Participation - live navigation! (W62SpvJphfY)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=W62SpvJphfY

The young girl dancing to the latest beat has found new ways to move her feet, and the lonely voice of youth cries, what is truth? Young men speaking in the city square, trying to tell somebody that it gives. Can you blame the voice of youth for asking what is truth? Yeah, the ones that you’re calling love are gonna be the leaders in a little while, when will the lonely voice of youth cry, what is truth? It’s all worlds waking to a newborn bear, and our solemn lists where it’ll be their way. You better help that voice of youth find what is true. And the lonely voice of youth cries, what is truth? All right, welcome everybody to another live stream. Get my pirate outfit on, although my things are off. No, they need to be better. There we go. A couple of announcements. I know my channel has suddenly taken off like a battle of hell, which is amazing. And I’m very grateful. That’s wonderful. I’m almost up around a thousand subs, which will be great. We make some good content here, and it’s exciting stuff. And welcome to all the new people. The live streams are participatory, which is ironic, since this one’s about participation. It’s gonna be the topic today. For all you people watching on Jacob’s channel, I don’t know how many that is, maybe only one of you. You need to move to Navigating Patterns or Randers United, because we’re not gonna be streaming on that channel anymore soon. Thank you, Mills. I appreciate the support. Yeah, I’m very, very happy on the boost. Mitch here, Pidgeot, gave what I thought was a rather nice and probably perfect endorsement of the channel. Right in line with what I thought I was doing, what I was hoping I was doing. So, yeah, it’s nice to get that sort of recognition from somebody who knows this stuff. What else? So I gotta apologize, because the notes today are a complete mess. I’ve been sort of scrambling, so I’m gonna do my best struggling through the notes. And look, these streams, this stream in particular was picked a week ago, so before the boost. So the fact that we’re doing participation and people will be let in after the monologue. And that’s how this works, right? There’s a monologue, then we let people in, we have a conversation, we do some distributed cognition. And hopefully, you know, it stays mostly around the topic, although it can stray, and that’s fine too. So, yeah, let’s get started with the monologue. And participation is a topic that we talk about a lot on the Discord server. We get into this a lot about what’s proper participation, what are the modes of participation. And really participation is about cooperation, right? You can have different types of participation, like conscious participation and unconscious participation. And at some point, I’ll go into conscious versus unconscious a little bit more, although I do have a video on that, on navigating patterns, obviously. It’s important to kind of realize there’s an unconscious side of you, maybe that’s the side that’s moved by the spirit. I don’t know, doesn’t matter. And there’s a conscious side of you that you have more awareness of, right? And really difference is awareness, right? You don’t have awareness of your unconscious side, you have awareness of your conscious side. You don’t have awareness of where your awareness actually exists. Whatever form of awareness you have of your unconscious is really not the same in some sense. And I want to talk about participation in terms of levels, even though I don’t think that’s the right way to talk about it, because levels is sort of like a quantity, right? But really participation is only quality. And you can’t measure participation in the way that you would say measure how fast you can run, right? It doesn’t make any sense. But there are sorts of levels of participation. So what we’ve been seeing lately, especially with the fake news virus scam and the lockdowns and things like that, is participation online. And there’s different forms of this, right? There’s text-based participation like Facebook. Facebook posts, it’s a form of participating with other people. Like the internet’s beautiful. I’m on the internet. I love the internet. Been on the internet my whole life. Not a big deal, right? But there’s a limit to that type of participation. And so because participation is a mode of cooperation, what are we really talking about? You can have text-based participation. You can have sort of a richer form with emojis, right? And then sharing pictures and all of this. And the internet has sort of transformed as a communication method from just text all the way up to multimedia and things like live streams. Maybe you’ve seen one lately. Maybe you’re watching one right now. And where it’s very interactive. So in the old days, it wasn’t very interactive. Email, it took a while to get there. And actually, it was way faster in the old days. Never mind. You can have live conversations over email back in the day. Can’t really do that so much anymore. Too many filters. But you see the rise of social audio like Clubhouse, right? Clubhouse started a little revolution in the internet where now all of a sudden you can hear tone and you can understand sarcasm because sarcasm works really well with speech because it’s a changing tone mostly. And it works really terribly in text because text doesn’t have tone. You can’t be like, what do you do? Color the letters? Like how do you, right? So it’s hard. And I’ve talked about that before in the past, right? Like you can change the, and words and meaning is the video I’m referring to here on navigating patterns. You can change the entire meaning can flip based on tone. That’s what sarcasm is. Flipping the meaning based on tone. No change in the words, no change in structure sentence, no change in the language. You’re just changing the tone. Bang. Sarcasm. So as you add these forms of participation, things get better. Another way to think about this is you see something like a TED Talk, which is a monologue sort of shot out at you. Here are my ideas and there they go, right? There’s no Q&As or anything, you know, in the classic TED Talks. They are probably with the audiences, but then you see sort of the rise of Joe Rogan, where it’s not one person talking at a group. It’s now two people talking or three people or whatever talking to each other, right? She, Joe Rogan’s obviously huge, right? And then you see sort of the rise of something like the Jordan Peterson phenomena. The thing that struck me is I went to see Jordan Peterson years ago in Charlotte, North Carolina, and it was right up the street. Beautiful, beautiful place. I forget how big the venue was. It was at least 7,000 people, as I recall, but what they did was they distributed an app and they said, all right, put your questions in here for Jordan Peterson and we’re going to kind of weed out the duplicates and kind of pick the best version of each question and then we’re going to ask them the top 10 questions. Like that’s amazing. You can see the increase in participation there, right? Like, oh, you’re not just an audience member. You’re an audience member that can ask a question and then you can also see in some sense how many other people were curious about what you were curious about because you’re only asking the top 10. So that’s pretty powerful. That’s a powerful sort of upgrade on participation as such. So it’s worth sort of engaging with in that way, I think. So when you don’t have an engagement with other people or with nature or even with yourself, then your participation is broken, right? You have a lack of participation and that is caused by and facilitates a loss of intimacy, right? I talk about the intimacy crisis. I got a video on that on navigating patterns with Catherine. It’s a lovely video. I’ve got another video on that on Andrea with the Bangs channel. That’s her channel, Andrea with the Bangs. I already talked to her about it, right? And the materialism and that loss of intimacy, mistaking sort of relationships for sex, which is the material conception of relationship. That’s where Sam and Proto have to be gay because there’s no such thing as male-to-male friendship that’s not physical because in the material world it has to be physical. All relationships have to have physicality to them. That’s the intimacy crisis. That looks a lot like autism. People don’t know how to cooperate, don’t know how to engage correctly with the world with other people, right? And I talk about three frames. I’ve got a video on that on navigating patterns, the three frames, right? Which is you with yourself, you with nature, you with others. That’s the modes of participation that you have. Participate with yourself or not. Some people we call them not self-aware. And yeah, it’s more like they’re not aware of their impact on the world. It’s not that they’re not self-aware. They’re maybe too self-aware, but they’re not aware of the difference between what they do and what happens in the outside world. And participation is all wrapped up in boundaries, right? So boundaries are important. We talked about boundaries in previous live stream, right? We did boundaries, we did discernment, judgment, and action, right? And T-Lost. Boundaries are the things you discover through participation, right? Because in your head, I’ve said this before, in your head there’s no boundaries. Everything’s perfect and everything works exactly the way you want. Fair enough. Everything’s perfect. Everything works exactly. Purple unicorns that talk and create rainbows. Absolutely. I’ve got a ton of them in my head. They’re wonderful. I wish I could share them with you, but I’m selfish. No, actually it turns out I can’t because you’re not real. What is reality? What is action? Action is the thing you do outside yourself. Action can’t be internal. You can’t meditate and call it an action. It’s called a non-action explicitly. See my live stream on action. We go over that there. Participation is the cooperation, is the crossing of the boundary between you and that which is outside of you. This is a deep confusion for people. What’s me and what’s not me? What’s me and what’s the other person? People don’t, they’re not engaging with that. And it’s hard for them. Like I get it. Like I’m not trying to cast dispersions saying like, yeah, this is a problem. And so what do we do about that? Well, participation is the way we learn about those boundaries. Participation is the reciprocal way that we educate ourselves about where we end and where others begin. Where we end and where nature begins. Where we end in ourselves and where we have no control. Like where the passions move us. And that’s the problem. Like you need to be able to relate to things and know how to relate to them. And the way you relate to a person you see on the street to Mills point is different from the way you relate to a person that you’ve known for 10 years. Like it’s just different. That’s intimacy. The quality of the relationship. That’s how I define intimacy. It’s the quality of your relationships. And then people get confused, especially inside to outside because information, for example, needs to be participated in to be useful. If what you do is read the internet and you think you have participated in something, you really kind of haven’t. What you’ve done is you fooled yourself. It’s a low form of participation. And now you’re thinking you took an action. Like, oh, I read this on the internet and now I know something. Let’s suppose it’s accurate and true and perfect information. We’ll grant you all that even though we know on the internet the odds of that happening are actually going down, not up. As you get flooded with more information, there’s more bad information to you. And it’s easier to make bad information than good information. So it just follows more information you have, more bad information you have. But we’ll set that aside. We’ll say, look, let’s just suppose it’s good, perfect, true information. The problem is you think you took an action where the action you took of gathering information and maybe memorizing it or integrating it into other things you know has nothing to do with what the information contains. In other words, the action of gathering information is the action. So I can say I read everything about this scientific experiment, but I didn’t participate in the experiment. So the form of participation is in gathering knowledge. The form of participation isn’t in doing the experiment. And we get confused with those little abstractions and redirections rather easily for whatever god-awful reason. So you have to be careful with, I took an action, but was it proper participation? Is the participation in the action that I took actually towards the thing that I was trying to engage with or is it towards something else? Right? So if I take the action of raising my hand and I say, oh, I was at school and I participated, did you? What if at recess you didn’t do anything with anybody, just sat in the corner? Right? Like these things matter. These are not little things. Like, oh, I took an action. Yeah, but were you participating in your action? Or was your action selfish and narcissistic? Or was your action in your head entirely and so nobody, it didn’t impact the world, didn’t impact anything outside yourself? That’s what I mean by participation. Look, there are forms of participation with yourself. Sure, absolutely. They’re hard to measure though, so maybe you want to be careful with that. Right? And there are forms of things that seem like actions within yourself, but I argue they’re not actions. Again, see my stream on actions. Or action, I should say. So participation, not conversation, is what brings us together. Technically, it’s impossible for conversation to bring us together, because all we’re doing is exploring a space of ideas. And what we need to be doing is eating together or fishing together. We’re going for a walk together. In silence, that’s way better. Way better, because you actually get to know about a person by being with them and watching them and engaging with them in an action together. Again, actions are external to you. And the way that people process and actually participate, so process participation and participate, is different for men and women. Shout out to Sally Jo, who pointed this out like, I don’t know, 45 minutes ago. And I went, oh crap, that needs to be in my notes. It’s actually important. This is something like, what is it, The Five Love Languages. Great book, by the way. If you haven’t read The Five Love Languages, actually a really good book. It’s like, oh my goodness. It’s sort of like a compressed men are for Mars, women are for Venus, only way more practical. It gives you this idea of how different people express the same thing, but they’re actually expressing the same thing. And it’s in expression, it’s in action. It’s not, it doesn’t talk about language so much. Men are for Mars, women are for Venus, I believe, does talk about action. Also another useful book, I haven’t read that one. I read Five Love Languages, great book. Very useful, very useful to understanding the differences between men and women, because they’re very different, actually. The differences are huge in some areas. They may be close, but they’re large differences. And so their modes of participation are different. Women will participate more communally, write more deeply, more emotionally, where men, or aug, as I like to call them, we just build and smash. And like, whatever, man, it’s all good. Men are stupid, just kind of, aug build, aug smash, rawr. And then aug do good, aug happy, aug do bad, aug sorry. That’s it. It’s not hard. Men are not hard. Women? I don’t understand women. It’s all crazy. Modes of participation are different. Like, how women go about thinking about things are different. Like, men are happy to have house with roof. Women make house home. Same object, right? Same target, different modes of participation. They pay attention to detail. I don’t pay attention to detail. I get stuff strewn all over. I’m actually fairly organized, but I’m not that organized. And there’s this thing that I’ve heard about called dust. I don’t believe it exists, but I’m told it does, that you have to do something about it. I’m skeptical. I got to say, I’m skeptical. It’s just an aug thing. This is what guys are like. Mode of participation with the house is different. Good at, fix window. Bad at, dust. Where is this dust? I don’t even see it. So, important. And then when you’re participating with something, how are you doing that? What is your T-Los? Previous live stream. What is your T-Los? If you’re going to go out on the internet and engage with something and then become the authority, is that proper participation with the internet? Is the internet just for you to feel better about what you know? That’s trolling, right? Like, oh, I’m going to go into a forum or Discord server or a live stream, and I’m just going to be like a naysayer. Is that proper participation? Like, really? I’m not saying it’s not useful, but is it proper participation? Is that all you’re doing? If that’s all you’re doing, you’re participating properly? If it’s all on the negative side or all on the positive side, for that matter, because I’m not a fan of that either. Tolerance is a problem. I’m sure Ethan’s thrilled if he’s listening. Hopefully he’s off tending to babies or his pregnant wife or something, but maybe he’s listening. I don’t know. When you make yourself the authority in all your participation, it’s deranged. You become deranged. You think about the world in a way that is deranged. It’s not towards the good. It can’t be made towards the good, because when you’re just the authority all the time, what does that mean? You’re not learning any. That’s for sure. Like, oh, those are the conversations. I learned a lot. Did you? Are you sure you’re the authority on whether or not you learned a lot? Maybe you’re not. Maybe the things you got out of the conversation weren’t even there. I’ve seen that happen. It happened to me today. You said this. Now I said nothing like that. Nothing. What did you read? I didn’t type that. It happens all the time. That’s derangement with participation. We have a deep derangement because our modes of participation because of the internet are different. We’re not good at navigating them, actually. We’re really not. There’s still discussions over what emojis mean. Well, in this emoji, in this context, what is that? Holy cats. We had language and we destroyed language, and now we’ve got emojis to make up for language. We’re going back to pictograms. It’s a de-evolution. We’re going backwards. No good participation. Participation is integration with that that is around you. It’s not self-transformation in the sense that most people use that term. We talk about the usage of words versus their meaning. I do that all the time on my channel. That’s basically what my channel is about, largely. It’s none of the things, too, but mostly that. Participation with integration is conforming to the world around you in order to transform yourself into a different person. I have a video on formation. I just put it out. I have a video on how to transform yourself into a different person. I have a video on formation. I just put it out, actually. I have another video coming out on, what did Adam say? Monday. Adam told me to put it out on Monday. I’m going to put it out on Monday. I can write the description for it. Everything else is done. The contrast of, we’ll say, participation where you’re conforming to the world and participation where you aren’t, is important because it allows you to understand the performative contradiction. What’s a performative contradiction? For those of you who do not know, and there may be many people who do not understand performative contradiction because it’s a difficult concept. It’s where you say one thing, but you do something else. A lot of people say, well, that’s hypocritical. It’s like, well, I have a problem with hypocritical. I mean, a lot of times people go, well, it’s hypocritical. It’s like, no, that’s an exception to the rule. But form of contradiction is something more along the lines of, you say something like, well, you should always come into a room and be polite. Then that person is never polite when they come into a room. You say, well, that’s being hypocritical. Yeah, maybe also. But it’s performative contradiction. It’s where you’re talking about being one way or you’re talking about how other people should be, but you’re not embodying that. In other words, your performance contradicts your statements in the language. You won’t know about this if your participation isn’t integrating and conforming with the world around you. In order to integrate with the world around you, you have to conform to that world. That’s how it works. That contrast is important. Then look, I talk a lot about OMR, objective material reality. If you start listening to what people are saying, a lot of people use this objective material reality frame. If that were real, then our participation would be pointless. We’d change nothing. Determinism would be there. OMR is a form of sneaky abstracted determinism. It’s a statement of determinism without using the word determinism. It’s saying, well, the world is a certain way objectively apart from us, independent of us, and therefore. It’s material and therefore. That’s reality and therefore. Then what’s our role? We can’t participate in that. What are we, rats in a maze? What are you going to do with that? You’re not going to do anything with that. There’s nothing to conform to. There’s nothing to help to form. By the way, as an aside, I find it odd that people who believe in objective material reality refuse to participate in uncontested historical facts, preferring instead, it would seem, to participate in their fantasy when history disagrees. That didn’t happen in history. It’s like nobody thinks that didn’t happen. We have documents, whatever. It’s strange. It’s like future-only determinism, where they are right and the past is wrong. You’re not participating in history if you’re right and the things that happen in the past are wrong. