4, most of the film is trash, but there’s an interesting idea in the second Matrix that they’ve rebuilt that not only is everyone possibly an agent, they also can be mass murdered in the zombies. I was like, what? That’s a strange thing. That’s not what I expected to see in this deconstructionist French new wave Matrix 4. I can’t think of one good idea and they snuck it in right at the end. I was like, that’s interesting. That’s the chain how the rules of the Matrix were presented to us. That’s something I want your thoughts on, Mark. What? A world where in order, I’m so pro the Ukraine war, I’ll do like they did in that really old episode of the first gen Star Trek. Like where there’s an old episode of Star Trek, ladies and gentlemen, where like they come down to this planet where they still have wars, but the wars are basically a giant die roll and they’re like, all right, we need 640,000 people in Chicago to die. And so the people in Chicago get this little notification on their phone and they go walk into the death booth because they’re doing their part for the war. For the war. Yep. Well, to prevent, right, to prevent a worse because real wars are worse. So they do it this way. And so I want your thoughts on how close to work it’s like a voluntary. So it before the soldiers ever fire a shot at each other, they just turn their guns on themselves and blow their own heads off so that they don’t actually have to have the war. Is that? Yeah, but like being soldiers, it’s just the citizens on their phones. Mm hmm. We lost the tower house. But like the phones say, you’ve been selected to die for the war. It’s all run by simulation. It’s it’s it’s overt that it’s a simulation like that. Yeah, like the war itself is a war simulation. And then the outcome of that simulation is how it I’d like to where our society is compared to that. Your thoughts? You cannot predict. You can’t predict the outcome of a fight. You have to allow for spirit. Anybody who’s ever watched a UFC match has watched a guy, you know, eventually, if you watch enough of them, you’ve seen a guy getting pummeled down, pummeled like Muhammad Ali or something like this, some of these great fights where you’re watching this guy get the crap kicked out of him. And all of a sudden in the sixth round or whatever, he comes back and is just like on fire. You know what I mean? And so the outcome of a war is not is you cannot predict it because you cannot you cannot predict the human spirit. There’s like what who would have guessed that at the at the onset of Russia invading the Ukraine, this massive country like and I only bring it out because you brought it up, Chris, is that who would have predicted that the Ukraine would repel him? I know, obviously, there’s been a lot of outside stimulus. The U.S. is helping all these other countries are helping, but that was a country has spent like what? Sixty five billion dollars on weapons for that thing. It wasn’t resisting. I would be very upset about my country’s investment strategy. But Mark, give me your thoughts on the Star Trek and us in the zombie thing. Yeah, look, it’s not it’s not a simple matter. If you read any history, you realize wars are not won on numbers ever. There are almost no historical battles won by numbers that are that predictable. All right. And there’s very few exceptions to that rule. It’s just that no one reads any history anymore. So they have no freaking idea. Thermoply. So the question is, with this dozens and dozens of examples, like they’re almost all examples of that actually. Right. In fact, the words that aren’t examples of that aren’t written down in history books. They’re just like, you know, we rolled over here and that happened. And because they have the bigger force and the other side wasn’t prepared. Right. But that’s not what happened. Right. The other side had no spirit. And because we know of all the examples where they had spirit and they won. So it’s simple bias. But I think the important thing to remember is that these things unfold over time. And I don’t see I don’t see. So the Nichelle Nichols has a wonderful she played a her on the original Star Trek series. Right. She has a wonderful story she told when she kind of burst into Gene Rodman’s office and said, I know what you’re up to. You’re writing moral plays. Yes. That’s what the original classic Star Trek was. It was a series of moral plays that he was picking from some of the greatest writers of the modern era for sure. Like some of those people were just amazing. And there’s no corollary because for me, science fiction. What does the phrase there’s no corollary mean? Please. OK. What I’m saying is what’s happening now and what happens in science fiction doesn’t have an attachment because for me, science fiction is the process that the ancient Greeks used to call philosophy, not modern philosophy, modern, all garbage, throw it all up every single last bit of it. You will not miss anything important. I promise you. Right. And Plato’s time, their game was let’s engage with an idea by putting for something absurd or maybe many absurd things. Right. So we’ll make crazy assumptions like there’s no money. Right. That’s one of the ones that was in the original Star Trek. There’s no money. Another one is we have kind of. OK, so we’re at science fiction. I am. I’m just I’m recapping. So I’m making sure I’m with you. And then I’m going to let you go some more. You were at science fiction is what the Greeks actually meant by philosophy. Yes. But there’s no corollary with the current zombification of people. No. No, because because it would require no, because the because it would require the same output. It would require the same the same conditions. The conditions in Star Trek, for example, were again, no money. Right. They didn’t worry about food supplies. They didn’t worry about energy. All of those things were taken out of the equation. Right. And the reason why you do that is to exemplify other things like the core of human behavior would still be the same, even if energy were free. You never had to worry about money and you didn’t have to worry about food production. Let’s just take those three things and see how people act. Well, they act the same. But how does it come out? Because it doesn’t come out in a fight over resources. So the environment determines the the motivations and or the impetus for the action. Is that what you’re kind of getting at? That your environment, you have to be in that same environment that they simulated inside of Star Trek to get that same result. He’s saying he won’t say there’s a corollary unless the conditions are that yeah. Yeah. I’m tracking. What would you call the similarity? Well, look, the similarity is the human behavior. I mean, again, this is the purpose of good science fiction. And that is why I would say something like the first Matrix movie, although it has some elements, is not good science fiction, because it’s got the narratives are are wrong. And some of the symbolism is actually backwards. The Peugeot talks about this took me three watches on that stupid video before I got it. And I thought I knew everything about the matrix watched like 100 times. But I learned something that day. Right. And then you you what you’re seeing is a hyperbole of reality, right? You’re seeing this hyper reality becoming a hyperbole of reality. No, I don’t think I don’t think it is because what actually happens is there to the point, they will shut off your money. If you support the wrong political, not attend the wrong political they can do that. They can do that. They can do that. No, they can’t. No, no, they can’t. It’ll be fun. This is a hyperbole of the reality. I’m familiar with, sir. A ridiculous hyperbole step toward dystopia. Everybody is completely cool. Turning people’s money off. The government can’t control trade. The government can shut off the money supply, stop printing money, for sure. Whatever. It won’t work. You’re giving them permission, sir. My point. The point is not what that’s not my point. My point is that they’ve done it is a hyperbolic step toward dystopia from the reality I grew up in. No, because it won’t work. They’ve done it. Whether or not it works, it’s still a hyperbolic dystopic step. No, no, it only works the way it was in Sandra Bullock, the net and now it’s part of my life. And you cannot navigate that pattern. Sir, I am out of here. Only if you play. You don’t have to play. There we go. That’s the proof. Well, we get confused about that, right? Like we don’t have to play. They can shut off all the money in the world. It doesn’t make any difference. I know people and I can get food. So they could have done this in the 1900s in the Russian Revolution. They just were like, okay, holding all the money back until the right government’s in place. And eventually that government superseded the banks. They stole all the money and then they printed all that and lost all the money. And then the country went to hell literally. Let’s also look at what money is. Let’s look at what money is. There is an underlying value. If it isn’t, then it’s simply the new currency by the Nero or by the current emperor. So when you’re trying to avoid dystopianism, do you know what value is? Well, that’s the key. The money is the thing that you place the value on. Yeah, it’s your currency. It’s been C-Cells. It’s been gold. It’s been silver. It’s been US dollars. But what that means is that all currency is fiat. All of it. You cannot make a non-fiat currency. It’s not possible. I don’t care if it’s Bitcoin or whatever. It’s all fiat. I don’t know if I agree with that, but I’m willing to listen. Well, look, I have two videos on money and one on the economy on navigating patterns. They’re very important because they point out important things like the reason why Elon Musk has more money and got more money faster than anybody else in history is because he sells future potential. And that’s what you’re investing in. You’re not investing in the in his stupid electric car company. You’re investing in the dream that we’ll all be able to afford electric cars and that they’ll overtake gas cars. You’re not investing in him getting people and equipment to Mars. You’re investing on the fact that if he does what he does, that will enable people to get to Mars. And he’s not going to do it in his lifetime. There’s no freaking way. But look at what the US economy does. And it’s actually quite the opposite in that it’s mostly based. It will. As far as I understand, the US economy is both over the US dollar is mostly based on debt. It’s based on slavery. Like it’s based on, you know, every time I. That’s not that’s not slavery. But the problem is that the problem is that the problem is Proverbs disagrees with you. Yeah. Well, well, look, I mean, it’s wrong. It’s just not. It’s not that hard. The primary the primary currency that I see a lot in the world today, we could say money or whatever. But I don’t think it’s I don’t actually don’t think it’s money. I think the primary currency is is our kind of self centered attention. I think that’s really, really a big thing. I mean, I mean, it always has been there. Yes. Inch and always drives the ontology of all these drives the market. So what we’re actually doing here, which is what Mark’s done with a couple of videos on this channel is you have to criticize the economic frame because the economic frame fundamentally is materialist. It does not hold any hierarchy of values and only holds that. But that is a bit right in that attention is a bit like a boat and the currency is a bit like the river. It’s a thing that actually moves something along. So you can’t access my attention without a currency. You need a trade, a base trade value. I already did. I already accessed your attention. I hijacked the whole thing already. You’re here. It’s already done. There was no money involved. Agreed. But agreed. However, the the the thing that we’re actually we would not be in this space if we were not being publicly viewed. If it was just me, you and these three other people on a on a conference call, I would I would say that brother, you would not be doing this. Chad would not be doing this. Jesse and myself would not be doing this unless our words were being heard by other people. So again, that is right in that attention. Let me introduce you to this part where I do it every day, literally every day. Well, with Manuel sometimes and without sometimes, right? Because the only value, the only force, the only power that anybody actually has, but everybody has more or less equally is time, energy and attention. And that’s it. Agreed. Right. And then and then the reason why the economic frame doesn’t work again, and Jesse, Jesse sort of summarized it better than I could. I think that’s the underlying value. That’s the underlying value. That’s the barrel of oil. That’s the week. That’s the goal. But you don’t have the currency to trade it with other people and let them have YouTube. No, no, no, that’s not true. That’s not true. I don’t you can trade anything. And that’s the thing like you trade time, energy and attention for time, energy and attention. You can trade you can trade your Sam Pellegrino, which I’m not you have to pry this out of my cold dead hands. You could trade that for somebody coming on a stream. Like I wouldn’t be on the stream without this because man, do I need this right now? You know, like, and that’s the thing is like, and this is why debt doesn’t matter. Like, you don’t have to pay a debt. People can try to make you but it doesn’t work as it turns out. Like Russia did this and almost collapsed the entire global economy. You have to be on a certain standing and to where debt doesn’t matter. I mean, it’s kind of like after a certain point when you’re a billionaire, taxes kind of get like, man, you know, but to the common man, that’s 20% of his check, that’s 25% in some states, you know, and so it does matter. However, once you scale high enough, it starts to not really matter but to the overwhelming gross population, I almost disagree with you, brother. I don’t see that, Josh. I don’t see that. So I don’t live in a wealthy place anymore. You think like they can’t control your money flow and that doesn’t really matter? I know they can. I know they can. I’ve watched them. People have tried to control my money flow. I’m still here. People have taken everything from me three times. I’m still here. It didn’t work. It’s that simple. Well, let’s use oxygen. Without oxygen, you can’t speak. That’s the underlying value. And so if they constrict your oxygen, you will not be able to control that. But I’d like to see them. There’s only one thing you need is water. The thing that’s the only one thing you need is water, clean water. And that’s it. Essentially, that’s it. Oxygen is just life. Without oxygen, you don’t have life. So you can’t trade the blue thing. Water, you can still trade. You can speak and you can move your currency. I don’t need to speak. I communicate. Before I go here really quick, because I think it is interesting that the people in the so-called corner haven’t actually paid or I haven’t heard a lot of talk about what’s gone on with the Peterson and College of Psychologists situation. So we can say, well, they can’t make me pay a debt, but they can cut off your, they might not cut his money off. But I think like what they can take his license and he can get another license in another country. So what? It wouldn’t be effective. They can do what they want. Yes, they can do what they want. I can also do what I want. So now we’re back even. And that’s the bottom line. That’s what they’re coming up with, is social capital, because he’s gotten to the point where the money isn’t important. He can still have an idea. I think both you and I think both us. Oh, sorry. Sorry, Jesse. You go ahead. So I’m from Australia. So I’ve actually met Peterson. I’ve actually taken photos of him. Like I was on the part of the first. I’m happy to talk about it in the time. But yeah, experience in the heart. Trust me. But yeah, he, a couple of months ago at the end of the year, he spoke to the largest crowd he’s ever spoken to, with 5,000 people. So he doesn’t necessarily need the physical cash anymore. He needs the status. He needs the social capital. He needs the attention, the underlying value. He needs barrels of oil. He needs gold. He needs underlying value. Gold is reflected in USDC. However, it is the underlying value. When we run out, when we, when we inflate our currency to a certain point, we start realizing did the bread of loaf, or did the loaf of bread cost more over the past 10 years? Or did my currency inflate? And so you’re, you’re, you’re arguing against underlying value. Like that’s what you guys are really trying to find. And I think you and, and, and the, the powers that be are both trying to find what is the underlying value? What is the, what is the actual- No, no, they’re not trying to find anything. They’re materialists. They think they know what it is. They are materialists who have reached out into the wilderness of the internet, and so they have gone ethereal. They have gone- No, no, no, no, no, no, no, not from their perspective. Not from their perspective. But let me, let me read this. The last card says Alex Jones is, Alex Jones is a good example of this. They’ve tried everything short of robbery, but the money and support keeps coming in by the Pope. Right. Because he has underlying value. He has the attention. He, the fee of his, his currency may have, the value of his attention may have inflated, but he still has underlying value. You can’t take it away. You cannot take, there’s no way to do it. You with your monocle, you with your monocle are seeking attention. That’s the only reason you’re wearing the colors that you are and the eye that you are and things like that is because you’re flashy. You’re a peacock. And so you gain attention. And so that is your value. That’s, you’re gaining more value than people normally- I had attention before. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. So this is just an attractant for new people and to amuse and entertain the people that, you know, are already, are already bought into the system, basically. Right. And this is- It ups your power. It ups your level of attention. You, you’re a lure. You’re like a fish lure that has added a little bit more shiny of an object to it. No, but that’s not what’s happening actually. The only reason why I do these. And in particular, this Friday live stream, actually the only reason why I’m doing this live stream. And I did the one last week at this time was at Jesse’s request. That’s actually the only reason. The person with the power in this case, literally is Jesse. And I knew Elizabeth wanted to come on. Right. They have the power. Right. I’m not dictating this. That’s the, see, that’s the problem with materialism. It makes a one way discrete linear connection between things. And that is how- Add value. You can add value. You can add, if I have one silver coin, one gold coin, and one fiat currency, my value is like in my hand, my value is compounded and abstracted into other things. You can, you can continue to map materialism onto the ethereal world of time, energy, and attention, roughly speaking. Right. But, but look, last cause. Yeah. But Mark is right. They can’t really take anything from you. They only take what they have already given you. So somebody gave Peterson that license and now they’re taking that license away. Okay. But what they can’t take away from him is anything he’s gotten as the result of not having that license. So things that had nothing to do with the license, like his YouTube fame, right. They can’t take that away from him. There’s no way for them to do that. But that underlying value of his credit. Okay. When I started down my path of trying to find what I believed in, what else I believe, I gained great comfort in the fact that a clinical psychologist was talking about Cain and Nable, was talking about the Garden of Eden, was talking about these things that I heard when I was a child. However, I was warned against clinical psychologists because they are aces, because they will take away your, they will take away the basic programming you were loaded into this world with. That’s all true. I mean, this is my last Peterson video, which for some reason blew up somehow, which is very strange. You should watch that because it sort of explains, and this has a lot to do with the problem that I see in this little corner where we have two halves. We have a bunch of people saying meaning crisis and they mean something specific by that. And then we have the Christians who are actually talking about a crisis of faith. And while there is some small crossover, the reason why the Protestants, to paraphrase what VanderKlay has said more than once, but most recently in the Jordan Cooper John Verbeke conversation, why Protestants have not been let in on the conversation is because they’re not talking to the people in the meaning crisis. That’s why Peterson got famous because he was able to talk to those people. And the way he does it is he takes you from the materialism back through and into the Bible in a way that no one else ever has. Agreed. Jordan is a river. Jordan is a river. Like I’ve said it before, Jordan is a river. And when you enter the river, you’re going to get to the promised land. Like you’re, I mean, and that’s exactly what happened in the old Testament. I mean, Jonathan Paju symbolism happens. You know, like it, yeah, he is a outside source that’s going to, when you enter his stream or whatever you want to say, you’re going to find yourself alongside Paul VanderKlay, yourself, several others, because that’s how the algorithms are going to design you. That’s the current. And so that’s the, you know, in a lot of ways, I see what you’re saying in a way, but however, I can’t, I can’t admit the powers that be may have the academic powers that be may have given them a platform, which was with the springboard, but now he is catapulted himself so high. He built his own platform. He built his own. Nobody gave it to him. He built it. And that’s, I would agree, but I don’t think he would have been as credible. Had I not seen him interacting with a large body of students with a clinical psychologist, absolutely agree. But they didn’t give him permission to do that. That someone’s complaining about your microphone. Yeah, I’m sorry. I’ll turn off my microphone. We need to notice here that he did sign up for CCA, which is the basically is holding. You can’t survive in Hollywood without being connected to CCA. It’s like if your manager is a manager of someone in CCA, you can’t survive in Hollywood. And not a lot of people, I think, was it Owen Benjamin was the only person to really criticize Peterson for doing it. I don’t agree with Owen Benjamin, but I’m saying he was the only one to really point that out in that time, that that was a move that Peterson did make. And it was a strange move because CCA, sorry, Lost Cause. Come on, Lost Cause, I would like to talk to you. But yeah, it’s a strange thing Peterson has done. He has joined the behemoth in some ways. Well, he’s one calling in the wild. I mean, look where he came from, the internet. I mean, it’s a wilderness. He’s one calling in the wild. I mean, it’s all happening again. There’s sort of two things going on, right? Now, if you think about what he’s actually doing is he’s trying to save academia from itself. So he’s trying to save the structures that have been built up over time. Right. I don’t know if he’s trying to save the structures or what the structures intend to be. Well, we’re splitting hairs at that point, Josh. So that’s fair. That’s fair. I do that. I do that. Guilty of that. My bad. If you watch my video on the fall of the fourth estate, which is an excellent video, if I do say so myself, I’m navigating patterns. I go over this. This happened with the fourth estate, with the media. Right. What happened was you got a bunch of people like David Fuller is a perfect example of this. He’s gone back into the fourth estate. He was trying to fix the fourth estate. And he thought Peterson was his ticket. And when that didn’t work out for him, and you can criticize all the various reasons why that might have happened or might not have happened the way you wanted. Right. He got very upset and turned on Peterson. I mean, there’s plenty of other narratives you could tell, but I think that’s the best way to understand it. Right. Because other people who weren’t doing it the way Fuller did it were able to come up with credible news organizations. Right. And Ben Shapiro went more classical route because he was always in the system. Tim Poole did something totally different. And so did Carl Benjamin. And they are now credible news sources. And they draw more than the mainstream media. And that’s kind of amazing, actually, that they were able to do that. But that’s how things happen. People create them. It’s not granted from some mystical force in the ether. And that’s what we need to understand and take back. Right. And then are you doing that on the basis of a larger frame of mind? So would you say that the humans have the underlying value? No, I don’t think humans have the underlying value. What they have, what each individual has, and this is why I try to fix this on my channel, right, with the idea of power. What they have is time, energy, and attention, which is power. That’s what they have. The question is what do you do with that power? And that’s why you need an overarching framework, right, which has to have a narrative structure in it because we can’t think any other way about things this complex that are bigger than us other than narrative. Right. You need a structure to do that. So you need a grounding, a historical grounding, and then you need an aim, right, that’s up and away, hopefully, right, like the stars on the board, oops, on the board and back of me. Right. And then you can enact something greater than yourself, hopefully in concert with others. And that’s how that works. It’s really kind of that simple, but you have to get the people together to do it. And YouTube affords us that platform to use the currency of the internet, which is attention. Right. Well, look, yeah, I mean, you can get attention from any kind of medium. It doesn’t matter what the medium is in some sense. And then you can wield that in various different ways. And that’s what Peterson’s managed to do. Now, I tend to agree with Vanu Klay that there’s a gap and Peterson’s leaving people off at that gap. But I don’t think anybody’s filling that gap. And I think that’s because people don’t understand leadership and the importance of that. Right. They’re using the postmodern so-called critique, which isn’t a critique. It’s an observation, because the postmoderns aren’t capable of critiquing. They’re all stupid. Right. Where they say, oh, well, the problem is the grand narrative. And the problem with the grand narrative is not the grand narrative. Right. We can just destroy that. The problem is some charismatic leader came along. Yeah. Agreed. Agree. Charismatic leaders are required. OK. So I’m sorry to tell you that, but you’re not getting around it. Charisma is not going to go away. And charisma is one of those things that gathers people’s attention for better or for worse. No, it is very human. For instance, I had crews that I’ve been in charge of, and I had to become an attractive leader. I could not be overly critical. I had to do things like encourage three times before I ever criticized. And I had to quell any sort of instinct in myself to be like, no, you did that wrong. You did that wrong. I had to actually slip back from that and then like, and I actually use it on the inverse. And I do what I do when I’m instructing guys on how to lead. Sometimes I tell them to aggressively encourage. And that’s if you find something that has been done right, you ask, hey, who did this? Who did this this way? Who did this this way? And you’ll see some shy hand in the group kind of go, I did that. And you tell them, good job. Do it this way every time. Good job. And you aggressively encourage them. And it’s a very effective leadership technique. But it is something that you don’t really learn until you’ve been in that seat and realize that encouragement is like, like twice as powerful as negative reinforcement. Like it is so powerful. Only if it’s contrasted with the negative reinforcement. Otherwise, agree. But again, they knew they always know that there’s a risk that, oh, I screwed up. My boss is always going to be waiting for me to to screw up. And so they have that fear inside them. So when you come along and encourage and act as the opposition to that, then all of a sudden they’re like, oh, OK, they breathe and they like I did good. I did good. And they seek after they get that you created dopamine. Honestly, right. Right. When you have to do both. But again, the problem with leadership is it’s a sacrifice by the leader. And people don’t want to make that sacrifice. They want the quote perceived chop down power from above without giving anything up. And that’s that’s part of the problem with with it. People don’t realize that that’s what’s going on. Leaders have a very tough time. It is not a fun thing to be a leader. No, it’s not fun, but it is necessary. If you are in that, if you are a charismatic person in your group, you’re you need to rectify yourself, square yourself, get a hold of a tradition or something like that so that you can serve your group, because otherwise you’ll become the demon of it. Like, that’s what I’ve found is, is that if I haven’t, if I if I don’t, if I’m in a group that does not have a leader, if I don’t square myself, orientate myself, you know, put myself at the mercy of something higher than myself, I’ll become the distraction. I will become the the agent of chaos in the group. What you just mapped out though is attention. You fundamentally attach the microcosm of attention. The problem with Peterson at the moment, the problem has been with Peterson is what is he paying attention to? And a lot of the time for me for the year, the attention that he’s putting out and wanting to get returned is really off himself. And that’s what’s flawed him. Some of what David Fuller did was correct. I don’t know how much proportionally, but one of the things he did point out was the attention meter that Peterson was pointing his community, what he would say, his tribe, whatever, his audience, maybe the easiest way. He shifted that. He shifted that from a communal perspective into his brand. And that changed the relationships via the networks, via how people give Peterson attention, how they value Peterson. And that essentially, like you said, destroyed his or not destroyed, it’s caused, pulled into question his leadership ability. Even his latest outfits again are another like, hang a second, like blue smurf outfit. Is this new conservative revolution? I don’t think it looks this way. It’s definitely not scrutinism anymore if he’s going to continue being a character to us. But okay, one thing I pointed out, so in going, I do this, I’m trying to, and I’m trying to summarize back. This same thing, I pointed this out to someone on Twitter, the same thing happened with U2 and Bono. U2 became the biggest thing with Joshua Tree. They had the attention. They became the rock band of that era. And what happened? Maybe Bono becomes a character tour of himself, character tour of the rock industry, character tour of the progressive band. What happens after that? The credibility of U2 slowly starts to decline. And that’s what’s happening with Peterson. He isn’t a slow decline. I appreciate it. I don’t know that. I mean, the algorithm, I mean, I haven’t, I’m not as privy to his ratings or anything like that. But I don’t know that he is declining. I mean, his exodus his exodus series, my father would not listen to Jordan Peterson when he was just on YouTube, he wouldn’t. However, when he showed up on Daily Wire, now my father and a lot of Protestants and several other people who are like, okay, that adds a little that adds a layer of credibility and that and so he’s moving, he’s possibly moving out of a sphere losing certain attentions at that sphere, but gaining a huge amount of attention at another sphere. Yeah, that’s actually what’s happening, right? He’s changing audience. He’s changing audiences entirely. And that’s what people don’t understand is that it may be that on YouTube, he’s going to get less attention because he’s changing his messaging. And he’s also changing where he’s at. But his goal isn’t to fix YouTube. And YouTube, like all technologies, like all so-called platforms is a filter. Now, it might be the best filter ever for Peterson, but I actually doubt it. I think that having more ways to reach people is better for Peterson because we need to reach people who aren’t just we’ll say the hardcore materialist gamer porn addicted types, right? Which is what you find more often here than anywhere else, right? Because it’s a natural progression of not only just general technology filter, but there are other filters that YouTube affords and sorts of funneling people into that when they talk about funnels, the funnels are real, right? They just don’t work the way people think because they’re not the funnels aren’t drawing people in so much as they’re keeping most things out. And when you understand it in terms of a filter first, then you start to understand how everything in the world works. Like, oh, it’s a filter, right? It’s like, oh, I can stop paying taxes on the grounds that my tax money is funding abortion if I want to go through all the trouble of going through the courts to do that. So there’s a high bar. I can do it though. It’s doable. You can not pay federal tax in the United States if you do that. It’s been done before. It’s a very expensive process. It’s a very high filter, but you can do it. And that’s the thing. Like there’s a ton of stuff like that. It’s totally possible if you’re willing to jump through enough hoops because they put these things in the way on purpose. How serious are you about this? Because if you’re not… Well, and he’s made the proper sacrifices. He sacrifices time, energy and health to bring, and so that right there, we saw that. We saw Peterson damn near die for all intents and purposes to get to be Peterson. And so like I said, I really believe that Jordan is a river. Wherever he’s going, we all just put our little boats and dinghies into the river. Because bottom line is a lot of these discussions and that would not be happening without Peterson. Oh yeah. No, absolutely. Everybody talks about this little corner of the internet and they actually fail to mention Peterson in a way that is really respectful of the amount of poll and what happened. They tend to focus in on, oh, I’m here for Jordan Peterson, but really what caught my eye was Peugeot or Verbecky. When I made this case, when I talked to Van Drew Klee, it was probably a year and a half ago now, the first time I said, look, there’s no Verbecky without Peterson. It’s not going to happen. No one’s going to pay attention to him even if he makes the stupid 50 hours. Possibly even no Peugeot. Possibly even no Peugeot. No Peugeot at all, for sure. We already know that. We already know that. But the thing is, and this is one of the things that’s surprising, the one thing, and it’s a universal criticism, so maybe Pastor Paul won’t get quite so upset. Pastor Paul doesn’t want to lead. Peterson doesn’t want to lead. Verbecky doesn’t want to lead. Peugeot doesn’t want to lead. Nobody wants to lead. It’s like, well, that’s great, but you can’t get a group together on a platform in a filter or not and not lead because leadership is going to emerge. And I think the main struggle of this little corner of the internet is that leadership. Everybody’s skeptical of leadership as such. They’re not skeptical of a particular leader because you’ll notice this. They’ll go, oh, you’re just trying to lead something to people who haven’t ever expressed that desire or put in the work or whatever. It’s like, why are you afraid of somebody trying to lead if you don’t even know who it is? Why? Why does that make any sense? It’s because you’re skeptical about the idea of leadership, which is very, again, post-modern idea. Well, I think that we give it another year. We’re all walking around like we’re in a masquerade ball, and in about another year, we’re all going to take our masks off and somebody’s going to emerge as a leader. It’s just the way it works. All of our attention will be gravitated towards a certain person. We don’t know who that is, but we’re in a masquerade ball right now. This is new. This is fresh. This is still disorganized, and it hasn’t come to a point. It hasn’t come to a head. But I do, I mean, it could be Grizz. It could be Chad the alcoholic. It could be yourself. It could be Paul, if he so gets inspired. It could be Jacob. We don’t know because it is not up to us. In all actuality, it’s very honest because however it comes about will be organic and in a lot of ways, natural because attention targeting is not something that we can predict it in a lot of ways, but not necessarily in, I would say, the Christian sphere because that’s a hard one. That’s a hard thing to become an attractive believer. That is a real true believer because they’re going to know if you’re not a believer because anybody can smell a lack of sincerity. They’re going to ask you questions. They’ll pick at you and things like this. Jordan has been so good at this, so good at taking, when he does his thing, when people attack him or really try to get on him, he’ll do this thing where his silence, his silence is and where he actually thinks, I got to tell you, that is so attractive as a young man or I’m not even that young anymore. But when I started listening to Jordan, that when I looked at him and I thought, it’s okay to take your time. It’s okay. You don’t have to have a three second response. You don’t have to, or a millisecond response. You don’t have to. There’s something, it’s Clint Eastwood. It’s John Wayne. It’s freaking, like where you see it in the old westerns where he’ll take his time and do his little nonchalant thing and that’s a sign of masculinity and maturity. I mean, and it’s attractive. Oh, this guy’s so confident. He doesn’t have to respond within a millisecond. He’s so calm. He takes his time and he’s a gunslinger. You know what I mean? And there’s that old western kind of motif to him. And he’s got his beard, his salt and pepper beard, and he’s looking real good with his suits and everything like that. And I got to tell you, there’s a reason he dresses up. There’s a reason he’s picking them suits. There’s a reason he’s doing them things. And he’s on to what it means. I mean, I don’t know who Jordan is as a person. Never met him, never shaken his hand, never gotten a vibe for him or anything like that. But I got to tell you, I’ve been around some pretty strong dudes and that guy impresses me. He impresses me. And I don’t know, it’s on a baser level or something like that. But if I’m a monkey, I’m following that monkey. Yeah. I think they’re like the, you named, I think four, like Verveke, Peugeot, Paul, Jordan. They’re all reaping or they’re still sowing leadership, really. And so we’re learning from them as different examples of Paul’s very ground level with it, not necessarily micromanager, but Jordan’s really up there. Peugeot’s probably a little more here. Verveke’s kind of next to Paul. And so I think, kind of like you said, the leaders are just going to emerge naturally from whoever- Well, I would argue that’s the whole problem. Like when you look at, say, the postmodern critique and what happened, we’ll say pre-World War II in a certain country in Europe, what happened is leadership emerged and then everybody bitched about it. And that’s what happened in Russia too in the same time period. Yeah. Leadership emerged. That’s right. Leadership emerged. Yeah. How’s that emergence working out for you? Because I’m not a fan. Sorry. And that’s the proper critique of postmodernism is not, is emergence is dangerous because it’s random and uncontrolled. But I mean, as much as we want to poo poo on Putin because of- You don’t think that those leaders emanated a smash? No, I know the history well. They did not. They emerged. But Putin plays his part well. He got in cold baths. He took his shirt off and rode a horse. He kissed the cross. He kissed the Bible. He got in league with Kirill. Yeah. Critical drinker, actually, just before I started this stream, I watched Critical Drinker from today, part one. Okay. And he went over this in that part one. Like male characters used to have some of these characters that you’re talking about, Josh. They were slow. They were considerate, few words, stoic, right? He said they were- Stoic. I might have some disagreements with his characterization on that front, but I understand what he’s talking about. There is a stoic element to them for sure. I’m a big fan of stoicism, so I’m a hard no on whether or not they were that stoic. They appeared stoic for sure. Fair enough. I get it. They’re certainly the popular version of stoicism, if they’re not the historically accurate version, or I might say the pragmatically useful version. I think part of the advantage that I have, especially in running my channel Navigating Patterns, is that I’m coming from an area where people often do this. They say, they could take it all away from you. I lived in a car, kid. I lived in a fucking car. You can’t take nothing away from me. New England. You’re not taking anything away from me that I haven’t already lost. Good on you, brother. You lose that game. Play it all you want. You will lose every single time. I have no fear. I’m just not afraid of these things anymore. I’ve lost everything three times. You want to make a four? Go right ahead. Go right ahead. You’re not scaring me with this Gestapo bullshit. It’s not going to happen. That’s the thing. That’s why when I’m doing my project, the Navigating Patterns project, is cultural cognitive grammar. It’s one of the things that Ravik talked about that I took very seriously. Practices and cultural cognitive grammar are the two things I care about the most. We work on practices, and the cultural cognitive grammar is what’s the definition of power? How do I understand principalities? What is the fourth estate, and why did it fall? That’s all that is. In some sense, it’s fixing the language so that we can talk about things in a way that’s useful again. Because it’s not useful to use the modern definition of the word racism because it doesn’t have any way to be used. Effective altruism is not a term that you can use by itself. You can’t talk about social justice. There’s no such thing. There can be no such construction in the language that can communicate information. Because society doesn’t work without justice, and justice makes no sense out of a specific society. The concept of justice is not universalizable in that way. When you do these things, you destroy the language. That destroys the cultural cognitive grammar. I would argue, you’ve got to fix that too. You can’t just fix the art and the beauty, and you can’t just fix the aim. You can’t just add symbolic thinking into the equation. You need all of these things to come together. That’s where