Poetics - Live Navigation! (Tn1QnhWbE0o)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Tn1QnhWbE0o

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 man speaking in the city square Trying to tell somebody that he cares Can you blame the voice of youth for asking What is truth? Yeah, the ones that you’ll call and love Are gonna be the leaders in a little while When will the lonely voice of youth cry, What is truth? This old world’s waking to a newborn babe And I solemnly swear it’ll be their way You better help that voice of youth find What is truth? And the lonely voice of youth cries, What is truth? Alright, well, welcome, welcome. It has been three weeks. I have been all over the place. So last week was Thanksgiving, drove up to New England, drove back. And we’ll be talking about that. It’s wrapped up in our topic of poetics. Of course, we’ve got Sam Pellegrino in the Muppet Cup because Muppet Cups, you know. Thank you, Anselmine. It’s good to be back. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving or holidayish time. What do the Scots do over there? We’ve got all this turkey, you know, and then we eat it because the Indians gave it to us, gave it to the Puritans, the Mayflower. And we’ve got some Table Rock tea. We’re doing Bear Claw, which is their oolong tea. It’s quite good. It’s very strong. I like Bear Claw. And yeah, I mean, poetics is a thing we’ve been experimenting with for the past. It’s been out four years, wherever it’s been. So a lot of this started out with a lead on from Jordan Peterson, right? We’re all sort of part of this Peterson sphere, if you will. And John Verbeke in particular had a bunch of practices. And he had a model of the four Ps of knowing. And we sort of riffed on that model and, in my opinion, improved it. As a group, there are a lot of people working on the project. And we also developed practices, a bunch of practices. You’ll be hearing more about that soon because we’re resurrecting some of our work on practices, one practice in particular which we’re renaming, which is all around this idea of poetics. And poetics, as you might imagine, hopefully has something to do with poetry and the meaning of poetry, and the meaning of poetry is that it’s a way of thinking. And that’s the idea of poetics, which I think is really, hopefully, imagine has something to do with poetry and the meaning crisis and the intimacy crisis and the age of gnosis. The best way to sort of understand the age of gnosis, and you’ve been following my Twitter, it’s a little harder to understand what I’ve been doing, tweets about the age of gnosis and why this is important. Gnosis is that flat propositional style of knowing the world. It doesn’t fit neatly into the model, knowing that we’re using for good reasons, but it does fit neatly into understanding what’s going on with the world today. And poetics is one, I don’t want to call it necessarily a solution. It is a solution, I mean, it is a solution, but it’s one way to understand the problem caused by the age of gnosis or the problem that’s causing the age of gnosis. Hard to tell which, I’m not going to get into that today. I’m just going to say that it’s linked to the age of gnosis and hopefully you’ll see why. Gnosis is that flat, propositional only knowledge, the tyranny of propositions or propositional knowledge, as John Breveke calls it. Again, I have my differences with propositional knowledge as such, but also not a bad frame, like not a bad way to understand things. So we’re going to go with that. We’re going to sort of roll with it. So what is poetics? What am I talking about when I’m saying poetics? Poetics is what opens things up, right? It gives you access to an open model of the world instead of a closed model of the world. And to sort of understand more about knowledge and poetics and what I’m on about here, right? Of course, I have a video. I have a video on the knowledge engine. Again, it’s not going to match exactly what I’m talking about, but it should exemplify the poetics quite nicely. Because we have the… It’s not really the poetic way of knowing, right? It’s a poetic way of informing the world. And I’m going to do this a little bit differently for most of my live streams here, because we’re basically going to start with story time. And I don’t usually do that, but I was at the convivium event. It was about poetry, basically. And therefore, poetics is much bigger than poetry, right? It’s much bigger. But I want to tell you a story about what happened there. And there were many stories from the convivium retreat. But I’m just going to tell you sort of one story. It’s not going to sound like one story. I understand that. I’m not… I’m just trying to illustrate the power of the convivium event. And this is a story of unexpected events and how they connect. And I’m going to tell it as best I can. I hope that it’s going to work. And your job as viewers and listeners is to try to be interested in the story, right? But also look for the poetics, because this is a poetic story. I won’t be reading poetry or telling the story as a poem. That’s not what I’m talking about. I know this might be hard to understand or grasp, but work with me on this. And I think it will be rewarding for both of us. And listen for the flavor, the connectedness, the odd sort