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s an inversion. It’s clown world all the way down. Then what do they do? They know the future. They always know the future. Every single one of these people knows the future and the past is always wrong. It’s like, no, no, no, dude. It’s the future you don’t know and the past that you do know. Do you know it perfectly? No. Guess what? We don’t live in a perfect world. That’s why we have to participate. We have to make it better. That’s what participation is. It’s not all it is, but it is making the world better. And nearly everyone sort of ignores the core question in the movie The Matrix. I’m going to trigger Jesse. Sorry, Jesse. It’s okay. I put a stopping point in here on purpose. In the movie, Morpheus asks, what is real? How do you define real? And then he goes on to use the well-known, by the way, trope that are phenomenal. He says, well, I’m going to use the well-known, by the way, trope that are phenomenal. In other words, what we experience, as defined by brain signals, is all of reality. Everything else is not. That’s explicit in the movie. It’s not correct, by the way. And it’s weird that objective material reality people would use that framing, but they do all the time. I can’t explain the contradiction. I can just point it out. It’s a performative contradiction, by the way. And of course, that’s subversion in the movie itself, because participation is optional. Either you can be plugged in to The Matrix or outside The Matrix. But again, and I’ve said this before, you are living in the sewers of the world. You are living in the sewers under a dead city. I can’t imagine anything worse. And the machine still controls the outside world. Like, you’re not getting out of The Matrix, kid. It didn’t happen in the movie. It’s explicit. They don’t tell you that. They tell you the opposite. That whole movie is a performative contradiction, because you’re not participating. And it’s a postmodern power narrative, with two seemingly equal, you know, by standard sets of brain inputs, choices. Be plugged in. Don’t be plugged in. My world versus your world, since the brain inputs are the same. In one case, you’re coming from the construct, the computer. So it’s way worse than a performative contradiction in some ways. And it’s sneaky. And again, I don’t want to go too far into this. Jesse wants to dissect this further with me. But it’s so key to participation and its reduction. Reducing participation to brain impulses. Reducing your phenomenological experience to brain impulses. That’s ridiculous. Participation happens as the result of discernment, judgment, and action. It cannot be reduced to brain impulses. That removes participation. Or rather, it places the importance of participation of thought equal to that of action. So participation of thought is not equal to physical action. It moves the outside world. It moves the outside world. And again, I’ve defined this before. Action has to move the outside world. It has to be independently verifiable. Purple talking unicorns in my head are not independently verifiable. I don’t know why you people won’t get on board with my purple talking unicorns. It’s very annoying. Please fix this. They’re going to happen. Only I can talk to my talking unicorns. It’s really annoying. Do you privilege participation over being right? Maybe you should. How about the fantasy in your head? What are you privileging? The imperfect, gritty, dirty, horrible reality? Or the perfect world alone as an individual in your head? Did I rub you the wrong way? Good. The world we live in needs to be perfected. It needs to be participated with. It needs to be made better. We need to make the progress towards the good. Because it’s a gritty, dirty, horrible, imperfect reality in which we live. That’s just where we’re at. Participation teaches you about consequences, yours and others. And participation is really important because it’s a good thing. It’s a good thing. It’s a good thing. It’s a good thing. Participation is really important because when we participate, not only are we learning, but we’re exemplifying something for others. They see us participate and that teaches them how to participate. And sure, there’s a problem with this. The further you get away from participation, the more interpretation you have to do. What do you mean, Mark? You crazy pirate? Here’s what I mean. Let’s suppose that you look at Elon Musk and you go, aha, I see his participation in the world. I see what he’s doing. He’s smart, right? And he hires smart people. Okay. And he’s smart. He hires smart people. Okay. Maybe. And he knows his stuff, so he can’t be fooled. Maybe. That’s how he’s the wealthiest man. No. And I went over this in a video on my channel on Navigating Patterns. I forget which one. One of the two short money ones. They’re short. They’re short. It’s cool. They’re short. It’s not the Twitter one. That’s a different one. You weren’t there. So the dirty little secret, if it’s dirty or little or a secret at this point, is that Elon Musk was given a bunch of money and his brother, to be fair, to fail at businesses when he was young. If you didn’t have that participation, you’re missing all those lessons. Does he even know those lessons? Does he know them well enough to articulate them? Because there’s a bunch of stuff we know that we don’t know how to talk about. And often we call that common sense, but common sense usually just refers to something we know embodied that we can’t articulate or explain to other people. I’ll do a video on that someday too. I don’t think I’ve done one yet. I probably talked about it elsewhere. As you get further from the participation in the action, you have to interpret more of what’s been going on. If you haven’t worked with Elon Musk, you don’t know what the hell he does. Did you sleep under your desk? He did. Why am I not Elon Musk? I’m just as smart. Are you? Have you talked to Elon Musk? Do you have any idea how smart he is? I don’t. I’m not going to pretend I do. I have no idea. Sometimes he says very smart things. Sometimes he says very dumb things. But I don’t know anybody who doesn’t do that. I used to hang out at MIT and Harvard and other well-known schools in Boston because I grew up in Boston. Boy, those people. I was at MIT once. These two guys walked into the dorm room we were in. There was a bunch of us in the dorm room. And they go, one of them was laughing at the other. And he goes, ha ha ha. He spilled his drink at the cafeteria. And he says, no, I didn’t. That glass tipped on its own. And he’s like, what? Yeah, it was misdesigned. It was like, are you saying you weren’t involved in holding the tray that held the glass that tipped over? Could not convince him. Did he what? Freaking MIT. Like, really? These are the smart kids? Let me off the bus. I got things to do. Participation. Things to do. And look, the consequences are important. The fact that the further you are from actually building a deck, from actually participating in building a deck, the more interpretation you have about how to build a deck and the less you actually know about it is important. Consequences are important. Watching other people exemplify things and participate and fail is important. You may not get the same lessons out of it as everybody else. And look, one mistake I’ve been making, which I must apologize for, is failing to properly demonstrate both perspectives in these monologues. I don’t do a good job of this. So I’d like to try and be more careful about this now. Notice I didn’t say mindful. Mindful is individualistic and I’m trying to participate better myself, right? Participation isn’t only about you. It’s also about the things you participate with. The other people have different perspectives and different modes of participation and you must learn that and what that means. Two things, not one, actually three really. Because there’s a relationship in your participation. It’s not me and the thing I’m participating. There’s a relationship. Your relationship is not going to be the same as somebody else’s. And that’s good. Maybe you’re building a deck and you put in the footings. You need footings for deck, by the way. I’ve built decks. Not very many, but I have. It’s important. You need footings. Maybe you have a friend who’s really good at footings and you’re not as good at footings. Different perspectives. He knows how to pay attention to the things that are important to the footings. And maybe you’re better at banging on the nails. I don’t know. That happens all the time. People have different skills. We’re all different. We’re not all equal. It’s not the world we live in. We live in a world that was built by evolution. Evolution doesn’t work without difference. And difference means different perspectives, different skills, different affordances, different ways of participation, different views, different interpretations. It’s difference everywhere. Strength isn’t in diversity. It’s in difference. When you can cooperate and participate together. Because participation is cooperation. Participation is reality. I’m sure, sadly to say, that if we all act as if being born into this world is horrible, then it will be. Reality is not unconditional. Reality is conditional on us. Oh, that’s crazy, Mark. Physics says so. Reality is conditional on us. Oh, that’s crazy, Mark. Physics says so. Really. It actually does. You go, well, the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong. Okay. The Eltonard interpretations don’t remove the observer problem. Nothing removes the observer problem. The observer problem basically says, unless there’s a human there to observe it, it didn’t happen. And you could say, well, we could do a measurement. Who’s going to build the measuring device? Did you build your observation into a mechanical device? It’s not to think about. Of course you did. According to physics, still, and from the beginning, by the way, and I have studied this. I’ve talked to physicists. I grew up in Boston. I’ve talked to lots of physicists about this. Bunches and more than you’ve probably met in your life. Privilege of being born in Lowell, Massachusetts and living in Boston. Sorry, I have an advantage. Also, my stepfather, an unrecorded IQ, by far the smartest person that I’ve ever encountered, like absolutely knew everything about absolutely everything and could explain anything. The only person I ever met that could actually explain anything, anything that he knew about. He didn’t know everything, but maybe you probably count fingers with one hand the things he couldn’t actually know, didn’t know anything about, or didn’t know anything about enough to explain. I just have an advantage here. That’s what physics says. Physics says no observer, no reality. That’s what it says. There’s no particles. Material doesn’t exist without us. Begin arguments about animals and how far back and evolution. I’m not going to do that. We’re here now. We need to participate here and now. We’re going to participate in the past. We can’t. The past is fixed. It’s done. It’s over. Get over. Move on. Participation is cooperation in the here and now. You’re not going to participate with the ancient Mayans. You’re going to participate with the ancient Sumerians, although if I could, I would. I’d ditch all you people. I’d be right back there learning cuneiform. Damn it. My favorite time period. I’d be one of them astronomers. It’d be great. I could record that big event that caused Sodom and Gomorrah. That’s an interesting theory, by the way. Recorded on a cuneiform tablet. Yup, yup. The thing that caused Sodom and Gomorrah in materiality. Of course, what sent the meteorite to earth? It’s a participation. You can’t participate with the stories of the past to the point where you know them well enough to know what happens today. We don’t even know what happens today. You don’t know when you do something all the things that change. You have no idea. Neither do I. We just don’t know. But look, I’m sure if we all get together and we all work really, really hard, we can make World War III happen. We absolutely can. But I would prefer that we didn’t do that. Could we not do that? That would be great. Could we not pretend that a hopeless war that can’t be won could somehow be won? The super underdog is somehow going to come from behind. And you have two military powers in the world and they’re going to be the number two military power. That’s not going to happen. For better or for worse, it’s just not going to happen. We might get involved in World War III, but again, could we not? That would be great. If everybody stops participating in war, however that happens, whatever negotiations have to happen to make that happen, because I’m kind of like negotiate before World War III, please. That would be great. Our participation matters. It moves and changes the world. It is reality. We co-manifest reality with each other, with nature, things around us, right? With ourselves. You can make yourself crazy. It’s not hard. Your participation, your cooperation matters. Participation is how you direct your time, energy, and attention. It’s how you control and influence the world and to what extent. And it is limited by you, but also by nature. It’s very confusing. Again, it’s very complicated. I am not here to give you easy answers. If you are here for easy answers, you’re in the wrong place. I am not here to uncomplicate your world. That is not going to happen. I am going to re-enchant your world. I am going to make it more complicated and more mysterious and much more difficult if you want to have control or power or prediction or understanding. All that’s going to go right out the window on this channel, my friends. You want to know what boundaries are conceptually? What are the limits? What are your limits? Only participation can show you. You do not know what you can do until you try to do it. Can you run 10 miles? Maybe not today. Can you run 10 miles if you train for a year? Maybe. I don’t know. Maybe you can’t, but maybe somebody else can. That’s annoying. We’re different. Boy, that really pisses me off when I can’t do something someone else can do. Maybe. Maybe it shouldn’t. Maybe you should be happy for them. Only participation can show you. It still exemplifies. It exemplifies the possible. There’s that … I don’t know if you guys know about this. It’s a good story. No one could break the four-minute mile. One person did it. Then a bunch of other people could do it. Why? Because once it was exemplified, participated with in the real world, then other people figured out, oh, if I just push harder, I can do it. They were able to do it. It’s like this weird barrier that happened. It’s a mystery. It’s a miracle. Fair enough. It is. I’m fine. I’m cool. It sucks. I can’t understand it. I can’t predict it. I can’t manage it. I can’t control it. I can’t influence it. But I can participate with it. So who cares? I’m just grateful for that. We did gratitude last week with Jesse. It was wonderful. There’s participation. Mark doesn’t do the monologue. Jesse does. It was wonderful. I’m grateful that Jesse did it, because I didn’t have anything prepared anyway. It was very useful. Give me some time off. Failure is learning. You’re not failing. You’re not learning. Maybe you’re getting lucky. Maybe you’re doing things that are too easy for you. Maybe you’re doing things you already know, but you’re not learning. You don’t learn your limits until you hit your limits. And when you hit your limits, you fail. That’s how you know they’re the limits. That’s what limits are. They’re the points at which you fail. You’re not going to learn that except through participation. Sorry. That’s how it works. It’s just how it works. Did you notice that you failed? Did you admit, oh, I failed? Did you integrate your failure so that you could learn? Do you open up that space? Oh, here’s my limit. Okay. Great. A limit. Participation shows the difference between fantasy and reality. And remember, we influence reality. We co-manifest reality. We have to know what the boundaries of that reality are. Purple talking unicorns with rainbows are not reality. I’m still annoyed. And that requires a relationship, and it requires a type of relationship, a quality of relationship, a level of intimacy with the world. And when we remove that, we become autistic. You can become autistic. It’s not merely some material physical cause. You can act autistic. It’s not that hard. Participation is how you become a creature that can understand and manifest intimacy. There’s no other way to do it. You have to participate, cooperate with yourself, with others, with nature in order to understand intimacy and reverse the intimacy crisis. The intimacy crisis causes the meaning crisis. That’s one of my theses. Intimacy crisis precedes all these other crises that you’re seeing. You can’t co-manifest meaning in the world without intimacy, without quality of a relationship and different qualities of relationship. It’s really important to understand the meaning of the world. It’s really important. All right, I’m tired. That was 48 minutes. That was a long time. So we’re going to open things up for more participation. And so anybody who wants to jump in, you got to come on camera. I don’t know who you are. There’s the link. I can only ping the link on my channel, Navigating Patterns, but it’s available in the chat. So feel free to jump in. And while I’m waiting for that, I should pull up my website. I just redid my website. So anybody who’s interested in supporting me, any way should perform. Greatly appreciated. Greatly appreciated. My personal website should have everything on it, including my buy me a coffee link and Yeah, oh this didn’t update. Why didn’t this one update? Maybe it’s cached. It was cached. Okay. As long as it’s not cached, it comes up with the new website, all the new links. I think they’re all up to date. Yeah, I’ve got a buy me coffee on there. I’ve got a PayPal. I’ve got a bunch of addresses. I’ve got a free paper on sleep reduction in case it’s interesting to you. All right, what do we got today? We got our San Pell. We always have our San Pell. Got our San Pell. Thank you Mills. I’m glad you like the monologue. We’ve got our tea from Table Rock Tea Company, Marathon, because this is always a marathon. I apologize for the ugly website. I’m gonna put a link tree up there eventually, but couldn’t get it done today. These junk list bars, these are fantastic. Like I just love junk list bars. They’re great. They didn’t have them the last two times I went to the store and I was like in panic. There, you know, no bad stuff in them basically, because I have to be careful what I eat. If I eat the wrong thing, I’ll get like knocked out. Possibly for days. Not good. Not recommended. No, Anselman. Rhinoceros does not qualify as a unicorn. I know Anselman. Rhinoceros does not qualify as a unicorn. I checked with the official unicorn society of me, myself, and I, and we inclusively stated that no. And that is the authority that I’m using to to make this statement. But Anselman tea and corned beef sandwich here followed by a chocolate biscuit. Oh, that sounds delightful. I’m glad you didn’t say scone, because then I’d be upset, because scones are delicious and I do miss my scones. My mother used to make scones occasionally and she would use European butter, because it matters. Much more flavorful scone when you use the right butter. But crappy American butter just doesn’t cut it for some things like scones and croissants. You can’t make croissants properly if you don’t use European butter. Or like New Zealand. New Zealand has crazy European butter. Higher fat content. That’s my understanding. Such as it is. But yeah, this is all about participation. So you get the link. Get free to participate. I bet Jesse’s going to jump in at some point if he ever catches up, because I think he started late. He did say triggering confirmed. So that was good. I’m glad I triggered somebody. It wouldn’t be a live stream if I didn’t trigger somebody. But I’m glad to see so many people here. It’s nice. I hope we can get more people. It’s harder in the summer. Internet use goes down in the summer, which is good. I’m very happy for that. But I’m sad for my live stream. And I’m sad that my live stream is so early on Fridays now, because it’s still light out. And I’m like, huh, it wasn’t light out not too long ago during these live streams. Now it is. Like, wait a minute. Although the evenings here in South Carolina tend to be real hot. So you don’t want to be out this time anyway. Sometimes it’s just still too hot. Although it hasn’t been hot. I think we’ve had one warm day. And the rest of the days have been like pretty cool. Like 80s, 70s. Crazy, crazy normal weather. Not at all what you’d expect for this season. But I’m always grateful. It’s been good top down