we’re going to require the leadership. Because now we just have a bunch of scattered groups off on our own little projects, whether it be Meaning Crisis, which is where I am, or Crisis of Faith, which is more where Paul Van der Kley is, or the theological mission, which is one of the three missions that Jacob and Hezzi are on about. These are different projects in some sense. I’m not saying they don’t have overlap. Of course they do. But the question is, how is this going to lead into something better that actually has the qualities that we need in terms of fixing what is broken about our ability to commune and cooperate? My only contribution would be, don’t rush the cake. Don’t rush it. Let’s let it bake. Let’s set the time. Let’s let it bake. When you make a cake, you have a plan. You have a recipe. A cake just doesn’t get itself. I wanted to get back to the point that Lost Callers was trying to bring up. Do you remember what you were trying to say about Lost Callers? What, with art? Or with leadership? Well, I guess the thing is, I was kind of agreeing with Mark. As somebody who’s working on these art projects, I often hear people say, that’s the answer, is making art. And it’s like, that’s not enough. And it won’t be. Europe has all the most beautiful art in the world. Nobody’s using it or cares. Or they just like a copy of it on Instagram. It doesn’t matter that much. There’s got to be much bigger. But then I guess the thing about the leadership is like, what, you know, you say leaders don’t emerge. And I don’t think anything is pure emergence. I think it’s like two things meeting. And so, Mark, you seem to have the answers. Like what, what is your ideal leader? I just always think whenever you talk about leadership, I know I’m going to get biblical, whatever, is I always think of Saul and David, like being anointed. And that whole idea of like being anointed. Saul was, it’s super funny because it’s like, in a way he emerged, it says, he was the tallest, handsomest man in the land. Everybody was like, well, that’s naturally, follow that guy. He’s the tallest one. But then he still gets anointed by the prophet. And so like, Well, even Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Right. And everybody knows Jesus was tall. I don’t know about that one. I checked he was exactly my height, just by pure coincidence. And he was bald too, by the way. No, I mean, this is the problem, right? And Oz Guinness did a talk with John Anderson. John Anderson talked to Peterson a while back. So Ethan turned me on to this talk. And it was a great talk. And in it, Oz is talking about the difference between the English Revolution, French Revolution, and the American Revolution. And I had never thought of it that way before. I was like, wow. Me neither. That’s cool. I have a wonderful video with Adam on the French Revolution, where we talk about a very similar thing. Right. Where we talk about the difference between being anointed a king from above. Right. So you’re right. Which is that used to happen pre-Napoleon. And Napoleon forcing the bishop to put the crown on his head, which is an inversion. And so the problem with leadership is, yeah, it has to be anointed. Okay. Protestant churches aren’t going to do that. That’s for sure. Are the Catholics? Because I don’t think they’re going to do it. Not in the US. Well, you’re kind of talking about… This is where we run into the problem. Where is that anointing going to come from? Because I don’t disagree that that’s the proper relationship. But I also don’t know where that’s going to happen anymore because Napoleon broke it. So do we kind of find ourselves where the Jews found themselves when they elected Saul as their king? And that they wanted a king and then they got Saul. And that we, the democracy, elect our king. So it’s kind of bottom up, bottom anointing versus top down anointing. Well, it is and it isn’t. Because… Okay. Let’s take, not the president we have now, but let’s take the president we had before. That looks like top down anointing to me. That looks like the people agreeing to somebody at the top of the hierarchy already. Wait, so then how isn’t Hitler and Stalin top down anointing? Because they weren’t successful outside of politics. I don’t know about that. In the world more than any politician has. Actually, no, no, you’re right. I agree with that. Now, yeah, I’m kind of thinking about it. I agree with you. Okay. They were both two-time losers. I mean, it’s still why they were upset and acted out. Because they were two-time. I mean, this is well documented, right? Like, Hitler couldn’t get into art school and kept getting rejected. And he tried to show his art outside of being in art school and still did, right? Like all these things, right? It’s over and over and over again. So what do we think about Lincoln? Well, he worked his way up and he was a well-known order. And that’s the thing. Like he impressed people with his oration skill. Exactly. He impressed the masses. So he was able to gain his favor from the bottom up. Like, and then he… Well, no, I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t think that’s fair. I think that, yeah, look, power is something that is dispersed because power is within each individual person. Because it’s time, energy and attention, right? So what happens is the bottom and the top have to come together. The question is in what order, right? And I would say your skillfulness as a person has to come first, right? Now, the way they did it in Europe was you were trained as a royal into the royal family. And look, people really don’t understand. The reason why the upper class got a different education was in the unlikely event that any of them ever got to power. And it wasn’t about them individually. So like you would train your 50th cousin or whatever, because maybe their child’s child would have to rule. That’s why they got the different education. They got the different education because you don’t want to train somebody in the royal family to farm because they’re never going to do that. But they might have a shot at being able to influence government. And so you have to train them in that. But if you train them in that, you have no time to train them in a bunch of other things, right? And so there’s this constant and there’s not just two buckets. There’s a bunch. So we’re looking for a Buddha, somebody who was raised in the palace, went out and lived as a common man and gained the wisdom of the field. And it’s hard to equate someone like Lincoln with modern times because Lincoln actually did a tour and talk to a bunch of people in person in participation. And now you can say, you know, you didn’t talk to more than one percent of the population. But I was there and I’m telling my friends, my family, the people around me, oh no, I saw it and speak. So now you have way more familiarity than you do with somebody. So in other words, if either of you three come to me and you say or even message me at this point, right. And you say, Mark, you have to watch this video. OK, why would I do that? I would do that because I know you guys to some extent. Right. But if if Manuel says, no, no, don’t watch that video, you’re all overwritten, right, automatically. Right. Because there’s there’s an implicit hierarchy. But that’s based on the interaction. Now, if if if somebody who’s known me for a very long time and there are precious few of them says something like that, it holds more weight. And so if somebody that if somebody that I know says, oh, there’s a there’s a copy of a speech that this new candidate gave and it’s not worth your time, the fact that I could interact with it directly and get my own experience is irrelevant. Right. Because I’m outsourcing my cognition in that case. I’m saying, you know what? I’m going to let this other person who I already trust for various reasons, good or bad, correct or incorrect on my part. Right. I could always be mistaken in my trust. That’s going to override me taking the time. And their opinion about that may be better than me interacting with them with that video directly, because that video may contain sorcery. And I may be prone to that sorcery because I’m not I’ve been sorcerer before. It’s rare to be sure because I’m very good at spotting this stuff, but by no means perfect. And so that’s the problem is that now you have no protection. That’s why Grim Grizz like some of the stuff Grim Grizz does is so brilliant. Right. Let’s do saving throws. Why? Because just talking to people can be enchanting. And and and he’s like, all right, you need to be aware of this. And all he’s doing by doing the saving throws is making you aware of this possibility that you could be enchanted. And that’s important. And you know, it’s important because he does it every freaking video. It drives me absolutely nuts. And I swear, if he doesn’t start waiting that wisdom die in my favor, I’m going to hunt him down. That’s your warning, Grizz. That’s your one warning. That damn die that’ll go high every time for me. So it’s important. And that’s the thing you got. Hey, Mark, thanks for letting me on, brother. I got to run. Dinner’s almost ready. But thanks. Love you all. God bless. Jesse, I’ve looked through some of my comments because I was like, trying to figure out some of the threads that I was thinking. And one thing that I was talking about was like, when you hear the word, I was writing notes on like, I’m using it covered in our two hours. I was writing on all the threads that we’ve actually gone through. I was like, what’s actually the most relevant to continue? So yeah. Well, yeah, I was saying that a lot of people do what back then would have been called art. But I was saying they don’t call it art anymore because they would have to recognize how ugly it is. And so I was thinking like trades. I think a lot about like one of the most American art practices is cars, like car design and all of that sort of stuff. They just don’t call it art. And it’s crazy because Peugeot is always like, we need participative art. And it’s like, you can’t not have participative art. You just don’t see it as art. You think the only art is iconography. Design and design thinking. They’ve actually materialized the understanding or the technique would be the old word of the art. Like if I told a drywaller or artist, he’d be like, what? And it’s like, no, like, that’s what you’re doing. The art of drywalling is the art. And I think that would help a lot of people like start to see it and consider what they’re doing. But for now there’s so many economic, which is why I think the economic, Christians don’t like to talk about the economics because they think it’s not spiritual, but it’s like so important because there’s this whole beast system built around making really ugly art. Well, but it’s really in your attitude. Like I know people who understand that craftsmen are craftsmen and they’re artists. They understand all that. And so that’s the thing. It’s like when we put it in a bad frame, like economics, you really kind of screw it all up. And that’s the issue. When you put it in a political frame because it’s so low resolution, you screw it up. And it really is your understanding. It’s the cultural cognitive grammar that’s tripping us up. Like we’re so willing to go into this materialist frame. And I think the one thing that we’re missing is we keep talking about, oh, we’re too prepositional, we’re too procedural, we’re too procedural too, guys. It’s the propositions and the procedures are killing us. Actually, it’s actually removing things from the world. And I like this idea that what we’ve done, if we’ve taken art and turned it into tech name and we keep calling it tech name, and it’s not freaking tech name. It’s not. Now you can have your arguments. And I do have my disagreements with Ayn Rand and her Beauty of the Skyscraper thing. But that’s one of the things she actually got right is that, look, if you’re going to be here in America and you’re going to come to New York, as she did in New York City, and see these things, that’s your temple, that’s your worship, that’s your highest thing. I mean, that’s how she based, I wouldn’t call it a philosophy, objectivism is great. I really subscribe to Ayn Rand’s, a lot of Ayn Rand’s stuff, but it’s very incomplete. It’s certainly not a full philosophy. But she’s right about that. I think she’s wrong about the starkness of the buildings. I don’t like the starkness of most skyscrapers. But some of them, and you still have to have stark skyscrapers, but some of them have that flavor. And the older ones are nicer, the ones with crowns and crannels and gargoyles on them and stuff. Those are nicer, obviously. Everybody knows gargoyles. I have a legacy gargoyle. So he’s got a laptop and he sits on the side of the table. Oh yeah, I saw that. I saw that. I was with my mother back when she was still alive and she had cancer. We went out to Ridgeway and she was in this shop, and I was like, I really don’t want to go in the stupid knickknack shop. I walked in there and there was that thing. I gotta have a gargoyle with a laptop because I love gargoyles and I love laptops. So we’re all in. But yes, you have to, you have to, that’s the proper melding of art with technique, is gargoyle with laptop. Yeah, I think there’s a thread that’s, there’s a couple, obviously, with every conversation where like raking the ocean floor of the cultural bed of the decay. Every conversation kind of, especially on the internet, we’re using the internet to rake the internet of the cultural decay of society. We’re using the thing of itself to bring up more things than it’s kind of, we have to filter, as you were saying before, what’s more relevant. I think one thing that’s probably been a through line here, which is what I like to try and see in these conversations is this, there’s this thing I would probably maybe term legacy thinking. And those older buildings have the idea of this is a legacy of our time and of our place and of our era. Or it’s a reflection, an homage to the previous era. We’re kind of carrying that on at some point, which is, again, I think a little bit sad that we can get to talk to the lady of towers, Elizabeth. Yeah, we didn’t get to bolt that thought down. But when do we lose this legacy thinking? When does it cross over? Because it’s important to know why, because it comes down to leadership, actually, in some sense. Leaders carry these legacy items on forward. And the millennial problem is just, again, another sub-zygous of this conversation, which is why, if we’re fearing leaders and we’re not carrying on the legacies and traditions, big T traditions, then of course we’re at the problem we’re at. I think part of the problem of legacy as like, kind of just being more familiar with the specifics of art, is I think people cite it to me, people cite it too far back, where it’s like, well, it all went wrong after the medieval period. And it’s like, well, then who cares? If that’s the case, who cares? That’s ancient history. I think it was way, way, way more recent because one thing I’ve talked about with my dad, because he was raised by his grandparents, my great-grandpa, is like, my great-grandpa had way more in connection with a guy in the Renaissance than he would with me in a lot of ways. Because he grew up very rural, like on a farm, all that sort of stuff. And you can still kind of see a connection of art, of the art through all of that. It dropped off very sharply, very quickly, and very recently, which is why people shouldn’t freak out so much. It’s like, it’s totally, that’s why I like Mark a lot when you talk about the things of like, oh, we have to start over and all this sort of stuff. It’s like, we have so much good stuff. Right. That it’s all, all the pieces are there, right? And one of the things that I’ve talked about on navigating patterns is the proper relationship, maintaining that proper relationship to the things we have is really important. And one video that isn’t out there yet, that I really have to make, but I have to make slides and I hate making slides, I also have to remember, which is also hard, too many videos I need to make. I have a long list. The memes, right, are not, the conception of a meme that Dawkins put out there, I mean, really, it’s very damaging, because it plays into the progressivism. And I have a video on progressivism, obviously, right, which is good, by the way, you should watch that, the myth of progress, basically, this idea, this upending of order happens in the 60s. And if you listen to Burn Power, the anadromist channel that he has, where he talks about this, which I liked, I didn’t finish it, I didn’t, the later ones were less good, we’ll say, and then the original ones. But he kind of traces some of this through the musical history, through the rock music history, Bob Dylan, and that’s actually where he places most of it, ultimately, I don’t know if you realize that, he probably does. I want to actually go on the conversation and poke him about these things, I’m like, hey, you’re getting too wrapped up in this era. Like, I like this, but you, even in these talks on the Germany festival, it’s like, you think you’re just giving us the information, but you’re not actually giving us the narrative of all this information, just giving us the information. You need to tell the story, and he thinks he’s telling the story, but I don’t think he’s actually getting the part of the novel, or at least the argument of it, so yeah. No, he gets caught up, so in the, how we got here, right, is that where, yeah, I think that’s what the playlist is called. In that playlist, he gets caught up in playing you long streams of excellent music, which is kind of okay, but you lose the thread, right, you lose the narrative thread, whereas all the stuff I got out of it were good clips. I mean, it really taught me a lot, like, I’m very grateful that he did the series, because I learned a lot from it, you know, things like break dancing, so, right, there’s a period where there’s, dancing is a partnership, and then it becomes a competition. It’s like, oh, dancing became a competition, right, music making became parasitic with rap, because they stole equipment, literally, they stole high-end equipment, and then we’re making music, and it’s like, well, that’s as parasitic a story as you can get, so all of these things sort of come together in a way, and I was like, oh, wow, this really makes this make sense, you know, in a way that it didn’t before, and that’s the problem, is that you’re sort of battling these threads of progressivism, and the materialism gets overlaid within that context, and it’s kind of everywhere, and when those two kind of meet, and then we lose the feminine, basically, I think Jordan Peterson’s right, because of birth control, now you’ve got the perfect storm, because you’ve got three aspects of the world that hold the world together in an important way, and I’m not going to say there’s only three, right, but you’ve got these three aspects of the world that hold the world together and are interpenetrating in a potent way, all failing at the same time, like, actually at the same time, and so I place it in the 70s when everything sort of crashed or started to crash, and then it doesn’t become more obvious until the 80s, but everything in my world is like two generations out, so I think two generations out, so you just go back two generations, that’s where it happened, that’s roughly two generations, and I was looking on my Facebook feed, Facebook sent me something the other day from 2014, and in 2014, I basically said the news is trash, you can’t trust any of it, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and now looking back, I go, what was happening in 2014? Gamergate. Carl Benjamin was warning us that this is going to happen to you, this is going to spread everywhere, that’s why he’s got a news organization in England, one of the ridiculous places to start a business, and he was able to do it on his own dime with no funding, the man is a legend, okay, he’s already a legend, he does nothing else in his life, this is unbelievable, that he started a news organization with his own money after being demonetized on the internet, you don’t understand what a revolution that is, that’s the restoration of the fourth estate, why is that important? All this stuff crashed and crashed hard in 2014, but it was building up from the 70s to the 80s to the 90s to the early 2000s, but 2014 is like the seminal turning point, it’s just a flip, and that is because of the second generation of birth control adoption widespread, and so now you’ve got people, and I actually know somebody like this, oh, I didn’t realize that if I was on the pill for 15 years, I couldn’t just get off the pill and get pregnant, how did you not know that? I mean, I’m sorry, but you get a PhD in anything, doesn’t matter what, and you didn’t realize that being on the pill your whole life, you couldn’t just come off the pill and have a baby, like what kind of education did you get? Like unbelievable, but that seems to be it, like that’s how you can, like people come off the pill and they’re married and then they don’t want to be with their husband anymore because they picked the wrong guy, Peterson talks about that, like these are real outlier effects, but what are the effects of not being exposed to the feminine? Well, say correctly, right, which is this, the hidden matriarchy, as John Mullen calls it, I guess he’s writing a book called that, so I’ll have to apologize if he ever releases a book. There is a book about the shadow matriarchy too as well. Yeah, the shadow matriarchy, yeah, I mean it’s all the same sort of a thing, right, women point, right, so me, Og, you Og, or all Og’s here, okay, Og build, Og smash, that’s all Og do, Og’s stupid, right, why do we build and smash? Because women point, and if women don’t point, we just build and smash things randomly in random video games or whatever, like it doesn’t, like we’re not very sophisticated creatures at the end of the day, but if the women are doing that role, right, then where’s the pointing? Well, there’s no pointing, so that’s a big problem, that’s like a huge, huge problem, there’s no pointing, and the pointing can’t be random, it has to be in a direction, so again, back to Critical Drinker, what’s he pointing out? In fact, I just got another notification, somebody else left my comment on his part one video today, because I basically thanked him for doing what he’s doing, why? Because he’s pointing out, you’re exemplifying and pointing at and, you know, putting high these wimpy people, these beta males who are basically not suited to do anything, okay, and you’re exemplifying that, those traits, and then the women are the ones who are coming in and strong and save the day, and then now they’re the men, which is no good, where’s the feminine? Because it’s not in the background in the shadows, it’s not pointing. So do you think, importantly, that it goes back a little further than the pill in a way, because I always think about like World War II, where all the guys get tricked into a really stupid war on all sides, and then women all go into the workforce, then the 50s comes where like, you have that kind of like housewife appliance culture of like, after the mess, they try to clean the house, and then that shatters in the 60s, and then, like I feel like the birth control pill is really just like an innovation and a trend that was already happening, not that women didn’t work before, but like in a very masculine setting. But women, look, people don’t, they don’t know any history, there are no parts of history where women weren’t rulers, there are no parts of history where women didn’t work, that just never happened historically, sorry, I hate to, it didn’t happen. We had two queens of Egypt, you know, famous ones, we’ve had queens all over the place. No, that’s fair, they were doing factory work way back then. Well, in World War II, 80% of the factory workers, the riveters were women, that’s where Rosie the River comes from, okay, and then when the men came back, they went back home, okay, why? Because they’re hidden, they’re not supposed to be out there going, oh, we’re strong women, and we’re riveting, I mean, not that they didn’t, they did, that’s where Rosie the River comes from, right, but then they went back to the Betty Boop sort of, right, they went back to being in the background at the home, doing the things that you need, the special, having the specialization that is needed to allow the grounding for the men to do better work, because that’s actually how that works, and it’s really important, like it’s stunningly important, in fact, I’m gonna find, I gotta find a file, because I wanna show you guys. Yeah, I love it when you talk about this, Marc, and I wish more people would talk about it, I know it’s super sensitive, and you’re not afraid to talk about sensitive things that are offensive, most people are. Which should be offensive. For our own detriment. That’s the thing, it shouldn’t actually be offensive. It should have. We should. I don’t think it should be offensive to talk about the loss of the family, you’re the loss of the women. That’s the agent in the Matrix, as far as I’m concerned, the fact that we weren’t able to, anyone at one point, so that’s too sensitive to you, they become an agent of the Matrix and tell you, hey, that’s too sensitive, we’re coming against you, like, right. Do you understand the go-to? Yeah. We often submit truth to not offending people, or we submit truth to tolerance, or the fear of offending somebody, and sometimes things just need to be said, even if they’re painful. This whole birth control thing, I think it’s just a complete, like, we don’t even know anything, we just have hints right now. We don’t know how bad it’s going. What’s that? We do not know how the total effects it’s had. It’s still new. It’s still new. Yeah. And people are using it for, I think, well, any reason to use birth control, I think, is wrong. But they’re using it for things that have nothing to do with sex or procreation. They’re using it to control their moods. I take birth control because it allows me to control my hormones so that I can work. I’ve seen this in people in an office space or whatever, in a work setting, they’re like, oh, she’s way too harmonial. We can’t work with her. And there’s actually an incentive for women to not be like that. And so this pill allows them, it’s giving them power, whatever we want. This pill is allowing people to take all of these things that appear negative in the workplace and throw them out the window. It’s very scary. It’s very frightening, I think, because we’re, I mean, we’re offending our own humanity when we do that. That’s an offense to humanity. We’re trying to unbecome women. Yes. Catherine made a comment on the marriage crisis video that came out today. That was really, really good. At one point, you know, is his name Rod, the guy that’s on there? Or am I confusing? I don’t know. Anyways, the guy that’s on there, he was saying something about making an institution for helping mothers out of the workforce, blah, blah, blah. And it’s like, they don’t want that. Young women don’t desire that at all. They don’t want the kids that, you know, tell them all you will about how harmful birth control is. At this point, they’re just like, oh, that sounds oppressive. Like, I don’t care. Like, you know, they don’t want anything feminine at all. It’s just not, they don’t desire that. We don’t even know what the feminine is. So that’s why we’re so quick to just throw it out the window. We have no idea what we’re doing. Flebas is saying that, like, children will go to the doctor. And yeah, great. Yeah, I love that. Children will go to the doctor. And the doctor will give them birth control for acne. Like, this is like, that’s a horrible offense, I think. It’s an intuition I have. I can’t say why it’s a horrible offense. Because I mean, first of all, you can’t measure these things. Like, you can’t measure, oh, this person’s this much not a woman. These are things that you can’t measure. Yeah, well, look, and I want to do this excellent artwork by Sally Jo. You want to talk about art? We get Sally Jo art. We get Sally Jo book. We get Sally Jo image, right? So this, I think, represents the proper relationship. There’s a lot of symbolism going on here for sure. This represents the proper relationship between men and women. Okay? And the woman is pointing up above the man’s head at the star. Right? Women point. That’s what they do. Aug build. You can see Aug’s pointing at something he built at her feet. What did he build at her feet? It doesn’t really matter. What it does to the woman, though, is make her equal. Right? So the proper role of the man is to make the woman equal. Although I would argue for equality because I think it’s dumb. It actually makes her much greater. I hate that word. That’s up there with tolerance. She has the power. Are you going to be zero equality now on my server? That’s right. But that’s the thing. It’s like they’re different skills. The man points at the material and manipulates the material. The woman manipulates the ideas. She’s the one that points at the ideas. And the man just kind of builds things. And this image, I mean, it’s really genius because Sally’s freaking an artistic genius. And that’s the thing. Like, this is the proper relationship. We’re not supposed to be equal. Equality destroys evolution, actually, in many, many ways. One of the problems is that this theory of specialization doesn’t, you know, is an important part of evolution. But it doesn’t get any play if things are equal. And so it’s not just equality means the end of evolution because there’s nothing to change because everyone’s perfect. It also means that there’s no specialization. And we just can’t be the best that we can be in that case. And that’s the problem is that we need specialization. We need women being women and men being men in order for things to work more efficiently and better and more proper for everybody. And without that, we’re completely screwed. And if the feminine is trying to enact the masculine, right, or women are trying to enact the masculine archetype, the feminine archetype vanishes. And that happens from materialism because men are the materialists. Right? We skew material. Women skew towards church. One of the things that always puzzled me is in the 90s in the United States, they did a bunch of surveys. And what they found out was the way that people get to church basically is that women bring the men to church. So in a relationship. Now, this goes way up when they get pregnant. So the minute a woman gets pregnant, bang, they start going to church. They weren’t before, right? Or they start attending more often or whatever. And I was always puzzled by this. I was like, well, that’s weird. Why would that happen? What is going on there? But now I’m like, well, yeah, duh, of course. Of course, that’s the way it would be. Because the women’s got her eye on the highest and the man’s the pragmatist, just got his eye on, well, what can I build? I got to make things safe in the way that I can. I can’t make a baby safe in the way a woman can because she provides all the care and comfort and all that crazy stuff that I know nothing about. But I can build a house and no one can blow that house down. Come hell or high water, right? That I can do, right? And so you need both. And you don’t want to mix them. So I guess Eamon mentioned something about being a sensitive father or something. Yeah, I don’t agree. Well, I still, the picture is actually really weird. It’s like, feels a little, kind of feels inverted. If you were to take that picture, it kind of feels like what popped into my head was like, oh, like women pastors, they’re the ones that point at the star. And that’s not seemingly how it’s set up. The man is supposed to be the heaven, the one that looks up. And even how you said, Mark, where a man naturally, think of single guy’s apartment. He’s thinking about the things that are up there, his goals, what drives him. His apartment’s just trash, he doesn’t care. But a woman is the one that more points at the ground. And is the home builder. Obviously not like, she’s not building the house, the man does that. But you have to have like a- Like the man builds the house. The woman builds the home. The man is the priest, the woman is the one that- The man is keeping order. That’s what men do. Because women don’t keep order, they’re crazy people. And it’s crazy men. You have to keep order, you have to be looking at what’s above. No, no, you can’t look at what’s above and keep order, you’ll get lost in the stars. Correct, if you never look down, for sure. No, no, even if you look down, it doesn’t matter. If you look up as a man, you will get lost in the stars. No, no, that’s why men get confused when there’s too many women around. Because they don’t know what the hell to do. Well, they don’t, they don’t know which one to pay attention to. The artist is here to explain. The artist herself is here. The woman pastor is not taking on the woman role that you’re discussing. So the woman pastor is incapable of pointing at stars because she is standing in the man’s position, pointing at the foundation. And she’s not taking on the woman’s role. I have horrible reverb, don’t I? I think you have YouTube open. Oh, dang it, that’s what’s going on. Okay, how’s that? Happens all the time. Magical. Yeah, well, I wasn’t planning on popping in, but I’ll probably have to leave randomly. That’s because you’re womanizing and being womanly and having a family and all this other stuff. Nobody makes a version of you, by the way. I was writing you guys a text, but you guys weren’t reading it. So, like… I read all of it. Oh, okay. Well, then you didn’t think it would fit. I guess I have to leave now. Damn it. No. All right. Well, have fun. Maybe I’ll get back. All right. Good luck, Sazelle. Yeah. This is… Stars and femininity. Stars, angels, and femininity, though. Like, when you… Some Christmas tree… Stars are built with an angel on top of the Christmas tree. There is a count symbol, but there is another thread of the feminine as the star. Angels are always in the… As the one that brings the… The muse is the feminine aspect in music. Right. The muse is… I mean, it’s everywhere, but there’s more to it than that. The feminine is the wild, unrestrained nature, too. It’s nature as such. It’s the strength of nature. And in some ways, the man creates the house against nature. And to contain nature. And then when the feminine gets in the house, she turns the house into a home. I don’t know if this is helpful, but I’ve always found this really interesting. It is like… There’s kind of two aspects. And it’s kind of like a yin-yang, where there’s always a little bit in each of it. And it’s like, you have that aspect of femaleness that’s not feminine. Where it’s like, those huge, swallowing goddesses, all that sort of imagery. Nature. And then you have the feminine. People are always, oh, we lost the woman. Oh, we lost the feminine. And it’s like, the feminine is a more masculine version of femaleness. I always think of the Egyptian women were the first ones in history to have small breasts in art. There’s something more masculine about it. And so, I just… I don’t know, it’s kind of like, what do you really want? Do you want femininity or do you want femaleness? Because it sounds like women don’t like the femininity because it’s masculine. But I shouldn’t say… There’s more container for it in the broader… Outside of our homes, outside of our rooms, there’s a container for the femininity. There are no public… If you want to go dancing, you have to go clubbing. What does that say about dancing when you have a violent term? Right. It’s the same thing with opera, right? Opera is a feminization of the physical music, but it’s also faded out. There is no container as far as I am aware. Maybe it’s in my Australian setting, but this is often even on fashion, right? My partner, or my fiance, should say, she often complains, where am I going to wear this nice dress? Like, where? Where do I wear it? I’m like, what’s the occasion? Maybe a wedding? Yeah, there’s no more space to be feminine. And we haven’t kept that sacred. As men, we haven’t kept that sacred. They’re not trying to enact it either. They’re out there trying to be CEOs and all that stuff. And that’s the problem, is that you run into this issue of roles getting switched. And that’s super important. It’s important to remember that part of what entails sacredness is the fact that you don’t try to rationalize it fully. And I think we’ve spent way too much… I mean, I don’t mean us here. I mean, as a culture, we’ve spent way too much trying to figure out what feminine is to our own peril. Because we do anything. Like, when we try to rationalize it, that’s the problem. I can’t remember who was talking about this the other day, but they’re like, well, let’s recreate a family. So they go out and they get four people that they love and put them in a room together and say, that’s a family. It’s like, well, that’s subject to your measurement or subject to what you think a family is. And you have to keep… If it’s sacred, that means you have to be humble and you have to treat it as if it’s a mystery. Something that you can’t wholly know or rationalize or come up with a definition for. That’s really how anything is. Especially after you do that with the feminine. And the zeitgeist here is the way we’ve changed love. What love means, how we define love. Because love has the four eros, charity… Someone help me here. There’s another two. Love has this multi aspect, multi-dimensional aspect. We’ve actually reduced that sense of what love is. And love is what’s right. The familial love, brotherly love. There’s love and charity. There’s love as eros. And that’s part of it. That’s one of the other things Byrne talked about in the Anadromist, and how we got here, was love for the hippies in the 60s was just this physical thing. Love the one you’re with. It’s this childish idea, this childish version of love. It’s not the fullness that it needs to be or that it was, we’ll say in the ancient Greek conception. It wasn’t an ancient Greek conception. They kind of co-opted the word agape. But the Christian idea of agape is a much different conception than we’re used to. But I think, you know, Ethan’s really on to something. Which is when you try to propositionalize and proceduralize things, and I’ll just float an idea. I don’t, I haven’t done the research on this. I’ll float an idea. One of the problems is if you take something like narrative and you say, all right, well, narrative is a dangerous thing a la the postmoderns. And you say, all right, well, what’s dangerous about it? Let’s break it down into propositions and procedures. Then you end up with propaganda. But I think one of the fundamental problems with propositions and procedures, that they are wonderful in hindsight and useless anywhere else. Utterly useless. In other words, and I had this conversation, or I had a not really conversation because nobody could answer the damn question. Which I didn’t think should be that hard to answer. What is propaganda in the moment? Like, how would you discern propaganda in the moment? And it’s an open question to me because I don’t know. And I always get worried when I don’t know stuff like that. Because this is the sort of thing that I’m well studied on. It’s like, well, if I can’t define propaganda in the moment, oh, that’s just propaganda and discern it from other things, then maybe it only exists in hindsight when you’ve already had the time and the unfolding to judge by. Because it might be that it’s just a descriptive map of the past. Because lots of things only, this is one of my criticisms, I’m going to upset people for sure, of people like Curtis Yarvin. Sure, he’s got wonderful frames, but they’re all descriptive and they’re all hindsight bias. Every single one of them. None of them are useful for understanding what to do about things or predicting what’s going to happen in the future. They’re just bad maps of the past. And that’s the problem. That’s the problem. What do you think happens in that moment when you see something and you’re like, you have a visceral reaction and you’re like, oh, that’s propaganda? Right. Well, the question is, is it? And that’s what I’m saying. It’s not so clear to me. For me, the most clear example was the new Bobby movie trailer. I’m not sure if anyone saw that. What movie? So the new Bobby movie trailer, instead of apes, you’ve got little girls, instead of bashing rocks, they’re bashing the dolls themselves. And then what happens after they bash the dolls, I’m not sure if anyone’s aware of 2001, they threw a Barbie leg up, which is an homage to the original 2001, where it was the apes learning, pecking eggs, learning violence, throwing the stick up, which is meant to symbolize the nuclear missiles hanging in there, ready to take anyone at any moment. So this time they’re throwing up the Barbie leg. And what does it cut to? Barbie leg. The Barbie logo. The propaganda. The gland now is the most informative weapon. Don’t just threaten nuclear missiles throwing up. Yeah, it’s the fear. But how is that different from saying good story versus bad story? Because I can tell a good story from a bad story, and I can tell you how I do that. And I will call all the bad stories, not all the bad stories, but I will call some of the bad stories propaganda. For sure. But not all of them, to your point. So I’m not saying there’s nothing to propaganda, I’m not saying that at all. But I am saying that that is the issue, is that where is that dividing line? Are we actually talking about something other than a specific type of bad story? Because that would be, you know, if you haven’t seen my one for you, I’m not getting patterned story narrative and archetype. It’s helped Paul Van der Kley, it could help you too, because he actually watched one of my videos, Miracle of Miracles. Right. So the question is, what is it about that that makes it propaganda? Is it just a brand? Because that would be a fair definition. I actually might agree with that. The symbolism. I’m thinking like a movie, take a movie like Sharknado 3. I wouldn’t say that’s, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would say it’s a bad movie, but not propaganda. But then I would take like, I don’t think it’s a bad movie, and be like, that’s all propaganda and everybody liked it. So there’s something different. I’m not saying it’s not Marvel or something. I mean, it’s right, because I don’t think it’s the brand. No. Like I don’t think, this is what I’m saying. I’m not saying there’s no definition of propaganda. There might be, but there might still might not be. We’ve got to keep that in mind. It’s trying to beat you over the head with a message. And it’s not just a message because every movie, Sharknado has a message. But that’s the problem. It can’t be beating you over the head with a message. It has to be something about the message. And I’m happy to say it’s branding plus something plus something, and that’s all propaganda, and that’s how you can recognize it in the present. It’s just that I’ve never ever been able to do that myself. I’ve never met anybody who can do it. And I’ve never gotten an answer out of a definition of how to do that. And so this sort