of opening up, how things flow from one another in a way that not only… not connects them in a binding way, but connects them in a way that puts them together, but opens up. So don’t think of connectedness in terms of binding the way you normally would. And this is a story of what happened to me as the direct results of what happened at the convivium event. Now the convivium event was Ted’s event. Ted’s one of the newcomers to the sort of Peterson sphere, right? He’s sort of adjacent to the Bridges of Meaning Discord server and adjacent to Paul Van der Kley and some of John Brevicki’s work. And of course, Peterson, we’re all part of the Peterson sphere, right? And he comes on the open mic nights with Father Eric and he’s out in Arkansas, right in the tail end of the Ozarks there, right at the foothills of the Ozarks. Beautiful place. So I drove out there. Stopped along the way to visit a relative of Ben in Huntsville, Alabama, which is about halfway. And I drove out there. Had a wonderful time playing paintball. Now, what happened was I finally get to meet a bunch of people, including Ted. I wanted to meet Ted for a while. And the penalty was having to run into Father Eric again. And I see him all the time, it seems, even though we don’t live anywhere near each other. It’s always a pleasure, though. But there’s a guy, Dr. Jim, who’s done a few videos with Pastor Paul Van der Kley and talks about story and the U-shaped story and things like that. And he sort of exemplifies the difference between, say, John Wayne and 007, right, as a character. And it’s really good stuff. You should probably listen to some of his stuff. He’s really smart. He’s a good guy. And he was there as a speaker. Father Eric was also a speaker. The talks there were fantastic. They were the best talks in the Peterson sphere that I’ve ever heard. And it was amazing. And the amazing thing, I was really looking forward to meeting Dr. Jim because he’s just amazingly insightful and he’s been really helpful in sort of understanding how people see things. And I mean, look, I have disagreements. This will shock you with him. I disagree with everybody. Right. But he’s really good and he’s really close. And I was, you know, I met him in person and it was a much richer, more, more, more full experience than I could have imagined. Like he’s much more of a person in person than he is on a video. Now, that may sound surprising, but a lot of people are actually the opposite. I can tell you from years of being online, a lot of people that you meet are not as vibrant, but that’s not true for Dr. Jim. And one of the interesting things is, you know, we’re talking about poetry and a lot of other things. And he gave some great, some great talks and he’s really knowledgeable. He really did his research, really brought an A game. And look, I’ve been to, he used to live in Boston. I’ve been to speakers events before and heard them talk, some good professional speakers. And this was up there. All the speakers were up there. Like they were, you know, maybe not the best, but close enough that it doesn’t matter. And I’m not going to give you sort of an overview of all the poetry talk and all that. Hopefully those talks are coming out soon. I get to meet Jess. Jess is working on that. Just as wonderful, by the way, not that anybody had any doubts, I’m sure. Jess is another, you know, Dennis in the Peterson sphere, Bridges, meaning discord, Paul VanDruyck, sort of area there. And Jess is just fantastic. And he’s working on editing the videos. The talks are going to be amazing. I guarantee you. The interesting thing that Dr. Jim was talking about, because he’s very meaning crisis oriented too. He just does it by way of U-shaped story and his work is top notch in that area. Talking about Anthony Bourdain, famous guy, committed suicide, very unexpected. Right. And there’s a biography. And he said, you should you should listen to that biography. And look, I mean, I respect this guy was like, all right, well, that’s a weird, a weird thing for him to recommend. It’s not like a story of the 007 or, you know, Western type or whatever. Right. It doesn’t. But he said it was very meaning crisis. I was like, oh, yeah, I bet. Right. This successful guy commit suicide. You just smell the meaning crisis. And so my trip back, because I did 11 hours on the way back straight back. Why? I don’t know. But I did manage to do that somehow. So I put it on because it happened to be on on Spotify for free. And yeah, it’s called In the Weeds. And it’s about Anthony Bourdain. It’s by his producers, last producer who was with him for quite a few years. And it’s all there. The meaning crisis, the intimacy crisis. They’re using that those terms. They’re using a lot of the terms, terminology and format that you hear in the Peterson sphere. They don’t know anything about it. So it’s all coming together. I’ve talked with the force coming together from lots of areas. And then. One of the interesting things is this producer is talking about. He’s got his dream job. He’s got like a job everyone is envious of. You get to travel for a living. And he’s describing his day to day. It doesn’t sound like a dream job to me. I get the travel. Then when you find out how many days a year he’s traveling, the guy’s got a family. And you find