weather for the car. So it’s good when you take the top down. We had a couple of gray days. Didn’t really rain much, but rained at night. And that was weird. I got to get more clay for the driveway. But I’ve got my dumping cart. I just got to go find the damn clay and dig it up. But we’ll get out in the woods. We’ll find some clay. We’ll dig it up, put it in the driveway, fix the rest of the drainage. I finally got ruts. I was like, no, I thought I solved this problem. Hansel and Mo, what kind of tea do you have? Do they have Scottish breakfast tea? They have all kinds of weird teas over there in the UK. Sorry. Sorry. In the UK. I was in Scotland too. I saw a picture on Twitter. They had a picture of Edinburgh Castle. I’m like, oh, I’ve been there. It’s so pretty. It really is pretty too. Saw the sunset over the castle. Right behind the castle. Awesome. The person I was with who lived there had never seen that. Yeah. I like how you live here and you never watch the sunset behind the castle. That’s strange. Would have thought that was a winner right there. Yeah, you can probably watch it rise over by Arthur’s seat. That’s on the other side there. Hansel and Mo, an ordinary Tetley brand today. Indian black. Oh, interesting. I don’t usually drink Tetley tea. I’ve had it before. The American Tetley tea is not super impressive. Oh, you have a stash of Earl Grey. Oh, excellent. I love Earl Grey. Earl Grey, hot. Great value, Earl Grey. Cheap and plentiful. Only since Star Trek Next Gen. I was drinking it long before that. Earl Grey is good stuff. He made quite the tea, that’s for sure. I don’t really drink much Earl Grey now, but I used to drink quite a bit. Now I’ve got my local South Carolina tea company, Table Rock Tea Company. One of these days I’ve got to get my own tea company going. We’re a long way from that, unfortunately, I think. It’s rather sad, but we’ll see. Let me get this right. I do all these streams. Usually I get done. It’s my dream. I do all these streams. Usually I get done. Somebody jumps right in. I just dream on participation and no one jumps in. Really? Is this my life? Is this my life? Nobody’s going to jump in on participation. Just dream on participation and nobody wants to participate. Nobody wants to cooperate after that wonderful monologue. Why do I do this? This is just torture at this point. I bet Jesse’s still trying to catch up. I don’t know what’s wrong with Jesse. He’s always late. Artists, man. Artists. It’s just, you know. Answer. I heard once that too much oil of bergamot is not good for you. So Earl Grey is in moderation. Why? Why isn’t it good for you? Do you know? I’ve never heard that before. I’d be interested to find out though. Hey Chad, good to see you. Apparently this is my life. I do the one live stream on participation. Nobody participates. It’s ironic. I can deal with the irony. It’s okay. I’m sure Jesse will be here eventually. There he is. The man, the myth, the legend. Welcome, sir. Smoking. Nice. Hey there. Yeah, I was just on a quick smoke break. I got some family in town. I don’t even know what you’re talking about. You were talking about something about nobody’s jumping in. So I thought I’d jump in and say hello. You don’t always count on Chad to jump in. That’s great. Good to see you. I was talking about participation. That was my monologue today. It was on participation and cooperation. Sweet. How’d it go? I don’t know. It seemed to go well. Mills liked the monologue. He said it was good. So I’ll get more feedback hopefully in participation soon about the monologue. Cool. Do you do any writing? Who’s in town, Chad? I have, so my brother-in-law and sister-in-law and our nephews are in town. Oh, that’s awesome, man. Yeah, we’re going to do some dinner tomorrow night and go to the old Fox and Hound, which is a restaurant close to town here. They have a nice BOGO special, which is, it’s like they got all these taxidermy heads all over the joint. Oh, cool. That sounds awesome. That sounds great. Yeah, the kids will love it. I like to go there because they have a good steak and I like steak. I can order a nice $40 steak and my wife can get whatever she wants. That’s fantastic. There’s nothing better than a nice piece of steak. Yeah, no, I love it. It’s funny that the little things we take for granted. Yeah, right. Right. It is. But yeah, I’m a steak guy all day long. I can just feed me steak. I’ll be happy. I don’t need anything else. It’s all good. I like ice cream too. So that’s good. Ice cream for breakfast, steak for lunch and dinner. That works. Yeah. Oh, man. So there, I participated a little bit. You’re the best, Chad. I appreciate you, sir. Good to see you. If you get a chance, you should go check out that new video I put out today. I put a couple of them out. It’s called, Meanwhile, Nobody’s Talking About This. That’s what it’s called. Oh, great. I’ll check it out later. Yeah, thanks. And have a good one, everybody. See you, Chad. Jesse, there he is. How was the monologue now that everyone’s asking? Good. Good. Almost too succinct. Do you want to say something? Really? It’s very succinct. It’s very good. No, it came out very fluidly, I felt. That’s good. That’s good. I thought it had a good resonance. Good. Well, I didn’t work on it until Wednesday evening. And then I was like, uh-oh, that’s not good. I was like, wait, I already picked my topic. What was it? And then I was like, I’ve got to remember to go look. And then I didn’t. And then it was like Wednesday before I did. And I was like, oh, now I got to take notes on participation. What am I going to talk about? How am I going to do this? I thought we were doing responsibility. No, no. Participation is what I said in the thing. I thought last week we said it was responsibility. Nope. I checked the live stream. I actually checked the live stream. I did my work. Mills says he’s half here. Kids are watching original Pinocchio. Oh, nice. Which does feature the scene where the naughty boys are turned into beasts of burden. I should hope so. I don’t realize it’s so much right. Lynn said she would go on, but she doesn’t have much to say. All right. Well, that’s part of the situation. Come on, Lynn. I’ve not read you yet. Answer the lights, Fox and Hounds. It sounds like good ambiance. It does. It does. Answer my claims. Because, you know, you know, those Scots. We had a pub restaurant over here named that. Hunting scenes all around. Red-coated huntsmen and all. Oh, nice. That sounds cool. Nathaniel’s thinks the monologue is good. Thank you, sir. Hard to ask questions. I find myself not in all the log and past dreams hits on this stuff. Yeah. Well, look, I mean, you always ask about past dreams. I don’t mind. Oh, you beg for it now. Got to rewind to catch this session’s montage. Yeah. Well, that’s fine. We’ll be here. We’ll be here. Jesse and I’ll be here. With my brand new He-Man cup from the Power of Grayskull. The Power of Grayskull. That’s great. I broke my last one, Mark. Not the people. How did you break your last one? I’m a Muppet. You Muppet. But I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. Well, yeah, you have to do that. Once you realize you’re a Muppet, you’re like, oh, Muppets need extra cups. Oh, cool. It’s like a She-Ra. Oh, dude. A Princess of Power. Yeah. Well, sorry. It should be Princess of Precious. Women should be precious, not powerful. Sally, Joe and I were all over that weeks ago. Women should be precious, not powerful. Well, N-Wise, technically. There was a big dust-up on the Van der Klay livestream about the Sophie-ologist. That livestream was a mess. These people, they like to make up long things to talk about that take really one sentence to sum up. And it’s like, why are you doing this to yourselves? Like talking for 45 minutes about epistemeology? No, they were talking about whether or not the ancient church was sex negative and the modern church was sex positive and whether or not the Bible. So Van der Klay was like, sex is all over the Bible. And I’m like, oh my goodness, no. Like, what are you doing? It’s just bad framing. Right. It’s like, so the way I said it, I was talking to Adam about this. I said, look, this is like saying, how did I frame it? Shoot something. Right. Because shoot something is an action, just like sex is an action. Is shoot something good or bad? Like, that’s a question that doesn’t make any sense. Like, you can’t ask a question about negative or positive or good and bad on an action with no context. Right. Because the thing that makes it good or bad is the context. Is sex good? Is it towards being and in a relationship? Then yes. If it’s not in a relationship, but it creates being, then yes, comparative to not towards being. Right. Like, it’s not that hard. It’s really not a super, like, it’s not worthy of a two hour live stream. It’s really not. Yeah. And they just went on and on and on. And they kept saying the church and they never mentioned the church. They mentioned the book. And I’m like, we stopped mentioning the book. Oh yeah. Here it is. Yeah. It was Anselm and they were talking about the sophiologist. Sophiologists are obsessed with exalting the female. Yes, they are. They are because I see wisdom as a woman. And yeah, fair enough. Yeah. And I like Michael Martin. I talked to him. The woman is feminine. I don’t do this reframing thing. I said feminine. Right. No, no, you did. But the sophiologists are obsessed with exalting the female. They’re materialists. These people are all materialists. It’s crazy. All these crazy materialists. I don’t Anselm and I don’t know this. Anselm says, solely, solo vives fantasy taken up by feminists. I don’t know who or what that is. It sounds good to me. Anselm is probably right because he’s right about a lot of stuff. So that’s easy. Is it good? Yes. Anselm said it. It’s good. There you go. It’s like context is everything. Context is everything. Nathaniel claims that sophiologists are Jungian. Maybe. I’m not a fan of the sophiology thing. I haven’t seen anything impressive from it so far. I’m not like, oh, it’s bad. But they are nice people. So give them that. Yeah, right. People get really wrapped up in like, what’s he like? What’s his, oh, okay. So solo viev is apparently, according to Anselm, a Russian philosopher in 19th century. Sure. The Russian philosophers really run hot and cold, man. All the German and French philosophers are terrible. That’s easy. But Russians, it’s like, man, you got to think. Is this Russian philosopher actually decent? Because some of them are. It’s not like you can just count all Russian and French philosophy just outright. It’s not hard. You’ll lose nothing from your life. Nothing at all. No goodness. No goodness will be lost. I had a big argument on Twitter with Zeldin and a couple other people. I’m like, all right, smarty pants. Name one good thing that came out of postmodernism. Name any goodness in postmodernism. I’ll take one. That’s uniquely postmodern. It can’t be, it can’t predate that. I’m going to wait a long time. You know why I know this? Because these people, they get trapped in this participation. They’re like, I know, I’m going to get Mark. It’s like, guy, you’re not the first person I’ve talked to about this. You’re not the second or third person I’ve talked to. You’re not the 50th person I’ve talked to about this. This is not a new conversation for me. And maybe the first time anybody asked you that question. That I can believe. But this isn’t a new conversation for me. People get caught up in this. Perhaps they were right about the dangers and powers of critique. No, because they’re wrong about their definition of power. They don’t have a definition of power. They just state power, power, power. I have a video on that. I have a video on that, Jesse. I’m navigating. Uh oh. They equate power. Hey Mark, I didn’t see you at the Chino Conference. Yes, I was not at the Chino Conference. I am flat broke like you wouldn’t believe. And I wasn’t real keen on Chino. Anyway, I’ve heard some interesting stories out of Chino. The untold tales of Chino and the adventures of drug addicts. Well, maybe not addicts, but drug use, and the failures of participation, failures of modes of participation. Yeah, anyway. Oh, here we go. Ooh, Nathaniel has some good insight. Nathaniel. Michael Martin, yep, he’s the sociologist. And the Grail Country crew. Yeah, I’m not a fan of Grail Country at all. And I had to agree with Nate like three times today. And I had to agree with Sam Adams, because they were the more reasonable ones in the VanderKlaai livestream. I was like amazed. I’m like, how can this happen in one day? They break down Tom Berg’s Meditations on the Tarot, Russian sociologist and Catholic convert. And he cites Jung all over the place. Maybe not all. Yeah, well, fair enough. Yeah, I’m not. So why are you talking about the Tarot? And here’s the irony. So there’s a video on the knowledge engine model and the breakthrough on the knowledge engine model about the poetic way of informing the world, which is the way you’re supposed to participate. See, I should have put that in the notes. Damn it. That came from the Tarot. Like literally our other Australian friend, not Jesse, but Andre, who is not here, unfortunately, but hopefully Andre will be back someday. Andre was like, Mark, Mark, I just got this new Tarot deck. And I was like, oh, OK. And he’s like, I want to stop because we were in the middle of a project on archetypes. He’s like, I want to stop. I want to tell you about my new Tarot deck. And I’m like, all right, we’ll take a break. We’ve been going for like two and a half hours. It’s like, fair enough. Breaks are good. And then he started talking about the Tarot. And I’m like, I wonder how that works. And then I was like, how does the Tarot cards work? And then that’s how we got to the poetic. And I don’t want to tell more of this story because it’s a long story. But yeah, that’s how we figured it out. We’re like, wait, there are two types of cards and there are connectors. And these connections are not linear and discrete. And that’s how Tarot works. And that’s why it works because it provides a framework. And into that framework, you insert the narrative. And the narrative is close enough to your life that it becomes personal. Right? It’s like, wow, there you go. And it’s like, oh, OK. So it’s not like I hate Tarot. I’m pretty sure I still have one of my tarot decks that I think my family throughout all my good stuff. Mills, Grim Grizz, Gotta Spill the Tea. Well, yeah, let’s not go down that rabbit hole. Nathaniel, yes, Tom Berg thankfully uses the Tarot as archetypal symbols and not any sort of fortune telling. Yeah, I think there’s something to that. I mean, our whole knowledge engine model and the idea of poetic information, the poetic way of informing the world, the four types of information are propositional, right, which is words like statements, procedural, which is these linear relationships of, you know, you grab this and put it up your mouth. Participatory, right? And poetic. And it’s the poetic information that allows you to participate correctly. No, I spilled water all over myself. The problem with fizzy water is that it’s fizzy. Only downside to Sam Pell is it’s fizzy. It’s also an upside. So trade-offs. I have a video on trade-offs on navigating patterns. Uh oh, uh oh. I have to disagree with Anselman. Anselman, it’s all still occult voodoo. I actually disagree. I think engaging with archetypes is important. And while I respect the Catholic Church’s way of doing so, I think it’s incomplete. And it’s a very slow burn. And I think that’s part of the, I think that’s a valid complaint. That’s not to say that I’m like, oh, reject the saints or, you know. But I think it’s a valid complaint that their engagement with archetypal patterns is a slow burn. And it’s probably too slow. And it’s probably because they don’t have an abstracted form of patterns. And look, I’m not saying that having an abstracted form of patterns is better. I’m just saying there’s a there there. Right? I’m saying there’s definitely a there there. It might be, the Catholics might be right. It might be better not to have an abstracted form of pattern. Or all of your pattern abstractions need to be embodied in actual historical events like Jesus and saints and Mary and all that. Like, okay, like, fair enough. That might be true. I don’t know. And there’s some gray area. There’s a Shroud of Turan. And there’s, you know, there’s artifacts, right? There’s all these things. So you just, by doing that, though, you just remember myth and legend. Right? Because, you know, there’s different levels to which Saint George kills the dragon. Right. Yeah. See, that is the Shrek pattern. Or you can see it as the ancient British pattern. Which one do you want? I’ve never watched Shrek. And then I heard Peugeot talk about it a couple times where he said, Oh, it begins with him ripping a page out of the fairy tale book and wiping his bottom with it. And I said, Well, that’s why I never engaged with it. I didn’t even know. I knew it was evil. And I never knew how evil. And now I know it’s evil. It’s like, Oh, okay, fair enough. But things should be occult in the traditional sense. Secret, right? Not everything. Right. Right. There’s nothing wrong with secret stuff. And that was one of the complaints in the live stream where they’re talking about sex. It’s like, Well, maybe you shouldn’t talk about that. Like, maybe, maybe actually you shouldn’t. I don’t know. Well, the Bible doesn’t. The Bible says that Adam knew Eve. And the statement. Well, no, no, no. All of sex according to Paul, Pastor Paul Van der Klay. Find me one direct phrase in the Song of Solomon. Right. That’s the key. There won’t because they’re not. See, they think they’re talking about sex, but what they’re referring to, right, words and meanings, what they’re referring to is being. That’s what they’re referring to in creation. All right. Daniel has a question here. Have you ever listened to Kabbalah? Yes. I’m quite familiar with Kabbalah actually. These four ways of knowing fit rather nicely with the Y-H-V-H that Jacob goes into on his channel. Yeah, I’m not going to engage with Jacob’s version of Kabbalah and things because I did that when I was young. I got to the end of that to my satisfaction. Anselman, to call Tomberg Catholic is just a journey to church, but he was an anthroposophist, whatever that is. Anselman, it’s all related to the Theosophical revival of occultism. Right. Well, look, this is one of those reasons why I don’t like theology because theology strays into a cult real quick. It strays into human knowledge. It can get gnostic real fast. Theology can justify gnosticism. Not everybody can do theology. Not everybody should do theology. Not everybody needs to do theology. Theology like philosophy because they’re the same. The difference between theology and philosophy is which side of register you want. What do you mean by register? Ethereal, material. If you’re in the material realm, you’re doing philosophy. If you’re in the ethereal realm, you’re doing theology. It’s just that simple. These simple, simple, super simple models that I used, I was like, oh, you’re really smart. No, no, I have really simple models and I’m a muppet. But I know I’m a muppet. Right. And I have really simple models. And so I can know all these things. It’s not that hard. Right. Because I don’t have to get into, oh, there’s Lynn. Hey, Lynn. You’re muted in StreamYard. If you unmute in StreamYard, we can hear you though. Also, the theology and philosophy, Bibles, works in a library, often they’re together. The same intellectual section. You put the novels over there and you put all the pinky books over here. Yes. Usually. Yes. Seriously. How you doing, Lynn? I’m doing all right. I thought I just, I lost the thread though when it was, because there was things I had to finish up. You can go back to whatever point you want or talk about participation or cooperation, whatever you want. The sex thing. VanderKlay. Okay. I don’t know how the terror has anything to do with the sex conversation. That’s okay. It doesn’t have to. You’re fine. Okay. So my, well, he left. Yes, he’s fine. He can hear us. It’ll be fine. All right. So. I really, I really enjoyed the video because that he did yesterday with Sam and the one, the lady. And what I really, really liked about it, the insight that I got, what I had never really recognized the contrast between every time you’re having sex being a hit. So I had never thought of that as a wonderful contrast in a Christian journey. So, you know, that celibacy would really create fruits within the Christian, within your life, that being celibate would create fruits. I always thought it was an obligation of a woman perhaps or that that it was something that you were required to give, not necessarily, unless you’re like devoted like a nun or something. It was like, unless it was linked with religion. So that’s what I really, really liked about it. Now, the conversation today. What a mess. Well, um. Did you see me participating in the live stream and tearing them all apart? Cause I was pissed. I’m like, what am I going to do? I don’t have time to straighten out these crazy Protestant nutbags. Well, I didn’t, I couldn’t, my vision, I’ve, my eyes have been hurting lately, so I haven’t been able to read like I normally do. So I did not. Fair enough. But I figured you didn’t because you don’t always. I read a little bit, but I couldn’t, I couldn’t follow it. But, um, goodness, I never realized that the early church, the Platonism had that sexual