of indicates to me that propaganda is something you can only know in hindsight. Now that might be totally wrong, but I’m leaning in that direction because it’s fine, but I would consider a simple answer. I kind of think of like, when it’s trying to make you accept that this is the message, and if that makes any sense, I know that sounds like super abstract, but when something is trying to tell you that this is the message you should take away from it, that kind of feels like when it gets into propaganda mode. A little resolution, at least, of propaganda. There’s the obvious. Like, it’s the root. That’s the 8-bit version of noticing. What Mark’s trying to get to is how do we have a full, rich, 32-bit, high-definition colour of what propaganda is? And it is actually quite hard. I know that there is a few books that Bernard’s actually suggested on this topic. Yeah, there is definitely an easy, and the drinker, for all these flaws, does have a good radar for what the low-bit propaganda is. But he just calls it bad storytelling, and I think that’s correct. I think that’s what it is. And so with the story narrative archetype formula, stories are instances or implementations. Narratives are the patterns. So a good story from a bad story is easy to discern because you can say, oh, well, this story doesn’t follow any of the narrative patterns. And where it gets tricky, because that’s not a perfect system, isn’t something like The Matrix. The Matrix is an amazing movie. I love The Matrix. But it’s terrible, terrible, terrible messaging. The symbolism is absolutely atrocious. It’s also accurate. It’s just that it’s very subtle, and you don’t realise. Those people are willing to be free in that movie, where the definition of freedom is ragtag fugitive group with nothing in common, living in a grimy submarine, basically, right? And they’re not going to be able to get out of that. Basically, right? And what are they doing? This is their description. They’re being chased not through the dead city, not through the dead city, through the sewers of the dead city. We’re one layer below dead city, man. Didn’t think anything could be worse. No, the sewers of a dead city are definitely worse than the dead city. That’s what the way they’d rather live than eat, speak and be happy and conform to the system. I mean, that’s a terrible message to tell people. Like, what are you, a lunatic? Why would you tell anybody that? That’s nuts. And that’s all Rousseau, right? Because you can’t do without society. So Rousseau is just retarded. But that’s a different problem, right? So the obvious conclusion is what we need to do. Well, the only way to live without society is to live in a grimy world with food that doesn’t taste like anything, but it definitely has amino acids and everything a growing body needs, right? Practically quoting the movie here, right? But it tastes like snot. Oh, lovely. It tastes like snot. And you’re living in this grimy tube running through the sewers of a dead city. Oh, that sounds like a wonderful life. Sign me up. Plug me in all day long, baby. I’ll be your battery. I’m good. I’m good. You know, the Matrix 4 solution to that was we compromised. We compromised with the machines so we could have this little section. We could remake this little section of the world. And we have a trade agreement with the machines. The third movie had the same thing. The third movie has the same thing. We’re going to compromise. Oh, by the way, you see all those machines that are actually running us in the one city, last city near the core? We’re still beholden the machine. Yeah, you’re not getting out of society, guy. It’s not happening. You need a new plan, OK? You need a new plan that involves accepting that you’re part of society and that society gave you all this stupid electricity and all the goofy internet and these wonderful microphones and webcams. I’ve got how many monitors do I have now? Five monitors, right? Right here. I have five monitors right here. They’re all on. Well, except one of them, right? I’ve got all kinds of crap. I’ve got my LaCroix. What would I do without my LaCroix? I mean, if my cousin hadn’t introduced me to this stuff, I don’t know where I’d be in life. Really, it’s great on road trips. Like, I wouldn’t have any of this if I weren’t giving my time, energy, and attention to the system, if I weren’t paying my taxes, right? Which is another theme in the movie. You have to pay your taxes. Why? Because your taxes give you all of these things. And you can argue about their misappropriation. OK, genius. How would you spread out the taxes? Why don’t we put you in charge and see if you blow up? Because you’re going to blow up. Because you can’t even keep your damn room clean to Jordan Peterson’s excellent point. What do you know about how the taxes are spent and whether or not it’s good? Nothing. That’s what you know. You know nothing. Can I share a clip, a YouTube clip, that complements Sally’s artwork? Of course. And your whole idea? Oh, OK. So should I just press play and then it’ll? Yep. All right. I think so. Nope, no sound. No sound. OK. You might have to. No sound. OK. You might have to work with your sound setting. Yeah, I don’t know how sound screen sharing works. I like the free sharing. Nope. No sound. I don’t know how to get the sound to work in this goofy thing. You should ask Jacob. He knows these magic tricks. This is an addendum. When they came to Sydney, Tammy’s tapes in front of Peterson was better than Peterson’s full hour lecture. I was completely stunned by that. Completely stunned. I’m here to hear the master. I’m here to hear the grand master of these live talks. And Tammy just scored a victory goal. She just touched down. And it was surreal. What’s going on here? Why is? I think they’re auto generated. Sally’s right. We can just read it. Sally’s usually right. She doesn’t often make sense. She’s usually right anyway. Seems like we’ve done this before, Mark. I have never done this. I’m sure there’s a trick to it because I remember Jacob saying something about it, but I don’t remember the details. So I wish I could help you with my technical activities. I could write something that would properly screen share and do the audio. Actually, I could write a little bit code, but I don’t know how they did it. I have no idea. Listen, you got to share audio on the Chrome tab. Yeah, probably. On the Chrome tab? Yeah, on the tab for the browser. You’ve got to give it permission to share audio or share system audio. Got it. Okay. All right. Let me find the right spot. Congratulations. Well, I lost the question, because I lost it. 40,600. No, Tammy, there is no Jordan. She is the Saint. He can confirm that. There’s no great man without great women behind them. Yeah, that’s what we learned from the Cho horizons. They can grow rich. Recognize that they’ve gone a long, a lot. towards something than realize it’s the wrong direction. I’ve noticed that with my husband, he’s very good at describing something he wants and then goes for, and I think, oh, wow, that’s very interesting. And I should be supportive of this and everything. And then we realize it’s not a very good idea. The amount of effort he puts in is like 100% of what I would put in after I’ve decided it’s a good idea. He puts that effort in before he’s even decided if it’s a good idea. Right? And so I’ve learned now that, oh, I don’t have to support that because he’s just experimenting. I thought what he was doing was important work, but he was actually just experimenting. To me, it looked like a whole complete endeavor. Nope, not so. We all have different natures. Okay, fair. So I was wrong about Snally Joe’s painting or whatever. Yeah, well, and I’ve experienced that for real. I’ve experienced exactly what she describes. Right. Well, and this is what I was saying. So I like what Elizabeth said. All women grow together and say, can you imagine living with that guy? Yeah, I bet. I bet they do. Right, but that’s the thing too. Og build and Og smash. Og’s 100% builder smash, man. We’re dumb. We don’t know how we’re doing. We’re just doing what we do because that’s what we do. That’s why we need the hidden matriarchy, the shadow matriarchy or whatever. We need that pointing. And then sometimes women point, Og smash, Og should have built. Og story. And sometimes it goes the other way around. But that’s it though. We’re better together. We’re not complete. The ancient Greeks thought that humans got cleaved in half. We’re all right. And so everyone who’s walking around is actually half a person. And you’re supposed to find another half. Right? Yeah. Probably not that, but that myth is brought up in the symposium kind of as a joke, but you’re right. It does make a good point though. It’s in the mythology actually, I believe Ethan, cause I didn’t read the symposium. So I didn’t get it from there. I got it from Les Grandes Myths, which is on, or at least it was on Amazon Prime for free. It’s called The Great Myths, which is just three seasons of really interesting cartoons of basically the original Greek myths. It’s told in a very unique and interesting way. And they do it by characters, sort of by story. Yeah, there’s truth in it though. My bad. There’s truth in it. I think they talked about that in the Exodus seminar at some point. But yeah, it’s funny that what Tammy just said is that Jordan is just 100% all the time. And he has no idea what to spend 100% on. It’s just 100% wherever it is. Right. It’s pointed. That’s what men do. The fire hose is on 100% of the time. That’s what men do. The way you know to change your job is the woman asks you a question like, are you sure it’s worth driving that far just to make that much money? Two months later, you go, oh boy, they changed now. Oh, smart, figure out, you didn’t figure anything out, you muppet. You know nothing. The woman pointed you, and then eventually you came around because you’re slow. We’re just slow. Sorry, guys. That’s what we are. Sorry. Yeah. That’s why hell occasionally ends up in his mouth. It would help if the kids listened to the adults though. I think a lot of people talk about like, oh, it’s a failure of the parents on the kids all the time. But it’s like, dude, these kids are nuts. Like, they don’t blame the parents 100%. No, no, look, I mean, I think that, I think, yeah, another proximal thing I’ve been chasing is Dr. Spock, who was an author on how to raise children, one of these science guys. And science, you know, I’m almost at science evil confirmed at this point. I mean, science doesn’t have a lot of damage to society, man. But that, the way they raise kids, and I think it’s a double problem now, because remember I said two generations out. So when you’re two generations out, what happened? The first generation screwed you up. Their kids are now kids. So we have kids raising kids. I mean, I really like Berm Power’s stuff because he talks about this. He says, these hippies never grew up. And then when I look around, I go, people never grew up. And then you look at the movie. So I have another YouTube channel, which is just my name, by the way, my personal YouTube channel. And I talk about that here. It’s all short ideas and clips and random garbage. But if you look at the media, it’s children with no adults around saving the world. Why? Because they know that they’re children and they know that they have to find a way to save the world. Like that’s actually what’s playing out. They know that everything’s screwed and they know they’re not up to the task because they’re just kids. And they know there’s no adults around. They know this. This is what’s in our media. It’s in our commercials. It’s in our TV shows. It’s freaking everywhere. Like actually everywhere. And every once in a while, there’s an old character. So you take a show like Severance, which is a great show. If you didn’t see Severance, man, wow. What a mind blowing sort of like blow the lid off what’s going on in people’s heads. The old people there are either in on the conspiracy or are the bad people. And everyone else is really young. And that’s part of it, right? That’s part of it. I don’t know what the most seen is. Yeah, I don’t get this at all. But maybe one of you guys does. We’re all too dumb to know about that. I don’t, yeah, my Greek history is- I have a book on it, but I’ve never read it. Books are evil, I can confirm. Even though I have my- Wait, I believe you, but then what is this in the background, Mark? I did, I’m wondering if you’re some sort of- What is Monaco? Yeah, is it Monster City? Hypocrite or something. No, no, I do it the way Taleb says to do it. You just have books you don’t read. And then that’s impressive. And you should see the books that are in the chat. Did you see any books in particular you recognize, Ethan? That’s the real question. I don’t know, let’s see. On the top shelf, I did move them over on purpose so they were more visible on camera, sir. Trying to write- Is this Language of Creation over there? I know that he does have Language of Creation. I do have Language of Creation. Yeah, I think I see it, yeah. That’s all I wanna recognize on this one. Taleb books there. Oh yeah, we get Taleb books for sure, of course. I see Plato. There you go. All right, I just needed Ethan to see Plato. Now I’m happy. That was actually a used copy that I purchased. How many do I have? I have one, two, one, two, three. Well, now it’s my copy and I really appreciate that. And I am gonna get to it at some point. None of those notes in there are mine. I purchased it off of eBay, so those are somebody else’s notes, just so you know. Is this thing each like eight to six hour music lecture? I know, I’m not someone qualified to lecture on music. I mean, I’ll talk about music, but I can’t lecture on it. Well, if you guys wanna get back into the whole art thing, I think I lost cause was saying some things earlier in the chat that I didn’t really kind of, I don’t understand what you meant. Hold on, hold on Ethan, Ethan, Ethan, Ethan. You need to, whatever you did in that six and a half hour trip up the Thunder Bay, man, you need to do that as a lesson online for sure. That was just great. Like I learned a lot from that. That really exemplified a bunch of stuff. Yeah, don’t let his humility fool you folks. He’s got game in that category with classical music in particular. Well, I think it would be particularly helpful to have Elizabeth’s input because she spent, she just spent three months in Italy. And there’s the history of, I hate the word art, tolerance, equality and art. They’re all kind of up there, probably in that order. But she’s seeing it over the like, she’s looking at the images during Dante’s time and before and seeing it all the way through to post Renaissance romantic type art. So visual, visual. That would be amazing. Well, yeah, and I think like that’s what Bern Power went through the history of we’ll say modern music from the 60s onward roughly. And like I said, I learned a lot about that, a lot from that. And then I learned a lot from you Ethan on the car ride because you kept saying, can you hear this in the music? Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, once you pointed it out, right? Because you need someone to scaffold it, because I engage with a lot of music. Didn’t realize a bunch of things about a bunch of artists, a classical artists in particular that you explained to me. And I’m like, oh, well, that totally makes sense why I like them. And so these things become more clear when you have a little bit more scaffolding. But yeah, I mean, the art thing, and I’d love to go to Europe. I really got to get to ancient Greece one of these days, man, and check out all the ruins. Because that’s the history. And I actually have a course on Greece that I’ve been taking that somebody bought, one of my relatives bought for my birthday. So that’s been really cool. Just learning kind of the history of how these things unfold over time. Because that’s really the missing component. Like when you’re a child, time doesn’t exist. This is one of the things I’ve been thinking about all day today actually. And so part of what you see is people ignoring time. They’re ignoring the fact that they weren’t the same 10 years ago as they are now. Or that they were babies at one. I literally had to argue with somebody on Discord over the past week. No, no, no, you don’t understand. You were a baby once, and you had less agency than you do now. Like you can’t just say like I’m the same through time. Like that doesn’t work. And it took them a while to figure out that I was right, which is just kind of stunning to me. But because there’s still children developmentally. And I don’t like development, developmental models in particular, psychological ones, but there’s something to it. And part of the problem with them is because we think everything’s a linear projection in the future, we think it just progresses up. But actually you can slide back. Like you can have skills developmentally and develop out of them. Like I’ve seen people undevelop their social skills. That’s why staying indoors for two years on a fake news virus scam is dangerous. Because now people don’t, they don’t know how to commune anymore. They don’t know how to get together. They don’t know how to socialize in person. They don’t know how to do that. Now there’s some advantages. A bunch of people who could never socialize before because they’re highly autistic or they never had the skills now get online with a bunch of people and there’s more online people. And all of a sudden, right, we’re able, you know, they’re able to commune better, right? Because their skills get a bump up. But the people who had skills before, their development slides back. It’s not good. All right, look at this. Now we even know who it is. Now we’ve got Elizabeth and she probably has something to say about, I’m gonna start calling them icons of beauty. I’m not going to say that they’re beauty. It’s not beauty, they’re icons of beauty. Yeah, well, I already made my point, Ethan. These people don’t agree with me. They think it started in the 70s. Well, let’s put some boxing gloves on, Elizabeth. We’ll, let’s make them agree with us. The feminine’s hidden, man. The feminine’s hidden. Like the guy has to go, the guy has to go right down to the bottom and scratch in hell before you can hear the feminine. We agree on that. There’s no disagreement there. No, you guys, I have met very few males who are able to go to the bottom of hell. No, no, I agree with that. No, no, Mark, you have no idea. No, no, not here. We know, we all know. Maybe other people don’t, that’s fine. No, no, no, even, it’s lower than low. Like that’s what, that’s what, he’s all about actually. He’s all about going to the bottom of hell and seeing there’s nothing else but the feminine. Like it’s horrible. This whole thing with this little corner, the whole Jordan Peterson thing, the Exodus series, there’s no feminine voices. It’s not good. It’s not gonna go anywhere. There aren’t gonna be any leaders. There aren’t gonna be any leaders. No, I agree with all that. I agree with all that. I’m serious. Where’s the projection? The projection’s hidden under. The Peugeot project is the story in the family. He said so himself. Peugeot is one of these main claims as he wants to restore the feminine. So I don’t agree with that. He does talk a little bit about it. He does talk a little bit about it. I’ve heard him say he’s a really good feminine. But he also, he also, you know, nobody’s perfect. Like that’s the whole point, right? We can use words, but the question is, what are our actions? When the feminine appears, how well do the males listen? I think that’s the point. When the feminine appears, how well does the masculine listen? In fact. So this, it literally, you can see it. Like it’s constipated. The whole damn thing is constipated right now because there isn’t any feminine. And you know, because you guys don’t understand because you’re so busy, like you’re so busy acting because things are so crazy right now. Like the male needs to, I don’t know. Like you guys should all shut up for at least five years and let whichever women there are emerge. They won’t. Tammy Peterson, yeah, Tammy Peterson might emerge. No, they’re not gonna, I can guarantee it. Cause the feminine’s been corrupted by the masculine. They’re all busy trying to be men. They’re all busy trying to run companies and build houses, do crazy stuff. No. And they’re not out there doing the feminine stuff. You just made a truth claim though. You just made a truth claim about the other, the full guys here that we haven’t actually listened. The fact that we bring it up. I’m not just saying, I’m not saying you four guys, just I’m talking about the whole thing. The whole thing. Well, that’s not helpful. It is helpful. It is helpful. Okay. Can I say something? I think that, okay, there’s two things in what you said that we need to be quiet and listen and nobody listens to the feminine. You’re right. You’re absolutely right on that because we only listen to things that are rational and the feminine is not rational. It’s not, well, depending on what type of, your definition of rationality, feminism, the feminine is on this end of the rational. It’s the non-logical end of like, it’s on the perimeter and it’s how things come in. And you’re only going to appreciate that by, you’re not going to be able to look at something and get a clear identity out of it. We can always, we need to be more humble. Yes. But will women rise up? I don’t think so necessarily. You’re not supposed to. Right. I mean, I can use my wife as an example. So like for the life of me, I could never ever, ever, ever get her to participate in a stream like this. But she has influence over me. Right. And I learn a lot from her. Like, oh, there are times when like, she’ll be saying things to me and she won’t even know that this is going on and it will just burn me. Like, I can feel my whole body burning because it’s just like, she’s calling things, she’s not like saying, you’re doing this wrong. She’ll just be talking normal and I’ll recognize it. And it’s just like, oh, I need to completely change my disposition. And it’s very frustrating and it’s very difficult. And it’s something that I’m like, that’s been, that I’m trying to learn how to do more. Right. She’s pointing and you’re responding to that pointing. And that’s how men listen. They listen to the pointing. We don’t want women to be in the space making arguments the way men make arguments. That’s not good for them. It’s not good for the men and it’s not our work. Says who Mark? Says who? Like really? All of you guys, like, where’s the humility here? I say something like this is just the perfect situation because I say something and all the shackles go up, right? You just can’t handle them. Yeah. No, I don’t mean you. I mean, no, I don’t mean just you. Listening how? You personally, I mean you, I mean you generally speaking. Like, no, there’s no question about it. The feminine, the feminine is, there’s a harsh side to the feminine, which Peterson kind of tries to figure out, right? Because he talks about, he’s always talking about the overly compassionate, devouring mother, but he forgets about that other side of the feminine. The true feminine is also propositionally harsh. We’re not just nice creatures, right? Like we sometimes say things that are disagreeable. We sometimes are leaders. In the medieval times, like I don’t know how much you guys know about the medieval, but in the medieval times, the women, the women were strong forces. It wasn’t just St. Francis. It was St. Catherine of Siena. They’re both patron saints. St. Catherine of Siena advised popes. She advised queens. She advised royalty. She was this tiny little lady from the middle of nowhere. And she was recognized by the Catholic church as one of the greatest leaders. The medieval has so much to teach us and to just disparage people who have thought about this for their entire careers is a little bit worrying. I don’t think anyone’s disparaging anything. I think again, look, the opportunity for women to speak is there. There are women in the space, right? The question is, why aren’t they being followed? And I think the shadow matriarchy is the answer, right? So the idea that they’re in the background and they’re pointing. And if they’re not pointing at the right things because they’re too busy enacting the propositional and the procedural, the more masculine aspects of the world, then everything sort of gets chaotic. And I think that’s correct. I think we’ve switched the world down to propositions and procedures and now the feminine can’t emerge correctly. It’s just out of the open where it doesn’t belong. Can we use St. Catherine as an example here? Because what was it that gave her influence to these people? Was it her logic? Was it her arguments? Like if she, would she have the same influence if she wrote down her speech and then sent it into letter? Was it has something to do with her way of being? I mean, you, I mean, tell us your experience with her. Like, I don’t know really much anything other than like, she’s known for starving herself. You know, you can’t write down starving yourself and that being a good thing on a piece of paper. It’s something that you have to witness and participate in. I imagine that that has something to do with the influence that she had over these people. Well, she was a true saint. She understood the patterns of reality. And so because she understood the patterns of reality, she was had great particularity. She was a highly recognized image, image of God, you might say. So she was, she was iconic in the true sense, not in the modern sense, not in that overused way, but she was truly iconic because she understood the patterns. She understood that she herself was responsible for the sins of others. She understood mercy. She practiced mercy continually. She worked with the naked and the disgraced and the hungry and she cared for them. And she never, so she was totally stripped of ego. But she also, because she had such great particularity, this is what Dante’s point is in the Commedia, by the way, is the particularity of the saint. And so, and like Jonathan Pageau says, a person like that shines forth. Sorry, there’s reverberation, I don’t know why. She shone forth. She had great particularity and so she was recognizable. She shone. And so because of that, people consulted her and she could see the problems. She was like the ancient Sibylene prophets. Now, Jonathan Pageau might not like going back into the pagan practices that way, but honestly, those ancient women who saw things and could see things and people would listen to them. It’s like Cassandra in the Trojan myth. Cassandra was screaming out that there was trouble with the horse within. You know, those are the stories. That was one woman Cassandra, that was one woman St. Catherine. And the feminine needs to be listened to because there’s no feminine voice. I think that’s why I say it. I don’t see it. I’m like, if somebody can show me, like correct me. It would be lovely to know there was a feminine voice in all of this, but I just don’t, I can’t find it. And maybe I haven’t looked, maybe Karen Wong. I don’t know. I don’t know. So that’s the point. And nobody even knows about St. Catherine. And the Europeans are different. Somebody said the Europeans, you know, they’re no different, they’re all zombies. Well, actually the culture holds much more strongly in perceptible ways when you’re actually there for a period of time. You can see it in the way people treat each other. I’m not saying it’s perfect. There’s still all sorts of problems in Europe, but there’s a perceptible difference. Peterson’s talked about that. There’s a perceptible difference in those cultures where you’re surrounded by beauty because beauty is actually enacting the patterns of reality. Like Jonathan talks about the church. The church is the instantiation of the patterns of reality. Architecture matters, beauty matters. So being in a culture like that, and this Francis Schaeffer studied the cultures, the development of the Western world. Burn Power was at La Brie. It was at La Brie that Burn Power started his own way of looking into culture. That was, it was that with Francis Schaeffer. Francis Schaeffer studied what was happening in the culture in the 60s, and he pinpointed it. That’s why Oz Guinness speaks so highly of him. Oz Guinness was with all these great theologians in the 60s in England. Nobody was understanding what was going on in the culture. Francis Schaeffer, like Jonathan Peugeot, goes back to the end of the medieval, and that’s where it starts. I’m not saying that there aren’t other changes along the way, but there was a giant shift, and you can see it in the art. You went from having the Madonna to having the mistress of the artist portrayed as the Madonna in the Renaissance 100 years later. There’s a shift man. Dante talks about the bare breasts of the women in Florence. He could see the change. All of a sudden, there were breasts all over the place. Sound familiar? This is 1300, man. This is the beginning of business. It was the richest place in all of Europe. They were the bankers to the entire continent, and he could see what was happening. He even talks, he graphically liked that. He could see the problem with the corruption in the church. He could see the Reformation coming, man. This is 1300, and you can see it in the art. There’s Madonna’s. This is my thing, because Peterson’s wrong about compassion in some ways, because mercy, as Oz Guinness and John Anderson were talking about it recently. Mercy is the ability to see context, right? Mercy is the ability to see that the person in jail, the person on the street, Grim Grizz understands this thoroughly. The person on the street is there but for fortune, and by extending mercy to that person, you actually cure yourself because you’re incorporating the shadow, right? You’re incorporating your own projections, man, and that’s what they understood. All over Italy, I don’t know, I haven’t been to other countries recently. I know particularly well. The medieval had images of the Madonna of mercy. I sent it to Peterson before he became famous. He responded perfect. I’m putting it in my files. This whole image of the Madonna of mercy, it’s the good feminine. It’s the understanding of context that Mark was talking about, and that’s what we’ve lost is mercy, and that’s what Oz Guinness, John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia agreed upon this week when they were discussing it. It’s mercy, man. Yeah, but, you know, and I think I like Ethan’s point about tolerance. When you have too much tolerance, you can’t have mercy anymore. Oh, boy, don’t open that can, Mark. Well, no, look, I mean, it’s absolutely true. Like, you can’t have redemption, you can’t have mercy. If you’re gonna be tolerant, you’re never gonna get to the point of transcription, and without transgression, you can’t grant mercy or redemption. She’s absolutely right on the mercy. It’s like, I can’t remember exactly how you framed it, Elizabeth, but you said it seemed something, it’s granting something despite something else, and tolerance isn’t despite, tolerance is always given regardless of anything else without taking anything else into consider. Well, there’s no giving intolerance. There’s no giving of self-intolerance. It’s hard. Have you ever gone and talked to a street person and spent and invited them into your home? Have you ever lived with a street person for a month? That’s giving of self. The man that I was talking about, Francis Schaeffer, where, which, and that’s not my most famous icon of it. That’s good. The most famous one is the Madonna della misericordia and the Big Gala, Ethan. But Francis Schaeffer, which is where Os Guinness got his roots, they opened their homes to people. There you have it. There’s another Madonna of mercy. But the one that’s really important, that’s most important is the one that’s in the Big Gala, the B-I-G-A-L-L-O. It’s the one that I, because it shows, it has the oldest depiction of Florence underneath it, which was a flourishing city. So that’s why it’s so important is the, if you look up Florence, B-Gala, B-I-G-A-L-L-O. But anyway, so that’s why Jonathan Pageau is so adamant about it. And sometimes, and anyway, so back to Francis Schaeffer, they opened their homes to people. So it wasn’t, that’s Mercy Man. They, there’s a, you know, it’s dealing with the people, the lowest of the low. Jordan Peterson used to make fun of street people, you know, guys. I attended his lectures from the beginning. And I went to the biblical series and I watched him and he was, there it is. That’s the Madonna of mercy. And everybody needs to notice that there’s these little round circles on her, on her, that sash in front of her robe. And in the circles are, it’s Matthew 25. When we went to Thunder Bay, Catherine’s brother, what’s his name, Ethan, talked about Matthew 25 as being like the clear, the clear words of Christ, that this is what we must do is, it’s food for the hungry. It’s drink to the thirsty. It’s visiting those in prison. It’s clothing the naked. That’s where it’s at. And those in the little rounds there, you see someone helping somebody in prison, somebody carrying a dead body, somebody giving drink to the thirsty. But what’s fascinating is the artist shows that the person who is being helped shines. It’s not the person giving the help, it’s the person who’s receiving the help who actually gives back. You could see it on the face, is giving back to the other person. So there’s the story right there. It’s the paradox, right? It’s the paradox of mercy. By extending mercy, you’re given mercy. And that’s what, that’s what this is, that’s what I think is the most, is what’s lacking, is this understanding of the good feminine. Because Peterson talks so much about the devouring mother and it’s not right. It’s just not right. Anyway, back to him making fun of the street people. He used to make fun of street people in the biblical lectures a couple of times. I called him on it, I wrote to him. I said, you know, you’re probably gonna enter onto the world stage soon. I don’t think it’s a good idea that you’re making fun of street people. I don’t think he meant to particularly, but he would do this little dramatic act when he said, well, you know, when you see one of those street people and he kind of did this big dramatic act on the stage and everybody would laugh. It was horrible. I called him on it. I said, you can’t do that anymore. And I noticed later, he’d said, well, nobody would ever, ever, you know, ever make fun of anybody, any street people, you know? Yeah. I mean, he’s not perfect either. And he talks about the devouring mother so many times that it makes me sick to my stomach. The masculine has the name, the size two. It definitely means more Freudian than people wanna admit. Peterson definitely means more Freudian than people wanna admit. He presents Carl Jung, but what he’s actually doing is smuggling most of what Freud says through Carl Jung, like the energy of Carl Jung is presented as a smuggling technique, Freudianism. Well, the fact is, he’s like, he saved my life. Peterson saved my life. And I can say that unequivocally. He literally saved my life because he understood that you need to pay attention to your problems. You need to, because so much in the culture says, don’t pay attention to your problems, you know, just be nice, just be cheerful and, you know, make your way and be brave and blah, blah, blah. And stoicism, I guess, in a sense. And he says, attend to your problems. It saved my life. So he’s a magnificent individual and he’s a gift to all of us, but he’s not perfect. And he talks constantly, continually, even to this day, about the devouring mother. And it’s time he gets a better balance about the feminine because that’s just not right. Well, I agree. No, I agree with all that. I agree with all that. Peterson, yeah, but Peterson is stuck in this culture war framing. Culture war framing is absolutely dangerous. I have a video on the culture war on navigating patterns, right, for a reason. Because I don’t think it is what people think it is. And when you approach it as a war between two sides or multiple sides, that’s wrong. It is a fight over culture or no culture. It is the Rousseauian fight. It is, we’re gonna destroy society or we’re gonna have a society. And that’s it. Because you can’t replace thousands of years of Western history with something you came up with, you and your three friends, in your basement. Like this is my critique of John Harnakey. You’re not gonna replace him. Exactly. It’s not gonna happen. It’s unrealistic. You know about distributed cognition through time and you think you’re gonna supplant or improve upon something like Christianity that’s at least 2,000 years old? That’s what you think. What are you, hot? That’s not. No, no, no, but Mark, Mark. The same problem, Elizabeth. Problem is he’s stuck in a low resolution frame. He gets stuck in politics all the time. Politics has no resolution. It’s binary, left and right. It’s very low resolution. And if you’re stuck in the frame of, well, people are trying to elevate the feminine, which I disagree with. I think critical drinker has a better take on this. They’re turning women into men and that’s how they’re making it equal. Well, that’s bad because everybody, every idiot knows. Women are way better than men. First of all, they can have children. We’re done here. We’re done. Like that’s it. It’s over, argument over. But if you wanna continue, we can go on. You’re gonna lose because women have, they point. They see things that men don’t see. They manipulate situations in ways that men generally cannot. So when you don’t have the framing to kind of understand that it’s not the elevation of the feminine or females as such that’s the problem. It’s the masculinization of the feminine archetype that’s the problem, which you would think a Jungian would know by the way, but apparently Peterson is missing that. So if we wanna get critical of Peterson, that’s the way to get critical of Peterson and I’m all for it. But I still think it’s an important message that he’s putting out and that’s part of the problem is how do you get that the rest of that message out there, which is the proper role of the feminine, which goes back to the image that I had up earlier. I think that’s the important image is the idea of the woman pointing up at the star and the man pointing down at the thing he built to elevate the woman. That is the proper relationship between men and women and we don’t have a sense of that. Yeah, but once again, that’s a masculine way of interpreting that image. There’s a lot more nuance, man. And the nuance of John Verbeck. I didn’t do that. I know, but I’m just saying there’s a lot more nuance. I know, but the masculine and the, I know, but the masculine, the way you’re interpreting it, but it’s a little bit, it’s true, but like everything that’s transcendent, which is what we are, it’s so beautifully nuanced. It’s like, well, art isn’t a great word, but it’s like great art, right? It’s like the great cathedrals. A relationship is actually like the intricate carving on a cathedral or something. It’s just so incredibly complex. And so the image is right in a sense. Sally Jo’s image is quite brilliant actually for its timing, but once again, like Peterson says, I think we can always go further, right? We can always, that’s how perception works. And I think what John Verbeck, John Verbeck, like all of us, we get stuck in our careers, right? And I think what he is contributing, because the conversation, if you did, you heard the one with Peterson and Verbeck recently, they’re talking about perception. They’re trying to figure out perception and attention and how that feeds into how the patterns of reality. I think that’s what they’re really doing. And I think John Verbeck, he’s just stuck in his gig because that’s what he’s doing professionally, right? That’s just my take on him. Yeah, I think they’re both going in the right way. That’s right. I only heard the first half of the talk. We’re doing the second half of the talk on Tuesday. We’re getting bogged down in this Peterson thing. I think it’s supplementary. It’s like, okay, it’s one root of the tree, but it’s not the whole tree. So like Liz, I wanted to go back. You spent a lot of time talking about what I put out here is what’s actually underwriting here as a thread is love, how we’ve reduced love. And you talked a lot about one of the aspects of love being charity, the feminine aspect of charity. The other three that are left in that medieval sense of love, what would you put forward as examples of how we can restore these aspects of love in society or in culture, depending on how you wanna tackle the problem. Cause they’re two different things, society and culture. They’re like two wheels of the cog. Well, I don’t think you have to. It’s gonna be difficult to go after both. You better spin one and try and see if you can move the other. So what is, can you just say your question again? Just reword it. You talked a lot about the feminine aspects that we need to restore. And you particularize that, or you focused down on the Madonna and charity and good works. Right. Right, the love has more components than just charity. But what are the aspects of, I’m trying to ask you what are aspects of love in the medieval period that we can restore back into this one era? Is it possible? Of course it’s possible. Of course, exactly. That’s an assumption though. That’s an assumption. That’s an implicit assumption. You don’t actually know. That’s a big question. No, but love. Charities, I work for a charity organization. Like I’m not gonna say what it is, but it’s what I do. But there are other aspects of love that the love is the primary aspect. Love drives the world. Love, attention is a micro column of love. The Bible is clear on that. So I’m trying to flash out the things that you’re saying about Dante and medieval period through this framework of love. And what we’re missing through. Well, because it’s mercy. It’s mercy. It’s misericordia. It’s mercy. The first words, okay, but to Mark’s point, Dante is in an unbearable situation. He’s going to be devoured. The beginning. What happens? Virgil comes. Virgil from the Greek who wrote the Aeneid, right? And the first words out of Dante’s mouth are, Miserere di me, have mercy on me. In other words, contextualize my situation. See where I’m at. Be my friend. Show me where I’m right. Show me where I’m wrong. And thank you when you put your arm around me and you lift me up when we’ve got to go over this horrible terrain and there’s a monster there menacing me. So I think mercy, because I’ve been struck. I’ve been reading the gospel of Matthew over and over again. And he says twice, I will not have sacrifice, but mercy. And the sermon on the Matthew 25 is all about the acts of mercy. And that’s what was pivotal to the medieval times. So it was the practice of taking care of those in need. For example, right there you can see in Florence, there’s a place where there’s a little metal opening into this beautiful building designed by the same man who designed the great cathedral. And this little metal device was to put an unwanted baby so that the mother would not have to be seen. She could leave a baby in on this lead in this magnificent building, not