out what’s happening in the travel. Like he’s producing the show. Now, maybe Anthony Bourdain is having a good time. Maybe doesn’t sound that way either, by the way. You have to listen to In the Weeds to find out more. But the people on the team do not have a dream job by any stretch of the imagination. And look, I’m not saying that he didn’t pick sort of the most interesting or busiest or maybe worst in some sense stories from his travels. And that most of them weren’t a lot better than that. I don’t know. Probably. Right. But it’s a lot of work. And you’re on the road. You’ve got to coordinate all this equipment and you’ve got to be able to do it. And you’re on the road. You’ve got to coordinate all this equipment and run through all these things. And you’re working. You’re not there on vacation. Travel’s great. Unless it’s travel for business. And I’ve done both. I’ve been to Hawaii. That’s where I got the shirt. The sand. But it didn’t sound great. And you could hear in that story as he was wrestling, you know, he says this in the book, he’s wrestling with the signs that Anthony Bourdain wasn’t a happy guy, that he was suffering a loss of meaning and a lack of intimacy. And he’s using those words. Not all over the place. And look, it’s free on Spotify. Listen to it yourself. It’s quite a few hours. But I’m just hearing over and over again, stuff that fits into Peterson’s sphere. This idea of maps of meaning, this idea of meaning crisis, what I’m what I’m saying causes the meaning crisis, the intimacy crisis, intimacy crisis, the lack of ability to have quality, deep, meaningful relationships. And the relationships can’t be meaningful because they lack the quality and the depth. And without meaningful relationships, you can’t manifest meaning. And that’s where meaning is. It’s in the relationships, right? That’s the poetics. And so what happens is I go on another trip, right? So literally drive back on Sunday night, on Sunday, rather, get home Sunday night from Arkansas. From the convivium retreat. It’s a wonderful event. I got to meet Cory in person again, which was great. It was my second time. I met Emma and Colin. And like, it was just a wonderful time. I get back from that. I’ve listened to pretty much all this book. I finish up the book on my way two days later to go up to New England. So literally one day at home and then boom, in the car for another long drive. It’s a two day drive for sure this time. And I run out of chapters and in the weeds, I say, hey, you know what? Just listening to books saying, not so bad. Let’s try another one. What else is free on Spotify? This is the sophistication level of my decision making sometimes. So I’m scrolling through a relatively short list of free available books on Spotify. And it says the greatest capitalist who ever lived, Tom Watts. And then the epic story of how IBM created the digital age. And just a little background for people who don’t have it. I am an aficionado of computer history in particular, computers in general. I know a lot about like a lot. A huge amount. It’s ridiculous. It’s insane. My depth and breadth of knowledge about the computer industry, computer histories and computers in general, programming, running teams, testing, performance, scale, all of that is way above average. Way. It’s like the thing I devoted my life to. Right. Like computers are cool. So I’m not not expecting a lot from, you know, this kind of overhyped title in my opinion, like IBM. You know, I pretty much studied computer history pretty closely. And IBM is IBM. I start listening to this story and it starts back in the freaking 1800s. And I’m like, well, that’s a little far back, guys. Transistors are a little later than that. Like 50 years too early. And it starts with what Tom Watts’ father, who started the company and like his whole backstory. It’s just not the backstory of the guy it claims to be. Although they both have the same first name, I guess. So kind of is. It’s really a biography of two people or really a whole family that started IBM. And what I discover listening to this. And this is all an accident of a recommendation made at a retreat about poetry. And I think that’s the kind of thing that I discovered. Listening to this. And this is all an accident of a recommendation made at a retreat about poetry. Poetics. What I discover is. What I discover is that. Contrary to my. Look. Look at the emergence of all of these computer technologies from the creation of the transistor and its prevalence. And look at these companies that just sprang up. And we’re able to produce these chips and change the world with, you know. Apple computer and Steve Wozniak, you know, HP in their basement. No, Wozniak in the basement, HP in the garage. Right. Oh, wow. That isn’t what happened. At all. What I find out is at a scale that I had never looked at. Because, you know, emergence, man, everything kind of emerged. At a scale above that. Is basically a company that. Wasn’t originally called IBM. And they originally made mechanical tabulation machines. Mechanical, physical, mechanical calculators, basically. That rivals Ford Motor Company. That rivals General Electric. That rivals Standard Oil. Not at first. Like not in the same time period. Those are the big giants of the late 1800s, early 1900s. Maybe Alam