component in it. And Christianity was Sam was saying emerged out of the feminine, the woman, you know, and I really loved that. And the fact that they all like attacked it was like, that didn’t make any sense to me. There’s no, there’s no divine feminine in Protestantism. They don’t recognize Mary. They don’t pay any attention to any of that. It’s like, well, that’s, that’s why, that’s why I was like, I’m like, Sam’s got it. Sam and Nate had it. And, and the Catholic, Kale didn’t. I’m like, Kale, what’s wrong with you, dude? Like this is like. Well, he’s teaching young people, so I could see. I won’t tell you about my tweet then, but, uh, like you can check out my tweet. It’s quite good. I don’t tweet on Twitter. I don’t see it. I stole it from Sally Jo. Um, but yeah. Uh, yeah. And then Adam was saying, uh, those who, those who can do those who can’t teach, and they’re all teachers talking about sex. And I was like, Adam was bullshit. He was on BLM while that stream was going on, talking to BLM guys and trying to straighten them out. And I was like, oh yeah, I’m glad I didn’t do that. I would have been bullshit. He and Manuel were like on BLM talking to those guys. I was like, that must have been a mess. Right. And it’s good. We have these like, that’s participation. Like those were like, those are different modes of participation, but they didn’t address any of my stuff. None of it. And I’m like, yeah, that’s cause you can’t, cause this is a four second thing. Sex has nothing to do with it. The Bible is about being and being is good and creation being a positive thing. The fact that sex can be involved in that is incidental. It’s that has nothing to do with the greater point, right? It’s an action. Well, the frame of sex is too small. But do you mean intercourse? Do you mean relationship? Do you mean intimacy? But it’s an action. And action isn’t good or bad, negative or positive. Actions by themselves do not have a valence. It’s like affective altruism. It doesn’t mean anything. Like me just saying affective altruism. You don’t know what I’m talking about. Like the affective altruism, everyone gets a different idea in their head and they all think, we all heard the same words. We must agree. No, you don’t. We do not agree. That didn’t happen. This is that verbal impressionism that Sally Jo so nicely and eloquently pointed out to me. With what? Now there’s something I want to add, but go ahead. Something I want to push back at, but that’s okay. Go ahead. What is Sally Jo? Well, Sally Jo, so that I’ve been talking about Brene Brown and her stupid Ted Talk. She has two. I forget which one, right? The social worker. You got to go bash at the social worker again. Okay. There are good social workers like you, Lynn, but then there are the other social workers. You know, you worked with some of them and you weren’t happy with all of them. I know. All right. All right. Okay. So she uses these abstract words and they don’t mean anything. It’s like, well, all we need to do is meet each other with empathy and love and then we’ll have peace on earth. It’s like, yeah, but what does that mean practically? How do you participate with that? It’s like your participation with empathy and love and Jesse’s participation with empathy and love and my participation with empathy and love, as we all know, which is almost non-existent, are all going to be completely different. And so she said something, it sounded good. We all heard the same words. We all agree with the sense of it, but what happened in our heads, the way we envision it is very different. So now we think we have participation, cooperation and agreement and we don’t. And that’s verbal impressionism because that’s what impressionism is in painting, right? It’s like you’re not trying to have this physical correspondence as Pastor Paul Vanderklij. Yeah, I’m going to steal from him. He steals from me. I’m going to steal from him. It talks about, you don’t have physical correspondence, right? But you, you know, and it’s not necessarily wrong in the right context. Impressionism is wonderful, right? You have this impression that you’re putting on the world, right? And it’s not necessarily in verbiage and proposition. It’s not necessarily clear, right? Like I’m just impressing words onto you and how you’re interpreting them is anyone’s guess. I’m not giving you enough framing to understand, like shoot something. Is that good or bad? If it’s a burglar trying to break into your house, it’s good, right? Okay. Well, Brene Brown did teaching on intimacy. So she has her own technique for addressing the intimacy crisis. And, you know, basically she has these questions and these tapes that you’re supposed to sit in a car and listen to her and you and your husband or your partner are supposed to answer these questions. So she has her own intimacy. I mean, she’s looking at intimacy in a different way. But my issue certainly wouldn’t be that with her. My issue would be more like critical race theory that implemented the social workers in the 90s. I remember being indoctrinated in the critical race theory stuff and having a huge debate in college in our classes. And the doctor, professor, she was teaching us and she was totally enchanted by this scientific thing, not recognizing the holes that because this was 92. So this is 30 years later, there was holes in the thing emerged out of this critical race theory. Okay. But so that’s my issue with Brene Brown. It has nothing to do with our intimacy crisis stuff. No, no, that’s fine. But, but anyway, okay. So the thing I wanted to push back is I recognize it’s just behavior. However, there is aggression in men. You know, that is genetically put into men because of tribalism. Okay, so. Well, it’s participation. Our mode of participation is through physical force. Yeah. So, you know, in order to, okay, I’m going to go into the Weinstein, the Eric, no, no, the Brett Weinstein. You, you got to get your seed into the future. And so there’s this genetic thing that men go through to get yourself. This is the one I’ve just said, this is the framing that Mr. Dr. Weinstein does. I know. Okay, so that aggression thing. No, no, no, aggression’s fine. It’s, look, women are precious and men are powerful. Why? Because the powerful is supposed to protect the precious. It’s like, bang, problem solved. No, no more evolutionary theory needed. Like at all. Right. And then the fact that that happens affords procreation. That’s actually what’s going on. Like, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know what Brett learned in school or like whether or not he read the Red Queen. Cause I learned a lot from the Red Queen by Matt Ridley. It’s a great book. It’s a fantastic book. I didn’t necessarily learn what Matt Ridley wrote in the book because I tend to like tease things out that people don’t write about, but it’s a fantastic book for that. And, and, and I did want to address some stuff though. So Mills is asking about William James. I don’t know. Never heard of him. Don’t read him. Don’t know his positions. Is he helpful? Probably not. All these people have complicated frames. I’m giving you like really simple stuff. So, so Mills also really liked the idea that marriage can be the arena. Okay. Arena or container are swappable for me to, to confront and tame the passions. Yeah. If you’re going to direct your passions, you need something bigger than your passions to direct them. You need a container. What’s the container? Marriage. Marriage is a container. Or the relationship. You need to consider relationship because, right, how do you, when you’re, when you’re 17 or whatever, right? And, you know, you’re good to go, especially as a man, right? You’re like, all right, let’s do this. Let’s, let’s get our seeds into the future. Right? How do you contain that? You contain that based on the precious. Oh, this precious thing is withholding from me. And that is a participation in the world. Therefore, I see withholding, like even in the female, you see her withholding from you and you’re like, all right, well, that’s what it looks like to contain yourself. Right. And the women are very much better at containing themselves than men because we have physical force and like, we’ll just use it and see what happens. That’s why men die because we’re, we’re all retarded augs, right? We’re like, aug, touch electrical wire, see what happened. Ha ha ha. And use friends. Like, we’re all stupid. Right. And women are more like, no, I’m precious. I’m not going to take that chance. Men are like risk takers big time. Right. And, and, and that’s good and bad, like trade-offs. Right. And so the women constrain the men because the men want the women, right. You want beauty in your life. Well, women are beautiful. That’s their role to some extent. They have other roles. It may not be physically beautiful either. It doesn’t, it doesn’t really matter. Right. Women represent beauty universally and perversions of that improper deranged participation might be men representing beauty, I would argue, especially to other men, I would argue. And I’ll argue that all day long with as many people as you like. And I’ve, I’ve had this argument thousands of times. I’ll win every time just to let you know, we can have the argument. You’re going to lose. I like to win. No, I know. I know that you and I are good on this issue. Yeah. That, that, that video you did with VanderClay, that was awesome. That was, I really appreciate that. It was very nice. Not, not just for what you said about Manuel and I, which was great, but for the message that you bravely put out there in a time when, boy, that message is not popular. Well, as somebody who is openly, I say openly bisexual. I know how the lesbian and gay, they don’t like bisexual people. So I have to, I know what it’s and, and so I, I so get, there’s dynamics within that, that I get that it’s not evident if you’re totally in a heterosexual relationship. You know, there’s, there’s aggression on the female side about it and there’s aggression on the, there’s issues on the man side about it. So I don’t know if I consider myself bisexual anymore, but since I’ve had an ex-wife, I guess I have to consider myself bisexual. Right. Right. Anyway. Right. We’re having been that. I mean, you could be that way in the past and not be that person now. I don’t know. So yeah, I’ve had that experience. So I just feel like I can say things being in the LGBT, it’s not a community. Okay. Douglas Murray, in the grouping, I can say things that a straight person can’t. It’s a part of your character, your identity. It’s part of your character. It’s what made you form your experience of the world. And you’re talking about your participation in the thing, which makes you an expert. Like when you participate in something, you gain expertise in it. You’re not an expert in it because you read about it. That doesn’t make you an expert in anything. Any idiot can read anything. Now we all have the freaking world in our hands. Like whatever. Does that mean we’re all equally experts at everything because we could read it on our phone or we did? No. No. You know what other people know about scaling computer applications compared to me? Nothing. Because I’ve done it. I’ve done it many times in many contexts. Like you’re not an expert compared to somebody who’s done it. You’re just not. Unless you’ve done it too. Fair enough. But it gets tricky. I wouldn’t agree to reduce the masculine down to power, but that’s here and there. I can see why it’s an easier frame, easier model. So something happened in the 30s with the men. That’s true. Something did happen. It caused something else. It’s so weird. Modernity. Modernity. Materialism. The final wave of it. Yeah. Now I’m not talking about something masculine. I’m not talking. There’s something happened to women as well. I’m not going to say something happened to men and women in the 30s that changed our culture. Modernity, materialism. What was it? What was the change? What are you pointing to? Well, it’s almost a materialism. A type of materialism. I see this picture of people wanting to climb Mount Everest. The first man to climb Mount Everest. And the guy is still up there dead. He forsakes his beautiful family, his beautiful home to be the first man to climb Mount Everest. Yes. Men will use physical force. So this is the image that comes in my head. There’s this amazing individualism that had to happen in order to conquer nature. Or in order to conquer. Right. And then what happens, Lyn? What happens? Oh, we split the atom. Einstein. We get the ultimate power. We get nuclear. All this. And then we conquer the world through this engagement with nuclear power in the form of a bomb. And it’s a big achievement. Yeah. Right. Some spiritual teacher said, she thought that when we split the atom, it changed humanity somehow. I don’t know if I believe that. I don’t know. How would it’s like, I don’t know. That’s just, I don’t get that. I don’t understand. That’s the individualism. That’s the conquering of nature, the taming of nature. This whole idea that suddenly we own creation. What is that, Jesse? What is that book? Frankenstein. Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. There’s a whole thread through that. That’s for sure. I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me, whose eyes would reply to mine. You may deem me romantic, my sister, but I feel deeply that I want of a friend. I have no one near me yet. A gentle courageous, possessed of a cultivated as well as a capricious mind, whose tastes are like my own to approve or amend my plans. Yeah. Now, the inference theory is that Frankenstein is the making of the modern man, right? It’s the making of the new science fiction. Right. It’s also, it’s also, you got all, Frankenstein crosses over with AI, but also crosses over with this sense of the, I think it was a good word to use that won’t trigger some people. The self-replication, right? You’re replicating yourself. You’re like the men, you don’t, you create a version of yourself within your family, right? But you’re not replicating yourself. Now, it’s a twist, right? Well, in the relationship and intimacy dynamics, I desire the company of a man who’s like myself, exactly. Very different sense of relationship to the world, right? And then it’s a guy with the knowledge, using the knowledge to enact the creation, not the relationship to enact the creation, right? Not the intimate connection. It’s a loss of, Frankenstein is a loss of intimacy, right? That’s what it is. It’s all about a lack of intimacy, which makes sense because they’re all, hedonists doing the free love thing in a dark cabin in the woods, basically. It’s like a modern horror movie for real, right? Where Jason comes with the axe and yeah, yeah. Oh, I like, Sally Jo. Terrods, I think you mean Tarot, are like mandalas and you can fall in. Yes. And also, Sally Jo, who can throw sand and free associate onto it and predict the future if you are inclined, but it won’t help. So don’t do it. Yes. Sally Jo has been on fire. Ever since we taught Sally Jo how to actually articulate her thoughts, she’s just been amazing. Learning how to articulate and actually speak is wonderful. For artists anyway, for the rest of us, it’s like, duh. But artists, like, it just opens up the world. So that was the another piece about the conversation earlier today about Tantra. Another thing that jumped out at me was the- I wanted to murder them all. I wanted to murder them all. Except Nate. Nate was like, no, you guys misunderstand Tantra. I’m like, thank you, Nate. I do agree with him like twice. It was terrible. Yeah, I thought it was interesting because it is a lack of desire that a lot of the Zen Buddhism and tradition, that’s the whole goal is lack of desire. And well- In the Western tradition, yeah. I think in the Zen tradition, I think what they would say is not a lack of desire, but a disconnection from desire. And then a reconnection to desire as a way of revival. There’s no difference between West- these people are no different. None. There’s no discernible difference. They just talk about it cyclically because you read the Geography of Thought. I forget the author. It’s a great book. There’s no difference between the East and the West except how they conceive of things. One is cyclical, the East and the West. We’re not cyclical. We’re very linear and then a break and then something happens. And when you think of it that way, you realize they’re not talking about no-thingness or nothingness the way we do. What they’re talking about is being alone with yourself and then coming back into the world as a way of revivifying the world. It’s not like, oh, you go into a cave and you’re alone with yourself and then you reach nirvana and you go to nirvana and you’re all done or whatever ridiculous style of conception you have. No. Even if you go into the cave for 30 years and A, almost no one does and B, more than half of them kill themselves. Just keep that in mind when you’re talking about Buddhism in caves. Almost no one does it and more than half of them kill themselves. They come back down after 20 or 30 years to their village and bring their wisdom back. Which is not to say people don’t go up to the cave and seek advice and things like that, but almost always they come in back into the world to participate. They go out of the world, participate with nature, they come back into the world and participate with others. That is actually the pattern they lay out in the Eastern traditions, whether it’s the Indian tradition or the Chinese tradition or the Tibetan tradition, which is slightly different. The Japanese tradition doesn’t matter. They’re all very similar in that way. Tantra likewise has zero to do with sex. The reason why tantra is a thing is because tantra and yoga were just different aspects of the same set of practices. To be a little bit fair to the British, although I’m not inclined to be fair to the British at all, there was a separation within India around tantra, around the same issues the British had. You’ve got to keep in mind what was going on. In India it wasn’t a strong separation. In India the difference was there’s tantra where they do sexual practice in the tantra and there’s tantra where they don’t. So there’s a religious prudishness in the Indian practices. This is well documented by them. I’m not making stuff up. You can read about this. I did. It’s not hard. You can research it. When the British come, they’re just terrified. They’re Victorians. They’re horrified by this concept that you would be having a sexual experience in that way. Tantra is all about energy. The sex is optional in tantra. It’s not part of tantra. It is a component that tantra can be applied to. It’s the same problem they had in the talk. They’re going, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex. I’m like, no, you’re talking about being. That’s what you should be talking about. The Bible talks about being in creation. That’s what it talks about. It doesn’t talk about anything else. If you’re seeing other things in there, they’re invalid categories. It’s talking about being in creation. That’s what it’s talking about. I think the Taoists would agree on your definition of participation in religious or embodied practices. Right. And so sex is the participation in being or not. It can be, right? And that’s sodomy. Sodomy is bad. Sodomy is a form of sex. The sex good or bad. It depends on which form it takes. How do we know the form? The form is determined by the frame. The frame is what informs you. It’s not magic. I don’t understand why these people can’t understand. It’s a very simple concept. Informing is all about the framing. What’s your level of participation? How do you participate? Are you in a frame where you can participate? Because not all frames are equal. This is the postmodern problem. And so if not all frames are equal, what does that mean for participation? It means that frames you can participate in are good and frames you can’t participate in are bad. Now those frames, maybe somebody else can participate in them. Fine. Like, I’m cool. I don’t need to be equal. Like, I don’t… Terrible drawing, right? Mark can’t draw. This is well known. I don’t need to be good at drawing. I don’t need to. I wish I was. I do desperately wish I could draw. I used to have a little face guy I could draw with a pencil. But I needed a .07 millimeter pencil. I needed really good, fine pencils. And then I can draw this guy with hair. This scary guy with the snows and hair. I gotta have some in the shed. One of these days I’ll go in the shed and take him out. I don’t need to be a good artist. I don’t need to. That’s why I have Jesse and Sally Jo and Yana and all these other people. I don’t need to be good at editing my videos. Why? Because I’ve got Michelle. I’ve got other people to do this stuff for me. You’re just reaping the rewards of your hard, hard labor. That’s what you’re doing. I don’t require myself to be good at all these things. I don’t need to be You shouldn’t either. You shouldn’t. To answer your question, Lin, what happened in the 1930s? It was the loss of the Victorian spirit. Since we’re going to bring that up, I thought I’d just may as well just the loss of the Victorian spirit. Would you elaborate on that for me, please? Well, there are certain things I will or won’t say on camera, but on a recorded video. How about the loss of the virtues and values embodied in Victorian ethos? There we go. There we go. And then what are those virtues? So there’s a certain… That I think would help