some ugly little thing in a strange corner. And then they cared for the orphan children there and they gave them dowries. The women, the girls, they were trained and the boys were trained as well. And so there was this incredible caring for one another. Michelangelo was taken in by the great Medici family when he was only 12 years old and treated as a member of the family. This is once again, this great understanding of the importance of talent, of genius, of art, of creation, of beauty. And so it’s this extension of oneself, even as the great Medici family did take in Michelangelo. And look, look at what he’s given the whole world forever and ever, that’s mercy. That’s an understanding that by doing it, you’ve enriched yourself just like that icon shows. You enrich yourself and then underneath that icon is the civilization. That’s why I knew it was perfect for Peterson in early 2017, that’s why I sent it to him. Because it shows that civilization, the city of Florence functioning perfectly, all the people are looking up to this icon. The icon is the acts of mercy. To me, that’s the message of Christ, it’s that simple. Yeah, I don’t, again, I don’t see any points of disagreement whatsoever, but I do see that the difference is in how you frame the world. So if you frame the world incorrectly, then you have a problem. So one of the things that I’ve seen is that, we’ll say a show like Severance, right? So the whole premise of Severance is that there’s a big company, right? There’s a small town with a big company, one big employer, right? And everybody’s happy to work at that big employer. And then there’s a place inside the company where you take the elevator, you lose your memory of the outside world. The only memory you have is of work. And so the people who are working in that environment are not talking about the outside world because they don’t remember anything about it. And they don’t know how they fit in the world, they just work as little robots. Now the interesting thing about the show, aside from the visuals are amazing, like the whole show, the outline is amazing. It’s amazing, right? But the whole point of the show is you’ve got two separate identities and they’re completely separate. And they don’t know about each other at all. You don’t know anything that goes on when you’re working and when you’re working, you don’t know anything that goes on when you’re not working. And so it’s struggling with this identity crisis. And the reason why that happens is because somebody, or many many people, have told people that they can only have one identity, which is dumb, it’s just stupidity. You can’t possibly only have one identity. It’s not possible, right? And so, but that’s, but hold on, let me finish with the framing because that sort of framing happens all over the place. So the reason why that framing happens is because we’re putting things in economic terms and in postmodern power from above narrative. And when you do that, there’s no room for mercy because they’re up here and you’re down here. And that’s the way it is. That’s not the way it is. It’s never been that way. It’s still not that way. You can just go out in the world and observe it correctly and you will see that. I spend hours arguing with people about this. Literally hours trying to explain people, no, nothing you see works the way you’re describing. Actually nothing. You’ve never seen the descriptions of the world that you’re given. Anywhere in the world in which you live and they are convinced, no, no, no, the billionaires are running everything. No, they’re not. They’re clearly not. Oh, no, no, the politicians are running everything. No, they’re not. They’re clearly not. But they think that, they think there’s this hierarchical thing and that it’s rigid and there’s no way that you could at the bottom come up to the top in the US. What is Guinness? The country where that happened is the most popular. They replace, their hierarchy is structured on power, right? So who has the most power? Who has the most money? They don’t understand that these people that have power, they are subordinate to something above them, a spirit, something. Well, but listen, I mean, when I’m talking about mercy, I’m assuming my audience here understands that mercy is nested inside the Old Testament of justice. Like I’m just assuming that we’re all in the same playing field. Where’s my crappy drawing? So these are two pillars. Yeah. There are two pillars and they’re holding up a throne of love and they cooperate together. I like, I’m sorry. I like Mark’s tweak on Bereke’s polar processing. I’d like cooperative processing better because this makes a lot more sense. These two things are cooperating for the identity of love. You can’t subtract justice. You can’t subtract justice from mercy. When you subtract justice from mercy, it becomes something like tolerance or whatever the hell Jordan’s talking about with the eatable mother. When you subtract mercy from justice, you get tyranny. See, when you take one pillar away, the throne falls down and then the highest point of identity becomes this pillar and the name gets changed. It’s no longer mercy. That’s exactly right. That’s really good. That’s really good, but it’s, it’s, it’s, Micra six eight, right? It says it’s mercy, justice and walk humbly. Walk, it’s humility too. I don’t know where you want to put humility in there but there’s definitely, humility is a key piece for us moderns, I think. Cause I don’t think we understand. I don’t think, I don’t think any of us, and I’ll put myself first. I don’t think we can understand humility anymore. We just don’t get what it means to go so low that you can see everything. So I, you know, that’s another, sorry. Well, unless you’ve been there. I mean, this is my argument. Like I said, like this is the argument I have with people all the time. They do something, they pull the stupid move. They go, you know what, Mark, if somebody held a gun to your head and told you to lie, you’d lie and I know I wouldn’t. And I know I love this. I know I wouldn’t. I’ve already, cause it’s like, because they don’t understand how the world works. They’re like, no, because then you’d be dead. I’m like, guy, I’m gonna die anyway, kid. That’s how you know that Mark’s done a material. Everybody’s happened to die. So the question is not whether or not you’re gonna die because that’s not gonna prevent you from dying if they don’t shoot you. That them not shooting you has no impact on your death whatsoever, right? Cause you’re going to die. But what matters is how you live. And I’m not going to live having lied for the sake of saving my life. That’s not gonna happen. It’s just not gonna happen. Like I said, I’ve lost everything three times. You want to take it a fourth, go right ahead. You’re not gonna scare me with that bullshit. The same reason why Socrates didn’t run away. Like everybody that convicted him, yeah, we’re sent to you to death, but run away, run away. He’s like, no, I’m not gonna run away because the most important thing to me is goodness. And that’s the highest thing at my, that is what I’m attuned to. My own well-being is subordinate to that. But even that, Ethan, the problem is that everybody’s assuming framing. I mean, this is my big complaint against Christians in this little corner is that they’re assuming so much framing that I can tell you people do not have an amening crisis. They absolutely do not. They don’t, you can make the dominion argument from Tom Holland all day long. And I’m totally, like, I totally get it, right? But the problem is they’ve never been to a church. They’ve never read that silly book. They haven’t read Plato. They don’t know anything about Socrates. They actually do not know these things. And I can point to famous people, right? Like you can listen to things like Eric Weinstein, right? And Brett Weinstein, you can listen to them. They haven’t been properly educated in the Western county at all, right? You can listen to, you can listen to someone like Donald Hoffman or David Levin, right? When they’re, you know, when they’re talking, they’re clearly, they’re very clearly making philosophical questions into scientific questions and pretending like no one’s ever thought of these questions and no one’s ever answered them. And it’s like, no, you’re not gonna get a scientific answer because they’re not scientific questions. But where the hell did you go to school, kid? At some point, like really, where did Donald Hoffman go to school? Because they missed a whole bunch of schooling that I got and I didn’t go to college. So why did they let him into college? I’m not being flipped. Why did they let him into college if he wasn’t educated at least what I was educated in? This is a problem. He doesn’t understand that he’s asking a philosophical question. Look, why wouldn’t you know that? Why wouldn’t you understand the boundaries of your goofball useless science? Because it has boundaries. It can’t answer questions that can’t be tested. Guess what most questions can’t be? Tested. No philosophical questions can be tested. Zero. That’s how you know it’s a philosophical question and not a scientific one. And they don’t know this. You can’t assume framing. You can’t assume that they understand the Christian message. You can’t assume they understand the Jesus story. I didn’t. I told this story before. They lock me in a room. They tell me to read the lie on the witch in the wardrobe for a month, right? And which is fine, right? And then the guy comes in and he says, and I’m in a Catholic school. I’m at a private, expensive private Catholic school as in junior high, right? My freshman year in junior high, right? And he says, he says to me, who does the lion remind you of? And I’m like, are you okay, dude? Like, do you need like something? Like, what do you mean who’s the lion remind me of? It’s a freaking children’s story about a lion. It’s pretty cool. I really liked it, but it’s about a freaking lion. And he goes, no, no, it’s Jesus. And I’m like, I never heard that story. How would I draw that parallel? He thought that I knew the story. And like fair enough, I’m at a Catholic school. Like, why wouldn’t I know the story? But the fact of the matter is, I didn’t know the story of Jesus at all at that age. Well, that’s my point I’m trying to make. That was my earliest point that I started with is when you go and you’re surrounded by all the images in the public buildings, in the churches, on the corners of the street of the Madonna, the child of the biblical stories. Trust me, you start to understand things in a different way. And the people reflect it. They’re surrounded by images like that. And it changes who you are. And that’s one of my points. Like we need to restore, to your point too, Mark, I mean, there’s many, many threads involved here, but one thing I take exception to though, which Os Guinness said in his recent conversation with John Anderson is that, the French Revolution was utopian. The far left is utopian. Communism is utopian. It means that we can perfect ourselves. And as Os Guinness points out, the biblical understanding of humanity is that we all go wrong. That’s why we need forgiveness. That’s why we need mercy. Because in fact, we all do go wrong and we go wrong continually. But look at Europe, that’s not working. Like it doesn’t work in Edinburgh, Scotland at all. I can tell you that. But there’s a great story. So Verveke’s got a great talk with Jacob Kishir. And you should listen to that talk because it’s very, very interesting. Like, boy, did we learn a lot from listening to that. He did Q&A on the Awakening from the Meaning Crisis Discord YouTube channel as well. And he told the same story. Here’s the story he’s telling. He’s in the middle of the fake news virus scandal, right? And he’s quote trapped. These are his words. He’s trapped in Athens. And I’m like, you’re trapped in Athens, Greece. Oh, I really feel for you there. I’d cut off an arm to go be trapped in Athens, Greece for a couple of months, let me tell you. So he’s trapped in Athens, Greece, the poor guy. And he’s done psychedelics before and all that. He’s relatively young. And he says, he goes out and he goes to a Greek Orthodox church. Imagine that, in Athens, Greece. And I’m sitting there like, I’d do anything to go to a Greek Orthodox church in Athens, Greece. Actually anything, just name it. I’ll do it for you. Like unbelievable, right? So he goes there and he says, I went into the church and I saw the stuff and nothing happened. These are, I think I’m quoting him at this point, right? Like nothing happened. But I left the church and then all of a sudden I’m walking out in the city and then I see it. And I go, well, why is that? And this fits into our model of the knowledge engine in the four Ps of information. The reason why is because you see the poetic in the church as it’s just shiny and gold and exemplified everywhere. But those patterns, those religious patterns are just kind of like everywhere, right? And they’re making connections that maybe you probably don’t understand, right? Because if you had the scaffolding, you wouldn’t have this experience, right? Then you go out into the world. Now you’re outside in the city and then you see those patterns. Now I would argue he could have done this in New York City just as easily. I might be wrong about that, but I think he could, right? You see the same patterns that were exemplified in the church now embedded in the world where the world is. And now he has a transformative experience, like an actual transformative experience, not one of these drug experiences where it’s profound, but not transformative. He actually changes as the result of that one experience. So I would say, and I would say this is the problem in much of Europe because they don’t have that religious framework, that scaffolding, that way of relating to the beauty, the beauty they don’t have eyes to see, the beauty is not having the right impact. Now I’m not saying that you should do without it or anything like that, or that we don’t need to hear or whatever, but I’m saying that it’s only one piece and you need all these other pieces. And I’m glad Bruce is here because he always has good stuff to say. Yeah, but we need the image. We need the images. There’s, we’re made in the image, man. I don’t know. I’m just talking like, yeah. We’re made in the image of God for sure. I would say also like, you’re right, Mark. Christians are indeed called to account to exercise dominion through evangelism, which should have fruit. And that fruit should be institutions, the third use of the moral law, holding people accountable. Even the sojourners should be held accountable to the same standard because the law is good for man. It’s good, meaning it prospers man. This idea of relativizing it, giving people their own law by their own standard and then watching it crumble and build their own idols is a story as old as time. And so I do agree. Even though I’m a Protestant and I’m not a fan of, massive amounts of second commandment violations, I do agree that there is a specific need to exercise this dominion so that those who are lost have a place. And that’s where we can, that’s where we can, rather than emphasizing the boundaries of the issues here, I can come together on that unity there. What do you mean by have a place? So I mean, when people are looking for answers to the existential problems that lie within their hearts from birth, knowing the moral law and rebelling against it, when they are called and drawn by the father, they may need a church with specific institutions in a specific way, according to their culture in many situations that, in the New Testament, there are different churches with different cultures, but this standard was the same. And these places existed for people to ground themselves to the body in a physical way as the fruit continues to flow from their sanctification. And so when you remove that, God has it sovereignly determined, but life is very difficult. And I would state that Christians are not exercising their power that God has given them in an obedience way, in an obedient way to help those in need with institutions, glorious art. There is no secular art. There is no secular music, it’s music. They pretend it’s secular, but it’s all music. And so when it’s oriented in the dominion, people are indeed sanctified in their walk. And those who are not yet born again hear the word, and that’s the means by which they are brought to Christ. And so it’s a win-win. It’s a win for those who are lost, and it’s a win for those who will become Christians eventually at some point in their lives. So that’s the position I think that I would agree with. Where’s the framework, Bruce? Like this is, you know, the framework problem for me is a big problem because that I think is what’s missing. And it’s way worse than that, right? Because when you hear Vervecky talk, in the beginning he was talking about clever things like non-theism, and then one day he starts reading an actual non-theist, and then he realizes, hey, some of the church fathers were non-theists. And I was just like, really, John? You’re just discovering this now? Even I knew that, and I’m horrifically educated on that sort of thing, right? And I was like, how are you just learning this now? Like what happened to the world, right? You didn’t know that. Like, and I kind of agree with you on evangelization. I don’t like the modern form of evangelization. I think the right form of evangelization is doing works and not talking about anything. Really pointing, right? It’s probably just, you know, doing charity, doing those things, right? And telling stories. Like one of the stories that I was told, I think I talked to Vander Clay about this in my first chat with him, right? Was I was taking a bus up to the airport because I just needed to go up to the airport, fly up to New Hampshire, grab a car, and drive back. So it was a one way trip. So I just needed a ride. So I get in this bus, and there’s a few other people there obviously, right? Cause you know, you’re sharing a ride. And this woman starts talking about service. And the minute she used the word service, my brain went, that word is being used in a way that you do not understand. Like immediately I went, oh, oh, I’m in trouble. Somebody just said a word and I don’t understand what it means. And then she’s talking about the hurricane and she grew up on the panhandle of Florida and she was 12 and this hurricane hits and her parents are out there in their house. They fixed their house last. They fixed everybody else’s house first. And the fact of the matter is, and she didn’t say it, right? But in the story, it comes out, they owned two other properties that they were renting. So they’re fixing up the neighbor’s properties and the rental properties first before their own house, right? And now this sets the economic frame and the political frame and the power from above frame on its head, because nobody would do that. Of course you’re gonna take care of your own house first, especially if you have three houses, which one are you gonna fix first, your own? People don’t do that, or at least good people don’t do that. But nobody knows this. Like people actually, I’ve talked to lots of people, especially on Discord, right? Which is bad sample, I understand that. But it doesn’t matter. The fact that there are any people out there who actually think that that isn’t a thing, that’s a problem. And we need to address that problem. Why is that happening? That people don’t understand that most of the people out there help their neighbors and help them first. This is an issue. Like that’s the issue, why don’t people see this? Why aren’t people engaging in this? Why is the only framework they have available to them top-down power from above, either economic or political or social or whatever. Why is that? Where is the competing narrative? Because again, who’s the lion like, Mark? Mark doesn’t know who the freaking lion is like. I don’t know, he’s like a lion, man. Like that’s what the book’s about. Did you read the book? You telling me to read a book you didn’t read? I don’t get it. And to some extent, you can’t blame me for that. And do you blame my parents? Maybe, right? Maybe, I don’t know, right? You do blame the Christians for assuming that I know the connection, because they have to take responsibility for that. Yeah, I did, I’m in a Catholic school, but like they had just passed that stupid law in Massachusetts that said I had the option to take ethics and there was nothing they could do about it. And they weren’t prepared for that. So that part is on them. I understand that entirely. I do think that the responsibility falls on them. You’re not being a good steward of your family, school, teaching lives, like it’s a terrible stewardship. Leaving people to the wolves, especially children and otherwise. Equip them for every good work. Like you’re being equipped by the Holy Spirit for every good work, and then you are indeed also commanded to teach those in discipleship the ways of Christ. What does he do? Teaches them the triune God, the truth of the gospel, the ways to live, how to pray. Start that as soon as kids are able to talk, maybe even before, definitely before actually. What if the parents aren’t doing it? Where’s the role then for the church as the body of Christ? Not the church as the administration. The church is the body of Christ. I don’t care what freaking denomination you’re from. And I swear, if people in this corner of the internet go off on me, well we’re running away to see another doctrinal denominational fight, I’m gonna hunt them down myself and take care of this problem the right way. This is stupid. We need to talk about what we have in common. Because otherwise it’s not gonna work. It’s not gonna work. It’s gonna get worse. Stop taking that thing worse and start finding things in common so that you can work towards those common things to make things better. Because otherwise better doesn’t happen. Take your Protestantism and throw it out the window. Find ways to agree on how to get this message out to people who do not have it. Because that’s really important. And the problem that I see, and I love Pastor Paul, I’ve met Pastor Paul, we’re dear friends as far as I’m concerned. He doesn’t even see anything. He keeps talking about this stuff in a way that I’m like, dude, you’re making all these assumptions about what people have already been taught when they don’t even know what you’re talking about. And maybe not his audience, right? But the audience he loses. No, no, no, no, all of them. He gets that he doesn’t. Yeah. Indeed his audience. Indeed his audience though too. This is a problem I think many pastors make. The gospel is for also the believers, not just for the non-believers. In other words, once you get complacent and stop, you make all of these assumptions about the people that are in your congregation. And it especially gets difficult when the congregation gets massive. But even in a smaller church, you make a lot of assumptions about what they know and how they engage with the world. And you say, they’ve made a confession of faith, they’ve signed a membership covenant. Now I can just keep it on, keep it moving. Well, if you’re not continually pouring into the truths that you hold to these people, and they likewise do the same to their people outside of the church, you have work to do. So that’s my answer to that, which is to continue to equip your body so that they also equip their neighbors, right? That’s, and we really get so complacent in our churches that we just forget that not everyone is even ready to come to the table. Well, and you lose it over time if you don’t practice it. So you need to keep revivifying it. That’s part of the reason why you have ritual and liturgy, right, is that you’re revivifying stuff that again, you need to practice, like meditation. Everybody talks about, you meditate every day. Well, it’s the same with prayer. You get to pray every day. Why? Because you’re never good at it no matter how much you do it, right? And if you stop doing it, you’ll get worse at it. And that’s the problem is that it does actually get worse if you don’t revivify it. That’s why I like the Peterson message about revivifying and saving the father from the belly of the whale and all that stuff, even though I can’t do that for various reasons, but you know, there’s something there. There’s something about the revivification of the thing that is supposed to be attended to. And we’re not attending to those things for whatever reason. But I think we don’t understand attention as such anymore. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because we can be proceduralized and propositionalized the whole world. And when you proceduralize and propositionalize things, there’s no room for attention. This is why Vervicki struggles with aspiration. This is why Peterson struggles with it. They’re both materialists. They’re material first, material moves the world thinkers. They’re middle out thinkers. They’re not considering, they can’t afford to, to be fair to them, consider the idea of creation and that you were born into something. And that means you automatically are beholden to that thing, to hold it up, to revivify it, right, in humility, because you didn’t make it. I didn’t make electricity, Bruce. I didn’t make the internet. Have I contributed to the internet? Oh, absolutely I have. We don’t wanna go into long tech. Al Gore invented the internet. That’s who made it. I’m beholden to the past for these things. That’s why I try to engender as much humility as I can about what I’ve done and what I can do, because I’m just a muppet like the rest of us. We’re all muppets. The past is so powerful. And it’s given us all of this ridiculous, this is ridiculous technology with five monitors, like five fricking monitors in front of it. It’s not the total number of monitors in my house. Right here, right here. I can talk to the ones. I’ve got a cool microphone. I’ve got all kinds of stuff. I’ve got this crazy device that does all kinds of crazy things. Right? All this stuff. I didn’t, none of that is mine. It’s all the legacy of the sacrifices of the past. We have no appreciation for any of that. And there’s no exemplification from anybody that we should. And part of that is building pretty buildings, right? Part of not ugly buildings, pretty buildings, right? Look at the Scottish parliament building in Edinburgh. And then contrast that with the rest of Edinburgh and tell me that more art is gonna save the world. No, it’s not. That building is fricking ugly. It’s like the stupid engineering building in MIT that looks like a Dr. Seuss house. It’s insane. Oh yeah, I saw that. It’s awful. It’s this terrible monstrosity of modern art. And the calling it art is almost an insult, really. I mean, one day I hope, and this is something I heard from someone a while ago, another pastor said this, but one day I have hope that people will eventually go to, in their homeschool groups, they will go to their field trips to the Museum of Modern Art and laugh at it. They will say, I can’t believe we were there. You know, they’ll look at Pollock or something and they’ll say, this is hilarious. I can’t believe we thought this was art. Well, to be fair though, Bruce, you shouldn’t laugh at the mentally ill. Not the people per se, but the fact that we’re laughing at the, not the mentally ill, we’re laughing at the people enabling the mentally ill. I don’t agree with that at all. I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think that’s true at all. I think if you’ve gotten those, when people go to these modern art galleries, they don’t go in and appreciate it. They spend 10, 30 seconds on a painting and then they walk to the next one. Like, all right. Well, why? Why are they not gripped? They’re not gripped. Well, they’re not going for the art. Because it’s modern art. That’s not the truth. They’re not going for the art. Oh my gosh, you guys need help. You guys need help big time. There’s no hope. I can understand that, Jesse. I get what you’re saying. There’s no hope, Ethan. You guys, I cannot believe the way, I cannot believe the way you were talking about Jackson Pollock. I cannot believe you would even talk about another human being that way, you guys. Like I’m calling you on this. That’s shocking to not have, no. Why do you think? No, no, think about it. It’s not aimed at the highest. It’s not good art because it’s not aimed at the highest. You guys made a little joke. That’s gotta be aimed up. It can’t be a scribble of paint on a painting that just happens to follow the fractal patterns of mathematics. That’s not hard. You guys, you showed, that was- We’ve attacked the sacred cow of modern art, abstract art. No, it’s not. No, you haven’t. It’s the way you talked about another human being. You made a big joke about the mental, like the way you talk. Just listen to the way you did that. You made a little joke. This is, you know, that’s what- I’m not making a joke. Wait, wait, wait. I’m not finished. Mark, I’m not finished. Not finished, man. That’s what Peterson, he had that same little masculine thing that you guys just did. Making a little joke about Jackson Pollock. Then what did you say that, you know, people encouraging the mentally ill or whatever? Like, what the hell is that all about? Schaefer would say, it’s a man made in the image of God. People were attracted to it and see it as greatness for some reason. We need to look at it and figure it out and not make comments like that. That’s to me, like, oh my gosh, I’m shocked that you would even talk that way about Jackson Pollock. Like, I’m just shocked. Who isn’t mentally ill? I have never met anybody who isn’t mentally ill and who isn’t an addict. They either do this, no, but I’m really, I am so, I need to tell you, that is totally inappropriate to talk about an artist like that. I’m not part of the argumentative. I’m trying to understand what did I say. To make a joke about Jackson Pollock. You didn’t say anything. I didn’t make a joke. No, you didn’t. Not until he actually made a joke about Pollock. Well, what were you talking about? You would imply that you were cruel, that he went through a period of mental illness. And that was what I did. Why would you make a joke about, why would somebody make a joke? I don’t know who it was. I did. Yes, they did. We didn’t make a joke. You’re implying that we did. We did it. We could go back and watch this. We were- Yeah, you did. You were joking about people who think it’s, who think it’s, you were putting people down who think it’s great to go and look at somebody’s work who is supposedly is mentally ill. I don’t know how he’s any more mentally ill than anybody else. We didn’t even get there. We did not even get that far. Pardon me, I heard somebody say that. You’re reprimanding my mom. Commitment of art isn’t of itself a joke, which Andy Warhol was chief clown dog. What the problem I think- That’s not true. That she’s pointing out is that there was a, we were liking modern art to mental illness. We were as a pejorative, we were pejoratizing mental illness in the way that we’re pejoratizing modern art. And the way we were doing that is by comparing it to mental illness. I think that’s what she’s saying. I’m not even like that. I’m not even arguing for that. Cause I think there is and can be beauty in expressionism. But you have to- No one’s arguing for the artwork of this guy. I mean, no. I mean, no. No, but why would anybody speak disparagingly of people who go to see art that somehow they think is worthwhile spending an afternoon looking? No, not you. Somebody else made a joke about all these people who go and look at work of somebody who’s mentally ill. Like I can’t even believe anybody would say that. They actually do though. That’s the other thing. It’s cool. The whole Balenciaga saga that’s going on on the internet is about that. Yeah, that’s true. Jackson Pollock was bipolar at the very least, but that’s beside the point. Everybody’s mentally ill, honestly. This mentally ill thing. This is groupism, man. So there’s- This is why we’ve got the problem. People making comments. Oh, like a nice pretty, you know, once again, I’m sorry. But it would be hard to find. I could be wrong, but of my friends and all the people I know in Italy who would ever make a comment like that in that way and laughing about the mental illness part, that is so American. It’s not even funny. I don’t think you’re accusing us of something we didn’t do. Yes, I did. I’m not accusing you. You didn’t say anything. Even Ruth’s very nuanced comment about people visiting an art gallery and reflecting on that experience of going to an art gallery. Let me finish my point. I’ll let you finish yours. Okay. People going to an art gallery and realizing that the art on the wall and experiencing it was a joke, which is one of the intentions of many of these artists, is to be ironic, is to be cynical, is to defame beauty, is to defame moral standards, is to defame traditions, and to defame themselves. I know about that. I understand the ironic nature. Excuse me. May I talk now? Okay. Or are you finished? Do you want to finish? Are you finished? I’m sorry. You’re being argumentative. You have a very harsh tone. I’m not argumentative. You’re not used to a harsh, you’re not used to a harsh, no, no, no. You just don’t get the harsh feminine, sorry. You don’t get the harsh feminine. This is the way it is, man. What do I have to get? What do I have to get? First of all, I understand- I’m by logging to you on your chosen topic, and I’m fleshing out something that Bruce said, which was very nuanced, and something I’m, which is cat to that, also extending the conversation. It’s a conversation topic that you’ve drilled in on. So I’m just trying to get- Blaster is dangerous. Bring in to the dialogue, because I want this conversation. I think it’s a relevant conversation. First of all, I understand that modern art is ironic. I do get that. Jackson Pollock was not in that category, clearly. Number one, he was not in that this is ironic art, and that’s why I’m doing it. That was a, it was a totally different perspective and mood, if you want, and understanding of trying to figure out the patterns of reality. And to even mention, I thought I heard laughter. I could be wrong, but I thought I heard laughter about people, like a derisive laughter. That’s what Sally Jo was talking about last time, about this derisive kind of in-group laughter, about, oh yeah, you know, ha ha, people go there and they, and he was mentally ill. Like, who are we to say that somebody is mentally ill? That’s one question I have. Who are we to even say, well, he had bipolar. Well, maybe we’ve all got something, but we don’t know it. Like, I just think it’s totally inappropriate. This relativizing of all things to figuring out the different patterns of reality, or stating that we don’t know anything about the mentally ill, and all things are allowable and acceptable. There are lines drawn in the sand, and it seems like we found the line for you, but the line for us is a standard of decorum, a standard of beauty that is indeed objective. It’s not relative. We have a God that gives us a standard and we hold it to others. That’s the standard, relativizing all of these things in order to somehow stroke the egos of people that wish to get their ideas across is the problem we’re in. Not the derisive comments toward the mentally ill, or those lauding the mentally ill as somehow special. The specialty of the mentally ill is a separate problem. We’re talking about relativizing objective standards. Well, why did you, someone mentioned mentally ill then? How did that come up? That’s an indication of what’s happened, which is instead of calling out evil for evil, or wrongness for wrongness, and celebrating it is the issue. There is a standard. Mental ill means that you’re wrong? Yes, in some cases, that doesn’t mean you’re less valuable. We’re misusing the term. It has nothing to do with value at all. We have mental illness. We have two different definitions. Nothing to do with value. Maybe we have two different definitions of mental illness. If it is in fact mental illness, it is a disability. We’re not advocating for tolerance here. We’re advocating for mercy. Yeah, and mercy is not enabling stupidity. You’re telling me that Jackson Pollock’s, who are you to know, how are you to discern? This is why people don’t go to church. This is enough to turn anybody off God for their lives. Seriously. We’ve gone over to a completely different category. This is a change in the move in the goalpost. I think mental illness is used as a pejorative. It’s a great conversation. I don’t know what’s wrong with the conversation. Everything’s, why can’t we talk about this? I think it’s interesting. You’re misinterpreting what I just said. I just said I’m officializing the conversation because we’ve gone from a critique of art and a critique of modern art and the experience to somehow being abstracted into mental illness and a conversation about that. And I personally have gone through many periods of depression. That’s why I am where I am today. So I’m someone in this category. So it’s very sensitive to me, just letting you know that. Okay? I’m saying, we are in a very shadowed category. We need to be very clear, very aware of these terms and this type of conversation does affect people and it particularly affects me. Okay? So not that I’m not unable to have the conversation. I’m just saying we need to efficient. Okay, okay. If I don’t talk about mental illness, you need to do it very, very calmly because it is not something to be tripped about. And I don’t think we were trying to make. If Bruce did do that, it was an implying, he can make amends for that. But okay, we are in this conversation about mental illness. Okay. It is something to very treat. I do agree on hope that, okay, Mark, I just wanted to put some breaks on. Thank you. That was good and important. Look, what I heard Bruce say with respect to mental illness and this was his clarification, was that the fact that people have whole museums to a class of art that we’re talking, we’re calling modernism, we’ll say, right? This modern art stuff is going to be seen as a mental illness in terms of the society letting that happen. That’s what I heard him say. I think he clarified that nicely. I think that that is not an unreasonable statement to make. There are a lot of things that our society is acting schizophrenically about. Yes, but it was used pejoratively. I think that’s her complaint. Well, look, that’s fine. I have no problem if it was used pejoratively in that context because we’re talking about a society. He wasn’t talking about the artists. He wasn’t talking about a particular person. No, it wasn’t. The society is going to view this as a mental illness. Okay, you should just use the word. I don’t agree with you. I don’t understand. Sorry, you can go. And I think that’s perfectly understandable because there are a lot of things that are happening in society that resemble an illness. And people talk about it that way, right? The destruction of the language, where the word racism doesn’t have a utility anymore, where people are saying things like social justice, which cannot ever in any context make any sense. You’re just modifying justice. We were talking about something that definitely isn’t justice, but is modified justice. This is an illness. It’s an illness with society. It’s not good. It’s not good. And so I want to be pejorative towards things that are not good because they’re not good. I’m okay with that. Wow. Indeed. Because for me, that’s like it’s, wow. I was just brought up all men of sin and fall short of the glory of God. That’s how I was brought up. That’s my fault. That’s correct. That’s how I was brought up. It is true. It is true. But so Christ even states that if you judge other, you will be judged. That’s true. But he also points out the evil and corrects it and tells people how to live. So both are true. You are indeed in sin and you are indeed in need of correction as we all are. Right. Everybody. Everybody. So in the- Not just the woke, not just Peter said that. Nobody’s making exclusive statements about that. It’s only in this particular region of objective beauty. That’s the issue. Well, actually in McGillchrist, if you’ve read his works, I’ve read both all of his works. His great time as well. Well, I don’t know how many times I’ve read the Master and His Emissary, probably five. And I’ve worked twice through the other one, the matter of with things. And he is clear. He is probably one of the greatest men of our time. There’s no question. It’s an unbelievably brilliant accomplishment. He’s the finest gentleman of a true, kind, thoughtful, gracious, humble man. And his work reads like Dante. It’s unimaginably beautiful, the matter with things. It writes, the format is exactly the same as the content. And he points out most interestingly, because he’s always recontextualizing, right? So he’s always moving around everything to recontextualize. So you can see it from as many points of view as possible. And he makes the point that many of these so-called outliers, as we might like to call them. And he was talking specifically about what you might commonly be called mental issues, I guess, of some kind, although he’s really clear about, anyway, that’s another matter, but it’s also, he’s wondering why have we have people with specific, like schizophrenics who have, I mean, there are lines of demarcation, right? There are degrees of severity about which we must be clear. And he was talking about why have they survived? He was making a point. And some of the greatest works come from these most highly, what we might humbly like to call damaged souls, like a schizophrenic. They have sometimes offered the most to us. Let us look at dear Dr. Peterson. He has, I mean, I’m not gonna say anything, I’m gonna be careful, but yeah, sometimes out of the men who, yeah, all sorts of strange creatures can produce some of the greatest accomplishments. So I’m not convinced. What do you think about Goya, Goya’s dark period? Sorry? If you wanna, let’s get into specific, like Goya, Goya dark period, Goya’s end of his life. We’re gonna talk about art and schizophrenics. Let’s talk about something specific, because we’re gonna get lost in generalities. Yeah, I don’t, personally, I don’t wanna go there with that comment on Benjamin Franklin. It’s horrible. Yeah, that’s provoking to say the least. Care to defend that? There’s no defense for that. And that’s a very anti-Christian way of thinking about it. And like, that’s the point though. Like we don’t blame people for mental illness. We wouldn’t blame society for going crazy or being mentally ill either. Like it’s a blameless condition in some sense. And that’s the way it should be. It doesn’t have to be red, you know, derisive, except by the listener. Like, you know, and that’s the thing. I don’t think, I think that Bruce in particular was treating it as a very serious matter, it’s a very serious matter for him, but a serious matter for me. I mean, I made the point before, this is the problem with art. If it’s not grounded and scaffold in this structure and pointing aimed towards the highest, then is it valid art? Like, is it something that should be celebrated? And I think my answer is no. You can use art to critique things. Like