doesn’t become a giant until basically their decision to go all in on a lot of things. And then they would call in on electronics. And build and create the entire computer industry. Single-handedly through. What is ostensibly a stupid mistake. They pulled off partly due to a ridiculous amount of cash on hand. And I find out. This pattern that I’ve been sort of worried about. Which is, oh, we’re moving away from ownership and into leasing. Everything’s leasing. You’re leasing your software now. Paying by the month for your access to your music and access to your software. Right? And it’s like. This is not a good thing. No, this is the way it was. Tabulator machines. Sold by IBM and others. Because there were other companies at the time. Were all leased. Nobody owned their own cash registers back in the day. Nobody had this stuff. It was all leased. And that’s how IBM amassed their fortune. And the amounts of money businesses pay for these is absolutely staggering to me. I’m like, what? They were paying what? A month for what? It’s amazing. It’s amazing. And it’s all enabled by sort of the birth of the medium sized business. Right? And. It’s just a story I didn’t know. For some reason. I never really dove in. IBM not only made the sort of integrated circuit and microprocessor possible. But they were able to do it all by going in on it and creating TI. Cash registers doesn’t exist with IBM. At least not in the form we understand it. And other companies as well. TI is the biggest name you’ve probably heard of. But also. They. Because of their early sort of missteps in how they ran their company. They were a competitor at IBM. Kind of. In these markets space wise. Their early missteps led them to invent the concept of emulation. I didn’t know that. I don’t know how I didn’t know that. I’m still shocked and reeling. From learning all this. So. IBM created the digital age. In ways that are kind of unimaginable actually. It’s well worth a listen. The greatest capitalist who ever lived. Tom Watson the epic story of how IBM created the digital age. It’s not really meaning crisis related. But kind of is. So. How does all this work? Why did I tell those stories? Let’s. Let’s contrast. Something that. I’m fond of. Right. You need contrast to see. So we’ll use the difference to highlight. The thing. Well. We’ll step into. The age of gnosis. So when you start. Carving up the world. To understand a part of it really, really well. That’s roughly what science does. Nothing wrong with that. Big fan of actual science. I’m not sure anybody else is. Or at least the number of people who understand what actual science is. Has certainly gone down. Once you carve up the world to understand it. You create a problem. You’ve. You’ve. Bought into a trade off. That you probably didn’t realize or understand. The end of the day. Might be a bold claim. But. The end of the day. Might be a bold claim. And you might not like it. But I think I can prove it. I think it’ll be obvious once you sort of see it. You cannot put the parts back together as they were. Cannot. Once you’ve carved them up. You can’t do it. And look, that might be okay. Especially for a small number of parts. Might be fine. They might be close enough. Might not be a big deal. But. Even for a small number of parts. Even for a small number of parts. It might be better to never. Carve those parts up. And the thing is. That there’s lots of knock on effects. And when you carve up the world. And you look at it. From the individual companies. Stay in the middle of the story. Of VioMill. Middle out thinking. I didn’t prep it. So I won’t link it. But navigating patterns. You can find it. In the middle of the story. In the 1960s or 70s. At the birth. Of the cheap. Electronic. Packages. Basically these chips. When you tell the story from there. Because you’ve carved it up. And you haven’t included. The outsized effect. A multi-billion dollar corporation. Going all in. Embedding everything. On a ridiculous. Gamble. You don’t understand. What happened. Correctly. You don’t understand the knock on effects. You don’t understand where this stuff came from. Where did Cray Research come from? IBM. Cray worked at IBM. MDAL. IBM. These might be esoteric names. There’s a bunch of computer companies. That came out of IBM. Cray is pretty well known. Actually. For super computers. And Cray was a singular genius. So was MDAL. Very smart guys. Also built IBM. Or helped to. IBM survived without them. And how do we know what to call it? What do we call it? And how do we know what to carve up and what not to carve up and why? Well, fairy tales often teach us exactly these sorts of lessons. What to carve up. What to pay attention to. And what not to pay attention to. Poems. Often highlight this. A lot of poems are about. Things that are connected in a way that open them up to the world. They’re about the way in which things are interconnected. They include this. What people often refer to oddly. If you think about it as flowery language. Because it’s connected. But it’s open. And it opens up. That’s what I’m talking about with poetics. If we were rational creatures. The world would more closely. Match our reasoning of it. Our rationale of it. In other words, our predictions using logic, reason and rationality would work better. And