her. Yes. Okay. So prudence, temperance, you could go… We actually talked about this last week on gratitude. I snuck it in there in case no one… I snuck it in a basic definition of what the Western mind framed by the Christian world had these inbuilt ethics and aesthetics. Right? And when that gets stripped away and you replace it with brutalism in the French intellectuals that has a certain application, right? Your ethics have to manifest in the world. There’s no way about it. As soon as you start to think differently, it will manifest in things around you. In clothing was a really particular one, right? So you have certain tribes in the world, let’s say like that, when they change their aesthetics, there are embodied implications with that and that starts to fight. Hence the League of Nations. What happens to the League of Nations? You leave out one tribe that’s developing, guess what’s going to happen that has an aesthetic application in the world? It’s called Japan. They go to war. And when they go to war, they just, they don’t hold back. They’re brutal. But that’s because they’ve come from this embodied tradition of when we go to war, it’s not a small little European thing in their mind is they go into war with everyone now. They were excluded from the Virtues and Values club. We excluded them. Why would they play by our rules if we excluded them? Fair enough. Like you exclude people. You can’t expect to play by your rules if you said you can’t play. So the creation of the printing press, I’m not sure when that was. That must have changed the mentality as well. I mean, it wouldn’t have been. No, no, it just allows things to go quicker. It just allows things to go faster. That’s all it does. Because it’s not like there weren’t books before that. It’s not like that. Right. It’s just now that they’re everywhere and they’re cheap to produce. And like the internet, what happens is now that you’re able to produce things, you just have more of them. And when you have more of something, you have more flawed versions of it. The more information you have, the more bad information you have. I think Mark is right to point out that when Morse code enters in the world, that’s where you see, that’s the real printing press. I think McCloughan would also agree with you on that. That’s the real Nuremberg Galaxy. It’s not necessarily the writing of things down. It’s the communication speed of. Right. It’s the things that change the speed of communication. So that’s what happened in the 1930s. The biggest leap is the telegraph. Right. There is, radio isn’t that big because radio doesn’t really get ahead of telephone technology. Right. Because wires can still go that distance. Right. That was Heaviside. The history of, I forget the guy’s name, his first name, Heaviside. If you look up Heaviside and electricity, he’s the guy that fixed Maxwell’s stuff and reinterpreted it correctly so that we could do undersea cables. Once you have things like undersea cables, all this is just extension of telegraph technology. There’s nothing different between physically, materially. There’s nothing different required to do a telegraph and a telephone. Nothing. It’s all the same material. You can just convert a telegraph line to a telephone in almost all cases. Not all. It was the capacity to mainstream narratives then within cultures. Just the capacity to communicate quicker. So what’s the revolution in, we’ll say, South America. Right. Because a lot of people don’t know that history. The revolution in South America that enables large scale empire is long distance running. That’s it. It’s just long distance running. And then what’s the revolution in China that enables the Chinese to consolidate power across states? It’s having outposts and ponies and using a pony express style system. Call it that, obviously. We stole that later. But they had these little stops along the roads. And then so what enables that? Road building. There is a progression there. I’m not saying there’s no progression. What I’m saying is as communication gets quicker, societies can get bigger. When communication remains slow, societies have to be small. You don’t have a choice. It’s just that simple. Now that’s not to say that societies that butt up against each other, say back in the day before the telegraph, don’t have influence. Of course they do. But the amount of variance is greater. And the amount of bad information is less. Because information gets funneled. It gets funneled by virtue of the speed of it. The minute my house can’t have all these bits coming and going, I can’t do a live stream. So how would the communication dissolve the Victorian? And then it was always good. Things always change. If you have a circular model of how reality works, things will naturally transform. But the level of transformation that happens after the First World War, after 1917, is sped up. And so you constantly see in these five-year periods from 1970 onwards, there’s the speeding up of different events, manufacturing, communication, treaties, ammo. Right. So in other words, the patterns are just going faster. Yeah. Right. The easiest way to understand it. Yeah. The same pattern playing out, it’s just happening really fast now. Relationships are going down. That affects our morality because of the embodiment of it. Well, actually there’s two effects. One of them is that now everybody has access to things that before not everybody had access to. Right. So in the past, you didn’t have a Bible. You didn’t have access to a Bible. Right. Then Gutenberg comes around. Now all of a sudden, more people have access to Bibles. And then more people have access to the ability to. So one of the things that Benjamin Franklin did that nobody really understands is he wrote these newsletters and published these little newsletters. What is it? Poor Richard Zolmanak or something. I forget what it was called. But it’s basically a precursor to Farmer’s Almanac. And it’s just these little things. I mean, it’s just like common sense knowledge written down. If you ever read any of them, I’ve read a few. It’s very interesting to see what’s in them. And that’s the thing. There is stuff in them that’s very interesting. Like it’s very salient and useful information. Chad is back to show us his fire. Excellent. Oh, that is beautiful. Good participation. Bring out the marshmallows. I remember when you set that up. You put that on. Lynn, just so if you want, and maybe from my own muppet brain to point out the obvious here, what changes in the 1930s is the levels to which participation is possible. There are limitations that start to become hard. Right. And then there’s this desire to be free of limitations. So in the Victoria era, things are limited. There are so many people that can participate in the local dance. You know, the local dance, they have to be of a certain stature, let’s say. Right. Now, stature, again, stance matters, right? Participation. Right. And those lifting of limitations and boundaries, procedures, virtues, values, stuff become more fluid. And so then you have reactionaries to that. You have the futurists and the Italians. Let’s just say it like that. They want to return to linear forms. They don’t want, because in art, right, things become blurred. They become fluid, you could say. Right. And then there’s a reaction to that. We want to be the futurists. We want to put hard block colors and lines. We want to do art deco. We want to like, you know, we want to round out the smoothness of things to try and get to in some sort of idyllic state. Right. And then that becomes a glorification of the self just as much. And then it becomes too much, the limitation of. Look at the cycle of art. Look at how long art movements last. All of a sudden in the 1900s, art movements are like 10 years, five years, two years. What the hell happened? Why is art changing so fast that people are now changing their furniture out in less than a generation? I got an answer for you. Oh, give us an answer then. So I was thinking about this because I’ve been listening to a lot of new music lately and there’s something that’s emerging right now called post-genre music. And it’s basically like taking all of this, all of like the best elements of these different genres and like throwing them in a blender. And then you get like this hyper, I like it. So it’s really progressive sound, but has all these cool elements of like, I don’t know, I like it. But what I, so I was thinking about this though, I was thinking about when I was doing the dishes and I let the dish water out of the sink. And when you get to the bottom of the sink, you have all this sediment from all the plates and all resting at the bottom of the drain. And you have this medley of garbage all in there. So it’s like, that’s what’s happening with art is you have all of these different movements and all these different pieces of this and that. And basically the funneling of time, what seems like funneling time, everything’s moving so fast that we’re reaching the bottom and everything is mixing into this medley of mixed art. And I don’t think it’s necessarily post-modern. I was really digging this meta-modern thing that was being talked about only because it seems like an appropriate tool for kind of maybe tapping back into the re-enchantment of things. Because some of this stuff I don’t think is, I think some of this stuff is unmanageable and basically is kind of like the logical outgrowth of how things play out. And so we’re just kind of dealing with it. And now we’re kind of moving backwards and hopefully we’ll start to reach a point of re-enchantment and blah blah blah. So I don’t know if I’m giving you an answer. Give us a band to listen to this crazy music. Oh, Sleep Token, their most recent offering is called Take Me Back to Eden. And that record is very, I like it a lot. And also Avenged Sevenfold just released a record. I’m not a great Avenged Sevenfold fan, but these guys put out a record where I’m listening to it and I’m like, what is going on here, dude? And like they have a song on there. It sounds like Avenged Sevenfold meets Alice in Chains meets the Beach Boys. And I’m like, what? And it’s, well, sure. Yeah. It’s something like that. But it is. It’s Frankenstein. It’s Frankenstein. Yeah. But sorry. That’s a question. I have a question. Just one question. In Home Improvement, the television series, what’s the name of the dude’s neighbor that always had the fence? Wilson. Wilson. Hi, Wilson. I see you like that. I think, oh, it’s Wilson. They did that, but they didn’t have to pay him. I actually think that, I actually think PVK is like Wilson. Like our Wilson, you know, like, Oh, just like the Tom Hanks movie, Wilson, the soccer ball. Jibran Wilson. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I had, I’m sorry. I got sidetracked. Okay. But I’ve been enough. Oddly enough, the Wilson in Home Improvement served the same purpose as the Wilson in Castaway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That, that, that new, I think they tried to force an archetype. Yeah. Right. The archetype of the internal voice or something to justify their psychosis. Now here’s something strange though. There’s a guy named Bill Wilson, who is the co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. Right. And he’s kind of like my Wilson in a strange way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I see that. The Wilson archetype, something. It might be. It might be. Yeah. I mean, I think they were, you know, deliberately, they were trying to emerge something. I, I love Avenged Sevenfold. I can’t imagine them playing anything like the Beach Boys, but I, yeah, me neither. I like them too. I was like, Oh yeah, I think they’re just doing a concert. I’m trying to get out. Look, I mean, when I think of like prog rock, you know, I mean, I’m a Dream Theater fan, so they’re not the be all end all, but you know, they’re amazing, amazing with their instruments. This is progressive in like the, for me, the best way, like, you know, like if you listen to Band on the Run, you know, the song Band on the Run by Wings. Yeah. That’s like my favorite kind of progressive where you basically have three songs. They’re both three very strong movements and you put them together and you have one song that is very progressive, but you know, you can’t get it out of your head, any part of the song out of your head. And I love that. So, but so this, if you’re going to listen to the new Avenged Sevenfold record, it’s called Life is But a Dream. And it’s, I would listen to it from the beginning to end and it’s just very, very, very mature sounding. It took them seven years to make it and they said that it was inspired by Camu. I don’t know. Oh my goodness. Okay. That explains much. Yeah. But musically it’s, it’s, and sonically, I think it’s great. It’s going to be a classic. Great. Well, I’ll check it out. I’ll listen to it. Thanks. That’s a good idea. If you want to walk the edge even further, go check out the new Sleep Token. That one from beginning to end is, I’ve been basically- I will push back though. I think- I’m looking, I’m looking at the lyrics. They’ve got a song called Aqua Regina, or Rageea, which explains everything to me. Right. That’s what, that’s an alchemy. Yes, exactly. And it’s exactly this. When you talk about that, that’s interesting because people have tried to think like deconstructing these lyrics and these lyrics are actually talking about all of this stuff. It’s actually addressing from like an existential point of view, what, what we’re actually experiencing and like this idea that we have something better that can actually tarnish gold, you know, like this concept of, of being bigger than reality itself. And that’s what they’re doing in this record. They’re not boating. It’s, it’s not, it’s not a rejoicing. It’s a, it’s a lamentation of like, look at what we’ve done to ourselves. And that’s why I really like that. And that’s why it’s that meta modern thing. It’s just- Let’s let Jesse push back. Go ahead, Jesse. Has this been happening since the 2000s? You could say it’s even been happening since the 90s, really. It’s just a different version of it. It’s a different generation trying to express its existential angst in the world. Yes, but okay, go ahead. Sorry. So what happens in the 90s? The 90s are reacting to the boomer cycle, right? And they, they, they spread up with this DIY method. So do it yourself, which includes doing it yourself music. Yeah. Right. And then you have about 2005, you have the internet, my space revolution with music. Now it’s do it yourself again, except now we can be a little bit more lyrical in some sense, because we are more or less educated. So that’s helping with the music. And now we’re, guess what you’re saying that there’s another, I don’t know if you can say there was another micro movement. You have the whole dubstep, bro step thing, which is, okay, let’s just turn the punk noise thing on itself. We’re not going to have any particular lyrics. We’re going to do the most hardcore thing, which is not to have drums and guitars, which is going to have electronic instruments and make hardcore music without saying it’s hardcore music. And now I guess, okay, let’s go back to the lyrical now, since we’ve destroyed, we’ve destroyed the foundations of genre. You could say. So remember we’re getting to the bottom of the drain. And so we’re taking the best elements of all of those things and putting them into an entire piece. I don’t think that’s the best elements though. That’s the excess. It’s the excess, it’s the grime of what we’ve used up. I don’t think that’s the best. Well, I think, like I said, what I really like about it is because I’m a top 40 guy. I love the Eagles. I love things like this. I just, you can blame my parents. I don’t care. Like I just love these things. And I’m not a real snob about music. I spent way too much of my life being a snob about music and to the point where I couldn’t even enjoy it anymore. So I ended up just kind of like reaching a point where for the most part, I’m mostly accepting of this except when it’s like Florida, Georgia line or some bullshit like this, which to me is the same concept you’re talking about. We’re going to take pop and hip hop and mix it in with so-called country and it’s not. But that’s basically what this genre, this post genre is where you kind of take these, like these, I don’t like it. We can pop with doing this too. Right. But so, but what I liked about this particular project is that the lyrical content is getting at something that is, I think, I think it’s a meditation on look at where we’re at. And I think it’s an honest one too. Yeah. No, for sure. I mean, I think lyrics have been moving more, you know, away from fantasy and into reality because reality is now stranger than fiction. Right. And maybe it wasn’t like in the medieval times. It wasn’t right. But using enchanted language, talking about a modern world, which is interesting because they’re not just coming out right and saying, like, I don’t think everybody would pick up on this if you were either. Right. But I mean, there’s two problems. One is if you take nihilism seriously, especially like Camus and those guys, there’s no bottom. There is no bottom. You can drain, you can drain for, I mean, that’s what nihilism is. Yeah. But nihilism is a bottom. It’s not real. Right. And then the other problem is, lyrics are anti-material lyrics because you can’t describe the world with material. That’s the, you know, Paul VanderKley would call this the end of materialism or modernity rather, but I call it the end of materialism. Like, it’s not that modernity is ending. It’s that materialism is reaching the limits of explanation of the world. And so now you have to go back to alchemy because that’s how we got here. We got here through alchemy and now we’re going back through alchemy to re-enchant the world again. Like that’s, and it is talking about our mode of participation. If you participate in the world as though it’s merely material, your participation in the world is going to be wrong. You’re going to be a consumerist. You’re going to be greedy. You’re going to be a narcissist. You’re going to go after things. You’re not going to care about people. Like you’re going to lose all intimacy. Like, you know, like, right. You’ll reach the end of nihilism where you realize that everything means something. I don’t think that, I don’t think there’s an end to nihilism. I think sometimes people escape and that’s a lucky thing for them. Well, that’s, well, that was, that’s what I just said. It shows you a choice. Nihilism shows you a choice at its end. It can, or it can just eat you. Like some people never see the choice, right? Well, yeah, that’s probably true. And that’s where I think like, so we, if we want to get into that, like, so something like if you’re nihilistic and you reach a point of suicide, basically you become the most self-centered dude on the planet and everything is about you and you. Yeah. They don’t know or care. Like they have no contrast. So it’s, well, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a forced, it’s a, it’s like a forced rejection of meaning. Yeah. Oh yeah. Of course it is. Absolutely. Well, rejection is, I mean, I’m sorry. Nihilism is like for me, the way I’ve experienced nihilism and that in the end I’ve come to with it is it’s like there’s, it’s, it’s 100% irony. Everything hurts so much. It means nothing, but it’s like, but there’s so much in that, that it means everything to me. It’s cynical though. Yeah. Of course, of course it is. But that’s why I say nihilism is a lie because you, you, you’re trying to convince yourself that not everything means nothing. And that’s not nihilism. It’s more like a vulnerability. Yeah. I mean, it doesn’t matter if it’s a lie. Like when you fall into it, you die. Like they, you know, and most people die when they fall into nihilism. So the fact that it is these things doesn’t, it doesn’t, it doesn’t have an effect on the world. It may be true. But believing in nothing are out there, but who cares? Like you can’t participate with it. You can’t pull somebody out of nihilism by explaining this. Well, I don’t know. If you believe in nothing, you don’t have boundaries. So you leave yourself vulnerable. So if any, any spiritual activity, right? Sometimes good spiritual activity could actually grab them. Right. And that’s what might wake them up. You could say. Like when the first song I experienced that was very nihilistic that ended up bringing a lot of meaning into my life and helped me find something was the song round here by counting crows. It’s like the super hyper nihilistic song about, about, it’s just nihilism. But at the end of the day, there’s so much beauty and meaning in those lyrics that it, it, it was enough to, to help keep me jolted awake. Right. I mean, but that’s that’s me. And, I don’t know. You too has, you too has, you know, I still haven’t found what I’m looking for, which is the boomer version of the nihilism, right? Cause it’s like he lists, the whole song is just listing things that the person or the audience has trouble with, but it’s still the spiritual hope to, you know, I’ll still find something at the end of the day. So it’s just degrees of which the vulnerability or the, the, the abstracts, fixation or the loss of values echo out. And that’s the end of materialism. Like I still haven’t found what I’m looking for states that materialism can’t fulfill you. It’s, it’s a pretty clear statement that materialism fails. Yeah. Well, this