that’s my practice in visual art and photography and music. Like you can use art to critique society and that is a valid thing to do. Yeah, that’s fine. That’s fine, but there’s still an objective standard as to what, like, you can try to critique. I don’t even know. Yeah, but you can sort of. Lies to propagate it quite quickly. I don’t know art is never appropriate if it’s not used in worship. That’s, I mean, that’s a fair distinction to make and I can understand that actually. I mean, as far as the, as far as like the regulative principle would be concerned, I would agree that that could be, I could understand the conviction, in other words, to that Ethan. But that’s what’s a valid critique. And I would say, unlike the postmoderns who think anybody can critique anything at any time because they can, right? That’s the postmodern ethos. The real question is, okay, what’s a valid critique? I think a valid critique is relative to an ideal, which means that all art is aimed at the highest because if you’re aimed at the highest, then you can critique society by being aimed at the ideal. Sure, but you’re aimed at the highest. So it’s not the art isn’t aimed at the critique. The art is aimed at the highest and maybe it’s aimed at the highest with the, so, you know, and implemented in a way that critiques society. Yeah, that’s fair. But the only critique would be if it were aiming at the highest, it would then be critiquing by a standard at which it holds, an objective standard that it is indeed measuring society against. And you, knowing that standard, also feel the critique because you’re sharing the standard. It’s not arbitrary. Okay, if we’re concerned with making art that’s critiquing society, we’re getting into this weird thing of protesting protest or something like that. Well, I don’t know the concern with it. I don’t know that you should necessarily set out to do this, but it does indeed do that. So, okay, I’ll use it. Maybe that’s a different discussion, but. So there’s some sort of like, the culture senses that we’ve lost, femininity. I mean, when was the first wave of feminism, late 19th century or something like that? I mean. Sometime around zero BC when Christ was born. No, like first wave feminism officially, it was like late 19th century, because it came as a result of like. Earlier than that, if you depends on where you wanna, depends on where you wanna draw the line. Actually, all the way back. I mean, it makes sense that it happened in the late 19th century. During or after the industrial revolution, like think that our relationship with women changed after the scientific revolution. We tried to start measuring everything and rationalize the world. And that’s how we define the world by measure, by measurement, right? Right around that time, that’s when we just took femininity and threw it out the window, because you can’t measure the feminine, right? And so all of a sudden, like we get these things, these movements emerging called feminism. And it happened, ironically, in the late 19th century, this is after the industrial revolution. And, okay, well, we sense something, right? So let’s create art that is going to try and identify against whatever it is that we think is happening in the culture. And so we end up with feministic art. It just turns into a mishwash of propaganda, or just use something like this, that’s not feministic, but it, this is speaking the truth. This isn’t propaganda. It’s just, it’s an icon of beauty. It’s speaking to, what do we say? It’s like the way that if you wanna protest, the protest of the protest of the protest, you’re identifying against, against, against, against, or you just make, you can create beauty, or you can create things that are icons of truth, icons of actual beauty. And that’s really all you need to do, trying to connive and identify against, against, against, against, against, against. It’s like, you end up with that, I think that’s where feminism comes from, things like feminism. It’s like we’re identifying against, against, against, against, against, it’s like, where are we at? Just, we need, we just need to, right? The first thing, the primary thing. Well, and measurement, right? The tyranny of quantity, right? Remove quality, and then you remove quality in everything, including art, including in the feminine. But the feminine is all quality, the feminine is the quality of caring, right? And so when you remove that, you remove everything. And that’s what, that’s what we’re suffering from. We’re suffering from the great removal of everything, because it’s gotten removed, it’s gone. We’re not accounting for quality, which is vertical. It’s all quantity on the horizontal. And that’s part of the, that’s part of the image, right? The man and the woman were holding hands. One hand pointing, the other pointing. And that’s what we’re suffering from. I also think that some abstract, abstract art or other things that go against the grain would only make sense because of their rejection. In other words, so abstract art takes beauty, rejects it, goes another direction. And that’s what we do. We rebel against the objective God, and it’s not, it should not be celebrated, right? We, but celebrating the rejection and the rebellion, no, it should point you to the correct location because of its against the grain pattern. What is abstract? Yeah, that’s a, it’s difficult to define, but I would say, you know, when you see it, you can see the, you can see the objective, the objective not there in comparison to the standard. And you point that out, right? I’m only using that as a, it’s muddy because abstract is indeed a, as a discipline. Yes. But it’s only a discipline in light of the, in light of the objective beauty. Right. Should we engage with this Benjamin Franklin because I feel like he’s, I mean, it would be good. There could be good found in it if we answer questions like this, because… What’s he saying? Maybe it’s that stuff. I wanna, I just wanna cut. I don’t think it’s, could be, nice question’s a nice question. It could be, nice question’s a nice question. Are they gonna lead to fruitful dialogue? No, I don’t think he’s genuine. Well, represents, I mean, I get what you’re saying. Yeah, I don’t wanna get too far off. The questions answered. Yeah, I don’t wanna get too far off the quality quantity distinction now that we’re there. But Daniel, what do you got for us? Do you wanna hop in on this? Well, I just got here. I haven’t been watching. I just got off work and saw you were live and clicked on. I don’t even, I’m way behind on what even is being discussed exactly. So go back and watch the previous four hours and then come back. I’ll watch it in Forex and I’ll be here in an hour. That’s great. A really good discussion though. It’s good to have these discussions. It’s fabulous, actually. Yeah. Well, it is interesting. It’s a summary. Bruce, can I ask, do you tend like an evangelical type church? I’m a reformed Baptist. So indeed, I wear the evangelical badge proudly in the historical sense of the word. I’ve been around but no longer involved in that. But what I would try and point out for our conversation is the type of music that you guys are using in your services is an abstraction. Well, first of all, how do you know what type of music I’m using in my services? What do you mean by that? Well, from the generic standard that I would be able to derive from that basic question. If you’re in this morning, you’re attending that one type of church, you would be using some version of modern music methods. Well, then we’re using Western music methods for sure, right? So like, do we do chant? No, but we might not be opposed to it, right? But as far as we’re concerned, the medium is indeed, I mean, this gets into a whole other, but so long as the songs are in spirit and truth and biblical, we don’t have, you know, what’s that? It’s highly related to the topic. Sure, yeah. And say going to an art gallery, trying to bring back that thread. They are going to engage with that certain type of medium. Quality or quantity or not, they are going to engage. Yep, yep. Well, there’s two standards. There’s a standard of beauty that exists when we practice, right, and this standard is measured in our case against the God of the Bible, right? So the scripture that is informing the song, the music must be indeed in line with what scripture says about God in itself. And then the normative standard by which we are to practice this worship service comes out of the New Testament and the church. And so, so long as we are singing to one another and we can hear one another, all of those things are fair game. So the mediums that are used to do this are convictions. There’s different preferences in that world, but there’s a standard that we hold to, and that doesn’t lend itself to particular instrumentation. It’s more of a practical instrumentation. There is a preference cascade. Yeah, totally, and I think that’s well and good in the body of Christ. There’s tons of preferences and totally fine. But there’s, as far as I’m concerned, there is a standard that’s held. There is a lack of the visceral. There’s a lack of the visual. A lack of the visual. Which is what Ethan and Elizabeth have been circling around and not saying directly. Although Elizabeth a bit more directly. And I’m actually, maybe Elizabeth, you’ve misread me, but I’m actually trying to argue yours, but just from a slightly different vantage point. Because I do think we are in the modern type of, and we pointed it back to about the going to New York tower, going to New York and observing a tower, observing an important image. But these different press for us cascades are actually affecting society. And so- In some ways, yes. Even if you think about the specific how to change and turn the wheel, as I was trying to say, either you turn the wheel of culture or you turn the wheel of society, but you have to try and work out which one you want to turn and which one’s going to have the greater effect. Because otherwise we’re just going to get lost in, like, I like these preferences, I like these preferences of matter. This is where I draw all these lines. I think it’s, how do we solve that distinction? Because that’s, this part of the internet spots heads about that all the time. I’m sorry if my question is too meta-framed, but- Well, I mean, I think there’s going to be preferences based on locale, language, distinctions. I mean, that this exists all over the world, at different churches in different places of the world have different preferences, culturally, musically. There’s different instrumentation, there’s different practical methods based on your availability of persons, skills, talents, all of those things come into play when it comes to what the service may look like, what the standard is in the locale. There is a baseline, there’s a foundation, right? Like a cornerstone, but that doesn’t dictate the convictions of the preferences. Otherwise you’d be into, you could see how you would get into, there are Protestant churches that do this into a legalistic framework that gives you a, this is the preference, this is our conviction of preference, this is what you must do. We don’t hold to that position. There’s a number of convictions that we all hold, but the preferences, so long as they’re well within the doctrine of liberty, that’s how I would see it. So in the visual, the visual in my particular church is great. You walk in, it’s a very old building, pews, giant ceilings that are geared towards acoustic music and huge bits of stained glass. So, and then the body of believers visually gathered for a purpose. So now we’re getting down to preferences of the visual and whether or not there’s enough bells, smells, and otherwise in the church to meet the standards of whatever other standards there are, but they exist in this case. Yeah, I wanna separate too the preferences from the different implementations, right? You can boost it a beautiful job of saying, look, there’s different implementations based on culture and all these other things. And Sally Jo used to talk about this quite a bit, I’m sure she’d still talk about it if she had cause, right? The idea that you wouldn’t make an image of Jesus in the likeness of the local population is ridiculous. Of course you would, because you want them to relate to it. So in Africa, you have a black Jesus, and in South America, you have a, you know, basically a Spanish looking Jesus, right? And then in North America, you have a white Jesus. Of course you do, because the art is supposed to reflect back up onto these higher patterns. And then I’ll invoke my wonderful video, I can say it’s wonderful now because Paul Vanderplei has approved and mentioned it three times, story, narrative, and archetype. Story is not the only way to get to narrative, because narrative is a template pattern. So the other way you get to narrative is through music. And the other way you get through narrative is through visual art. All of these things are playing to these patterns, these narrative patterns. So you get the implementation at the bottom, which is the particular song, right, or the particular playing of the particular song, even better, especially if it’s not recorded, right? And then that points to a narrative pattern. And that narrative pattern is, you feel it correctly. Now, can you get to that narrative pattern with a different song? Of course you can, that’s the whole point. You have to have many instances of the song to hear the narrative pattern, and the same way you need many stories to understand the narrative pattern from the stories, right? And tease it out from other things. So these individual implementations are not that important. The question is, how much, to Bruce’s point at the end, how much visual stimulus do you need? Do you need Jesus? Do you need Jesus on the cross? Because Thunder Bay was unique, because they had a stained glass window, a big one, in this huge hall, it was absolutely gorgeous, right? And that’s very unusual for a Protestant-style church. But they had that. Now, I’ll make the case for orthodoxy and Catholicism, I think they’ve got it right, right? And Jacob Koshir certainly got something out of going to the Greek Orthodox Church, right? Which is something he couldn’t get with the drugs, by the way. Took the psychedelic, couldn’t get that. Got it in the church though, right? You can argue with the psychedelic tilt. I doubt it, I doubt it. That’s not what the evidence says, right? But how much is the right amount? That’s a good question, Bruce. Like that’s exactly the question I asked, in my opinion. It is indeed. Little, I would say, no, you’re wrong and you’re crazy, Bruce, but I love you anyway. But other people are gonna have different answers, and obviously you’re asking. No, we’ve got enough, we’ve got the big ceilings and the nice stained glass, and that’s all we need. Yeah, I understand the distinctions there. I don’t find it as profitable to get involved. Here’s the thing, if the reason for gathering becomes the aesthetic, the aesthetic TH, then I have a problem, okay? And I think many would. Now, if the aesthetic comes out of the gathering, right? The fruit, then I think we’re in a good spot. But the other way around leads to all sorts of materialistic idolatry, as far as I’m concerned. Now some people might state, hey, we’re getting people in the door. It’s good for them to be here, even if the aesthetics are primary for them initially. Maybe that’s true, but that’s not the reason, as far as I’m concerned, to do it. Yeah, that sounds good. I mean, yeah, there’s always the danger of things turning into entertainment, right? Which I would say is just wrong worship, right? Not that I’m deriding entertainment as such, right? But I think entertainment best thought of as rest is a better way to think about it, right? And then you don’t run into a problem, right? With figuring out, oh, am I reducing church to entertainment? Because that would be bad, right? And that’s the tricky line. I agree with you there, Bruce. That’s definitely the tricky line. And you need stained glass and stuff. I mean, one of the very special things is my mother’s mother is very Irish Catholic, because she’s Irish, or was second generation Irish, or first generation Irish, I forget. She had a stained glass window in the house. It was a tiny piece of stained glass window. It was a little tiny window at the bottom of the stairs. So the stairs to go upstairs had a stained glass window on the outside. I don’t know what side of the house that would have been. I’d have to think about it more. And so there was stained glass in her house. Like every time you visited there, there was that little piece of beauty. And it wasn’t very ornate or anything like that, even though she was Catholic, but it was there. And it had a big impact over the years, just because it was there and it was something to interact. And it is sometimes those little interactions with, we’ll say, exceptional beauty, because most people’s houses didn’t have anything like that. But it’s those little interactions with exceptional beauty that makes a difference. And that, I think, is important. And yeah, there’s no point in trying to figure out, well, where do we draw the line? Is Bruce’s church enough? Or do we need the stained glass window or not? Like, I don’t know. Do we need the high ceilings, or can we do it in the strip mall? Because I kind of definitely draw a line in the strip mall. Strip mall church, no good for Mark. Yeah, well, I mean, it’s interesting, I think we just do need to be careful when we start requiring a certain amount of means to have things correct. In other places where means are scarce, their gatherings will also be sparsely decorated or adorned, and you would go to someone and say, hey, we’re in Ecuador. Why is it that you don’t have a building that’s well created with ornate objects here as a city on the hill? And they say, well, we gather here, these are our means. We look out the window or the door, or when we walk to church, or we look out the hole in the ceiling because we don’t have the means to fix the hole, and we have a wonderful creation to gaze upon that is indeed beautiful. And I could see, so I would say, all things be done for the glory of God. And that’s why, and again, I’m a Protestant, so that sort of gives you the position I’m in, but I think I’ve seen many a monastery that’s quite sparse because of the place where it lived, where it is. There’s a particular purpose for those things, but I don’t think that those are necessary requirements for people to engage. Indeed, the blind man can still see the beauty. You know what I mean? So. The thing I wanna try and pull back on here is because we’ve talked about a micro frame of the sort of Western church, right? But, and we’ve talked about the problems of attending a church and making that an entertainment type experience or a kind of a commodity of experience. The same thing does happen with people in tourism. Same thing does happen with people in visiting art galleries and visiting art cities. That’s why it’s like, you can be a sojourner in the world, but you have to know what you’re paying attention to. You can’t just randomly go on a trip and expect to be flooded with spiritual experiences. You actually have to seek them out in some ways. Otherwise, it’s just a disinherited, just walking around the streets, knowing to pay attention to what’s valuable. And on top of that, there is something that the Orthodox and the Catholics do have in their old, and there’s things that the West lost, is things like color therapy. Like, the only parts of people in these medieval times had to expose would be when the light would draw in and they would pray and kneel next to these big giant, what do you call it, the murals, the stained glass murals. That’s actually a form of a kind of a ritual. It’s a form of color therapy. But that’s, you don’t, like, we’ve lost these threads. Wow. Threads of embodied cultural practices. That’s so interesting. I’ve never heard that before. Thank you for telling me. So I didn’t even know there was such a thing as color therapy. I do know that it’s impossible to replicate the colors of the medieval stained glass windows because they were so highly skilled at that time that it’s just impossible. And that’s fascinating. I have a friend actually who prays in colors. She’s an artist and she prays in colors and shapes. So that’s, thank you for telling me that because that’s very, very, you know, it makes connections for me for sure. Yeah. But I do think one of my little theories is that there’s such a longing. Dante’s all about longing and moving towards that, which shines, I guess you could say. We might say glory, I guess. And I think that much of this shopping nonsense is this deep longing for the visual, right? That people are trying to create some form of beauty, however they can get it. Like it’s so overdone in clothes and furniture and everything nowadays. And I think, I often wonder if that’s just the substitute for the lack of visual beauty in our, like Jonathan Peugeot talks about in our cities, in our towns, in our churches and everything, and even in ourselves. Our bodies have become so big. You know, we’re no longer healthy. So many of us, we look grotesque. Yeah, I just, I wonder, I wonder. There just seems to be, I really noticed the difference. I hate to harp upon it, but I noticed the difference. There’s so much more beauty in terms of the way people look in Europe too. They just, they definitely look more beautiful than North Americans do, generally speaking. So they’re still trying to create art, I guess, in a sense. They’re still trying, there’s a creative impulse there, which I think is very much related to the origins of all things. So I don’t know, because creativity, you know, we certainly live in a beautiful world. There’s no doubt about that one. So I don’t know. I just don’t know. It seems to me. Well, I kind of, my kind of project that I am trying to write about, it was very, very difficult. And I think Mark has actually been the one that’s actually tipped me off to this, which is why I’m more here, is, and I think part of what Mark really does well, I don’t think he, not sure how intentionally he’s doing it, but he’s actually critiquing materialism. And I think he’s been doing that through all his videos. By the way, these guys, his early videos are actually the best videos and he doesn’t even know it. He thinks his delivery is not that good. The early videos are actually a few of gold. I think he worked on them more, Mark. So that gold actually was far more shiny, you were fine. So there you go. But one of my things is I’m trying to see how far back we go in this beauty question, and it is related very much to the feminine. My intuition is it is when we slipped over from the romantics into the young men. And when that happened, when we lost this natural beauty in poetry of just the natural world of encountering different types of energies and spirits and things, that was the last gasp of the West, maybe. So the industrial revolution then, the beginnings of the industrial revolution sort of 1840. The only thing is the industrial revolution never really happened. It’s just a theory that it happened. Well, what time are you thinking the March mid 1800s, I guess, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we’re like 1812, something like that, 1820, depends on where you wanna, depends on if you think Turner is good or bad. But yeah, if you wanna get real art, real art. But I like Casper Vendee. Have you read, sorry. Have you read Goethe’s theories of color by any chance? Bits and pieces. Goethe. Bits and pieces. Ah, okay, yeah. I’m just really. Yeah. Yeah, that’s a really good question. I actually used to be a great lover of the Renaissance until I keep listening to Jonathan Pageau and I read Dante. I read Dante continually. I think I’ve read it 10 times. So I’ve become very medieval and having traveled to these places with medieval edifices, it’s just had a profound effect on me because everything mirrors the poetry, Dante’s poetry, to your point, Mark, and the poetry and the architecture. Yeah, just it’s explosive. I go into these 1200, you know, it was just in Siena and they had this magnificent fresco of which they’re so proud to this day from 13, let me get it right, 38, about good and bad government. It has the tyrannical and it’s associated to Os Guinness’s point with the vices and then there’s a huge fresco depicting the state of the city and the countryside as a result and then it has the virtues with wisdom at the top to John Verveckis’ point and justice below and then a very interesting virtue that I didn’t know about called Concordia in Italian, which is a line going from justice to the people, the people of the community and then up to good governance and then all of the virtues beside it and Os Guinness is talking about these, without virtues we have no freedom and I think that’s another thing that I love about the medieval and I guess maybe the Greek world too is this cultivation of the virtues and the understanding of the vices and I think not in an overly rigid way, but just this brilliant understanding of the importance of these concepts that people were just bathed in them so they still go and look at this fresco from 1300s and this is of course the same time as Dante, right? And so the people were all very aware of what they had to your point, Mark. They wanted to, it’s Dante and this Lorenzetti, he wanted to frame this stuff for us so that it would be there for us to see and they were so proud because in Siena you could go up the scaffold and actually go and see these frescos right up. There’s the good governance there, there’s Concordia down below, justice and one thing that was interesting about justice, there’s distributive and there’s another kind, the name of which I forget, but they had the two kinds of justice and then, oh yeah, for the virtues, they then had a whole depiction of Siena with all of the people working for the good of the community and it extend out in the countryside where the people still were producing the necessary goods as well for the city, just beautiful, changed me forever seeing that fresco so I’m a great lover of the medieval. I don’t know. I don’t know. What happened though? This will lead to a bit more of a group conversation. What happened? Why did it change? How did it change? What went wrong? Because those lessons are going to impact us now. Well, Dante, sorry, go ahead Mark. That’s the Renaissance, right? That’s the Renaissance. I mean, one of the things we kind of noticed about the Renaissance was that people started signing paintings, right? And what I said about that when I learned that was I said, well, that’s a misattribution because it doesn’t matter what you’re painting. The creator of the painting or of the thing that you’re painting and the painting is still God. So how dare you put your name on it? I think that’s a problem. Same thing with music too. If you want to do a search on medieval music, nobody knows who wrote anything. It wasn’t until after about 1500, the Renaissance, you start seeing names, the names of composers or just the notion of composer exists or comes into being. Right. And I’m telling you- It was just the composer. Well, the composer wasn’t located anywhere. It was somewhere between creation and God. What is that though, Ethan? That is what Elizabeth was talking about, which is everything’s interconnected. And I like this idea of the line of concordance, right? I think that’s Jordan Peterson’s golden thread. I’ve been wondering about that for like a year when I talked to Karen Won on the meeting code about that first conversation, so psychedelic conversation thing that Peterson did with Rovecki. We were looking for the golden thread. I think what you were talking about there is the golden thread, right? So it’s the thing that ties all this stuff together. And then what happened, what starts to happen in the Renaissance, and then I want to tie in Jesse’s excellent point about the industrial revolution. What starts to happen in the Renaissance is we split that stuff up because now, instead of attributing the painting to the highest, we’re attributing the painting to the painter. And it’s like, no, no, no, that’s a misattribution, right? And then what happens is now we start to get this, the postmodern ethos is way older than postmodernism. I mean, one of my objections to Foucault and Gerrard is that they’re literally three-year-old children. They don’t have a point. They didn’t say anything intelligent whatsoever. And if you think they did, shame on you. Read them better. They’re stupid. They’re literally three-year-old, right? What happens is though, there is a living of the world and we start to understand things in economic terms. Well, if you can understand things in personal terms, like, oh, this person did this painting and their style was X, and then there’s a style to the painting. It’s like, this is all ridiculous talk. It’s all connected. Either it’s connected to the highest or we should throw it out or burn it or something, right? And when we don’t have that, when we start making these separations, these hardline separations, whether it be in time, right? Which never works out right or in style, which never works out right because styles lead into one another. That’s when we break everything because that’s measurement, that’s quantity. We’re trying to measure things again, right? So when you go to measure things economically, you start to see the industrial revolution because an economic change happened, right? But what didn’t change, and VanderKlai talks about this or has talked about it a couple of times, people used to go to work in a suit and they’d change clothes. Even the workers that worked in the car, they’d change clothes so that you knew that when they were going to work, when they were going to work in the mine, they had to look good. Why? Because they’re not going to the mines to make money. It’s not an economic frame for them. It’s the frame of adhering to the highest value, which is supporting the society and the grubby work that has to get done and that still has to get done. Those people are still there and they used to wear suits and now they don’t. So the change isn’t economic at all to your point, Jess. The whole idea of the industrial revolution to some extent is a red herring because it pre-assumes, right? All of this economic framing that doesn’t even exist. It doesn’t make sense to think of the world that way. People aren’t economic, they’re spiritual. Fundamentally spiritual. Maybe sexual, maybe, maybe, maybe, but we don’t know what this was spiritually is as a culture. We kind of, it’s the… Yeah. Oh, hey, Teo. I think there was another, there’s another thing that happened as far as like, well, how did this change or how did things continue? There’s a proliferation of works and their wide distribution. So, okay, this just reminds me of this. So Charles Wesley, John Wesley, Wesleyan denomination, Methodist denomination. Charles Wesley once wrote a pamphlet in response to the number of people that were continuing to reprint his work, but add to it. And so he wrote to that and said, he said, these verses and this music cannot be mended. Do not mend them. And if you do, I beg you to do it in the margin or at the bottom of the page. Do not mend or adjust this art. Don’t put your own twist on it, but if you must, do it in the margins. And I think that that is sort of, it’s relevant because we’ve, it’s relevant because you have people taking what is considered to be a work of complete art, relativizing it and republishing it. And so that kind of happens probably in the Renaissance, 1500, the printing press, right? That whole area. And so that’s kind of a bit of an issue. I can understand his fault. I also think it could be adjusted, but anyway, I thought that was somewhat relevant as to why things are the way they are and how things changed. I think that’s really important actually, what you just said, the fact that a unique work is tempered, is changed into, made to look like it’s something else. It’s a continual problem. Instead of letting it stand on its own legs, I guess you could almost say. I think it’s very important actually. Right, and if we don’t have a touchstone or cornerstone or a foundation of what is the standard, there would be no measure by which to even address the possible issues with a reproduction or modification. That’s exactly right. And that’s what happened to philosophy and all of these other things that have become extremely crazy, right? We just got, well, I guess that was Ethan’s point in a sense, that the protest against the protest against the protest, like it just, yeah, everything becomes wishy washy and without form, without color, I guess you could say. Well, it’s without grounding, right? It’s Immanuel Kant who does the postmodern critique. He’s the original postmodern critique, I critique a critique, right, honestly, right? So for Cohen and Barrett, I did nothing new because Kant had already done it. But the other thing he does is he says, well, why is philosophy the handmaiden of religion? And now he opens the door to move that line. And he, and now the line where it was actually making. Well, but yeah, I mean, Immanuel Kant wasn’t the first, right, but it’s interesting. Because I looked it up the other day actually, so. Yeah, yeah, no, no, I get it. It’s interesting because even in the Cooper-Vervicki Vanderklei conversation, they talked about this post Kantian Lutheranism, so it’s like, oh, yes, like this has an effect on everything, it’s not just destroying philosophy. But when you try to play the philosophy only game, it’s all relativistic because the philosophy is not grounded in anything. That’s why I think Jo shouldn’t be saying, where are you standing? He should say, where are you starting? Because that’s what’s missing where they’re starting because when you dig down on the Vervickis and even the Petersons, as much as I love them, they do not understand creation. They are not starting from being as good and deriving every thought of that. And that’s part of the big problem. So the only problem is there’s lots of critiques there. But that’s a big problem. It’s like we’re taking a photocopy of something and then we’re photocopying that and then we’re photocopying that and then we’re photocopying that. And then we’ve just got this really granulated image and we’re trying to redraw something. It’s like, wait, the original is just like right here. It’s right there. Why are you trying to rediscover something that’s, it’s not like, we’re not trying to resurrect something. We’re not doing archeology. It’s right there. It’s like that conversation that all posted was so frustrating. It’s like post-Kantian Lutherism. I didn’t see this. What is he talking about? It’s like, they’re just, it’s just, they’re struggling with the identity of the Lutheran church and whatever is it that they got going, where Vakey’s got going. It’s like, it’s right there. Just turn, it’s right there. What’s right there? Well, look, the bottom line is- Rediscover something that’s already there that people are already doing that’s been there the whole time. And they just, they can’t submit to it. They want to rediscover it themselves. And you’re never going, I mean, you’re gonna have to, you’re gonna have to do the whole Exodus story again. You’re gonna have to go, you’re gonna have to, you’re gonna have to do 10 plagues, go out into the wilderness, you know, go up the mountain, have a tabernacle. You have to redo all of that stuff, you know. Are you saying for the Vakey project to succeed, you’ll have to recreate all of those? Or is that the Lutheran trying to recreate? No, it’s both. It’s the Protestant ethos as such. So just to clarify for Bruce, what I think what Cooper was trying to do, and Cooper is apparently a past Luther, the next hundred years scholar, right? That’s what his dissertation and his set of books are on, right? His argument is, well, had you stuck with the pure Luther, you’d be fine, okay? I think that’s absurd on its surface anyway, and it’s irrelevant. I think both cases are true, right? Because you can’t grab it in a vacuum and keep it pure. I mean, and part of the problem with Protestantism is of course, it’ll never do that because it’s identification against, not an identification for, right? And like fair enough, but Ethan’s point is different with this, look, we have a standard, we already have something that we can just look back to and go back to. And that’s where the argument is. It’s like the Protestant is like, no, we can’t go back there because the church is broken. Right? And so we can rebuild this. And then this hopefully answers Taylor’s question, which is, yeah, I mean, part of John Vervicki’s project, one of his projects is a religion that’s not a religion. So he wants to rebuild from scratch through his postmodern deconstruction. What 2000 plus years of history has already rocked. Yeah, right, right. And we talked about this in our talk. Right, the odds are zero. Yeah. If you take distributed cognition seriously, you and your smart friends, no matter how many of them there are, I love it, I love it. They are not going to reproduce the 2000 year history of the Christian church. Yeah, we talked about this in our talk. And I say, I don’t have to have my child experience poison ivy to not tell him to learn that poison ivy is bad for you. Okay, so he doesn’t have to go get poison ivy, my son. I can teach him that this is going to hurt you. Right? We can rest on the teaching of the church. We can rest on the teaching of our fathers. And we can rest on the teaching that is set before us so that we would indeed prosper or at least not have to experience these awful scenarios. So I totally agree with that. Yeah, Bruce, I think Mark and Jordan keep a little bit of a disservice. So let me try to give them some Christian needs that might be more salient to you. I think his project is more, if I understand correctly, it’s more saying, not that Luther, if we started with Luther, everything would have been fine. It’s more saying we’ve gone so far away from Luther’s reformation that it’s not, it doesn’t make sense to refer to modern Protestants and Lutheran Protestants as the same thing because they were still at least at some form of enchantment. And I think it’s the re-enchantment that is trying to go back to the early Lutheran reformation to get some things from. And it sounds like from your description of your church, just the building in general, it sounds like your reform tradition is on a similar path. More than that. No, no, we’re- You like that? Well, no, we subscribe to Semper Reformanda, right? Which is always reforming. That doesn’t mean changing. Indeed, it means correcting to the standards of scripture as the only way that we would bind our conscience. And so the church must be reformed to a standard. So like Luther, for instance, held a number of traditions and he maintained those actually for the sake of tradition. And many of them held them as well. Even Calvin discusses the fact that there are certain battles that are worth fighting and there are others that are not for the sake of the truth. And so he wasn’t interested in wholesale destruction of the tradition, only reforming it so that it was oriented correctly. And so that’s, and we hold to the similar idea, we’re not, I’m not interested in revolution. Although I think many people say we are, but I disagree. For those trying to follow the thread here, what’s actually going on is can you retell metanarratives? That’s the actual, these are all metanarrative questions. Can we get beyond metanarrative? Can we get beyond narrative? It’s like, as soon as Viveki said that, for me, I lost trust basically. I was like, no, you can’t get beyond narratives because that’s a narrative. You can’t use like, it’s another spin of the cycle. Like it’s not gonna work. Yes, you can try and retell the story of your group preferences, which is another, so bring it in for the meaning of this people. Yeah, I don’t know. This is my question to Elizabeth. Can we bring back all of these medieval stuff? I don’t know. It’s like, yeah, you can try and build the understanding of that era and what its narrative was. Can it all come across? Can it all fly in? It’s gonna be hard to say. Well, we’re already bringing, we’re already. Yuval Nari, the Sapiens guy, is doing the very same thing but for a very different tribe than Viveki. And it’s actually quite dangerous. Like it’s dangerous to the point that I don’t think Viveki’s seeing yet. Because he’s kind of trying to stay objective in some aspects. And I’m like, it’s the same thing with Hansen. Do the meeting crisis or are we going to do the meeting of faith crisis? Time to appreciate this image. Trying to do the meeting of faith crisis, what Hansen seems to be doing. Who’s the artist? Playing with fire. Who’s the artist? I’m the artist. He’s playing with fire. Yeah, well look, I mean, it’s extremely postmodern to say, oh, we gotta get past narrative or around narrative or as if narrative is the problem. Because that was the postmodern critique of let’s say the early 20th century, right? Like that was the critique. And my argument is that’s not a critique. If you think that’s a critique, you’re an idiot. It’s not a critique, it’s an observation. There’s a difference between those two things. And the fact that a couple of three-year-olds or however many postmoderns there are made the observation not impressive to me. You’re not impressing me by noticing that people spun a story that other people followed. The thing that they did that would have been a proper critique is they destroyed the churches in important ways. So in Germany, they destroyed the church by replacing it with the cultism, right? And what Stalin did when he destroyed the church by saying, you can exist, okay? But you can’t communicate. And you can’t go out and talk to people and you can’t talk to other churches. So he isolated them and then he made things illegal, right? So if you had too many copies of the Torah in your house, you could go to the gulag, the wheel. See the English, they knew this for a fact. I have a friend who was there when something like that almost happened to his friend, right? So they knew what they were doing. The postmoderns were too stupid to understand what Hitler and Stalin were doing. But I’m not, I see it quite clearly. You have to read the original sources of course, right? Go to those original papers, you’ll see what they were doing and other people knew what they were doing. Why do you do that? Because in order to tell a good narrative from a bad narrative, you need to destroy the ethical system. The ethical system, any ethical system that you have is always your religion. That’s what religion is. It’s the ep, it’s not philosophy. Philosophy can’t provide ethics. It’s not possible. Philosophy can help you implement your ethics, right? It’s good implementation of ethics, but the only thing that provides ethics is religion. Anytime you talk about ethics or morality, you are talking about religion. I’m gonna bring Elizabeth on this. I’m trying to use other words for this, whether it be metaphysics, and Jordan Cooper used that word, my head nearly exploded. Religious people don’t need the word metaphysics. No such thing as metaphysics. Talking about