things like fairy tales and poems often point to the failure of logic. The unseen and unseeable consequences of action or inaction. You’re wandering the woods. The house looks inviting. It’s made of candy. What’s to worry? Looks like your prayers have been answered. But what fairy tales show us is they make nondiscrete, nonlinear connections to things. Many to many. One thing to many. Many things to many other things. And again, in a way that doesn’t bind them as in restrict them so much as bind them as in allow you to use them to open up to other things. That’s what poetics is. And in a way, it’s no wonder we don’t have leaders. Leaders. Good leaders anymore. Who knows how to bring things together? Science splits them apart. We’re very good at splitting things apart and creating so-called ontologies or categories for things. Putting them in those categories. But that separates them by definition. It’s not a trick. It’s a tradeoff. By definition, categorize something, separate it off. I’m not saying never do that. I’m saying, boy, you can be really careful with that stuff. But who knows how to bring things together? Science doesn’t do that. Who knows how to hold them together? Who knows how to bring them forward towards something? Who knows how to have a goal? Get the things that you’ve held together and draw them towards the goal. That’s a part of leadership. Who knows how things are related and how to properly relate to those things that are related to you? Because it’s a two-way street. In this age of psychology, we tend to think of things in terms of how do I relate to it? Or how does it relate to me? And not how does that reciprocal relationship work? How do my changes affect the changes on the other side? And no wonder without the poetic way of informing the world, we don’t have good leaders. We don’t understand leadership. We have a flat, reduced, compressed view of the world. Poetics is the thing that connects and relates and therefore animates the world, the whole world. You want to talk about enchantment? That’s poetics, is what does the enchantment. And look, anybody can carve up the world. It’s easy to do. Don’t believe me? Go watch a three or four-year-old play or a five-year-old. Just watch a child play. They’ll carve things up and they’ll talk about unicorns and make cars fly and do all kinds of crazy things. And it’s cute and it’s wonderful and it’s played and it’s a module and it’s great. But also anyone can do. But can you do it well? Can that person who sounds smart do it well? Sounds like they can. And lots of things in the world look like they work. And lots of things in the world work on a small scale. And lots of things in the world will work for a while. And lots of things will work for certain sets. And lots of things require all of that to be right to work. But almost nothing, almost nothing, works at scale for multiple sets and for a long time. And that’s what we’re forgetting. And the things that do that, the way to do that is poetics. That’s what I’m talking about, this many-to-many relationship. We don’t need to analyze it. We just need to participate in it. Participation is a way of informing the world. Poetics is a way of informing the world. Bigger than, beyond, and better than propositional and procedural ways of informing the world. And there’s your four Ps of information. I’m not saying you have to throw out propositions. We need those. You can’t do language without propositions. They’re certainly the anchoring for poetry. But they’re not poetry. That’s why computers suck at poetry. AI-generated poetry is terrible. Because computers do discrete, linear, procedural things, actions. That’s it. They don’t do participation. They don’t do poetics. They don’t have a way to relate to those things. It’s a digital box. It’s ones and zeros. It’s the lowest possible resolution. Politics, binary, lowest possible resolution. It’s not rich. It is illusory. It allows you to categorize things. Sometimes you have to categorize things. I get that. But you have to be careful. And maybe you can’t categorize anything. Maybe you’re just not smart enough. Maybe you can study the entire history of computers to the best of your ability and totally miss the story. Like I did. Maybe. And the world is missing enchantment. It’s not that the world isn’t enchanted. That’s not what I mean. Of course the world is enchanted. Maybe you can’t see the enchantment anymore. Poetry gets you into that for sure. Poetry just talks about the enchantment of the world. That’s what poetry is in some sense. Or at least good poetry is that. I can’t wait for those talks to be released. They’re so, such a rich experience. It’s not, I mean being there, the talks are not going to be, being there, they’re going to be great. And I can’t give you, even if I were too wax poetic, if you will, a good book, a good book, a good book, a good book. I can’t give you, even if I were too wax poetic, if you will, about convivium, I can’t give you what I got there. But you can get a piece of it for sure. And it can open doors. And I think the problem of the age of gnosis, the problem that we’re suffering with, the meaning crisis and the crisis of intimacy, is the inability to poetically inform ourselves about the world. To see the enchantment around us. That’s the