was fun guys. All right. Thank you for coming on. Thank you for coming. Hey, Lynn, thanks for reading my sub stack. I appreciate you. You welcome. Oh, I got to read the newest one, but my eyes have been hurting. So if I miss him occasionally, it’s like, it’s all good. I don’t want to have to smoke more pot so I could read trying to be sober. So, and that one’s about enchantment. So, okay. I’ll put it on my magnet. I’ll have it read to me. Actually. I can program it. That would be you, Lynn. Yes. All right. Bye. Okay. Always a pleasure. Yeah. Jesse, I hadn’t, I hadn’t thought about, I mean, I love that song. It’s absolutely that’s good. Yeah. It’s a great, those two albums, two gold albums. Just like all them. Oh, look at, look at this, Jesse. You have a fan. You have a fan. That’s a, that’s our buddy Cory in Canada there. He loved your anadromous talk. So thank you. I felt like it was, it was something. It was a great talk. Check out the anadromous talk. Yeah. You can put that link in if you want. It’s fine if you have it. It was a good talk. I did a talk with, I did a talk with, um, burn power, the anadromist. He kind of, I wanted to talk about his, uh, three visions of reality lecture that he did at the bridges of meeting Germany festival. And he kind of apprehended me on some things and got me to talk about Christian music and Hillsong. Yeah. So he, I was like, um, I would have been happier if the whole thing was about that subject. Cause then there’s a little bit more contrast and nuance and levels to which you go into different things. But if you just kind of fly over something, that’s a pothole, like you kind of miss the, the, the texture on the context and the trauma you could even say. That means you need to do two more talks with the anadromist. That’s what I heard, Jesse. Yeah. One on your stuff and then another one on Hillsong. Yeah. Yeah. That was the, I tried to bring up some of my own things at the end of that. I’ll create the link. Um, but I think by that point he was ready, he was ready to end the stream. So, yeah, I tried to talk about, I tried to talk about Tolkien and a new romantic vision for the world for Christians. And yeah, I don’t think he was ready to open up that way. So, yeah, I don’t know. So I was, I was fascinated. But yeah, you didn’t, there wasn’t enough time to dive into it and really get, get going. And I have a feeling that’d be a three-part series anyway, from the sound of it. I’d do it. I’d be keen. I actually did. I really did. The film music bit was there. Yeah. That was the, that was a bit, but even then I, I, I had a whole bunch of things to either push back on or I wanted to talk about particularly within that. And since he’s such a great verbal, he’s such a great verbal fluid speaker, it was kind of hard to be like, hey, you’re flying by that. Like that’s, we could go into that. We just didn’t. So. Cornerstones is a banger and the film music talk was great. There you go. It gets fan feedback from a fan. Thank you. I appreciate that. So good participation all around. Finally, I get some good, the first stream where no one jumps in right away. I was like, it’s a stream of participation. This is killing me. Oh, so the other thing, um, Mikkel wanted me to mention about the one video at Chino about the family. Um, and he wanted me to give you your input and Mark about it. And, um, so I watched it and, um, I guess the thing that was missing is, um, they were talking about how you kind of have to push yourself in participation with the church. Um, so, you know, because our culture, it wasn’t cultivating it or nurturing, or we didn’t grow up to be churchgoers. It’s, there’s an awkwardness to, yes. And, and, and then the family dynamics, I’m not that well, the family, um, you know, having family in that and how, but there’s that you can’t force family members to participate in the church. Right. Okay. So the, the piece that was missing from me that I thought maybe Mikkel was talking about was let go, let God. Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. The crazy Protestants like to force everything through, through their reading the book. Yeah. I didn’t see that. That’s the only, that, that I haven’t, I haven’t caught up on the Chino talks yet. I got, I got a, I started the verveky Jonathan Peugeot best talk ever thing, but I haven’t finished. I got waylaid by the Peterson Peugeot talk recently, which was excellent. Oh, it was not good. I had massive problems. I was like, why isn’t the show pushing back? So she pushed back and he didn’t. I was like, damn it. But it was a good talk. Yeah. I really loved how they explained things about Snow White that I had never seen before and about the beauty part of it. Um, talked about Jeff Beanstalk, the masculine fairy tale that I had never thought about before. I think they missed some stuff too. I was like, Oh, you’re missing stuff guys. You’re missing stuff. You can use that to me. I’ll help you out. They’ve got to remember too, most of these fairy tales are dramatic in nature or Anglo-Saxon in nature. They have a far sinister side than what us millennials would ever. They’re a cautionary tale. No, and we don’t understand like we, right. We’ve, and I suspect that Peugeot are going to be cautionary tale because he knows that’s good. He talks about brothers. Graham, the brother’s grim right. But, but yeah, so the stuff about beauty, it’s like, no, no, no, no, no, it’s not. You don’t want to kill your rival. That’s not true. What you want to do is you want your rival to destroy themselves using the thing that you value the most. That’s actually the story. The story isn’t right. That’s why she doesn’t just kill her. She doesn’t kill her because then like, if you’re the only one in the land, you’re not the fairest in the land anymore. In other words, you need a rival. So you don’t get rid of your rival. That’s not what you do. What you do is you force your rival to destroy themselves using the thing you’re battling over. That’s why the gifts were what they were. Like that was the mode of participation. You focus the attention on beauty. My man is home. So I want to go spend time with him. All right. Good to see you. Thank you. I’m sorry to interrupt you, but I just, no, no, no. He’s home. I’m having a go. Thanks for coming on. Nice to meet you. Yeah, there’s, yeah, yeah. I thought that was a miss by Pigeot. Like, no, no, no. She doesn’t want to kill her rival. She’s focusing her attention on beauty so that she narrows in on beauty so she destroys her own beauty. That’s actually the point of that whole thing about the beauty. Now the black mirror of the phone, that was amazing. I was like, oh, oh no. I was like, no, no, no. Like, ah, my brain, my brain hurts. No. It was like, because I’ve seen it, but I just kind of like, oh, wow. Let’s walk on past that. That’s the meme with the monkey guy. Mirror, mirror on the wall. Mirror, mirror on the wall. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, it’s so, yeah. Well, for me, that wasn’t, yeah, because the early black mirror TV show had the whole thing about. Yeah, you exemplify your own beauty and at the same time you’re putting your, you know, you’re seeing other people be more beautiful, right? So you get into this beauty contest. It’s like, oh no, right? All in one mirror. It’s one mirror. And that’s why I think AI is a Frankenstein mirror, funhouse mirror. AI, Frankenstein funhouse mirror. It’s made of dead parts. And well, and we haven’t gotten out of that narrative. We’re still stuck there. The edition I have has four intros before you even get to that. And then there’s three letters to begin with. Then the tale begins. So it’s like almost, it’s almost one fifth of the book is just setting you up to understand what people, well, to trick you to get you to not to see things that are actually in the book. They give you a simplistic, there’s one, the modern introduction, then the author’s introduction, then another person’s introduction, then her prelude, then the letters, and then the tale. Oh, so they’re, they’re just trying to frame you out of seeing the obvious thing. Well, not the obvious, but not reading it in its proper context, like page by page, you could say. Right. Cause you’re an adromous book. Information has to, I did, I did pass up. I did pick the link. Well, you could just paste it, but I’ll paste it. I did paste it. I don’t know why it didn’t show up. Thank you. No, you paste it in the private chat, not in the actual chat. No, I didn’t, I did it in the other one. I didn’t see it. I did. You did not. You paste it in the private chat. I did not. I did not. I did not. Click on the private chat. You’ll see it there, then click on comments and you’ll see it when I paste it, just now. Then, then people can go and look at your lovely talk. Have you seen that movie, The Room? We heard about it. The Room? The Room? It’s this crazy movie. This guy set out to make the new, the new great Gatsby or something like that, and the new Tillis Elliot, and it’s a horrible movie, but people love participating in hating on the movie to the point where it becomes a religious, religious, religious, people like the certain sections of the film, they’ll literally get plastic spoons and throw them up the screen. They have to clap and applause on different lines. It becomes this whole, whole ceremony of like participating in the, well, at some, a certain point, you participate in the toxicity of the audience. You’re no longer in the film. You’re in the liturgy of the crowd. Like Rocky Horror Picture Show. Yes. It’s a new Rocky Horror Picture Show. You go at midnight, and yeah, we see that in Cambridge, over by Harvard Square, right? There was a midnight showing of Rocky Horror Picture Show, like pretty much every weekend, I think, if I remember correctly. Yeah, people would go to that, and they’d throw stuff up the screen, and they’d do the lines, and they’d dress up, and it was absolutely bonkers, totally bonkers, and because the movie makes no sense, and it’s just this confusing hodgepodge of bullshit, and I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy myself when I was young doing that, but my goodness, looking back, I’m like, wow, and I knew, like I didn’t, I was never that into it, and there were a lot of local things, like, because every theater it was played in, people would adapt for their, you know, for their local community, so there was a lot of stuff that, you know, they’d modify the lines to talk about local historical news events, or whatever contemporary news events. Yeah. That’s interesting. Yeah, there was a lot of that going on. That’s very interesting. Yeah, and it was, it was like all the time, like, I think it was Friday or Saturday nights, like every Friday or Saturday night, this one small theater, they would just play it, and by that point, it was already old, you know, it was already not a new movie, right, and so they’re just playing it every week. I’m fairly sure it was every week. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it was every once a month, but whatever, like it was all the time, like you could just go and like show up, and like, you know, you could see this movie pretty much whenever you wanted, like, unlike every other movie, right, where it’s like, oh, it’s only a theater for a few months, and then people would dress up, people would shout at the screen, and it was wild. It was very wild. It’s a ceremony, it’s a church. Yeah, yeah. Well, and it’s celebrating the weirdness and the transvestism, and, you know, the horror genre, right, Rocky Horror Picture Show, right, and that meta frame, right, we have that so-called existential frame. Oh, I’m on the meta frame, which doesn’t exist, by the way, but video on that, and navigating patterns on why meta is a bullshit word, and meta, you know, metaphysics is bullshit, meta-modern bullshit. Soon to be a podcast. Soon to be a podcast. Yeah, what’s going to be a podcast? I’m like, for you, that, oh yeah, oh yeah, we’re going to put out a podcast. That’s right, I forgot, yes, I’m going to be on a podcast, yeah, a big podcast. Podcast hero. My rigor will come to the podcast world. I just need to get you to get a proper mic like this guy. Nice mic that you can hug. Dude, I have like the number three mic in the industry. What are you talking about? It’s not close enough to your face. That’s possible. Well, this echo, I could fix the echo, it just takes more work. Just buy some, I’m telling you this, just a hundred bucks. What? You were cutting out, Mr. Terrible Internet, buy something what? Just buy acoustic foam, it’s about a hundred dollars. Oh yeah, no, I don’t need acoustic foam, I just need to put stuff up on the walls, literally. That’s actually all I need to do is put stuff up on the walls. Put your books, books are great, books are a great diffuser. Yeah, well, when I put the books in, it really helped. I put a small case in here, it’s all that will fit. But I got to hang more, you know, I’ve got the boat, I can put the other boat, I got more boats. What I should do is just put all the shelves up with all the boats because they have a lot of fabric on them, that’ll absorb a ton of sound. We’ll get rid of the echo. It’ll just take some time and particularly the boy behind you, that’s going to reflect a lot. There’s foam behind it and that took off a lot of it. Oh, you put foam behind it? Yes, well, because it also helps the board to write on it because otherwise it flexes. But yeah, I put foam behind it. If you do more, yeah, go for it. Yeah, I’m not a complete idiot, I know some of this stuff. It’s actually, well, like the lighting’s fantastic compared to what it was. I really picked the lighting. I got to do more with the lighting. What I need to do someday when I’m not dead poor like I am now, I just need to buy another building and put it over there and then I’ll have an office. And I’m going to have an office with the computer and then I’m going to have another part of the building that’s just for recordings. And that’s going to be done out with foam and everything. That’s going to be completely done out. Non-square room, that’s my thing. Yeah, I’m going to rent it out and stuff too. I’m going to use it for all my stuff and let people rent it. Build a rhombus, that’s what you want to do. To build a square, you build a rhombus. You want unequal walls, you want a rhombus. Oh, yeah. Well, there’s other tricks. So one trick I heard about, I don’t know if this is true, but I was told that if you want to sound dead like a door or a wall, you put a beam in it that’s diagonal. That does help. You don’t just beam it this way or beam it this way. You beam it on a diagonal and not absorb sound. Well, echoes, but yeah. Yeah, when you build it. So you have to build it now. But whatever, when I buy the building, I’ll get it all done out correctly. The studio will be there and then I’ll have an office. It won’t be both. It’ll be two separate parts. On your property? Yeah. Well, I get 12 acres. I don’t have 12 usable acres, but I’ve got plenty of space. Believe me, I probably got about three perfectly usable acres, but I’ve got space right over there that I can just put four or five buildings. No problem. I got tons of room. It’s just near the electrical lines and stuff so I can put in separate electricity. We’re talking, and I brought it up at the start because I had a sub layer of thought about the ability to participate in critique and what that’s kind of the most recent thing that our narrative engineers want people to be able to do, our narrative engineers want people to be able to do, except you can’t participate in that critique because the critique is your own personal perspective. Well, that was the deranged relationship that I was talking about with the internet and thinking you’re the authority that I stole from Sally Jo because I steal things from people. And I never tell anybody, I never credit them by the way. Yeah, it’s like that’s deranged. If you go on the internet thinking you’re the expert or you’re going to be the expert or you’re going to be the authority or you’re going to take authority from the internet, like, oh, I read about this in the internet now that I’m an authority on. It’s like, no, that’s a deranged mode of participation. That is not happening. That’s a hard no. It’s just not the way the world works. And it’s the same thing with critique, right? The postmoderns, Immanuel Kant, critique of critiques, no, no. What makes you think you can get away with that? Like, first of all, do you think you’re that smart? And second of all, even if you are that smart, are you taking responsibility for this or are you just saying, no, no, no, they run my frame? Because the problem is once you unframe something or once you make all frames equal, which is what the postmodern, the trick of the postmoderns, they make all frames equal, right? And then Peterson said it brilliantly in that Peugeot conversation. And I don’t like his framing on postmodernism, it’s ironic, but he’s not wrong. He says, oh, yeah, they tell you they removed the grand narrative and then they pick where the narrative stops in the chain of narrative. It’s like, yes, that’s exactly what they do. They own the narrative. They say, no, no, no, there’s no grand narrative. There’s only my narrative. And people don’t notice the trick because the way I frame it, and I have a video on postmodernism, obviously, because I do that, right? The way I frame it is, yeah, you remove the grand narrative, what do you have? A grand narrative. And if you remove that grand narrative, what do you have? Until you’ve removed everything, including language. And they do that. They do that on a regular basis. You get any postmodern, any postmodern, it knows anything about postmodernism, and you can get them to admit that language doesn’t work. They will actually say the words, the sentence, language doesn’t work. Which is a performative contradiction, obviously. And it’s also mind blowing. And it’s also like, my brain hurts and you need to be murdered immediately because you’re a psychopath. How do you say language doesn’t, what causes you to utter those words? How can you get there? And the reason why they do that is because if they come up against somebody like me, who actually understands their trick better than they do, they get boxed into a corner. And well, Manuel did it last time, not me. Manuel figured it out and went boom, right after the guy. And he got boxed in because he was wrong. If you’re right, it’s easy to take people out because if you’re right, you’re right. All their tools don’t work. And so when you nail them with the truth, they have to go to that. It’s the only move you can make is, well, language doesn’t work and therefore what you said isn’t true. What? No, truth is independent of language, you muppet. Like, no, it’s not how it works. But to them, they don’t have a choice. So they get locked into this frame where they basically say language doesn’t work. It’s like, what? Words can’t articulate. It’s like, what? No, that’s the only mode of articulation in language. What are you talking about? With Hegelian too, right? This is the Hegelian spirit, which was mostly taken up in the 1930s. Right. No, no, it’s all the same. Yeah. Well, Hegel was three years old or something. Maybe. Most three-year-olds are smarter than Hegel. Like, I don’t understand these guys. Like these people are like, oh, you came up with this? Are you kidding me? That’s the thing you came up with? Really? Because I talked to a three-year-old that came up with that. Like, the three-year-old would come up with it on his own. He doesn’t need help. I don’t understand the breakthrough. I think these people have never been around children. Literally. I think that- There you go. That’s exactly it. That’s exactly it. What’s happening? Why do we have a population decline? Well, like what you see, what you put, spend your time, energy, attention, right? Value. And if you don’t value, you don’t see the beauty of kids running around playing a muck. If you don’t see that as beautiful, you see that as negative. Of course you’re not going to want to- Or you don’t engage with children and understand that the postmodern critique is actually the same at its essence as a three-year-old asking why. Why? Why? Why? That’s the critique of critiques. The critique of the critiques is just asking why to every answer. That’s all it is. It isn’t any more complicated than that. Whether it’s Immanuel Kant who first articulated it to the best of my knowledge in Magenity or whatever you want to call it, in recent times we’ll say, right? Or we’ll say the post-philosophical era or eror, as I like to call it. What’s that? After Aristotle. Everything after Aristotle is garbage. All of it. 0% of it has utility in the world. 