religion. Except Aquinas. Go ahead. Anytime that you need to, and if the scientists scream and run away, then consider that a win and be happy. Okay? Not that I can build torture, but I’ll make an exception in that case. That’s what you’re talking about. Elizabeth needs to inform us here. I wanna hear your, you touched on it earlier, your experience with St. Catherine of Siena, right? St. Catherine? Yeah, yeah. So, you’re learning something about this saint, and this saint is informing the good. She’s informing the good to you. And it’s not philosophical. It’s something- No, it’s the particularity. That’s what Dante’s all about. It’s the particularity. That’s why I take exception to the particularity, which is the part of the way, it’s the way reality is set up. I take exception to particularity being dismissed in any way because that’s the revelation of the unity of the eternal, if you like, in time and space. And so St. Catherine, they had this idea of, and McGilchrist talks about this again. I cannot overemphasize how important Ian McGilchrist’s work is for our times. I don’t agree with him totally, but what he does, Marcus, is he takes language and he defines all his terms so carefully, it’s beautiful. He defines reason. It’s so very important because I hear people constantly using these words in different ways. So, even amongst all of us, we’re not talking about the same thing when we use these very commonly used words. Anyway, so he talks about this, McGilchrist, exemplars, that embody the way we’re called to live. And so I think it’s connected. I think to John Verbeke’s credit, I have to say, I think underneath it all, just like Jordan is going somewhere else, he appears to be going at times, I think they’re trying to understand what Dante was talking about, which is attention. I think to your point about recovering the medieval, it’s attention. So, because Mark talked about the beautiful stained glass window, well, we have that, you know, when we go back into tradition, it gives us the substructures, I guess, of these patterns that then we can see because, to your point, Mark, if you’ve heard about the stained glass windows, it’s like if you haven’t heard the story of Jesus, you can’t figure out about Aslan, right? Like if you haven’t seen the great stained glass windows produced by the genius, unsurpassed ever, you can’t see the stained glass windows here in a certain sense. And so that’s what I mean by bringing forth the tradition. I’m not talking about like you were saying, Bruce, like trying to just plagiarize it in a way. I’m talking about seeing the work for what it is and being thankful. I like the word thankful much better than gratitude. I have an allergy to gratitude, I’m sorry. And then, because what we need to do is alert our vision. We need to alert our attention. We need to have the perceptual apparatus in place so that we can actually see anything. And I think that’s the point of St. Catherine and these saints, that they’re exemplars. They’re people that we can see, I guess. We can see, I mean, yeah, it has something to do with embodiment and it has to do with vision too. I don’t understand vision and perception and attention very well, but that’s, I think that’s what McGill, Kristen Peterson and Peugeot and Verbecky are all trying to figure out. They’re trying to widen our understanding of vision so that when somebody says something that seems like something else, we have widened our vision enough that we can understand what they’re talking about and we can show mercy, right? We can then enter into their world and they can enter into our world. I think that’s what St. Catherine’s about. And I think, and I really have to say Dante is an essential book for everybody to read as well. If you haven’t read Dante, I don’t know that you really understand much. He’s just, because he’s, it’s poetry number one. He was working, Thomas Aquinas said that you couldn’t possibly reveal truth in poetry and Dante having been gifted with probably one of the greatest. Dante was after, right? Or were they contemporaries? Yeah, they were pretty close. They were pretty close. They didn’t know each other. They didn’t know of each other though, but they were around the same time. They were a part of the same… But to the point that I was making a little bit, if I might say so, even though he wrote his great Commedia, because, which was not called a Commedia by the way, by Dante, it wasn’t really intended to be the divine comedy just so everybody knows that’s what Bocacha named it. But Dante, where was I going with that? Ethan, what did you just say? I said something about the Dante and Aquinas they were children of the same age. Yeah, that’s the point. Because even though he wrote his book to show that in poetry the truths could be revealed at the end paradise, he makes a point of lauding Thomas Aquinas, right? So it’s that, I don’t know, there’s something really beautiful about that perspective. So even though he would critique, he would also love and be thankful for the presence of. And to me, once again, that’s the great gift, right? That’s the context. Let us never be too rigid in some sense. And yet never, he doesn’t lose Dante. You know what he does at the end of paradise? He throws in all the doctrine. It’s amazing. No spoilers. No, no, you need to know this anyway. No, it’s important. No, because it’s the point Bruce is making at the point that John Vervecky has trouble with, the propositional Dante purposefully I’m convinced. It’s so strange because it’s this beautiful poetry like he’s in paradise. It’s so incredibly beautiful. Like you just can’t imagine the poetry and the imagery and the feminine. It’s all feminine. And yet there, then he stuffs in all the theology, right? The last 10 pante. So that’s the point, right? Like you can have that point, but you need it. You need the propositional. You can’t do without it because we, that’s, well, anyway, that’s a whole other discussion, but yeah. Yeah. He’s drawing the words. He’s drawing, he’s putting, he’s joining Francis Schaeffer’s upper and lower story, right? He’s putting everything together. The whole world is created in goodness. And that’s the point. So that’s a little, that’s my point. And I think I’m not Catholic. So I’ve never really understood the saints, but I’m beginning to understand. Well, I’m beginning to understand them because it, well, when you’re surrounded by these saints and images of saints and angels everywhere, you look and then the Christ always there. It does change you. I’m just saying, I know experiences and everything, but I can truly say having been in Catholic Italy has profoundly changed me. I have a sense of God and the world in a way I never had before. And I’m a Protestant through and through. You say that. Well, I am. I was raised that way. Like my father was, I had to, you know, he was just a. Well, I was just, going based off of what you just said. Okay, we’ll leave it at that. Well, it just goes to show you that maybe all of us, I think we need to work together to Mark’s point. We need to work together because any of us who can see any of this, if we can see, if we’re even here, we all see things that are very important. We mustn’t forget that. Like each person, like you’re looking for leaders, each person in any of these chats is incredibly important as far as I can see because we’re able to see things. There’s some how from our different perspectives, we’re all able to see things. And it can’t be like to me, it’s so important. We don’t even know, man, this is so important. Like Mark, what you’re doing, what you’re doing. It’s just like, it’s immeasurably, it’s quality, right? It’s just, it can’t. So my thing is that we must, we have to, you know, the more we can incorporate John Brevicki’s ideas of perception and attention that he’s working out with Peterson because they’re trying to widen the notion of reality. They’re not being relativistic as they appear to be sometimes. They’re trying to get us back to what they used to understand when they worked close to the earth all the time and they weren’t so detached by mechanism. That’s what I mean by the industrial revolution. I’m talking about machines, right? And they’re trying to get us back to understanding how people incorporated the patterns of the creation always because they couldn’t escape them in a certain sense. So I think the more we can, you know, these conferences like at Thunder Bay, like they’re so incredibly important. So that’s my thing. Like I just wanna encourage everybody work together, work together and keep going and everybody’s doing a really important, I can’t say enough about all of you. Like you’re young people, you younger people, you have no idea, you’re so important for this world. The world is crying out for people like you. There’s like zillions of people without any direction at all. And they’ve swallowed that. I’ve taught children, right? I know what happened to them in the universities and it’s frightening. It’s frightening to see these children who understood things and had such a sense of their own divine, nevermind whether they went to church or not, they knew they were divine, these little souls because they’re still in the right brain as Nagelkirch points out until they’re seven or eight. They’re all right brain, man. They’re all intuition and imagination and you damn well see it with children. Then I meet them later and they’ve gone to university and they are so brainwashed. It’s equal to Eastern Germany, man. We’re talking, I don’t know about America, but in Canada, we’re talking about Eastern Germany indoctrination in the schools and there’s no way around it. That’s what it is. Yeah, don’t, well, what us homeschool types like to say is don’t be surprised if you send your children to Rome that they don’t come back as Romans. And that’s what you’re doing in the public sphere in most cases. Well, I’m afraid it is, but it’s everywhere too. It’s everywhere. So people have to be super courageous. We can’t be isolationists. I’m not saying that, I’m saying. I’m just putting it in. Yeah, yeah, I’m not making an appeal to that. I do understand how you could get there though, definitely. And I even have those tendencies. You know, I gotta be honest with myself. You know, it’s easy to pull, like to make Rob Dreher look like a child and go even farther into aesthetic isolationism and just hold the line hard. But again, you also want to ground all of that in truth and not assume neutrality in the world and have your children sent to the wolves or even yourself, not just your children, you know. Yeah, yourself, your good point. Like let us not, that’s why I think people listen to Peterson because it is as dangerous as he lets us know. And then he cries, right? And then he weeps because that’s the world, right? We’re living in, I’m not being hyperbolic. We’re living in an incredibly dangerous time. I went to East Germany and I spoke German and I know what it felt like. So we’re in trouble. We need, so anybody who sees anything, we need to really work together to Mark’s point. Everybody, everybody. And John, in my opinion, I think John Verbeke and Jordan Peterson, they’re trying to widen up people’s perceptual apparatus and their way of understanding attention so that they can understand what on earth you’re talking about in the church because we don’t understand, I don’t even understand what some of you are talking about. And I was raised in a Christian family in a Christian church. I don’t understand some things, right? It’s like we have to be really careful. That’s the thing too, Elizabeth. I mean, I don’t think Christian should understand anything Verbeke says, honestly, because he is using foreign language to express ideas that Christianity has well in hand. And there’s nothing wrong with that because he needs to reach an audience with that that otherwise cannot be reached. But I agree with you that he is expanding the idea of reality for people. And I think like, and I’ve said this before, one of the most powerful things is participatory knowing. Because again, he’s not saying that knowledge isn’t the highest thing, although it isn’t, right? Which means he’s not challenging anyone’s ideas. Because a lot of people think knowledge is, it gets power, it’s half the battle, it’s all these great things, but it’s not. But instead of challenging them on that, because that’s gonna be impossible, they’re just gonna, their eyes are gonna glaze over, they’re not gonna hear you anymore. Peugeot actually said this in Exodus, episode eight, he actually said this about Peterson to Oz Guinness. Which is good. Yeah, I heard that. Right, an hour and 20 minutes in thereabouts. He says that, he says, no, you can’t talk about God with these people, their eyes glaze over. Right, right, right. Right, but Peterson has a way of reaching now. And I think Verbeke has a way of reaching people who in some sense are even worse off, I’d say, right? Some of the people that hang out on the Verbeke Discord server, for example, reject Peterson. They can’t even understand Peterson’s work, and fair enough, right? But by expanding the idea of knowledge, not saying knowledge is garbage, because sometimes I say that, because it totally is, right, and I like to be honest, right? But instead saying, there’s a different type of knowledge you haven’t experienced. Then it’s like you open them up. And that’s the opening up that you’re talking about. Now you’re expanding the world for them. And now they’re able to engage in a way that is generative again. Because part of the problem is they think they live in the matrix, right? And they think they only have two options, right? One option is live in this complete delusion that’s totally unreal and it’s completely fabricated. And the other option is live in this disgusting, dirty submarine where we eat food that tastes like snot and we buzz around the sewers of a dead city. And those are their only two options. And like, no, the world is full of delusions, and there’s a quarrel, a caring of the world. Like we’ve lost all of those senses because we keep telling these bad narratives over and over again. And John Ravichy looks at this and he goes, oh, I’m a postmodern. Well, I know what the problem with narrative is. The problem with narrative is narrative. But the problem with narrative isn’t narrative. The problem with narrative is that there are good narratives and there are bad narratives. And the way you know the difference is religion. That’s the problem. You don’t have that, you can’t tell. Yeah, the one thing I wanna point out in the case of unity as Elizabeth was talking about earlier, was unity among us. Interesting you make the Peugeot and Guinness are like on the same spot, right? They’re like together. And Peugeot, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and Oz Guinness, a reformed Anglican in the United States now. But they share a very, very similar confession at least from the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. What I’m saying is there are distinctions between the two camps and they are right and good to make and very valid. But there’s a unity there that I think we can encourage. Especially in these forums as opposed to, like I said earlier, emphasizing the boundaries. But it was interesting to see that interaction, right? With Oz Guinness, Jonathan Peugeot and Jordan Peterson in that last episode. Oz Guinness with his continual redirection of the conversation during all the episodes. It gave Jonathan Peugeot courage, right? So Jonathan was willing to take, he took a leadership role there. It was quite impressive. And I thought it was amazing because he said to Jordan, you need to listen to Oz Guinness. That was amazing. I haven’t watched the series so I couldn’t say it. Peugeot’s always been on this side of Peterson and Guinness was pulling in the other direction. Exactly, exactly. And so then that gave Oz Guinness because he, and he has such a deep appreciation for the Torah and the Old Testament. And so having that kind of, you know, Dennis Prager rooting him. But then Jonathan was able to then express to Oz Guinness what Peterson was about too. I just thought it was, I thought Jonathan was at his best moment there. That’s great. I was really, bless his heart. I haven’t seen any of the shows. I’ve only seen clips here and there. I should watch it. I find the dynamic is really interesting because you have Exodus. So there’s Peugeot who typically would read the Greek Septuagint there, Oz Guinness who’s well-versed in the Hebrew and the Greek. And then you have Prager who speaks Hebrew, right? His brother speaks Hebrew. Yeah, they’re both, well, I mean, he’s as a biblical theologian like divine, the doctor of divinity. He’s engaging in the Greek and the Hebrew. And then you have Peugeot and Prager and Guinness. And so it’s like this position of, okay, Hebrew, Old Testament, natural law, mere God. And then you have Christ as propositional requirement for salvation. And then you have Peugeot as Christ as embodied in the experiential, right? As an ascetic way of life, as how we should live in church and body together. And so you have this position of this triangle, Trinity as it were almost, of like God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. This is really, I’m not, you know, it’s a little blasphemous to get this symbolic on it, but what I’m saying is you have some real fruit coming out of such an important ecumenical discussion around the issue of meaning and then the shared understanding of God. I think it’s rare that this is done in such a public forum in a very long time. Well, and nobody disagrees. There’s no disagreement. It’s all discussion. And the interesting thing about the series to me, because I didn’t take very many notes until eight, like a bombshell, it’s like a nuclear weapon. Awesome. It was really good. But the takeaway for me was to see someone like Prager right there in the moment. And this is something people do not do enough with Jordan Peterson. That really pisses me off. Prager will say, oh, that’s very good. I learned something from that. You’ve opened my eyes to that. You’ve opened a possibility to me. And he says that like, when Verveki, even when Verveki and Pidgeot and Peterson are talking, and Peterson makes a devastatingly on point, like absolute bombshell of a statement. They walk right on past it. They don’t stop going, wow, that’s really good. That’s a shame because we need more of that. And look, I’m probably guilty of this, right? But I try to do that. I try to say, hey, no, that’s a really good point. I like that point, right? And then move on from there because we’re not seeing people give people credit when they are actually smart. Instead, everyone’s just assuming everyone’s smart when there’s no disagreement. And I think that’s detrimental to this whole idea of having standards and holding people to them, right? And I think that’s how you get into, oh, Foucault and Derrida are smart. You know, Foucault and Derrida are smart in the way of broken clock is right, okay? I’m not keeping that clock. I’m throwing it away, just like I’m doing with Foucault and Derrida. And I challenge anybody because I’ve been asking for decades. Tell me what the human-to-modernism is. Go ahead, tell me. I’m here listening. You know what I’ve gotten? Crickets, crickets. The biggest crickets that you’ve never seen. They’re ghost crickets. They’re enormous ghost crickets. Well, that’s a good hint. They’re the smartest people I’ve ever met. If all these people claim to be smaller, they can’t tell me what good’s coming out of Foucault and Derrida. Maybe that’s because there’s no good there, guys. Why am I listening to these idiots? I’m not. I’m not reading them. I’m not engaging with them. But you see, these are good points. When Peterson says, there’s a way that you go to a place so dark that you know you’re going to the darkness to increase the darkness. When he says that, and I might be paraphrasing, but I think I got a quote, that’s you stop. You go, that’s an excellent definition of one method of evil, for sure. Like, it fits one of my four rules of evil. So yeah, there’s definitely a way that you can go someplace so dark that you know you’re going in the dark. There’s no ambiguity here. And of course, Peugeot defended Foucault, which in my mind is a high primer meter. I mean, we’ll have to forgive him because of the symbolism. But still, he’s on the edge on that one. But for Vakie, he goes right out and defends it. And I’m like, you can’t. And how does he do it? He says, oh, no, no, no, no. The ancient Greeks were clear about this. People only ever do what they think is good. And I think that’s BS. I think he’s totally BS. And if the ancient Greeks said that, then they’re frickin’ wrong. And I can show them that they’re wrong. Because I can show them that people that know they’re doing wrong and are doing it anyway. They are not doing it. It’s a difference. You mean, look at. They know they’re doing evil in the world. You can hear Jordan Peterson here. It’s like, look at Cain and Abel. Genesis, is it three or four? It’s four, right? Genesis four? It’s like, Cain was willfully rebelling against the good. That’s absent. That’s absent in the Greek tradition. It’s right there. Yeah. One thing a friend of mine always says is, we are willful creatures. We’re willful. That’s what got us into this mess in the first place. We are willful. That’s true. Yeah, pride. We are entirely willful. Pride, pride, pride, eh? A will that is in bondage to our evil sin, indeed. I want to do just briefly. So the whole reason I wanted Elizabeth to tell that story about St. Catherine is that because I was talking to her virtually, and she’s telling me basically the same story about this saint. And the thing that I remember most is that she starved herself. And I remember thinking, it’s like, I’m hearing this story from Elizabeth about this saint that starved herself. And so here are the main points of identity. Historical woman starved herself good. That makes no rational or logical sense at all. I didn’t say that, though. I said she didn’t eat very much. Well, that means she starved herself. Well, I’m just saying that that’s all I know is that she didn’t eat very much because when one of her family members sinned or did something wrong, she was atoning for them. She felt this profound need to atone for the mistakes of people around her. So because she was atoning, it’s as if she couldn’t eat. So I just wanted to flesh it out a bit. Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, her husband is sanctified through his wife, as it says in Corinthians, right? And the wife through the husband, right? So like in her case, if she has an unbelieving child or unbelieving husband or just difficulties in sanctification, her faithfulness brings holiness to the marriage. Yeah. And she may not have been married or maybe she was. She was not. No, she wouldn’t have been. But the idea is there. I think it’s fair to say that there is a calling for that sacrificial posture. Yeah. So when she’s telling me this story, I guess you don’t want to call it starving. I mean, I think that’s she’s neglecting eating. She’s neglecting eating. Well, she is starving in the sense, I mean, biologically she’s starving. Yeah. Right, right. OK. I’m going to call it starving. I’m going to call it starving. That’s fine, because that’s true. There’s a historical woman. There’s a woman in history, woman, historical, starving herself, good, these four things. Now, I have enough context of Christianity to know, to understand what she means when she says good, the fourth one. But though, subtract that context. Those things don’t go together. They don’t. And the only way that you can know, the only way that you get that fourth one, the good, the last one, that these are good, the only way you can know that is through context, through being there and living it and participating. Elizabeth had a personal experience with the saint. She was participating in the saint, in the identity of the saint. That is where the good comes from. This is what Mark was talking about. It’s like, philosophy will tell you everything you need to know about the good, but it will not tell you what the good is. It cannot. The only thing that can inform goodness is context, I guess, if we’re going to prove it in language. It’s context. Participation, in particular. Participation, it’s there. It’s living the life of the saint. That is what informs the ethic. That’s where the ethic comes from. Philosophy will never give you that, but it will give you everything you need to know to think about it, articulate it, and see how it works in the world. It’ll tell you everything you need to know about the good, but it will not tell you what the good is. I can’t convey to you. The only reason that she can convey, the only reason that I can engage in the conversation with her, in a conversation with her about this saint, is because I have a rough understanding of the context of Christianity. But I won’t fully understand what she’s going through unless I go through the same experience. And I could go to Italy, and maybe someday I will do this, and she’ll take me through to these physical locations that the saint was at. There’s relics, and there’s all this stuff. Her head is there. Her head is there. Her head is there, exactly. And one of her fingers, and I couldn’t believe it. But it’s… I couldn’t believe it. And I always thought, what on earth, you know? But there is the… Exactly, what on earth? The embodiment, man. That’s the… It’s the embodiment of what you’re talking about, of the good, because you can’t understand it to your point. You couldn’t possibly understand that without the great context of everything. Tutto, as they say. Tutto, which is in Italian, which is lovely, Mark. It’s for everything, but there’s no thing. There’s no word thing in it. It’s tutto. Yeah, and thus is how good is informed in creation. This is how we come to know goodness. That’s why in Exodus, we’re reading about it. It’s like, oh, the Israelites are looking up at the mountain, and there’s smoke, there’s clouds, there’s lightning, all kinds of crazy, what we would think of as crazy stuff is going on around this mountain, brewing up. That’s what they’re conveying in this story. It’s like, there’s something profound happening. I mean, how are you going to describe this experience of participating in the identity of the saint, other than, I don’t know. I mean, it is like smoke, and there’s something very ineffable is happening. Well, the strange thing is though symbolism happens too, because I had to find a place to stay. So I said to my friend, well, there’s a hotel, Santa Catarina. So I guess I better go there, and you’ll never believe it. The ladies who worked there, I swear they embodied Saint Catherine. I’ve never met women like that, who are so gracious and kind when they serve you their breakfast or when they clean your room. It was uncanny. It says that’s how attention works, right? So when you see something, when you see something, then it starts revealing itself. It is true. Yeah. You saw Saint Catherine, and you physically saw her too. You saw her physically embodied in the people in that town that you went in. Like you saw Saint Catherine. I couldn’t believe it. I’ve never, I think they might’ve been, I don’t know who these ladies were who worked in the hotel. They were extraordinary. I’ve never met anybody like them before. But you recognized something in these people that appeared to be strangers to you. But you recognize something familiar in them, a common familiarity in them. That’s the spirit. That’s the spirit. And that’s what they’re conforming to. They’re conforming to the spirit. And look, I mean, and this is great and important, but again, the problem is that’s great for people that have a faith framing. But if you never had that faith framing, now we have a different set of problems. I mean, that’s why I’m working on this mark of wisdom stuff, right? To try and give people, open them up, right? And then give them slowly a framing. Because they don’t have it. No, Mark, no, I have to disagree. That’s Dante’s point. Dante’s story is about him. And you, I, 700 years later can relate to it. I tell everybody, everywhere I go about Santa Catarina. It’s a really, really big thing. And they understand it. It’s a really, really big thing. Dante’s story is about himself. If Dante’s story is about himself, that’s like, that’s, it might underwrite the whole wisdom. No, because it’s about him made in the image of God, right? He’s talking about who he is in the pattern. And so he- Why are you doing- Sorry, I’ll let you- Okay. No, it’s the particularity. It’s the image of, it’s the imageness. It’s the divine image. And it’s the great articulation of the divine image. You notice that with people, right? People who understand that, who live that way, they shine forth the patterns. And it’s in the particularity. People who really understand the patterns are strong characters. They’re noticeable characters. I don’t know. That’s just my, I’m convinced that when you- People who shine forth patterns or values of preferences, regardless of religion or denomination. No, because I’m talking about in the image of God. Inevitably they will. Inevitably they will. Yeah, I would say that’s- I think we’re talking about different things. Well, I would say that’s true. I would say that’s true, but there’s an orientation that’s correct and there’s one that’s wrong. So in the story of Exodus, right? Moses is on the mountain. They have the law, goes back again. They’re upset. And then they also erect a calf, an idol, right? So they are shining a virtue. They’re attempting to build the good. Moses then has to rebuke them and intercede on their behalf to God and hold them accountable to the standard. And so the orientation still required propositionally to get them correct. And so God puts a positive law in place. So they have a moral law. They’re living out this way. They build an idol. It’s wrong. It must be corrected. So yes, people have virtue. And yes, people create because of the image bearing nature and their understanding of the moral natural law, but it’s not always correct. It must be corrected by the standard. And that standard is the God of the Bible who has positive laws that he has put onto you to follow for your sake, not for his sake, but for your sake. And so because people are virtuous and exude all sorts of wonderful values that in their own religion, and maybe they’re not Christian and they’re pagan, it must be indeed corrected. But I’m talking about Dante, a great Catholic. I don’t know what we’re talking about. I’m only speaking the Jessie’s point of there are people that do things in the world that are good, and I’m only speaking that. Dante was a Catholic, I believe, I’m sure, at the time, and a believer of some sort. Christian, they didn’t have Catholics back then. He was a Protestant Christian. He was part of one particular political party. Yeah, I mean, there were particularities in there, I mean, for sure. I mean, Thomas Aquinas. Yeah, yeah, there’s different orders, of course, right? Pre-Catholic, yeah, I guess you’d say. Well, I mean, it’s the 13th century, right? It’s the mid to late 13th century. Christian is bigger, right? Yeah, there’s all sorts of issues there. What are you saying? Oh, you’re saying, well, they probably are, but you wouldn’t ever read it and not think that he was a Christian, that’s all. I mean, there are lines of demarcation. I mean, he’s, I guess, from a theological point of view, he’s clear as crystal, so that’s why we read it. I would say he’s a Christian, I would say he’s a Christian, for sure. I mean, all sorts of interesting doctrine and symbology and things like that, but I mean, he was Catholic, not Orthodox. The schism had already occurred. He wasn’t Muslim, so he was Catholic Christian. I don’t know. And the same for the Aquinas. Well, I just think individuals really do make a difference. If Dante can tell a story that’s like a testimony, but if Dante’s telling a story about Dante’s own salvation for Dante’s own purposes, then we have a problem, because that’s where we’re now, historically. I thought that’s what Elizabeth was saying. Sorry? You want me to speak for you? Sorry, I’ll let her speak for herself. I was going to say what I thought Elizabeth was saying, but I’ll let you speak. No, no, you go ahead, go ahead. Yeah, I don’t think she’s saying that Dante’s story was particular, meaning Dante was writing a story about Dante to show how Dante got served for the purpose of Dante. I think she’s saying the particularity of the testimony of Dante, 700 later, she’s able to draw from it. And I think that she’s trying to solve the problem that you laid out, which is how do we go back and retrieve from the past? I was going to make a point, because while she was explaining, while Ethan was explaining Elizabeth’s conversation about the saint, and how she was able to embody that, I was, my brain juxtaposing that with John Vivek’s after Socrates, because that’s what, that is intent is for people to be able to embody the Socratic way, but Elizabeth was able to do that a lot more, like she’s able to embody it. And I don’t know if that’s because like Mark says, the meaning crisis people and the faith crisis people have very different needs, or if there’s something else there. Mm. I think part of the problem is that, and I have a video on this, right, words and meaning, right? Words don’t have meaning. The meaning is not in the freaking word. I just watched that. It’s a good one, isn’t it? Isn’t it great? Yeah, so what makes the meaning? It’s the content, which is the definition, plus the context, and the problem with this going back is that if you don’t have the context, you can’t do it. And so I don’t believe in trying to resurrect the Socratic method or whatever, because, not that I don’t use it, I do, right, but I don’t believe in trying to resurrect it, because I don’t think you can. I don’t think it’s gonna work, because we don’t have the framing. We don’t understand the ancient Greek situation. We don’t have their, you know, their way of interacting, we’re not living in their times with their struggles, right? And so I don’t think that can work. The bigger question is, can somebody with, let’s suppose they don’t get the whole lying Jesus thing, right, can that person experience any of these things? Like, if we send them to Rome, are they gonna understand? Like, if they go to the Vatican, are they gonna, I think they’re not. I think that Cajot’s right. When you expose them to something like that, their eyes glaze over. And I think I know why. I think Babachy actually says it, I don’t know if it’s in the Meaning Crisis or in some of the follow-on material, I’m pretty sure it’s in the Meaning Crisis. He says, there’s this axis between horror and awe, right? And you interface, we’ll say, with the ineffable, right, in whatever fashion, right? And then that can cause you anxiety. You go to the horror end, right? Or it can cause you to open up to the wonder of the world. You go to the awe end of the spectrum, right? It’s just, it’s the same line, though. It’s the same line that you’re traversing. And I think that’s the problem, is that when you take somebody and you, we’ll say, over-train them, I have a great video on training versus education, you over-train them and give them too much confidence in their individuality. They don’t actually have a scaffold to understand ethics and morality anymore. And that’s probably why they can’t interface with people, because ethics means nothing if it’s not about other people, right? There’s no ethics on a desert island. They said that, I believe, in Exodus, part eight, too. That came up. There’s no such thing as ethics on a desert island, right? So what that means is that they don’t have the skill to be moral agents in the world. They don’t have the scaffolding of the understanding. So there’s a whole realm of experience, of stories, that they can’t relate to, because they have no context to do it in, because they’re still children. They still say spiritually children. And so they can’t hold that. So you have to build that up. You have to get them interested somehow. Wisdom seems to be the big hook lately, because it’s kind of knowledge. And fair enough, I don’t care. Call it whatever you want. As long as I suck you in, I don’t care how, right? Yeah, let’s get them involved in the knowledge and then build up the context and the framework so that they can have those experiences. Because one of the most powerful things in John’s meditation series and follow on Complimating Wisdom series was his savoring practice. I was like, oh yeah, I used to do this all the time. I have to go out and savor again. When you just walk outside or you start to appreciate your desk and all the things on your desk and how they’re connected to you through time, right? And I have a ton of stuff here. I’m still dribbling things in from the other room from redoing my office. But you know, there’s all kinds of things here. I mean, I’ve got shrines to my dead uncles over here, right? And I’ve got postcards from various events, right? And I’ve got Sally’s little book and I’ve got a toy from when I was younger, right? And like, I’ve got a ton of stuff here and I’m connected to all of that. And there we go. And to be connected to all of that is really, really important. Like it’s super significant. And if you don’t have that practice, if you’re not connecting to your past, to your history, to whatever, that’s a problem. It’s a big problem. But I think the meaning crisis people are suffering from that. They don’t have any context. If you went to them and say, hey, who’s the lion like? They’re not gonna come up with the answer Jesus. I’ll tell you that one. That’s gonna be the furthest thing from their mind. And if you give them that answer, they’re gonna do what I did when I was a junior high, which is go, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know why this is relevant and I gotta go. I got things to do and this isn’t doing anything for me. Right? And that’s the problem is that the faith crisis people can get right back there because they were there once. The meaning crisis people can’t get back there because they were never there to begin with. There’s no back to go to. There’s no framework for them to grab onto these concepts to use them to get back into the faith because there’s no back into the faith for them. And it’s a very scary thing when you realize, and we saw it in the chat today with Benjamin Franklin. I still don’t think that’s his real name, right? Where it’s like, no, no, no, no. You’re looking at this backwards. You’re assuming the ax that there’s a standard by which you can judge who’s in the image of God. And then you’re redefining that. It’s like, no, that’s back thinking. You’re not gonna get a person like that into a framework that makes any sense until you fix that problem first. Yeah, Franklin’s definitely a meaning crisis victim, not a faith crisis victim. But that’s a serious problem, right? This is not an intellectual problem. This is a profound human struggle he’s obviously having. It’s not a joke. Those things, I don’t know if any of you have ever been in those places, but man, I’ve been in a place. It’s a huge problem. Like, I- No, but it’s scary. I’ve been in a place like that and that’s not a good place to be. You’re so confused by postmodern thinking. You don’t even know if you exist, kind of, right? No, that’s precisely it. Well, more importantly, I think, and this was a comment that was made, I think on the four-way conversation that I had Joey and Father Eric in with PVK, right? Well, somebody made the comment, I think it was subsequently deleted, but they basically said the biggest problem that most people have in the realm that this person was dealing with, which I think was basically people in crisis, was that they don’t know where they end and other people begin. Like, they don’t understand the concept of boundaries. And I see this all the time, and I talk to people, actually, I see it all the time. They have no idea where they end and other people begin. They don’t have a way to make that determination. Because they’re disembodied, literally. Like, literally disembodied. And I think to Jesse’s point, I mean, I think it would be, maybe it’d be interesting to talk to somebody like that if there’s enough time and space, I don’t know, because that could have been a really interesting conversation, too. Like, we might have, maybe, I just think we should, I don’t know, I have a feeling we should find out what people are thinking and getting to know all these people. I don’t know, that’s where we’re at. A lot of my friends are those people. A lot of my friends are in those spaces where just deep confusion that’s, I would call it a clear spiritual battle, but they’ve got no framing for that. So to them, it’s just deep confusion about existence. And you’re right, it is scary. But when I have a conversation with them, I think that’s why I’m very interested in Mark’s projects of deconstructing materialism. So just to put it that way, the materialism is so baked in that they can’t, there’s no, all of their framing is causation. It’s this happened because then they start being like, because another key thing that Mark has really got his finger on is the timing problem and the squeezing of time problem. Everything from their POV starts when they became conscious. And all of their, a lot of their, like they know that’s not, they’ll tell you that yes, things exist before I existed. They’ll tell you that. But when you speak to them, you realize that they, everything that exists, exists in their head. And that’s, and anything outside of the world that contradicts it is a threat to them as a person. It’s a threat to their existence. And trying to break someone out of that, it’s not easy. I think Chad, Chad always says, just keep showing up. And I think that’s the best thing I’m trying to do. Like church, church as a recommendation is, you might as well be telling them to sacrifice goats. That’s the same, that’s the same place, those two things are the same thing. Church and sacrifice, it’s the same thing. So then it’s just, okay, we’ve done away with it. And as far as they’re concerned, like modernity, scientists is going to solve the world. But when it doesn’t, then it’s everyone else’s fault for not doing it right. Because we do have the means to solve all of the world’s problems. We’re just not doing it. That’s how they see it. Yeah, it’s, I think there’s zillions of people like that. And like these ideas, you know, Mark, I studied, I studied French existentialism in university. It does, you say Foucault’s stupid and yeah, it’s true. But man, that stuff can work on your head and being. It’s put me in a place that I can’t describe. Like it’s, those guys were cleverly, horribly dumb. You know what I mean? Like they knew exactly how to work the human psyche, man. Cleverly dumb, sorcery. Well, also, but I argue it doesn’t work unless you’re an empty vessel. Yeah, but you don’t wanna turn into an empty vessel because you’re trying to make it work. Like that’s what happens to you. No, no, I think they’re being sent into the meat grinder in some sense, because like, look, if I had gone to college and I’m thankful that I was like, no, college is garbage, I’m not going, right? But if I had gone to college and