re-enchantment. You’re re-enchanting the person the world’s already enchanted. Those poor people can’t see it. That’s sort of the poverty of the affluence in which we live. One way to think of it is as a spiritual bankruptcy. It causes a meaning crisis. And it causes a crisis of faith. I’ve talked about that before with Paul Van der Klaan and his channel. There’s a difference. It’s an important difference. It’s a big difference. And the real problem is, the thing we have to do is hard. And so we throw everything into a binary and say, we all want to go all this way or all that way. But finding, cultivating and exemplifying goodness is hard. But that’s what we must do. We must find, cultivate and exemplify goodness and call out evil. Even if poorly. We have to do those things. And when we don’t, when we can’t, we don’t see evil at all. Or we see evil where it doesn’t exist. Because we’re not poetically informing the world. We’re not taking into account fairy tales. We’re not able to properly relate to the symbols and symbolism around us. We’re looking for rationality in ontology. And rationality is so much bigger than us. It’s so much bigger than things we can understand. But we can observe it if we just let ourselves observe it. It’s way easier to believe that the 2008 housing crisis and, you know, if you want to hear more about that, I’m an expert at that. Everyone else you’ve heard from, they’re not. I can prove it. I lived it. I lost a house in the 2008 housing crisis or as a result of it. It wasn’t in 2008. You can cast that as some complicated second order of derivative tranche. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s an absolute lie. And you don’t believe me. I get it. It’s hard to see evil. But I lived it. I saw the evil. It’s fraud. That’s all it was. Oh, we own this house. No, you don’t. No paperwork. None. Zero. If you own the house, you’d have some paperwork. You’d be able to. You’d at least be able to find some paperwork and doctorate. Nope. Now we’ll just take your house. No one believes me. It’s cool. I get it. I watched dozens of people in court lose their house. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. I felt sorry for them. I had the money to fight it. Five years. People don’t see evil. So it becomes Hitler. Or Trump. Or whomever. Or whatever. That’s the loss of poetics. The world is much simpler and much subtler and much more common. And we just don’t see it. We’re just not able to engage with it. Because we’re not living in an enchanted world. And again, not the world that’s not enchanted. It’s us. We’re not seeing it. That’s the poetics. You’re not reading enough poetry. You’re not understanding fairy tales. You’re not engaging with story. You’re reading a manual. You’re following a procedure. You’re listening to some slick sounding snake oil salesman. Sounds really articulate. Gives you a really good explanation and a really tight story. And he’s got an answer. Doesn’t match what you see, but maybe you can see it. It’s a deep asymmetry. We’ve lost the poetic way of informing the world. Now we have a bunch of hucksters taking advantage of that. Giving you a story. But it’s not a story that’s lasted. It’s the story of why it’s different this time. The 2008 housing crisis was totally unique. Absolutely nothing like the savings and loan crisis 20 years earlier. Really. Same companies in some cases. It was totally different. Completely new. No government bank bailout then. The real problem is this thing has changed. And that change has caused all these other… Really. This isn’t a pattern that has persisted. That we’ve seen over and over and over again. Maybe a wolf in different clothing. Little Red Riding Hood, anyone? Poetics resolves this for us. And brings us back to, oh yeah, this is not new. This is just a dressed up pattern that we’re familiar with. That’s why we need poetics. That’s why we need it back. That’s why the adrenosis is dangerous. That’s what’s causing this flattening of the world to some extent. That’s what I mean by poetics. That’s that deep, deep connection that opens things up. And gives you not just the depth. But it gives you that way of engaging. Not with whatever you’re relating to. But with all kinds of other things. Things you don’t even understand. Things you don’t have to understand. Neognosis, we want to understand. But while we’re busy trying to understand things, we’re not participating properly. We’re not trying to get to the bottom of things. We’re not trying to get to the bottom of things at all. So it’s kind of up to you. Do you want to participate? Maybe everyone should try to write poetry. Even if they can’t. Certainly everybody should read poetry. But if you’re just reading it. And you’re not getting the flavor for what is actually being said. If you’re not feeling what the author of the poem is trying to convey. Or maybe what the author of the poem conveyed without understanding it themselves. Because poetry in particular gives you a sense beyond understanding. Without the need to understand. It goes directly to your intuitive senses. It gives you a feeling. It can communicate to you propositionally and give you an understanding. But it’s much harder for me to give you a feeling. I can give you a feeling. I can say, tiger, tiger, burning bright in the