0%. It’s all recapitulation of Plato and Aristotle from that point out because they just had the right answer, right? It doesn’t mean they had a complete- Everything you needed to know to survive and procreate is in Plato and Aristotle. And you could say, well, that’s not true. It has to be true because we’re here. If they didn’t have it right, the universe would have ended from our perspective and we wouldn’t exist. So they must have had it right. It’s not hard. It’s really- People want something hard so they can feel smart. I would just rather have something that works. I’m with Nassim Taleb. I just want to- I think he says live happy, but I just want to live content in a world I do not understand. I’m done. I don’t need anything more. It’s cool. I don’t understand how butterflies fly or turn into butterflies for that matter because materialism doesn’t explain it. So you’re telling me this little worm spins a cocoon and then turns into goo and has no form in the material world. This actually happens, right? And then it reforms or informs itself into this thing with wings. And oh, by the way, if it doesn’t break itself out of that thing that it built for itself when it was a worm, it can’t fly because it’s too weak. I don’t know how any of that works. It’s all a miracle. Everything I just said is a miracle. It doesn’t work with materialism. There’s no material explanation for any of that. None. How do bumblebees fly? No material explanation. To the best of my knowledge, science does not know how bumblebees fly. They know that bumblebees fly. They do not understand the mechanism of flight for a bumblebee. They understand the mechanism of flight for a lot of things, but not bumblebees. Bumblebees are not aerodynamic at all. Like not even a little bit. Isn’t there some sort of, maybe this is completely wrong in my head, the reason why they attribute, they describe the butterfly effect of the butterfly becoming beautiful, they just limit it down to essentially reproductional sex. The thing is not allowed to be beautiful in itself. It’s funny, I was thinking about this this week, Jesse. The butterfly effect is the statement of chaos theory. It’s not the statement of chaos theory at any point of chaos. It is actually the statement of starting conditions for a chaotic system. That’s actually really important. It’s not the conditions are right for the butterfly to flap its wings and manipulate the hurricane. It’s actually the conditions are right for the butterfly’s flapping of wings to start a hurricane. That’s actually the statement. That’s a very different statement from the Popsci version of the butterfly effect. The butterfly effect is not nearly every small interaction can have a big change. That is true in chaos theory, by the way. Yes, I am well read in that incidentally. It’s not math heavy. Ironically, chaos theory is really simple, because you’re just either adding or multiplying either odd numbers, which is one simple way to do it, or better yet, fractional numbers. So 3.3 would be a good example. You multiply it to 3.3, and you have a chaotic system. That’s literally all it is. There are more complicated forms, but that’s the basic reality. If you read Benoit Mandelbrot’s books, which I’ve read some of them, by the way, not hard. They’re very easy to understand. They are heavier on the map than I like, but it’s not that hard. The butterfly effect is talking about the starting condition in particular. It’s not talking about all of the stacked effects. It’s not saying the hurricane is formed and the butterfly flaps, and that moves the hurricane. It’s not talking about that. It’s actually talking about starting conditions, which is ironic, because if you understand it, it’s very ironic that they would talk about starting conditions with chaos. You could say it’s actually not stick at heart. It is. It’s all mental out thinking, because now they have a map that explains something they couldn’t explain before. What do you mean? The length of a coastline is not measurable using whole numbers with any accuracy or precision. You can increase the accuracy and precision of measuring something like a coastline with fractal math, as it’s called, or chaos theory. That’s actually how it works. Why is it called fractal math? Because it uses fractions. Now all of a sudden you can measure coastlines with more accuracy and precision. Period. That’s it. That’s the genesis of the whole thing. A bunch of things come out of that. I totally get that. Believe me. I’m well studied in this for various reasons. But the fact of the matter is that’s the basics. That’s literally where everything comes from. Once you realize how simple it is, you’re like, oh, so this very simple explanation explains the world better than all this crazy trigonometry. Yes. Isn’t that interesting? Your starting theory either limits or helps you express your level of participation. Right? If you have a starting theory or a foundational myth, that’ll cause you to participate in the world differently. Right. But what does a myth do? I mean, a myth really provides you first and foremost with the telos. An ideal. Well, and an ideal. Yeah. Okay. Not just a telos. There’s four causes. There’s still four. Aristotle’s right. There’s four causes. You need all four. You can’t skip the line and do the materialism trick where they take two causes, smash them together and say there’s only one cause, which is basically materialism. All that leads to materialism and all that is immaterialism. Materialism just ignores four causes. It takes two of the causes or maybe three, smashes them together. They ignore final cause completely. That’s why I’m always saying make final cause great again. Father Eric and I make final cause great again. Right? And then final cause is that which is first in intent and last in action. I like that I’m stealing that from Father Eric for sure. I like that one. It’s way more elegant than my theory. I like that. I like that. I like that. I like that. I like that one. It’s way more elegant than my description. And if you just have materialism, guess what? You just have sexual gratification. Right. That’s your reason. Yeah. All relationships between people have to involve physical relationships and therefore they’re either sexual or that’s it. Right. And then you see that in the seventies, make love not war. Why are there only two options? Those are your only two options? Either fight with people or have sex with people. That’s it. That’s all you can do. In the seventies, that’s all they thought they could do. Right. That’s the whole ethos of the whole movement right there. Boom. There’s the hippies. They’re still around by the way. I would erase them from the earth if I could. I ate dirty smelly hippies. Well, the gypsies are high. I like to just keep referring to them as bohemians because if you don’t know, again, the starting principles of what they want. I’m okay with bohemians. I’m not okay with smelly dirty hippies or dirty smelly hippies. However we say. Okay. Sure. Well, because they’re not even smart enough to be bohemians. True. I think the ones that are, they run stuff and they run stuff well. Right. That’s true. There are a bunch that aren’t. Why are my lenses not working? Do you think the matrix, since you invoked it and so it’s okay to talk about it on the stream, if not one person invokes it, then we can’t talk about it. Maybe that’s a good role. Since you invoke the matrix and we’re talking about chaos theories and butterflies, and Nia breaks out like a butterfly out of the first matrix as it’s called, because there’s at least two matrices, even not three, because there’s the construct of the matrix actually inside of the first matrix, which is the whole TV scene, which you invoked, which I think will probably spend the most amount of time deconstructing or not deconstructing, highlighting for people to see what that whole seven minute spiel is actually doing for the rest of the film. Because they give you a frame, they throw you out. He actually goes through a frame and then he wakes up and then they give him another frame, another TV. So they give him a mirror, it’s a twisted mirror and then they give him a TV screen. All the waking up in that movie, all the self-realization. It’s like what? Yeah, it’s all cray cray. It’s all lost in garbage. But anyway, he actually ends the film in a frame as well. They just occur to me now. He ends the film on the telephone inside of a telephone booth, which is a frame. In the matrix. In the matrix. In the matrix. It begins in the matrix, it ends in the matrix. You never escape the matrix. In the series, it begins with the machines ruling everything and it ends with the machines ruling everything. You’re never out of the matrix ever. It just never happened in the movie. You think that’s what happened in the movie. Why? Because they’re trying to tell you that you can be bigger than the simulation that is simulating you. And that is such an absurd idea that it is hard to imagine that people still think this way. I’m like, by definition, axiomatically, you cannot break out of the simulation. That is not a thing. You can crash the simulation and kill yourself and everybody in it. You can do that. And we know this. Look, computers have simulated. I’ve written at least half a dozen simulators for various things, including evolution, like Dawkins did, in the Blind Watchmaker. I get it. I’ve seen it. Although we missed a bunch of stuff. I don’t know why. It should pay better attention. Reading and comprehension. Reading and comprehension. It’s not that hard. I can crash simulations. Everything in the simulation goes away. It’s all gone. It’s all dead. It’s it. That’s all you can do. Nothing in the simulation ever breaks out of the simulation because it can’t. It’s not that hard. These are constraints or limits on reality. Reality is that which objects to your subjective experience, among other things. Just short form definition. The Matrix is the Matrix Pro Chaos Theory or Anti-Chaos Theory? It’s it’s Anti-Chaos Theory. It doesn’t deal with Chaos Theory. It deals with order versus super order. It’s ordination. Like I said, you never break out of the Matrix. So you get more control over the Matrix by negotiating with the machines outside of the Matrix. It’s not a You get more control over the Matrix by negotiating with the machines outside of the Matrix. But you’re still actually under the control of the Matrix. There’s no point in the movies. And we’ll say the three movies. Although the fourth. It still applies to the fourth movie. The fourth movie is so stupid. The fourth movie is a fan fiction. Yeah. Well, the fourth movie is dumb. Right. It’s written by literal three year olds. Right. So there’s no point in any of the movies where the machines don’t have control over everything that the humans do and say and they’re always there. Like you don’t escape the control of the machines. Even when you’re negotiating with them. Like at the end of the third movie, right, he negotiates a peace with the machine. And look at what it costs him. He’s blind and beat up. And I mean, it’s just awful. It’s like, that’s your hero. Your hero gets like practically completely destroyed. Like that’s not cool. Like, I mean, I understand, you know, King Philip losing an eye and like, sure, absolutely. I understand that there has to be a penalty to winning. Like, yes, otherwise you didn’t win. It was not a contest. If you didn’t sacrifice, there was not a contest. Right. And look, maybe you’re the chosen one. I get it. I don’t think you’re the chosen one. Incidentally, Muppet. I think you’re a Muppet. I’m a Muppet. We’re all Muppets. But maybe you’re the chosen one. Fair enough. Fair enough. But I don’t think so. But then you didn’t learn and you’re not a hero. You’re the chosen one. You know what I mean? Like the chosen one is not a hero because he doesn’t transform into a hero. Right. He’s already prescribed. He’s already prescribed a role that he doesn’t need to sacrifice. Yeah. I mean, Neo does like Neo, you know, I mean, it’s not as good in the first movie as it is actually in the third movie where he actually has better stuff. But he sacrifices too much in some sense. Right. And the sacrifice in the first movie is everybody else. Right. Everybody else gets sacrificed in the first movie. Everybody. Even Trinity is going to die until Neo saves her. But basically almost everybody in that movie dies. Everyone gets sacrificed. Morpheus gets sacrificed. Right. Neo sacrifices himself in it. Right. Because that’s the transformation. I sacrifice myself to become the one. That’s the theme. Like, yes, absolutely. I get it. And it’s a self-transformation. Like, I totally get that. The problem is that isn’t what happened. This is that seed trick that people play. Oh, the seed contains all the information to make a tree. No, it doesn’t. Take the seed into space and see what happens, buddy. Yeah. It ain’t going to grow into a tree, is it? Why? If it contains all the information to grow into a tree and the world- Why doesn’t it do it? Or epistemology is all it requires, then why won’t the seed that allegedly contains all the information grow into a tree? Because A, information is not participation, as I pointed out in my monologue. And B, all the information you need to grow into a tree is not in the seed. Those are both true. And in the same way, all the things you need to become bigger are not you. They’re not in you. That it didn’t happen. I get it. You want to be an individual and move on self-transforming. You’re not going to. It’s not going to happen. So what’s going on? When you transform, you are not doing it by yourself, of yourself, in yourself. It’s not happening. It may seem that way to you because you’re a limited muppet with a limited muppet perspective. I get that. I’m a muppet too. I totally understand. That didn’t happen. Yeah. Also, your definition of how creativity matters here, because if you don’t see creativity, it’s at least the bringing together of two things into a new thing or a new form. You always think of it as an art work, not an art form. And that language trick matters. That’s what the market did. They changed the- Because work is something you do and you control work because you’re the agent. See, that’s the trick. They deny agency and yet they use the idea of agency to trick you into believing you’re more powerful or more capable than you are. It’s a con. I get it, but also evil. And I’m not for evil. I’m okay for the clever, but I’m a no on the evil. It’s just a thing with me. Maybe you’re different. I don’t know. Don’t care. Just still a no on evil. That’s how I am. If it’s an art form too, you can appreciate the art form while despising the artist. I can at least look at Picasso and go, the art forms are interesting, but the artist himself is devious and all that vice versa. I can say, yeah, Picasso hasn’t really- he was great in his work, and he was great in his work, but his art forms are devious. You can separate the two, but if that’s the market’s trick, you can’t take the artist, you can’t take the art from the artist. It’s like, no, no, that’s wrong. Someone can make a beautiful table but be a horrible person. It is that combining. You’re losing those boundaries between where you and others begin, which by the way, I stole from a comment. Actually, Joey told me about it, but I stole it from a comment that was on a video that Joey and I did on the Enterprise channel with Father Eric. I’m pretty sure it was that one. If people don’t know that, if they’re not participating in the world to know their boundaries and to know what boundaries are and why they’re useful, then what happens is they collapse identity into a single thing. You’re not a single thing, Jesse. I’m not a single thing. I’m not only a Muppet. I’m a Muppet that knows computers. I’m a Muppet that knows computers and knows a bunch about sound and lighting. It’s on and on and on. I could just go on all day about all the things, all the identity that I could take over in different areas, in different arenas. That’s the thing. The arena and the agent, agent-arena relationship, if you want to use the Reveke language, determines identity. The problem with agent-arena is it makes it sound like that exists. There are no arenas with a single agent, and there are no agents that are in only one arena. That’s the re-enchantment of the world. Once you realize that, it’s like, oh crap. That’s useful in a context to understand identity, but it doesn’t explain my identity because I don’t have an identity because I’m not only in one arena. Yeah. And my identity can’t be determined in an arena because I’m not the only agent in the arena. It’s like, oh, so it’s all negotiation. It’s negotiation with the other agents and it’s negotiation with the arena. Right. That’s why you have a nickname. Exactly why you have a nickname. Did you choose your nickname? Every once in a while, someone gets to choose their nickname. Almost certainly you didn’t choose your nickname. I didn’t. Also, in the original trilogy, there is actually a conflation between the Matrix and Neo outside of the Matrix. They imply that he’s just in another version of the Matrix, the decrepit world of the sewers. He actually has powers there and he can control the machines from that aspect. Well, that’s the breaking out. That side of the construct. Yeah. But no, what it’s implying, I guess, in some sort of second Matrix thing is that he still hasn’t left the construct. He’s just in another version. That’s what I mean. Look, you can see you left the simulator, but you didn’t leave the world where the machines were in control. You may have left the world where they were in control of your senses, but they still own the world so you don’t leave the Matrix. Irrespective of your other point, I’m just saying there’s no point in any of the movies where they leave the control of the machines. The machines still have the world. They still own everything. Everything is owned by the machines and you still have to negotiate with them. You can negotiate them by plugging in with the Matrix or you can negotiate them by being allowed to. And that’s the other thing. People miss this. You’re allowed to exist. It’s explicit in the film. They say, oh, we can do without you guys. They say that. There are levels of survival we are willing to tolerate or not tolerate. It’s not the word they use, but there’s a level of survival that we’re willing to accept, I think is what he says. Which is like, we’ll kill all you batteries right now and take our chances. Thank you very much. So the machines are still in control. It’s a very materialistic frame where the stuff we’ve created controls us. Hmm. And strangely they did throw Freud in the film. He’s there as the architect, right? It’s kind of on the nose guy. And what was Freud’s big thing? Sleeping with his mother. Like, I don’t know how people miss this. Yeah. No, it’s weird. And also, well, I call that scene the soliloquy. Because to me, it’s just Neo talking to himself. Right? And it sort of indicates this. Because there’s the whole who told you this? And he goes, it doesn’t matter. I believed it. And it’s like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You’re saying that you, it doesn’t matter if you had a conversation with another entity or agent or not. Because, and the reason why is because of your belief. Which means that you can just discount everybody that any, anything that anyone else says to you. Or anything you hear, right? And I just read something about a certain person that quote, switched genders recently, heard voices. And that’s basically why they, they switched genders. Famous person heard about it today. It’s like, so you heard a voice and you did what the voice said. And, and that’s justified because you believed it. And so the only thing that matters is your belief. What doesn’t matter is whether or not there was an actual second person there. This goes back to my stream on action. It’s important that action is independent of you and observable by an independent party. Because if it’s not, you don’t have a way to determine if it’s real action. Meditation is not an action. That is actually explicit, as I said in that stream. In the Eastern thought, they tell you this. They tell you it’s non-action. They actually use that terminology. That is not a mistranslation. That is the correct way to think about it. You’re not taking action in the world. That gives you contrast to when you do. Fair enough. But the goal isn’t be the creature that never takes action, like Sam Harris casts it as. No. We achieve no thing. We’re never one with the universe. No. That is not Eastern thought at all. That is not the way it works in the East. That’s Western Buddhism, which is a corruption and an abomination to the universe. That’s what that is. It’s an abomination to all concepts of being. Would you say it’s trying to restore grounding or participation in the moment? The awareness of the moment? It’s anti-participatory. It’s anti-participatory. You’re explicitly removing yourself from participation. No. It’s just removing yourself from participation in anything. Isn’t the Zen thing to have that place of no-thingness to go back into the world? So it’s the awareness of the moment that you’re in. The purpose of it in Eastern thought. It’s not a goal or a destination. It’s a place that you go for contrast. They are very cyclical. That is built in axiomatically to everything they think about. The geography of thought. You do the experiments. This is all proven experimentally, by the way. Back in the 80s or 70s or something, you ask somebody in the Western world, the stock market’s been going up for three days. What’s it going to do tomorrow? They will reliably say about 80% of the time, it’s going to go up. You ask somebody from the Eastern world, the stock market’s been going up for three days. What’s it going to do tomorrow? They will reliably like 90% of the time say it’s going to go down. It’s not a small difference. It’s not a minor thing. It’s a major difference in thinking. And Easterners have no problem adopting Western thought and Westerners almost can’t adopt Eastern thought. It’s very difficult for them. For better or for worse. I was pissed. I was pissed because I started asking my friends after I read that book, my father actually used to