been exposed to that stuff because, you know, maybe I didn’t have the right grounding. Now, if I went to college, I probably would have been homeless. So the whole is makes a big difference, right? But I didn’t have, you know, I didn’t have the moral and ethical sort of setup that I had after I was homeless necessarily. I mean, I’m sure I had some of it and I can’t actually remember. So, because that’s the before time in my brain. Can’t remember most of the before time, but it’s possible that had I gone, I would have fallen into that trap because I was too much of an empty vessel. Like there was too much there to fill in hadn’t been filled in by religion already, by participation in religion. And I think that’s part of the problem. And I would argue, just slightly in my defense, I think I’ve spent at least three years talking to these people on Discord in particular, but in other forums, on Clubhouse and other places, on forums and things like that, I’ve been talking to these types of people for a long time. And there was a shift for sure where it got a lot worse. And I do think that it’s now at a boiling point. Like, and I think that Verbeckis meaning crisis came along at the right time. I mean, I still think it’s misnamed. It’s awakening to the meaning crisis, not awakening from the meaning crisis, right? Because he doesn’t give you a solution in that series anyway. But it’s important now that we recognize that there’s this, and I think it’s a deep sense of domicile that people are trying to be individuals, which is an impossible state. And so they’re domiciding themselves just like they are in The Matrix. I mean, I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I think that The Matrix is part of, now, which came first doesn’t really matter, right? I don’t care. I don’t think it’s causal, right? But I do think it’s reflective of this, we’d rather be an individual eating snot for food and miserable, because they are, right? Then live in relative comfort and free of most distress. And like, well, fair enough. I mean, I guess if that’s your choice, but now you see drug addiction, suicide, right? And all sorts of criminality are through the roof because we took one more step. And again, with this backsliding, we used to know how to talk to each other. And now I can tell you, man, people really don’t ought to interact. I mean, I was never very good at it, but I was good at noticing it, and now it’s completely gone. People have no sense for what they’re doing. This is why they go outside and they’re not dressed properly, right? Like the Walmart joke about people that go to Walmart and stuff. Yeah, but that’s not Walmart anymore. That’s Target now, too, right? That’s like every store you go to, it’s not good. And this is a big problem, but I think I’ve done a lot of research, and this is part of my project, is based on this research that I’ve done with Manuel and with Andre Jones and a bunch of other people, right? We’ve been working on this for almost three straight years now, and I’ve been working on it a lot longer, but we’ve been working on, well, what is this and how do we fix it? Like, how do we provide people a way out? We’ve been able to do that on a one-on-one basis, but we need more people like Teo out there doing it, right? And I don’t know how to let the Christians do it without using their crazy Christian language that Peugeot’s point turns those people off. That’s sort of more the urgency for me is that there’s plenty of people out there willing to do the work like Teo, right? But they need better tools, and the tools they’ve been given are insufficient for this task for sure. I’m not even sure they’re good for getting the Christians who have lost faith back into the faith, right, which is one of the things that they see Peterson doing. They’re like, oh, great, but then they’re like, why can’t we be Peterson? Well, maybe that’s because you’re looking at the problem wrong, and this is still my, I left that critique today on the Jordan B. Cooper Verbeke PVK video again. You can read it there. I keep telling him, you’re missing something, Paul. I’d love to talk to you about it, but that’s important is to have those conversations and give them those tools. So how do you do that? How on earth do you do that? Well, I mean, you have to do it carefully and in stages, and I would say, it’s not done, right? It’s really hard. Like, I’m older, I’m 70, so I’ve kind of been around a while and wow, I just, I don’t, it’s hard to have a good conversation, right? Like nevermind, nevermind talk about God. I find it hard to say hello to anybody. Is it conversation? I mean, that’s part of my problem. The evangelization is conversation is an issue. I think it’s more as Teo was talking about that Chad talks about, right? Like showing up. I think it’s more exemplification. We have the church has receded. It’s not exemplifying beauty anymore. It’s not exemplifying proper art. It’s not, the Christians are not out there saying, I am a Christian, that’s why my life is what it is. Like they need to be able to give positive testimony towards the lifestyle that they enact as the result of their faith. Otherwise people aren’t gonna view it as positive. Yeah, but it’s just that what I mean to say is like, I don’t know if other people have noticed it, but it seems as if people can hardly talk. Like nevermind. So I get it. They want banter. It’s. They want banter. They don’t want to talk. They want banter. Every relationship show you’re watching TV for the last four years, what do they talk about? I like this person because of good banter, not good conversation, not good dialogue, which is different again. They want banter. They want information. They want the story to be information and not for it to be knowledge or even story to be embodied experience knowledge. They just want banter. Right. Is banter entertainment? It never closes the hole. No, I don’t think. It’s entertainment. I think it’s like a filler. Like it makes people feel comforted. They’re like, oh, I know what’s going to happen next. Like Regis and Kelly live kind of stuff from the nineties. It’s just. Yeah. They want you to kind of soothe them. They want soothing, right? Yeah. I feel like I need to, baby. It’s like baby talk. It’s like, ooh, ooh, Gaga, baby, blah, blah. I was just thinking. It really is. Make a song out of that. Seriously, make a song. We need that song. It’s just. Ben Power and Adrian Miss is currently doing the Creepy Vs. Cute series. And I think that sort of tracks with that as well. Like the creepies now, well, just the old, the arcades uncomfortable and conversations is archaic. Like banter is cute. Banter is, you can just move past it. It’s a cute little emoji. Yeah. Right. It’s very shallow. But it’s hard. Yeah, but it’s everywhere, everywhere. You know, it’s quite a phenomenon for me. I can’t quite believe it actually. It’s all nonsense. It’s this bad. Yeah, but it’s so bad because it creates mood, right? You know, that chirpy mood, especially in Canada here, we have this horrible chirpy little cutesy mood all the time, even when you go to the bank, it’s all cute and it’s horrid. Like you Americans are better off, I think. I really do. I think your culture is much, much better than ours is. I have one on like everywhere seems like crazy. Same here in Australia. Come to Australia. Our post offices are cute. It’s the same as in Georgia. Like it’s not regions specific anymore. I said to him the other day, the virus is now the host. I was, and this might be a totally crazy rabbit hole that I’m gonna take us down here, but I was having a conversation with a buddy of mine about alchemy today. And somehow we got into the conversation that government is like this weird alchemical experiment to distill logos. That’s the attempt. They’re attempting to like get all these different personalities, which are like elements coming together to create new things, to distill something useful out of it. And you know, that’s a noble endeavor, but it got like messed up somewhere along the way. We’re still distilling products out of our banter debate, but what we’re distilling isn’t like something good to drink that helps everybody. It’s a poison for your team to like convert this person over to Republican side, this person Democrat side. And it’s like, okay, but what’s the truth? Like where’s the spirit of the logos in that? And we failed at that task. That used to be like a holy endeavor, distilling out the logos of all the chaos, all the mess. That was the whole idea behind, you know, like a Congress, the government, people talking, kind of like what we’re doing here. That was the point of what the government was supposed to do. And somewhere along the way, like, let’s distill all this poison. Like those people are bad. Now those people are like you, man. No, they’re not. They’re totally different. Well, what if we need them to do this thing or that thing? Now we don’t need them. Well, they think differently than us. Oh, it doesn’t matter. Make this poison. But we had the long conversation about that with Alchemy today. I thought that would be a useful thing. It’s more of a sleeping pill than it is a poison. Mm, this is good. Go to sleep now. It’s your bedtime. Let the adults talk now. That’s what it’s more like. It’s like, if we wanted to use the… There’s an inherent violence in that word. And that’s actually not what’s going on. Like that’s, I think that’s the distraction from what is actually going on, which is you can just sleep in. You can just sleep in. It’s okay to do that. Yeah. Like you don’t feel alive and awake in the world and produce things. You can just sleep. You can just cruise through, just do your banter, be cute. Like if that’s… Well, if you’re editing, go ahead. It’s too much of a bummer, no. But like, if we want to get to what’s happening, I think that’s probably the best tune for, because people aren’t being poisoned. They’re just being told that they can sleep. That it’s okay to not see the mess on the street. Well, something’s weird. I think you’re right about the sleep thing, but why does everybody want to go to sleep now? Like, why does life suck so bad? I don’t feel like… It’s that I don’t feel that way about life. I love it. I’m having a good time. But a lot of people just seem like, let’s hurry up and get through this conversation. Let’s hurry up and get through hanging out here at the bar. Like, I got… I’m not comfortable telling you this thing and that thing. I’m ready to go back to sleep and not have a serious conversation. I have a solution or a term for this, but… Okay, just hold with me. Don’t jump right at it. Attention, deciphus disorder. That has been normalized. We are all attention. Yeah. This thing, where is it? Yeah, for sure. But I think that also, like, why would you want to be asleep? You have bad framing. I mean, if you really think that you’re powerless because the government can tell you what to do to cut off your money at any minute and all this other crazy stuff, then of course you want to be asleep. You’re just wrong about that, though, right? Like, look, it took me forever, right? I was always trying to understand why socialism kept popping up. I’m like, guys, we know it doesn’t work. What more do you need? Like, honestly, do you need lightning every time somebody says socialism to scare you out of believing that it’s an option? Like, I don’t get it, right? And then it occurred to me one day, and I forget, I don’t remember the context anymore. Maybe Manuel will remind me, but if you build a closed world, right? If that’s your worldview is closed and you can’t create any value because it’s closed, then wealth redistribution is the correct answer. It’s actually correct. The problem is we don’t live in a closed world. People create value all the time. Somebody created this. It’s valuable. Like, you know, and so wealth redistribution is wrong. Like, just problem solved. But they’re creating closed worlds. So then the question is, well, what do you do in closed worlds? And this goes back to the knowledge engine model that I have on my channel, on Navigating Patterns, if you haven’t seen it, excellent video, right? The more you engage with it, the more you see this stuff in the patterns, right? This is what happens. We need to do what Peterson does to some extent. He, step one, re-empowers the individual, right? He talks about actions you can take, how those actions relate to changes in your world, right? And that’s the restoration of agency, right? It gives you the importance of taking responsibility, right? Because you can now, you can clean your room. It’s very powerful. It’s your room, you can clean it. And now you don’t realize how your clean room affects you, right? Or your dirty room. And then all of a sudden you feel empowered, right? And then you get them to see that they aren’t entirely in control of themselves. Because you can go, well, why weren’t you keeping your room clean all the time if it made you feel better? Oh, I don’t know. I don’t know. That’s a good question. What’s going on in my head? Because we’ve told people that they are rational actors, and so is everybody else. And when you think everybody’s rational and competent, and that the outcomes that happen are the outcomes they intend, you’re just conspiracy theorists. You have no choice. You can’t think of the world any other way. It has to be that way because it’s rational. So the lizard people must be running the White House. That makes perfect sense. Or the Canadian government. That is a reasonable, logical, rational conclusion if the world is rational and the actors are rational and competent and their outcomes are intended. Then they’re definitely lizard people. Because what they’re doing doesn’t make sense in an economic or a political frame. It doesn’t make sense in the social frame. It doesn’t make sense in any of these things. It absolutely doesn’t. But unfortunately, or fortunately, they’re not competent. They’re not rational. And they don’t control anywhere near as what you think. So when they try to implement something that is rational, but they are competent at, they still don’t get the result that they intend. Right? And so that helps you to get out of that thinking. But then I think, you know, and my step three here is open the door to engagement with others. This is where you have to get people back engaged with distributed cognition. That I think is the failure of Verbecky’s work. Is that he says, communities three times and expects like Beetlejuice that it’s going to appear magically. But he doesn’t talk about, well, what should you be doing? And I mean, look, I mean, I guess this is a little bit observing. Verbecky didn’t come to the Discord server, right? And say, hey, what have you guys been doing? How has this been working out for you? What’s going on? But he does all these participant observation with other people who may or may not be implementing his work, right? But he didn’t do any. And you know, it’s not like he didn’t know about us. He knew full well about us, right? So it’s like, well, why is that? Because we are the community. Like we were the ones doing the practice as a group practice. Because he doesn’t give the group practice any priority. Like he talks about distributed cognition, but he doesn’t say how to get it. Or he doesn’t talk about the fact that it’s outsourced. He doesn’t talk about any of that. And then I think, you know, you need to be able to get transformation throughout from others. Like that’s a big deal. You’re not going to transform by yourself. I don’t care how much ass you grow up with. Right, yeah. Like how many space elves you encounter, right? You have to engage in a conversation. Well, but even look with transformation, you’re going to someplace you haven’t been that’s bigger than you are now. Like that’s what transformation is, right? And so you need a scaffolding before you do that. And you need people to help you in distributed cognition to know that this is the right time for the transformation. And this is the right transformation to have for you now, right? And then when it happens, they’ve got to tell you, yes, that worked or no, it didn’t. You need other people for that. You’re not going to go into the woods with a shaman and get that. That’s not going to happen. Okay, it’s not realistic. That’s not the world we live in. You know, Reveke goes, we can’t go back. We can’t go back. We can’t go back. Shamanism. I’m like, dude, really? You just said we can’t go back. Like you got to make up your mind here. You can’t have it both ways, you know, and then we need to reintroduce people the idea of grounding, right? And giving them that security, right? So that because that’s part of this going to sleep. Of course, you want to go to sleep. You’re not secure. You’re not safe. That’s true. Well, we need a project. We need a project to rally around, you know, like I people need something to do. Like we can not only something to think about and to talk about, but something to do. That’s what I’m working on. That’s what this document is. I’m reading from my document. So I’ve started the work on this. It’s well in hand, right? Because you had like people like like Christianity, for instance, you had groups of people that would be dedicated to building a church and groups of people dedicated to writing groups of people dedicated to painting. You had just like, but it was circled around something, you know, it was around like we’re going to build this church for God because we love him and we’re going to write all this stuff down because we thought it was a good idea. This art is beautiful. Look at it here. We’re going to teach you how to do it. Like there was something near. Yeah, this is this is the Mark of wisdom project that I’m this is the document I’m reading. So this is right. So so you first get them around wisdom, right? You bring them you reel them in with the wisdom because you can’t throw the God of Jesus Adam or the you know, whatever can’t do that. You can’t throw saints at them. It’s not going to work right there. Isaac and the Glazo. Right. And then you get them in from after you give them the grounding and all that right and re-enchant history and things like that and get them the proper language because again, a lot of my channel is you know, a lot of navigating patterns. Thanks really all of it is fixing cultural cognitive grammar, right? I want people to understand the best use the most efficient pragmatic use of terms and terminology so that when they’re talking they don’t get stuck in an ideological frame, which is actually a religious frame. And they don’t get stuck with that because they they can’t be fooled by these tricks and maybe I’ll resurrect the don’t be fooled stuff that I’ve done because I think you know, we talked about Robert Anton Wilson before. No, Skyler liked him. I’m not a big Robert Anton Wilson fan, but he’s just fun, man. He’s just a lot of fun and I do get some use some practical use out of his philosophy. The way of his thinking just kind of, you know, remain in a quantum state about most stuff just kind of say, I’m not sure what’s the big deal. Don’t you know get all worked up about it and that really stuck with me for a long time. I was like, yeah, like how do I know anything for certain anyway, besides, you know, water’s wet in the sky is blue like but other things, you know, that these gray areas. And so I kind of took a beat after I kind of read what was that book Prometheus rising was the first book and he also had some really entertaining like fictional books. Like they’re just wacky silly. But anyway, I’m just it’s good stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Some of this stuff is really good. But I think yeah, I mean you need a plan and you know, look, I mean Manuel and I are still working on this document, right? And we use all the help we can get. So if somebody wants to engage, we’ve got the market wisdom discord server and we’re spending more time there in the I’m in there. If I see you in there, dude, I’ll pop in there because I still check on that on that room. Oh, yeah. Well, come in because look, we need help with this because I got like Manuel’s working on the practices and he has a lot of work already done. I don’t know how much but there’s a lot of work already done. Like we’ve got probably 500 pages of notes at this point. Whoa, dude. We’ve been taking careful notes and we’ve been grooming the notes file, which has gotten totally out of control, you know, but I have this outline of steps, right? And yeah, we need to make it actionable for sure. And I haven’t started that project yet. Although again, a lot of it we have it’s just not all in one place anymore because the notes are 300 pages. And so, you know, you have to groom the notes with things in order and then you’re going to have to go through it again. And it’s a lot of work. We are we are trying to get through it. But and it helps to have other people there to even just encourage. I’m down, dude. Right. So that’s that’s part of the project that we’re doing partly on the Discord server and partly on my channel. Yeah, Manuel messaged me just logged on to Discord and I saw his message saying he’s working on an introductory course and I’m going to point out the guinea pig. I’m willing to because I think Elizabeth gave a really good speech earlier about just how important the work being done is. And I know for a fact that I felt insane about the things I was saying until I saw people like you guys keep pointing out those things as well. And if there are any projects that that’s being done, I’m willing to come up because it’s important. My friends are suffering and I want to help my friends. Yeah. So so what kind of project what is it Mark? What what are where are you going or what do you see? I mean, well the main so the main the main goal. Let me see if I have like most of this stuff is actually written down, right? So the main goal of this is to is to allow people to set up wisdom communities like deliberately say, oh, we’re going to set up a wisdom community, right? And not be flip about the word community like everybody else is right where we’re going to actually define what a community is and allow people to start one up right and within the community you’re going to have sayings and practices and all right. It’s going to be this whole thing. I don’t want to I don’t want to make it ritualistic in the beginning, right? And I don’t want to say well, we’re going to have dogmas or but we do have sayings. We are going to have group practices, you know, maybe we’ll cast them as games, right? Like, oh, we’re going to get together and play the maximization game. One of the things that John gave us actually, you know, I mean, we’re stealing from anybody we can find. So like if somebody’s got a good idea, we’ll steal that puppy and turn it into a practice because we we actually have a way now because we’ve been doing it for like three years of creating practices reliably that seems to work and it accounts for things like integration and we have some practices set up like our group right there to be in a practice. Dude, you should call it a guild. He should just be like, we’re starting guilds, bro, because sure. No, that’s a good idea. Like what you call the idea of guilds, man. I love it. Right. Yeah. It’s medieval. I love it too. Yeah, it doesn’t. It’s your your stuff. I would just it just popped in my head and I say stuff that pops in my head. I was like, it would be cool if we had like guilds and people just got together and did whatever they were super interested in and then maybe guilds that are different could collaborate on some things like why not? Like why? That would be cool. If you if you want to use the modern gaming language, and I think some people should they should use whatever language works for them, whether it’s wisdom community or guild or wisdom guild. I don’t care. Right. But giving them the tools around understanding things like types of conversation, types of leadership, types of authority, right? Definitions of wisdom where we have things that aren’t wisdom for sure. But these things, you know, are you know, you know what I was really thinking about was the was blacksmithing guilds and metalsmithing guilds like way back like a thousand years ago and they would come up with really cool techniques and new ways of doing stuff and they would keep it super secret and and be able to like, yeah, this worker over here, I train him. I know the super secret thing and he was like a millionaire. He was super valuable. Like we should do stuff like that. Like make super cool. That used to be what colleges were you would join a guild and stuff college and they’d be like, yeah, that dude from that guild. Oh man, he can really build the best sword on the whole planet. Right. No, no. I mean, but but see in the old days in medieval times, this is part of the issue that people really don’t have a flavor for the guild. Did things like blacksmithing also had wisdom in it? Like the wisdom training was with the journeyman sort of sorts of ways of interacting, right? For sure. And we don’t have an equivalent to that. So part of this is to re-enchant the world by putting the wisdom training back into the world explicitly because wisdom like wisdom is the new hotness. You know, you can go on about things other things meaning or whatever. I think meaning is gone in a thousand different directions. The new word and after Socrates sort of shows this because John talks about this. He talks about where do you go for wisdom? Well, you know where you’re going to go for wisdom. You’re going to go to the mark of wisdom community. That’s where you’re going to go. That’s my project. And I was on this long time ago. I mean, we’ve been working on this for quite a while. And so, you know things like cultivating symbolic thinking, right? Having workbooks, having community workbooks, right? And all the whole idea of accountability groups, right? Whenever you get in a group, you have accountability. This is part of the distributed cognition. I don’t have the willpower to go to the gym. But if I go to the gym with my buddies, they’re going to rip me if I don’t show up, right? Now all of a sudden I have more motivation and it doesn’t matter if it’s going to the or it’s Tai Chi Chuan or it’s some meditation group or if it’s blacksmithing or whatever it is. It doesn’t even matter. But the thing is we have the structures, right? All we have to do is figure out how to get people into those structures very gently and carefully, but get them into the structure, right? Yeah. Because they have to be in a structure. It can’t be this salt slope thing that VanderKlay talks about. And it can’t be the hard slope thing that VanderKlay talks about. It’s got to be what Peterson did, which I call the third way. It’s this very sort of Buddhist middle way thing, right? Where you’re gently easing them into these concepts and contexts where they do feel safe. And the next thing they know, they’re in service and they’re submitted, right? And they’re not doing it because they hit bottom. Sorry, Chad, right? They’re not doing it because they hit bottom necessarily. They’re hopefully not because we don’t want them to go that far, right? They’re doing it because they’re attracted to it. And then the next thing they know, they’re in the system and they’re just there and they realize its utility. And then at that, you know, look, one of the things I try to explain to people, a lot of people came on to the Awakened Community Crisis Discord server, a lot. And Emmanuel and I and others would work with them individually, right? And a bunch of them just ended up mysteriously in a church. I don’t know anything about it. I got whatever, man. I’m out. But we were able to get them to a point where that would happen. And that’s a big deal because that’s, you know, because I don’t want to recreate the church. Why? It’s already there. It’s pointless. But people need an honor for sure. I still don’t know exactly what that looks like. But man, I think we’re a long way along, you know, and it would help to know, you know, and I really appreciate Jesse’s feedback in particular, especially about my old videos. Maybe I’ll go back to my old outfits too, Jesse. I don’t know. But it’s important for me to know what resonates with people so that I know how to tailor the message so that when I’m tailoring the message and seeing what the feedback is, it feeds back into the document and into all the other work, right? Because we’re at a point of scale now. And also the Viveki server is kind of a Gnostic cesspool for whatever reason. But we’re at a point of scale now where I actually need larger samples. Like I need to know what thousands of people are thinking so that I can co-locate this stuff because I already know how to fix it. I just don’t know how to tell anybody how to fix it. That’s the problem that we’re dealing with. I said that to VanderKlay like a year and a half ago when I first talked with him. I said, oh, meaning crisis is easy. I know how to fix that for anybody. That’s simple. The problem is right now I have to do it on a one-on-one basis and that doesn’t scale. But I think I can scale it because I have some experience with scaling in years in computers. Like I actually know this pretty well. So that’s the problem. You have to train people to replicate though. So whatever wisdom you’re passing on has to replicate to people. So you do have to train individuals at some point. And how well you train those individuals actually should replicate. That’s the true test of the project. Does the individual replicate itself? Like does the person participating in it actually continue to help other people participate? Can it be made inviting enough for people to want to do it? Is it fun enough? Those are the open questions. I think it can. It has to be fun. Yeah. I think wisdom is the new hotness. And because we grab the wisdom thing quickly, we’ll have it. I mean, I already got the domain name, markawisdom.com and markawisdom.org. And we got to work on the website and stuff. So if anybody wants to do that. But again, having clips of all the stuff in this corner. Because other people’s stuff helps me. I mean, that talk that Ethan told me about with Oz Guinness and John Anderson there. That was amazing. And the whole Exodus episode 8, where Peugeot just basically said almost word for word what I’ve been saying all along. Hearing this stuff is very helpful. It’s very, very helpful. And that’s the thing. It’s like, OK. And then you heard Teo earlier. Teo’s like, I thought I was going crazy. And then I hear these guys. And I realize I’m not going right. We’re all seeing the same thing to your earlier point, Elizabeth. But we’re all seeing slightly different things. Understanding all of that will help the project. Because we really do need to, to Jess’s point, start to replicate this stuff so that we’re able to give people tools that they can cater to their own culture, local environment, situation, their own friend group, whatever. And get them dragged into these things so that they’re interfacing in a way that gives them the scaffolding that they need to move further. Because I think that, you know, and I learned a lot. Like Vanderclay somehow, I don’t know what he did. He had like some mystical puppeteering on me. And it was quite a week. I ended up going to the Billy Graham Memorial Library, which is right up the street in North Carolina, just over the border. And I go there and it was like, it was definitely a weird experience. Let me tell you, the whole day was weird. And then when I get there with it. But one of the things I learned is that Billy Graham didn’t have a church. Right. When he would do, when he went out on his crusades, as they would call it, right, the tent revival stuff that he did, he would contact all the pastors from all the churches months in advance. And he’d say, we are going to have a revival. You need to be there to bring people in. And then people would come up to him all the time and ask him like, what church should go to? I want to go to your church. And he’s like, no, you don’t go to my church. You go to your church. Go see your local church person, whoever that is. And that’s all he did. And he only taught the Gospels. And like, I mean, I knew something of him. He can do his thing, but I didn’t understand all that detail. So I got all the detail when I was there and I was like, well, that makes a lot of sense. But now you need to do that for secularism. And that’s what Jordan Peterson is doing. But when you’re Paul Van der Kley or when you’re, we’ll say, a little too Christian, not Teo, because apparently, you see it in terms of the revival. That’s not what’s actually happening. Jordan Peterson is not doing a revival. He’s doing something very much more fundamental, but completely different, because he’s not reviving anything. He’s creating something that wasn’t there to begin with. What role do you see estuary playing in this, Mark? Because I think to Jess’s point earlier, the scaling, the training that takes place. John Van Dunk has, I think, has got a really good set up of like training people, sending them out. And then, for example, I only started my estuary last August and already I’m thinking about moving to a different seat, like starting a different estuary, because there’s, there are two people from my estuary that are already joining the estuary leadership network. So they’ll be willing and ready to like take, to run their own estuary in Manchester once I’m done. And that scaling, do you see your projects mimicking the estuary way of doing things? Well, yeah, look, I mean, again, I’ll steal from anybody. I have no pride whatsoever on that front. I’ll take whatever I can get, because the situation is dire. And as far as I’m concerned, knowledge should be free. So I’m not impressed by the estuary project. It doesn’t have a lot of overlap with mine, except in the way they’re attempting to scale it, I think is decent. I think the problem is you can’t get people near a church building. I think that Van Dunk’s project is more of evangelization, right? And, you know, I don’t have a problem with that. That’s fine. But I’m not sure that’s going to work as well for the meeting crisis people as what I’m proposing. No, and I don’t know that that’s true. Maybe maybe yesterday we will win. We’re like making a mosaic of all of these moralities and religions. I mean, it’s cool. I don’t know if it ever happened. I’m watching. I’m interested. What are we doing? Like, you know, and I agree with you. I don’t think we’re going to be able to get into one church. I think we can do this on the Internet. That’s the church now. Whatever it is, whatever that means, like, I call it a bit on there. Whatever is happening with symbolism, I think it’s all about rediscovering seeing history through symbol lens, which is a very powerful thing for us right now. Yeah, seeing seeing everything through symbolic lens. And that’s why the art is so important, right? We need the art, but I don’t think if you hand people art without symbolic thinking or poetic ways of informing the world, if you want to use the strict language of the model we’ve worked out, then it’s not going to work because you need that to give them eyes to see. And then they also need the scaffolding so that they have the contrast and they have the discernment because it’s contrast and then discernment. That’s how things operate in your head. That’s the process that you’re going through in your brain. And then once you have that, then you can move. Before that, you can’t judge and you can’t move. And you need to be able to judge and then take an action. Otherwise, nothing’s going to happen. It’s just entertainment or fashion or something banal like that, all of which are important, right? I’m not saying those things are bad, but if that’s all you have, you’re in trouble. And that’s all a lot of people have is entertainment, fashion and relaxation. And you need rest. You need entertainment. You need fashion. But if that’s all you have, you’re an empty vessel and postmodernism is going to come around and destroy you. Yeah, we’re using fashion in a different sense, though, because fashion goes both ways. It’s both how you present to the world. It’s also how you want others to perceive you. Fashion is danger. Hmm. It’s a song. It’s a joke. Yeah, I don’t know. Fashion to me, that’s a whole other topic. I think fashion is so important, man. It’s art. People are dressing because we’re starved for beauty. People are buying because we’re starved for beauty. It’s got to be that. What else can it be? Why else are people doing this? What do you think about historical dress or ties to regional dress then? Because fashion wipes them away. Well, we’re not. Yeah, that’s sort of but not. I mean, I’m going back to Jesse’s idea of colour. I don’t know to me. I guess it depends on how you see everything, right? I’m reminded of some type of article that talks about after the catalogs came out, all of a sudden, everybody threw out grandma’s wood furniture. Because I’m not thinking about fashion isolated to like clothes and t-shirts. I don’t care because it’s way bigger than that. It infiltrates all of the domestic arts and says they’re interchangeable. And my, I mean, shoot, my wood cabinet here from my great-grandparents, which is missing the door to the secretary desk because I have to find a latch. It’s not interchangeable for the wood cabinet that would be easier, simpler or possibly smell less like my uncle’s tobacco smoke. It’s not interchangeable with those wood cabinets. And I really want to talk about the feminine because I think the feminine skills are not interchangeable for McDonald’s or like a lot of these other things. Yeah, yeah. Spirit, that’s what it is. I think the spirit is in your your uncle’s bureau there in that tobacco. I could go get another bureau like this. Heck, I could probably go get another bureau from probably this is like a 1920s. I can’t imagine it’s really 1800s. I think it’s probably a reproduction. I could go get another one. I could find another one the same model, but it wouldn’t be interchangeable for that one. And so much more so with I could buy a $40 IKEA shelf that would functionally. I could put my diaries on it, but it’s not interchangeable. And I think a great it’s complicated, right? Because it’s nice to not have to sew your own clothes and it’s nice to be able to import scarves from all over the world, right? But there used to be the heritage of fashions and there are some vestiges. I can say words that are bigger than what I know how to pronounce. There are vestiges of historical fashion trends, but like. They’re. They’re very small and like, yeah, well, the people preserving them, at least America are like the redneck and I God bless them because yeah, I mean like yeah, plaid shirts and blue jeans historically American. Do you know the history of like blue jean in America and people scoff at it? And it’s like my God, it was a lady who thought to you exactly about that specifically in the in where I live with the flannel and the jeans. It’s the it’s it’s the only stuff that’s warm and won’t rip apart when we’re doing stuff. Right? Denim was a massive revolution for like the working class. But then the lady who thought to make it blue. Right. Oh, not only black. Not yellow. Why not? We did actually just cause slacks grew in the South like a certain type of it like but but I mean we used to have these connections and I mean I think about Hobby Lobby and Michael’s and all the stores where you can buy all the fake flowers. Yeah, really complicated emotion about the fake flowers because you’re pretty and they’re convenient. What do you make of the what do you make of the punk rock kids that would like sew patches on their jacket and like make their own like clothes? I always thought they were interesting. I’m so removed from that. I won’t comment on it. Well, I mean just just from the outside like we’re talking about fashion changes and they’re like I have no knowledge of such things. I can just change from pointed toes to square toed boots. But I don’t know anything about the punk rock scene. I will not pretend to. Okay, I’m thinking self-defeating. It never lost it. That’s the exact kind of stuff I’m talking about. No, it lasted. I mean it lasted as long as anything else does, you know, it lasted as long as bell bottoms or leather jackets. I will observe just pragmatically. When you put on jeans you are into that cultural conversation though about jeans. As soon as you deface the object it has no value. It becomes a conversation about itself. All those patches on that jacket are only referring to that jacket. Nothing else. Doesn’t matter. But the jackets are all so different. I do find it ironic. People are viewing you as the way you interact with it. I do find the patches ironic that the way we choose to portray individualism is by taking the trait of the most totalitarian thing ever known to man by design. And then replicating that over and over and over. But that’s just me. What do I know? It is the ultimate individualism, right? It’s trying to take the machine and turn it into a having mode thing that you have personally. And that doesn’t work because you can’t. Well, it’s like blowing it up and then piecing it back together is what it’s like. Right. But piecing it back together your way. It’s all having a way. Yeah. That’s what I get from it. It’s like let’s blow it up and then let’s put it back together in a really cool way. That’s punk rock. Right. But you’re blowing it up. And that’s the problem. And I said this on the stream that Manuel and Teo and I did. Right. Like you don’t deconstruct. Okay. You’re a muppet. You couldn’t possibly deconstruct. There’s no way you’re smart enough to deconstruct. I don’t care how smart you are. That never happens. You can destroy things. That’s really easy. But so can a three-year-old. So don’t get all woo-woo. You can destroy things behind yourself. Right. And that’s what’s happening is they destroy stuff. And then of course if you destroy stuff, you don’t have stuff. Then if you want to have stuff, you got to build it back up again. Okay, but I’m going to build it up my way because I’m an individual. But now you have something that’s unique to you and doesn’t connect to the rest of the world. So you did come up with that. You get early wins but now you’re not connected. No, no, no. You’re overdoing connection, Mark. Overdoing connection there. For uniqueness. We have a purpose for it. For each a unique reflection. One little unique piece of the eternal mirror if you like. Like you don’t want to go too far into connection. You’ve got to have these starkly recognizable characters like Peterson. Look at them. Yeah. Do you think that is by necessity reflected in clothes? Because I find uniqueness in what you wear can be exemplified by minute details in the same. Almost more so than exaggerated details. It depends on the person. It depends on the person. We’re all different, right? So each person has their own way of doing whatever they do that works. I would hope because I think creativity is so fundamental to us and it’s unique. And it’s not to be confused with rampant individualism. It’s a different thing. I think it’s the reflection of our divine nature. I do. And I think we’re starved for it. There’s so much ugliness. I’ve never heard anybody say that. That is a really cool term that I’m totally