forests of the night. What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry? There’s a lot of feeling. And I won’t do the whole thing. A, I probably don’t have it memorized anymore. But I’ll just note. There’s a one word change between the beginning of William Blake’s wonderful poem, The Tiger, and the end. Tiger, tiger, burning bright in the forests of the night. It’s the same. Except for one word. It’s not, could frame thy fearful symmetry. It’s dare frame thy fearful symmetry. And with that one move, ignoring even the rest of the poem, which is indescribably genius. With that one move, that change from could to dare evokes a feeling in you. That is not propositional in nature. It’s a one word change. And not all poetry is rhyming or rhythmical or harmonious or however you want to frame it. It doesn’t all have the same sort of almost musical, if you will, quality. Which is also interesting about poems and poetry. But it has that poetic aspect. I think when Dr. Jim talks about stories, he’s talking about the poetic aspect of the stories. Not that they’re poetry, but a good story. It’s a poetic aspect. And the difference is that you can relate to the story. It evokes a feeling in you. Opens you up to the world. Opens the world up to you. That’s poetics. That’s what I’m talking about. And that’s what we’re trying to do. Perhaps poorly. Poetics is the important type of information in the world that conveys to us directly through our intuition feelings. Rather than propositional ways of understanding and categorizing the world. I’m not saying you shouldn’t understand the things. But I will say you shouldn’t understand most things. Because you don’t need to. Technically. Actually. You just don’t need to. You just need to feel something in a poem that is stated in a language you don’t speak. That’s not propositional. Poems are not propositions. Not that there aren’t propositions in there, but they’re not stressed. And that’s not what’s important about them. What’s important about them is not the information that you gain propositionally from hearing the words and understanding the definition of the words and connecting them and putting them with your other knowledge. It’s the feeling that you get from them. From that engagement. Poetics is the conveyance of that relationship of that feeling directly from you to another person. However that happens could be through music. Could be through a story. Could be through a poem. Could be from a gesture. Could be through the tone of your voice. And I feel a lot of hate is made lately about people not being able to listen or hear properly or people not understanding. And I feel your frustration. Take someone else’s house. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that people have lost the ability to relate to, to connect with the world in a way that they deeply feel these things. You can say evil all day long. You can say Hitler. You can say Satan. You can say those things. But to really feel that touch of maliciousness. And to convey, because maybe you have felt that, to convey to someone else that feeling. That’s a different thing. You can yell at people all day long and scream at them and say, no, really, this person did this horrible thing. They really understand. What if you lived in a household where your relatives threw physical objects at you? That happens, unfortunately. Can you relate to that? I can’t. That didn’t happen to me. When you hear about it, do you feel that? Probably not. But there’s poetry about that. There’s music about that. It sort of helps you get in the spirit, we’ll say, to relate to that. And maybe that’s not a great thing. Maybe it is a great thing. But that poetics is the thing that connects you in a feeling sense, not in an understanding way. You don’t understand poetry. You feel it. It touches the intuitive part of you. It doesn’t enhance your knowledge of the world, but it does, as the councilman noted in the live stream here, enhance your experience. It reconnects you to your own experience by connecting you to someone else’s experience, by conveying a feeling or set of emotions directly into you in a non-propositional way. And again, hopefully, that opens you up to other things, to other ways of interacting. That’s what poetics is about. It’s about relating. Not in a binding way, per se, but relating in a way that opens everything up to you, or at least opens more stuff up to you. Hopefully the right stuff. Where are you? Some poetry is bad. Not poor poetry, but bad to engage in. Bad to engage with. The same way there’s bad philosophy. The same way there’s bad science. The same way there’s a poor way to understand the burgeoning computer industry. Which unbeknownst to me was the way I understood it. I’m not done with that book, by the way. Most of the way through, I believe, but I can’t wait to hear the end. I don’t know where you’re going to stop the story of IBM. What are you saying about it? And if you’re a computer aficionado, Dave’s Garage YouTube channel, he went and did a IBM tour of the factory. Just listen to the stats on the IBM mainframe. Quite impressive from a computer standpoint. Technically unbelievable. We need poetics. That’s how you re-enchant the world. I would argue they’re not available to everyone. We’ve lost the skill. We’ve lost