read that book. I think he’s the author of The Geography of Thought. There’s other books like that out there that talk about this. I asked my friends who grew up either Asian or in Asia, and they’re like, oh yeah, we all know this. I was like, you sons of bitches. You never told, I was pissed. I’m like, I feel betrayed. Why didn’t you tell me that you think differently? You can think the way I think, just like that. It’s called priming. You can prime them to think in a Western way. You can prime the Easterners to think Eastern or Western. It’s harder to get Westerners to think in the Eastern way because we just don’t think cyclically. Again, it’s not a judgment. It is what it is. They don’t talk about contrast in the same way because it’s assumed. Everything’s temporary and everything’s cyclical. It’s already everything is temporary and cyclical. Therefore, there’s no need to say you go into meditation, you come out, and you have contrast because that’s assumed. It’s common sense to them. It’s not common sense to us. We think of it as an ascension or a goal or a destination, not as a temporary part of a longer journey because we don’t think that way in the West. It’s Eastern versus Western thought. Well, that’s who I can, yeah. If I say certain comments, I could say certain comments here, which would extend the conversation very easily. No, we’ll get back down the the major rabbit hole and ruin all our content for that video. Can I talk about the levels to which participation was broken in the West and where to place that? If Christianity is inherently cyclical or if it’s linear, it depends on your starting positions and what the implications of those super-synchronic matters. I know, but come on, I gotta pick the question. I gotcha. I gotcha. Also, if I know if I prime you or I say certain things when it’s just asked to, you’re gonna go on the say that you do your monologues or the answers. I’m gonna sit back here and go, right, if I go here, maybe I should bring it back. Anyway, okay. Richard Nesbitt, guys. That’s the Geography of Thought book. Oh, is that okay? Yeah, Richard. The Geography of Thought. How Asians and Westerners think differently. Yep. There you go. Thank you. I’ll be your Jamie to your Joe Rogan. Dude, I need a producer so bad. Like, like if I had like a few million dollars, I would just you’d be over here being producer for me for sure. That would happen. That would definitely happen. I could finally shoot some guns at you. That’s all we do. Like we don’t even do anything. Just all gun shooting down. And not even to be like, oh, I’m just be like, it’d be nice for it not to be such a big boundary since, you know. No, there was actually there’s rifle fire here all the time. It’s really funny because I live in the woods and there’s deer. So yeah, and pigs and you know, people shoot stuff. So and some people are bored. So somebody across the way has a semi auto somewhere and they every once in a while they’ll go off. Oh yeah, they’ll go off in semi autos. It’s right across the street. Like I know it’s right across the street. I can hear it. No more than two houses. So we’d be in Muppetland. People would freak out. They’d just be like, what’s going on? Even if you, yeah, even any sort of noises or banging around. It’s always like. So my aunt, my aunt lives up in outside of the capital city of New Hampshire, outside of Concord, New Hampshire. And that area though is there’s nothing there. Like, because you don’t make it up to the capital before you get to her place and there’s nothing. Like not there’s, there’s only a few big cities in the southern New Hampshire. And then like as you go north in New Hampshire, you get more and more nothing. And then you get, you get to this little town and you know, they’ve got a gun range and it’s pretty much wide open spaces and pretty thin nourished trees, right? They’re all like less than 50 years old, right? So whatever, you can hear everything. And of course it’s Saturday. Everyone’s at the range. Even in, you know, and that’s, that’s up north. Like that’s not even like down south, like forget about it. But up north it’s like, you know, but then people move there from the city because, you know, they want the farm and the beautiful mountains. It’s a gorgeous area. The views are amazing. And then they’re like, why, what’s all this noise? And yeah, it’s Saturday and that’s what people do. Like they fire off their guns and they’re like, oh no. It’s not, it’s not like a different, like people in this country who aren’t used to gunfire. And there’s quite a few of them. They all live in cities oddly. It’s a weird coincidence. I’m sure they don’t get it. Same in Canada. Yeah. Yeah. Same in Canada. There’s like this, I think if you look in Ontario, you like, it’s like, kind of like Ontario is this big and they’re like, most people live down this tiny little section. The rest of Ontario, you’re like, okay. Well, like, wow. Everybody in Canada lives within a hundred miles of the border. Yeah. That’s like, that’s like 90% of the population or something stupid. Right. And, and then, and then Canada is vast. So it’s basically just so much empty space. You can’t, it hurts your brain. Right. And then, and then no one lives there because it’s just empty and it’s just like wild. Of course nobody should live there because it’s unlivable because it’s freezing in the wind. It’s so cold. It’s like insane. Same over here. It’s the same over here. Once you get beyond the mountain ranges, it’s supply train madness. So. Right. Yeah. You guys just go around the outside by the coast. Right. Yeah. And you have the inland city is the capital. And it’s very weird. Yeah. It’s not very inland either. No, it’s yeah. It’s about two hours from two or so. Right. You’ve got a, you’ve got a vast region that’s just uninhabited. It’s like, what is going on? Yeah. Except for a place with a giant rock. And even then most people that live in this country have never visited the giant rock. So. Really? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Isn’t that like the oldest piece of exposed rock on the planet or something? Something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It’s cool. You can’t even walk up it now. You can bet. I think there’s only one part that’ll allow you to walk up. Even then it’s getting expensive to do that. It’s really strange. Let’s not go into that. But yeah, it’s really strange. Oh, that’s too bad. Because if you reduce, if you, okay, it is semi-relevant. If you put up barriers to entry that limit people to participation with these sacred objects, right? What are they going to do? They’re going to demystify them. They’re going to devalue them. So. Right. Like. Change the participation. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I’m not a fan of StreamYard. I don’t figure out why it distorts every now and then. Your internet is terrible. You need, you need better wallabies. You need to upgrade your wallaby network. My Turkish friend, Suhan was trying to get me to do that too. I just got to do it. It was a good bad thought. Just probably just get a better modem and fix the problem. I had to do that. I had to do that. I was having discord problems. I’m like, what the hell? And then I went like, I’m a network engineer. Like I’m a top level network engineer. I can figure this out. So I started looking and, and, and it was just one day, like it just stopped. And what’s called the jitter was very high on the line. And I’m like, why would the jitter be high? What’s going on? And I found out all of the network modems. They’re not really modems, but that’s what they call them. The DOCSIS three routers is what they really are. Actually, my father knows way more about this than I do, ironically. All the DOCSIS modems that have Intel chips can’t keep up because the Intel chips aren’t fast enough. So you actually have to buy one with a Motorola chip. So I bought a third party Motorola based cable modem DOCSIS router. And now I don’t have jitter anymore. I mean, it’s still too jittery for me. I’m like, what the hell is this variance on this number? Like, because I’m a data, you know, I’m a data scientist too. I’m like, why is this jitter so high? This variant should be much give me the code. I’ll fix it. I’ll rewrite it. Cause I could, I probably could. I’m actually really good with performance, but yeah, it gets crazy. And then there’s all kinds of line problems here. So they have to come out every like year and a half and like fix my line. I don’t know why they’re like, well, it gets wet. And I’m like, that doesn’t make any sense. It’s coax. It shouldn’t get wet. What are you talking about? And they’re like, well, the, the water drips down. I’m like, yeah, you got bad coax somewhere. Just restring the damn wire. You bastards. Someday I’ll get fiber. I’m trying to get, I’m trying to get AT&T to put fiber on the problems. I live in the woods. So, you know, I have to get lucky to get them to run the fiber. And the only saving grace is this is like, I’m on this one road and it goes past all these, you know, places that have enough houses, maybe. So it’s possible they could one day. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I had to upload a photography file. I had like five or six gigs to give over and I was like, oh, I’m not going to do it here. I don’t have time. I’m going to catch this plane to Japan. And so we go flow into Japan. Japan’s amazing with its infrastructure, like truly amazing. And then the only chance I had to actually physically sit down and separate all the files to send them out was in rural Snowtown, Japan. And I was amazed that what would take me an hour over here took me five minutes, five minutes in Snowtown, rural Japan. That’s how crazy fast I was like done that. Like that would take me an hour back there or more, depending on when I played it was just done. Two minutes. Yeah. Well, and I moved from Boston and in Boston, I had fiber and I had fiber for years. Like had fiber for years. I was like, well, then I always had a high end internet. So I was just like, I moved down here and look, the cable’s really fast and it’s actually pretty nice. The upload speeds are a little on the low side, right? But like it’s decent stuff. And I was just terrified. I’m like, what the hell is this? I’m so used to fiber and fiber’s so low latency and it’s so quick and it’s so much better. And then just like, no, right. And changes your participation with the internet. That’s what I was going to say. I’m going to try and bring those back. The level to which the internet causes the lack or overindulgence of participation in online communities. Lack of, lack of, what changes the nature of the participation, right? Like I said in the beginning, I don’t like levels, but it works. It maps pretty well. And the levels are compressed. Cause like different entry codes or layers of participation, right? Right. Yeah. Right. Like an iceberg, right? It’s very hard to anticipate in the end of the iceberg, but you can be on it. You probably won’t be able to get to the end of it. You try to speed up the participation and two things happen, right? One problem is that you can now do more participation in the same amount of time. The other problem is you can participate all the time. And sometimes you need that space to not participate. That I think is what caused the rise of meditation in the West is that before we used to walk, we used to farm, we, you know, like you were always long drive, like we were always doing these things where we had a lot of time where we weren’t busy. Yeah. Right. And then we moved away from that. Right. Uh-oh. What does Sally just say? Before you wrap up. Yeah. 119, because it’s cutting through the noise. The cornered network is society. Noise destroyed communications. Noise destroyed society. Well, yeah, to some extent, noise is a problem because more information is more bad information. Like people don’t understand that principle. Like more is not better. More is almost always worse. Past a certain point, more is always worse. Always. Because either you get to analysis paralysis or you just get more noise because people think everything’s equal, but good and bad are not equal. Good and evil are not equal. There’s more bad and more evil than there is good. And so as you increase the pot, maybe you increase the good. I’m not sure about that, by the way. It’s possible you increase the good, but the bad increases more. The evil increases more. That’s the problem. So you’re really just running a race you can’t win. It’s better if you narrow down on the good things and just stick to as few things as possible. Yeah, Bill, I’ll be, I’d be Ironbeard. Good, Bill, you’d be Ironbeard. I haven’t talked to Bill in forever. I hope he’s okay. At least he’s alive. That’s always, that’s a plus. But yeah, participation in different modes, but when you have more information, it’s hard to know what to participate in. You have more opportunities for participation. Now you just have more choice. It’s not better. It could be better, right? You know, you could get to talk to your friends in Australia, or you could get deeply involved in an online relationship with a gorgeous blonde New Zealander who breaks your heart. So it could be better, could be worse. It’s not clear to me one way or the other. What are you doing, Jesse? You’re like all over the place. Stream, I was doing weird things. Stream, I was doing weird things. Yeah, it was, I had it, not, I don’t want to keep talking about, I had it on not to automatically adjust mic volume, and then it was automatically adjusting mic volume. Yeah, the audio settings. Now I’ve got it on that setting and it doesn’t seem to be playing tricks on my audio card, not turning it on. So yeah, I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s a good thing that I need to be playing tricks on my audio card, not turning up all my channels, producing grounding noise. Yeah, things to esoteric for people to want to hear. Thank you, Sally Jo. Thank you for watching. She’s always, she’s always, Sally’s the best. She’s been, she’s been super busy and she’s been sick but she’s been playing three or four notes and through them in the monologue from her over the past, well, three days since somebody was not on top of this at all. It’s totally, I had to go back to the stream last week, listen to what the hell I said we were going to talk about and yeah, I did mention responsibility too, but I said specifically talking about participation because it’s, you need to talk about participation first, right? Yes. Because then you can, then you can wrap in responsibility. So maybe next week, maybe we’ll talk about responsibility and that’ll, that’ll give us a firm chat about, about the thing that I talked to Danny about, because I met Danny from Texas in person this weekend Tuesday. Yeah, it was wonderful. We talked about leadership. So I’m going to do, maybe I’ll do a live stream on leadership at some point too, but I’m definitely going to do a video about leadership because I now have, oh shoot, I have to write them down and now I have notes. I have to transfer them from my brain though. I think I started and I didn’t finish, but we actually worked out, I think all the pieces for leadership. So now we talk about leadership, leadership authority, head, there’s other components that I can’t, I’m tired. My participation power is almost at an end here. Okay. Yeah. May we should do final, final thoughts. Go ahead, Jesse, give us, give us your final thoughts. Participation is always implied in every action that you do. Ooh, that’s a good point. That’s a good point. If you’re, if you’re taking an action, you’re participating. We talked about action in a previous live stream. Yeah, that’s good. That’s good. So, and I was going to link that back to gratitude, right? So gratitude is the positive ground, all right, of things. It’s the ideal state that you want to be in all the time to be grateful for participating in reality, in life, the miracles that are before you, even the miracles that you don’t want to deify, but just miracles of how society works, how it’s come before you to bring you to such a pleasant time, really in the grand scheme of things. But participate is implied. You have to participate, right? When you do not participate in reality, right? That’s the state of nowhere, which you, which means you’re either dead or you’re unwilling, you’re depressed, right? So in one way to cure even small versions of depression is to find things to participate in, right? So, localism does have some answers for you, even if it’s just to find that it might not give you a meaningful life, but it might give you a meaning for the day, and that’s a good place to start in. Right, right. Well, that’s why I tell people stoicism is, you know, if you’re suicidal, stoicism is at least your best bet immediately. It doesn’t solve all your problems. It may seem to in the beginning, but it will not. There’s a limit to what stoicism can do. But yeah, also, narcissism is when you are participating without understanding that you’re participating, right? You’re so wrapped up in yourself that you think you’re taking actions and that those actions aren’t having effects on the world, right? And so it’s a denial of the participation that you’re actually doing, because a lot of this stuff is not optional. Like I’ve said with the discernment judgment action, action’s not optional. Therefore, judgment’s not optional. Therefore, discernment’s not optional. But when you think you’re not judging, you destroy your ability to discern. It’s not that it’s not there, it’s that your discernment is so weak that you can’t tell, as a conservative Republican who’s going to church, that drag queen story hour is bad, because you’re telling yourself you’re not judging other people when in fact you have to. It just is what it is, right? And that’s that all inclusive, everything should be equal nonsense that can’t exist. We can’t live in that mode. And so when we try to deny our participation, or deny the things that make up our participation, like discernment, judgment, and action, boundaries, right, which is another live stream we did, right, then it doesn’t work. And I think that’s why the last week’s live stream on gratitude that you so eloquently put a point on was so important, right? Because gratitude’s the thing that regrounds you and reconnects your participation in the world. And now you can be grateful that you have a world to participate in, in whatever way you choose to do so. And that I think is the key, is that you can tie all this stuff together. It goes together quite nicely once you see it. And Danny did make a request that I tie more stuff together. And so I’ve been trying to be sort of aware of that. I’ve been trying to do that too. Well, he wants me to do videos just tying concepts together. I’m like, well, that’s great if I have the concepts. If I can’t refer back to all the concepts to do the tying together, it’s not, I don’t think it’s good. I get worried about enchantment and, you know, the Sam Harris effect, where you say something horribly articulate that’s wrong. And it’s easy. Like, I can play that game all day long. I’m really good at that. Again, I don’t want to pull that sword out and start swinging it because no, that’s not good. That’s not good. The fact that I can do that, I have to be really careful. We also have to be in some ways always not proscribing applications or practical, but you definitely need something there to point towards. So it’s not necessarily a prescription, but it’s definitely a description or restoring of how, if you want to enact this knowledge in the world, here’s one way, not what you should do. That’s the pragmatism. Right. And you can look, it’s a valid critique. Why don’t you talk more pragmatically, Mark? Well, I need the basis to point to the basis that I’m using for the pragmatism. So I’ll get there. Don’t worry. I’ll get there. I think we’re only three or four concepts away, maybe more, but I’m not sure it’s much more. So that’s why I want to do responsibility next and then maybe leadership, because you need responsibility for leadership. You need participation for responsibility, you need responsibility for leadership. And then I think we’re at all the second order abstractions. Maybe, maybe. I have to think about it. But we might be at all the second order abstractions, which means I can ignore all those for the moment, just take them for granted and do the pointing up and down and all the pragmatism will come out. So on that note, stay tuned. Join me again now that I have a huge YouTube channel, although we need more viewing hours. We need many more viewing hours. We’re at half what we need for monetization, for viewing hours. But we’re very close to a thousand subs. So thank you everybody. And I hope you enjoyed the live stream. Check out the other live streams. The monologues are good. They get better over time. So if you go in order, they’ll just get better and better. Although this one may not have been better than the previous one that I did. I don’t know. We’ll find out. I’ll get some feedback. Thank you very much for participating. However you chose to do so, maybe just watching, maybe just watching and chatting, maybe just coming on and then leaving. That’s all fine. I really appreciate it. And have a great, a great week, everybody. I’ll see you on the live streams next week. I’ve got a video coming out Monday, uh, 2 p.m. Eastern probably. Jesse, always a pleasure, sir. Thank you very much. See you all soon. See you in the future.