stealing from you Elizabeth. Rampant individualism. I love it. One of the absolute best lessons that I think I learned about clothes or individuality or personhood at all was a training that I did that I did not pass. I was disqualified. I didn’t meet the physical conditions. But during that training we all wore the same thing and we did not get to use our names or our ranks. And the thing is it’s really revelatory about who you are because you’re not your clothes. You’re not even your name and you’re not what you’ve made of yourself. You are just you. And so I just have massively differing feelings. It’s not like I want everybody to be dressed like robots forever. That would just be awful. But there is something to picking up the mantle of your own heritage that has been missed and I don’t like it. Yeah, that’s we were talking about tradition before and that’s definitely very important. So, yeah, yeah, that’s a very strange training there. That’s they didn’t let you use your names. That really just sticks out to me a whole lot for some reason. It’s like you’re it’s for a short period of time. I know. I mean, I don’t think it’s like torturing. I saw what I’m saying. Like it’s very interesting. You could leave it any moment. Yeah, that’s even more interesting to me. Yeah, I’d be out of there the first second man. Oh my God. That would kill me watches either. I’ve done through it. It was it was a different thing. But as you know, this is a very interesting insight you’re having here. Like I’m thinking about what you’re saying. I’m putting myself in that situation. I’m in this training. I don’t I can’t I don’t know. I’m here. We’re all wearing the same clothes. I don’t know what your name is. I’m thinking what am I taking with me when I’m interacting? Well, what’s this person look like? What are they doing? You know, how do they move? What do they feel like? You take some of this most intense stuff. There was one. Yeah, there was one. I’d say read scripture every night. There was one woman who illegally managed to. Carve a spot for earbuds into an insert for her Kevlar and she would change them with the issue Kevlar during the marches and like I have a very acute hearing. So like I always knew and I’m like they know and she’s like they don’t care. Just pay attention. They don’t care. And I’m like they didn’t and it was boggling to me because I’m a very like just do what you’re told and you’ll be fine. I think it was an experiment and like but there was a lot of things like that. And then like I reached my physical limit and I had not yet not against another person. I had reached my physical limit against another person before that time, but I reached my physical limit against myself. And that was a very important place for me to get to. And I did that. This is an I don’t even remember what the number was like as a number being referred to and I was noticed and I was considered and there was a couple people mad. I was leave and like they didn’t know me, but we were people. Whoa, that is heavy. I’m going to be thinking about that for a while. That’s a good way to learn to get along like, you know, it’s interesting and I’m going to make a clip out of this. I have to I have to do some some technical work on my end. But Jonathan Peugeot did a Q&A a while a year and a half ago or maybe two years ago on the Awakening from the Meeting Crisis Discord, which is available on the on the Awakening from the Meeting Crisis Discord YouTube channel, right? And in the Q&A, I think it’s about minute 18 or something. Brett asks him what he thinks about practices and part of his answer is basically well practices are great. But really there’s a utility in going to church, which is sometimes you don’t want to go and you go there sometimes when you don’t want to go and you’re with people that you maybe don’t want to be around. Right. And I was like, wow, because it’s like, wait a minute. That’s basically what you’re describing in that in that formulation answers all of the modern problems. Well, why can’t we get along because we have no place that we’re willing to meet up even though we don’t want to I know what it’s this Sunday. I’m not feeling good. I had a rough a rough Saturday. I don’t want to go but you go anyway and then you get there and there’s those annoying people like Ethan. He’s pretty annoying. Jesse Jesse’s annoying. Teo. I don’t want to see these people today. You know what? They’re too happy and they’re just going to tell me nice things. I don’t I can’t put up with it, right? But I go anyway because it’s church right and I go anyway and it’s like that’s how you learn that you have a bigger container right outside of not only yourself but outside of yourself and others right because it’s higher. It’s this quality. It’s this vertical thing right and I was just like wow and I you know, I don’t think Jonathan when I talked to Joe up in Thunder Bay. He didn’t remember the Q&A. I’m like damn it. This is like one of the most brilliant things you ever said like it’s super important. So I am going to make a clip out of it. But yeah, I mean we don’t have the ability to do that anymore. So that’s sort of what Sally’s talking about is that practice in some sense, right? And this is part of the sorts of things that we have to suss out for the project to kind of figure out. Well, how do we get people to talk to each other again? How do we get people to not just talk to each other but talk to each other in a way that they can make progress because one of the one of the things that and I’ll write some articles about this if I can ever sit down and write ever again conversations not going to save the world because it turns out the more you talk the more you find things to disagree with right and and and if you could just shut up and like commune with the other person and not frickin talk to them or at least talk as little as possible and only talk about the things you’re there to do it turns out that that works out way better than having these stupid conversations. Like I’m going to hash out the truth. All these conversations are based on a standard and everybody in the conversation will engage in the conversation only because and only if they think their standards correct and they’re going to prevail. So it’s always an adversarial situation in some sense and I don’t like that. I don’t want opponent presidencing. I want cooperative processing. Well, that means the conversation can’t be about anything that you might disagree on which is easy to do it and for look to give her Vicki cred. He does this in his dialogos. I think his dialogos is atrocious, but at least the aim of it is good, right? He says you got to talk about a virtue. Why because no one’s right about virtues. No one’s right about justice like Jesse and I could have a conversation about justice all day long and all night and neither of us is ever going to be right because there’s no way to be right about justice. Right. You can talk about it. You can find places where you’re wrong, but it can’t be a competition because no one’s going to come up with the best standard of justice. I gotta happen. It’s not right, but we can, we can come up with a version of interaction to where at least we’re engaging each other and we’re not turning our backs. But that’s what I mean. So the skill, the skill that you’re trying to do, unlike a normal conversation where somebody’s got a standard where they think they’re right. Yeah. The skill you have is in communion. Yes. You’re communing together. And talk about something bigger than you. It’s not about you and it’s not about your idea. It’s about a virtue. Yes, exactly. And I feel like in certain moments with us together in discord at certain moments and certain channels that happened, but then the version changed or it got updated or changed. And, and I’ve seen this in other discord servers and other places getting together, it’s like there’s a version of it where there’s the sweet spot. Everybody’s getting along really well. This is happening, but then is it too much structure too much something getting in the mix, just screwing it up to where people are not having fun. It’s not engaging. Oh, there’s a boss now. Oh, I can’t do this. Something happens to where the logos get stepped on the spirit. It’s just, but everybody thinks this is great and it’s a good thing, but you know, is it right? Well, but they’re going after it the wrong way. Look, I think the reason why John Verveke wants rationality to rule the day and do extended rationality and all this is honestly because he thinks he sees objective material reality better than everybody else. And once you see it the way he sees it, you’ll agree with him. Like I think that’s actually the formula that he’s following. And like, fair enough. I don’t think he’s doing it maliciously or anything like that. I love John. I’ve met John. I know John. Right. Like I don’t think he’s doing it maliciously, but I think that’s the trap that all the sciency people are falling into. All. They’re trying to fly with one way. They’re missing the whole other wing, you know, procedural. It’s procedural. In procedural. It’s not a procedure, but it’s a procedure, but they’re not paying attention to the aim. Like there’s nothing wrong with procedures that are properly aimed. But if all you have is procedures and propositions, then all the aim in the world isn’t going to help you. You still need the poetic and you need the participatory. You’re not going to get around those things. You need all four aspects in order to be properly informed, right? Or have right information. There’s four types of information. You need all four to have a type of knowledge. Good time. You got to aim for a good time. Got to be with tons of weird people. You got to look for the weirdest people and get together, man. And when you see a weird person out in the street, you better invite them in because it’s the weird ones that are the, that, that spark everything. Right. That’s what happens. It makes it fun. Like what’s fun? Oh, I believe me. I’m in the ring leader. I hang out with all of them. I say hi and shake their hand. Like, do you want a sandwich? Like let’s sit on this rock and talk about the universe. You’re the weird one in all your friend group. I won’t deny it. I’m the one sitting here. Sincerely. The one who we don’t like is the one we need. The one we don’t like the one we can’t stand the most is the one we need the most. So we need to all be looking for the one that we can’t stand. That is absolutely the worst person imaginable. And that’s the person we need. So we need lots of those. So hopefully they’ll tell everybody that tomorrow. But like this lady said that you guys got to like me because you know, I’m going to do some cool shit. What what do you do with people who think existence is bad and humans are cancer on the earth under that paradise? You got to give them a hug. No, you got to give them a bowl of good soup or something or chocolate or like something beautiful. You have to give them anything that’s beautiful. Even whatever it might be a hug. They’re going to not want it at first. They’re going to probably step on your flower that you give you. They’re probably going to punch you when you try to hug them. But then after a second, they’re going to start to cry and they’re going to be like, whoa, yeah, like I feel sad inside. I am upset. Even simpler than that. You have to listen. You have to listen and listen so intently to the point that it annoys you that you’re listening so intently because that annoys them. I’m not exactly annoys them how much you’re paying attention. Yes. Yes. But people can tell instantly by your presence what you’re actually giving is what you all you need is your presence. Right. Well, that’s your power. Right. Because when you put your time energy and attention at something that’s where all the value is. And yeah, if you do it authentically people can you know, can can can sense that somehow and they can vibe out bro. That’s what that’s called in the weird circles. It’s called volume. But they can they can sense and that’s the thing. I mean, look that again, we’ve got like three years of this going on. That’s why we’re hanging out on the Discord server listening to really annoying people and my goodness are they annoying. I mean, you’re bad. Cool. Nothing. He ain’t got no game at all compared to some of them. But you do you have to sit you have to listen to them to Jesse’s excellent point. Like you you absolutely have to and that’s. Totally right. And then once you get them started you you you sneak them in Sally. We were talking about this earlier. We were talking about the you know, how do you get them to the being as good stage? But I think it is stages and you have to be careful with the stages and start out really slowly and and walk them into the framework. So that once they have the the framework and the structure and the grounding then it’s easy to make the case. Well, look at all this wonderful stuff that you’re thankful for or grateful for right or gratitude for how you want to frame it, right? It must be that you’re special and that must be because being is good and then it’s like, oh, okay, being is good. I mean, it’s easy to make it an evolutionary framework that case for being is good. It’s easy to make that. It’s not that it’s not a leap or anything, right? So it can be done, but but you can’t do it too early because people will get you know, they’ll get uncomfortable with it right away because you’re asking to deal with creation and dealing with the fact that there’s something before you became conscious is a big problem. Yeah. And Jesse that to answer your question because I have done this with a nihilist. I had a friend that was very hopeless and I sat down and I gave him so much attention that I started to annoy him. Like I was annoying him because I was listening to him and he was talking about how nobody would listen to him and pay to like, well, I’m going to like really listen to every because sometimes he would say stuff and I’m like, all right. But then I’m like, you know, I need to go all the way here. Do I actually care about this guy? Yeah, I do. I love this day. I want to listen to what this guy’s saying and it annoyed him so much. And then I said, well, dude, you know, you got to let that stuff go. That was a long time ago. I won’t get all into it, but you know, the authentic reciprocity, you wouldn’t say like that. Give it a really hard code. Authentic reciprocities. It actually works for people at all different intellectual levels. Like even to the lowest of you, you like I’ve another saying I have some different backgrounds, but it’s in different things. Let’s say that way, but even people that struggle to form their own sentence, if you listen to them, they feel locked. They feel hurt. They feel connected to and it’s actually it changes you. It actually is a grace. If you want to use Christian language, it actually becomes a grace to you. But it’s not but it doesn’t always happen permanently. I’ll tell you what happened. So I tried to help help and listen and listen so much that it annoyed him. And then I felt like he got an impact having he cried, you know, I hugged the guy talk to him like, dude, you know, you’re on the other side of this. You’re going to you’re going to be fine. Blah blah blah. Dude never talks to me again. And it’s like but he admitted to me after that in that moment that he’s being dark. He’s being negative. He needs to, you know, try to get out of the rut and then goes and proceeds like, oh, I thought we had a breakthrough. I thought something happened then, you know, you know, I try to talk to him, try to make contact with him. Dude don’t want to talk to me because I think some people have to be just ready. For light, some people are not bringing up the matrix. The matrix actually has a really interesting point on us. One of the few things the matrix actually lands home is is that one idea at the start of the film, which is some people just aren’t ready to be awake. No, they’re not ready. You know, there’s many levels of the matrix. And they’re not ready for the next step. Yeah. And then so I think he knew I was always going to try to force him to not be so dark and negative because I because he couldn’t bother me. He bothered other people and other people were like fuck off. Like a dude’s an asshole. I’m like, you know, I know him. I is all good. So I didn’t he didn’t have that with me and I had more patience. So he stopped hanging out with me because I was like dude, not like the sunshine and rainbows. Sometimes he’s like, no, it’s awful. All the often people there in a dark place. If you’ve been to a dark place yourself and you know how to be with people there in a dark place and sit with them, they actually end up scaring themselves because they yeah, when you’re in a dark place, you can’t you don’t know which way is up. You don’t wish I was down. Right. You got to want to get out though. Some people like well, I mean, I’m in a dark place and when I was in dark place, I’m like, I like the dark place. Don’t ever get out of the dark place. And some people are just not ready to go. They’re like, this is my home. I’m home. I’m in the dark and they feel like you’re an intruder with your torch with your positivity. Like it’s pretty cool. Like we’re going to make it like no or not stop. Right. But again, you’re you’re overwhelming people, right? It’s easy to do because you again, there’s that whole aw versus horror axis and you know, you don’t want to overwhelm them because they’ll go into horror instead of aw if they don’t have the right scaffolding. It really is that structure. That’s really important because you just do these things to people. They can’t integrate them. And so it’s just like doing a mushroom trip and not getting anything out of it. Right. You get a profound experience. You go, oh, I have a transformative experience. You think you did in the moment, but you didn’t. Transformation isn’t something that just kind of magically goes away like that instantly. Yeah. With that said, I’ve had some mushroom trips that stuck with me though. Like some of them are big. But yeah, I know I see what you’re saying. Like most of the time if you like, you know, get hired something it’s like, oh, you know, you’re going to forget. Maybe on your practice, so maybe you could say religion or practice or ontology. Sometimes that’s what is called for you in that moment though is just to have the conversation. Yeah. I think it’s a very pragmatic way of trying to help people heal because that’s kind of what the thread has been for the last 40 minutes is how do people heal in a dark world? Yeah. And how do you do that? It’s a lot of work. Yeah. And you know, Elizabeth before was talking about mercy and gifts. Yeah. It’s, yeah, it’s, you have to, you have to obviously take care of yourself in some aspects. You have to realise what you’re doing. Oh, he was head now. Yeah. You can’t just walk into a dark place. You know, like you have to, you kind of have to, as I said before in some aspects, you have to realise the conversation. Again, people often don’t know their own scheme of thoughts and so they kind of scare themselves when they air it out loud. Yeah. It’s kind of what makes us sane. I think one of the best things that Peter has ever said is, you know, people outsource their sanity. And so people that are alone and depressed, well, essentially they’re just listening to themselves and they’re just listening to themselves. So I don’t know how, like Sally, I guess we’ve gotten a bit kind of skewed on there. Oh, it’s fine. I wasn’t needing to, you guys took it a different way than I meant. I didn’t mean like in online conversations or necessarily the wisdom community. I meant there has to be a limit that allows for self-preservation, but that’s not what I meant. I meant there has to be a limit that allows for self-preservation, but then I thought maybe that’s too hard to be talking about. So I just let it change. No, I want to emphasise the specificity of your question because I’ve got someone that fits into the question. I’ll do up someone who thinks existence is not worth living. And what was the last part? It’s basically that the world’s doing bad to them. Is that me or am I echoing? I don’t know who’s echoing, but I hear what you’re talking about. Well, because there was another way I could have phrased it and it seemed too dramatic, but they were talking about including all the weird. My brain initially jumped immediately to what about the cannibals? Because I feel like I tried to step like three levels above the cannibals, but I think I went too far because we sounded like sad people. But I was really trying to discuss the cannibals and perhaps we don’t like that much for dinner. The cannibals, we got to kill the cannibals. We can’t have cannibals, guys. Hang on a second. Zombies and cannibals are the same thing. It’s really depending on how you see the zombie, the zombie can be a couple different things at once. You don’t know what type of zombie you’re dealing with. I’m sorry to use a video game analogy, but the way people behave differently depending on the context. I’m a very open person and I will converse and affiliate. I once thought any religion, but after some experience and suffering, I determined that actually there are two major delineating factors between most theologies. And anyone who’s like creation is good and the life is good and wellness of being and such, I’m like, cool, I can converse with them. But there’s some people and they won’t tell you right away. It’s very sneaky. But if you determine that there is someone who is completely convinced and happy, perhaps maybe specifically and happy with being convinced that creation wasn’t worth it. And all the pain and suffering for existence has not been worth it. And they do actually want vengeance on being and they are a cognizant adult who has decided this is the best path. And that’s where they would like to apply themselves. They’re off the list of people I’m open to continuing affiliation with. Right. That’s boundaries. And again, you need boundaries. But I think, Teo, to answer your question because that doesn’t really answer your question directly. It talks about, yeah, you need boundaries. I asked a question poorly, Mark. It’s only been three years. I’m trying to answer Teo’s question. I’m not dealing with you at all. I talk to you every day. Quiet. Oh, sorry, Mark. Before you do answer the question, and I’m sure you’ve got a great answer. I just need to, in the spirit of what you mentioned earlier, Sallijoy, your most recent video, just you taking in just… Mark, you posted on Twitter, the ineffable. And I think that was like a video from you just taking in the ineffable. I think that was brilliant. I could feel… I’ve had those moments and I could feel just the joy, the presence that you felt. I think it was wonderful. Go on, Mark. Yeah. Again, empowering the individual with the clean your room trick or whatever equivalent you can get, like maybe clean your room is too much, to Peter’s point. Empowering them that way. Gets them into the mode where they suddenly see that they do have agency. And having conversations about that. No, Mark. The people that I think… The thing I wanted to get from Sallijoy, I forgot what she said again, is the people that are… They don’t believe that creation is good. There are people that don’t even… They can’t comprehend creation. But there are people that believe that existence is bad. Those are different people. That’s a different breed of people to… But I think, again, the trick is actually the same. Because the reason why they think that is almost certainly because… They feel like they have no power over their world. They feel completely disempowered. And they’re getting put to sleep all the time with the mindless babbling. Yeah. I think you’re on to something with that. I think you’re both on to something. We’ve just made a connection here. A bridge of meaning, if you will. But seriously, there is a serious… Man, I just totally forgot what the hell I was saying. All right. Lie down there, dracatic. Enough out of the screen, boy. No, I mean… I think that once you make that connection for them, between their agency and their feelings, because cleaning your room makes you feel better no matter what, right? Once you make that connection, you start that relationship. Because you can’t talk to them about it, right? The other thing you can do is talk to them about empowerment. So online, I don’t tell people to clean their room. They’re already familiar with Peterson. That’s why they’re… We have a highly filtered environment in the Viveki service. Almost all of them are at least familiar with Peterson. So what you do is, all of a sudden, they realize that they have some form of agency. And then they use that agency. And then you can tell people things like, well, you could switch jobs. You could do that, right? And even if you can’t tell them to clean their room, you can tell them these other things. And then get them to realize, well, other people switch jobs. And they’re like, well, yeah, I guess you’re right. But that’s not an option for me because… Right? You listen to them. And it’s really annoying. Believe me, it’s really annoying. And then when they’re done, when they finally stop yapping up a storm about their ridiculous narrative, then you go, yes, but have you considered, right? And then you start over again, basically. And you just keep doing it. And eventually, they give up. Now, that may take weeks. But eventually, they give up. And then they start trying new things. And once you get them into the agency loop, the rest of it is actually pretty easy. Yeah, I wish that was true. I wish once you got them into the agency directly. Maybe that is true. Maybe I’ve not got them into the agency. But I’ve gotten a few friends to subscribe to the Just Clean Your Room. Just do one thing today. Clean your room. And that’s just that one first step. It’s not an easy one to overcome. Because even if you do, even if it’s done once and you feel like the little dopamine from it, there’s so much darkness that overwhelms that. You can easily just get swallowed by. So it’s a constant pull to step one, pull to step one, pull to step. I don’t see how it’s… Now you’re a step walker. Now you’re good to step. So you step. Right. But it’s not the dopamine here. That’s not the thing you stress. The thing you stress is the emotional state has improved overall. What we know about stress and trauma though, is that it’s about half as long for the body to process the stress that it’s under. So if you’ve been under stress for a full year, it’s going to take you about half a year more or less. I’m not trying to appeal to authority. I’m just saying there’s a general sense of wisdom that can be put out through the different studies on this. That’s helpful. So I think it does apply for people in different situations. If they are going to heal from a trauma, or they’re going to participate in a process of traumatic thinking, maybe as well, it’s going to take them… If they’ve been on that path for 10 years, you’re going to have to sit with them for a long time. And to elicit another thing in the medieval period that’s been lost is that ability for contemplation. But contemplate and be with people. And that sort of mirroring is the thing you brought up as well. It’s another thing. It’s tough. It’s tough. We don’t have a… Whatever backbone is decided to help people do this, it’s kind of been outsourced too much in some ways. Yeah, we’ve substituted it all with procedures and proposition. But the thing you have to remind them of is not the hit that they got from the event. I mean, you can do that too. The thing you have to remind them of is, oh, you were so much better when your room was still clean. And you tell them that. You say, oh, no, no, you were better. Because we have to outsource our sanity. So to some extent, they have to believe you. They don’t have a choice. They don’t have a frame of reference otherwise. And they can say things like, well, I didn’t feel better. And you can say, yeah, but you were so much better. I mean, I really noticed. And of course, be honest. Hopefully, this is working out that way. And if you do that, that’s when they consider once again to try it. And it’s all about… Accountability groups are huge. And part of a community always includes an accountability group. That’s why I don’t like accountability groups. I think they should be abolished. Because you’re doing the postmodern slicing up. And say, oh, well, accountability groups are part of being a community. So we’ll just take those out of community and use them as a tool in defense. Like, that doesn’t work. That’s very postmodern. But if you give them accountability, because you’re lending within an accountability group, what you’re doing is you’re lending them your agency. And that’s why you’re interacting. You’re lending them agency. This is part of it. Like, you do this with children all the time. You lend them your agency. You hand over some of your agency to them. And that empowers them to do things they couldn’t do on their own. And that’s why it’s so powerful to be in these groups. Even if they’re just online groups, or coffee groups, or whatever. Just talking things out with people and making… Telling them that you’re going to do something is almost as good as promising that you’re going to do it to somebody. Right? You know, it’s not quite the same. But it is better than not telling anybody that you’re going to do something. Because that’s part of the accountability. And that’s part of why community works. And then having them feedback and ask you about it, or say, hey, wow, that’s great. I didn’t think you were going to manage it. But you’re doing really well. And one of the things that really struck me that Peterson said, that just absolutely slayed me, Sally Jo has since validated, actually works. People need so little encouragement. And just telling them that they’re doing okay. And just saying, no, you’re doing the right thing, you’re doing a good job, and don’t worry. And stupid little banal things like that. They’re not. They’re very deep. They’re very deep. Especially if you, you know, you’ve got to be sincere about it. If you’re not sincere, don’t say it. But man, if you’re saying that sincerely, over and over again to somebody, that is more lending of agency. And that can just change their whole trajectory. Irrespective of anything else. I’ve just done that with people, and it’s done amazing things for them. And that’s really important. You can do that. You can just encourage me. All the courage needs. It doesn’t have to be big. It can be one, at the end of the day, you know, saying, hey, you’re doing good. This is a good thing you’re doing. Or I realize it didn’t work out, but you know what? It’s great that you tried. Right? And I’m really impressed that you even considered it. You know what I mean? Even if it was like, well, I thought about doing something today before I went back to bed. It’s like, hey, that’s progress, man. That’s good. Maybe the next time you’ll actually get out of bed. I don’t know. I’ve actually said this sort of stuff to people. And it works. It works. And it takes an awful long time. You always want to appeal to the long-term nature of things. You don’t just want to appeal only to the hip. Right? To the dopamine thing. You also want to tell them, no, no, no. If that worked, you were a better person. Or I had a better time with you. I heard laughter in your speech. Or I saw a smile on your face. Things like that. Little things like that. Little encouragements like that. Absolutely. Devastatingly useful tools for these people. You’re actually drawing attention to the way the brain functions because when they do something, even noticing something, you’re setting up a synaptic connection. Right? So you’re drawing attention to the reality of what’s actually happening. It’s incredible. Yeah. One sentence can change a person’s life. That’s for sure. I think too often we want to get it complicated. It’s… Yeah. I remember I came from this really crazy Christian background in some ways. And they were all in these weird, wonderful ideas. And I didn’t know what I was anymore. And I went to a community and I said, Oh my gosh, I don’t really know if I’m a Christian or not. And I was talking to a lady as we were making a cake. And she said, Oh, yeah, you’re a Christian. And I kind of resolved it. I’m not kidding you. I had to go all the way to Switzerland. I had to go all the way to Switzerland to La Bre for a lady to tell me as we were making a cake that, yeah, I was a Christian, which I kind of thought I was. But all these crazy weird, far out Christian ideas were driving… I thought if I didn’t do this, that, and the other thing, I couldn’t possibly be one. And I needed to tap dance and God knows what else. Yeah. Oh, no. I’m with you on that. I thought the same thing for a long, long time. And then I was like, Oh, no, those people tap dancing, they don’t know anything. Don’t listen to those people. They’re crazy. Yeah. I started to just read the book for myself. What are these people talking about? Oh, that’s really good, actually. But I don’t hear them say that stuff sometimes. Sorry. Francis Schaeffer always used to say, it’s not what’s true about us that matters, true about God. Right. That kind of solves any crazy introspection. Right? Like, boom. Okay. I think I can think about what’s true about God. But I think that’s the point, right? That’s the grand context. Yes. That’s everything perspective. But I think, Mark, what you’re doing is you’re just, you’re actually drawing people’s attention to the fact that the world is good when you say, hey, but you know that. It’s super good. And it’s super fun. Well, if you’re a being, right, and I tell you you’re doing good, then I’m telling you being is good without saying being is good. Right? Like, it’s a trick. And also, tell, look, I mean, one of the things I tell people, if somebody’s nihilistic, get them to be stoic. Stoicism, it’s not a complete solution by any means, but stoicism is way better than nihilism. And it’s totally doable. You know what I mean? And that’s why I think like these book clubs and like we do the listening party. So what is the listening, the watch parties on Discord? What does that do? Well, now you’re in distributed cognition with a bunch of people, so you get to learn how to think. So most of the people there don’t talk, and that’s okay. The reason why it’s okay is because they’re not talking because they don’t feel comfortable, but they want to learn about how other people are talking. So Manuel and I can go back and forth all day long, and we usually do for some reason. And so they get to see that interaction, and that helps them feel comfortable, and then they’re more likely to speak up, right? But if you try to force the interaction, they vanish. They’ll actually click off. We had a big argument with Brett over the first year of meditation over this. He would actually call people out, and they would vanish and never come back. And I was like, Brett, you got to stop doing that. Like they don’t want to talk. Don’t make them talk. They don’t want to turn on their camera. Don’t make them turn on their camera. Just let them participate in the way they’re comfortable with, and then they’ll, right, this is from the Third Way guy, but then they’ll engage if they want. But it’s the same thing with stoicism. Hey, here’s a copy of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Let me know what you think. You know what I mean? Because that’s nice and secular meditation. Meditation is secular, right? They don’t realize meditation and prayer are actually the same thing. So you don’t tell them. You just hand them something like that, or do a book club from stoic practice, whether it’s meditations or some other book, right? Things like that. And that’s going to be part of the practices that are going into the Marco Wisdom Project. Are going to be things like maximization, which is where you take a maxim and you make it your own. You expand it and say it a different way and use more words and then recompress it back down. So you really get a flavor for the maxims, something that Verveki was talking about. Like, practices like that are going to be in the Marco Wisdom Community Guide, whether you pair them up with your blacksmithing or whatever you want to do there, you know, right? And then that’s what you do, right? It’s these sorts of engagements that get people engaged in goodness, right? Because once you have agency, you’re like, oh, agency’s not so bad anymore. Like, okay, well, maybe I’m an agent. And then you can tell people they’re doing good. And all of a sudden, agency is good. Being is good. Everything’s good. Like, it just, it snowballs in that way. And that, I think, is really what you want to try to engender. That’s sort of the magic behind the scenes. Yeah. And that’s kind of what me and my buddy were talking about alchemy earlier in the attempt of the government, attempt of groups of people and a goal. Like, your goal is we’re going to do this process. There’s a bunch of us. We’re all different. We’re going to distill ourselves into this thing to make this thing here, a sword, a car, a bridge, a big old church, whatever. And that goal, that holy goal, whatever it is, whatever guild you’re in, coming together, making this great thing is gone. Like, nobody gives a shit. It’s not a holy endeavor is kind of where we were at with it. I like the idea of making something, though, that becomes its embodiment, right? Yeah. Like something perfect. Or, like a good idea. Like a garden even, like even gardening or crocheting or anything. Anything. So that you can, it’s physical, it’s incarnated, right? Yeah. I think it makes a big difference. That’s why those guilds were so powerful, because they could also share ideas. And it sharpens your perception for sure, your vision. If you’re making something or you’re gardening or doing clothes or whatever, it definitely sharpens your perception. Yeah. You got all these people working together in this cloud, you know, like this cartoon cloud, these hammers and legs flying around. And then all of a sudden there’s a store, church, car, computer. And I feel like we’ve kind of stopped doing that cool stuff. I don’t know. Like, oh, we’ve done enough. Like, the last cool thing we did, I think, is a computer, you know? What have we done after that? Before that was an airplane. That was super cool. Chat GPT. You know, chat GPT. Yeah, that’s something weird. It is weird. The AI art is really weird to me. That’s very strange. The AI art, I’ve been seeing people like make, what if Metallica was a movie in the 80s? And it makes this whole image of stuff look real, but it never existed. I think anything where you engage in manipulation of the physical world can improve your self-confidence if you’re having a feeling of powerlessness. So making something, and I do not mean in this case, crafting. And I’m defining crafting as an assemblage of pre-made parts. It has to be where you’re taking something and not just gluing it together. Like, actually, I’m sorry if the avid crafters out there can suffer because I’m going to be an artisan snob about it. It is imperative to engage with the material world at some level, and people are actively discouraged from it. And I think that has led to this massive growth and insecurity. And I would say if you’re really, really anxious, grow a bean. Beans grow relatively easy. They germinate in three days. Because it’s really useful to be like, hey, I could grow a bean. Everything goes to crud. I can grow a bean. And if you can grow a bean, you can probably grow anything else. Like, take more time. Grow a bean. Grow a bean. That’s a great name. The Grow a Bean Guild. Wow. Love it. I told a dude to grow some tomatoes. We were having a debate about something philosophical. And then I said, I don’t know how it came to this. And I said, why don’t you just grow some tomatoes and then tell me how you feel afterwards after you eat that tomato. And he said, I’m not growing your tomatoes. Shut up. I don’t know if it’s because beans are in a pod or they’re just too resilient to mess with or Mexico doesn’t care. I’m not sure. But the beans are one of the products that you can buy dried. And you can buy the bag of soup beans and put them in a paper towel in a Ziploc bag with some water. And they’ll germinate. What? And if they germinate, you can plant them in some potting soil. And they will grow. So you don’t even have to go get seed beans. You can usually take a bean from your bag of soup, dried beans, not canned beans, not in the salty water, but like the dried beans from your local grocery store. And you can plant a bag of soup beans and you can plant like almost any one of them. I’ve done it with the whole bag of soup beans to see what every one of them would be like when they grew up. It’s fun. There you go. That sums it up. I like that, Sally. Look, it’s 2 a.m. here. So I’m going to go to bed. This was fun. I’m looking for more. Look, we’re on the project, the Mark of Wisdom project. We need help with the website, with content and figuring out, you know, exactly how to build these communities and do templates. So jump on into the Mark of Wisdom Discord server. And, you know, if you can’t find us, Manuel and I are either on Awakening or VOM or the Mark of Wisdom servers. You can reach out to us on Discord, right? Contact me on the YouTube channel on navigating patterns. And we’d love to have your help and your involvement. And we’re going to get that rolling more this year, right? And in the meantime, if you need like specific advice, here for that too. And then I’m going to think about whether or not I’m going to join in on one of these. And look, we’ve got a lot of great people for channels to watch, including Jacob’s channel and Agapic Orientation, which is Manuel’s channel. I’ve got my personal channel, which is my name. It’s got goofy, ranting, short stuff on it, right? And navigating patterns is a bunch of stuff on it. And apparently the old stuff is the old stuff, according to Jesse. So that’s a good recommendation. So, yeah, let’s get more people more involved. And see what we can build for 2023 to help more people because they sure need it. Thanks for the long shot, Mark. Thanks for accommodating my Australian time. If anyone’s interested, I have an album, Music Out, could open to teachers. You can listen to that. Excellent. What is it called? Yeah, put it in the chat, dude, or link it in something. For sure. Have a good time. So, yeah, I’ve started the day drinking coffee and now I’m drinking whiskey. So it’s seven hours. Yeah. All day. Yeah, essentially. Yeah. Well, maybe we’ll just ride the dragon. What do you want to call it? Ride the never ending story. I like dragons. The Alcor is awesome, dude. Yeah, just look at Mark’s picture in the background. It just made me. Oh, there it is. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Dragon. You got a dragon, bro. Yeah. Well, we’ll let you go to bed, Mark. Thanks for hosting this. I saw you on and still on. I was like, I got to get on here. He’s on here still? Whoa, it’s a marathon. Thanks. Thanks, everybody, for attending. Comment, like, let’s get this rolling and have a great time. Right on, man. See you guys. Take it easy. See you around. Bye, everybody.