the ability to inform ourselves poetically. There are tons of people in the meaning crisis. And someone tell for meaning crisis. Who don’t read poetry, don’t relate to poetry, don’t want to read poetry, no interest. You’re in trouble. Do I think that they’ll be able to engage with Jonathan Pigeot’s symbolic world? Maybe not. That would be terrible. That’s a very rich place. It’s super informative. His work is amazing. Or maybe they’ll see that as mysticism or mumbo jumbo or woo or whatever phrase you want to use. They’re missing out. I can tell you that. I’ve got my differences with some of the people in the symbolic world. None of the other people write for it. But some of the people in that little segment there in their little symbolic club, some of them go quite far afield in my opinion. Maybe a little dangerous side. But imagine not being able to engage at all. And I know people like that. It’s not that they don’t write poetry. It’s they won’t read poetry. Or worse yet, they never found any value in any poetry they engaged with. Even when they were young. This is a different problem. Now, I’m not saying it’s a unique problem. It’s never happened before in history. Anything like that. But I am saying it’s a different problem from the one we hear described. This is the age of gnosis. Where knowledge as propositions, where understanding from propositions is paramount of highest value and most important. And solves all problems. Because the world is rational after all. And if we just had the understanding, the ability to rationalize it, we would be able to solve it. There’s no enchantment there. And that’s the way they like it. I understand that. And part of the age of gnosis is, to sort of address the livestream bit, this idea of being able to swap things in and out. Can you just take the fairy tales of Mother Goose and replace them with Dr. Seuss? I’m not so sure. I’m a fan of both. But I think if you’re going to swap one out, I’d be very careful which one I swapped out. And that’s the problem. We think we know. Age of Gnosis. We think we have the answer. Age of Gnosis. We calculated a level of certainty. Age of Gnosis. You know, that other side is just as bad. Symmetry, huh? Age of Gnosis. The world is not symmetrical. We actually do know that, oddly enough. And yet, Age of Gnosis does not seem to acknowledge such things. Poetics allows us to feel safe in a world we cannot possibly ever understand. Because that’s the world we’re living in. Poetics connects us to a world impossibly larger than we can imagine. Otherwise, we can’t be connected to it. We can’t be connected to the world we live in. We can’t be connected to it. We can’t have intimate relationships in it. We can’t manifest meaning. It’s too big. If it requires understanding, we’re screwed. Age of Gnosis. Now I’ve started with a story, tried to exemplify the difference between the story and the science-y, Age of Gnosis-y way of relating to the world. Gone a little bit in and out of poetry, hopefully. All to explain poetics. I hope that it worked. I hope that it brought a level of connectedness and feeling to what I’m talking about. A lot of my channel navigating patterns is about changing up your expectations of what it is you think people are talking about. Or how things or words in particular are being used. How phrases are deployed. Improving your maps and models for the world. It’s not poetic as such. It’s more about just, hey, if you’re going to be a materialist, at least be a good one. And this is sort of the transition point into, hey, poetics is the way to go. This is what we’re missing. This is why we’re having these problems. And we are having problems. The biggest problem is the problem of evil. We just don’t recognize it. And we don’t recognize it because we’re busy trying to understand things. And we can’t understand most of the world. Can’t understand most of the things in the world. You can study the history of computers for decades. And if you never run into IBM. You never hear the history all the way back. And it’s not like I didn’t know about the Jucard loom and multiplexing. But there’s a stop along the way with the orchestrions. If you don’t know about orchestrions, look them up. They’re quite interesting. I’ve been in a room full of them. I met a collector of such things. He had a room in his house full of them. One of them was three stories high. Quite a beautiful piece, by the way. If you don’t know about the Jucard loom and orchestrions and how that relates to the IBM mechanical calculators and how they became half mechanical and half electronic and how there was a bet on the three different types of technologies and which one they went with and why, if you don’t know that story. The basement and garage stories of the 60s and 70s companies that built the computer industry sound really exciting. Really interesting, really hopeful. For an individualistic, I can understand the world and make it a better place. I can conquer and overcome. I can rise from nothing narrative. But it’s all false. It’s all a lie. It didn’t happen that way, actually. That’s not the way it went. Maybe that explains some of my business failures. I was told the story of the guy in his basement who built the thing. That great man theory. The problem is great man theory is also true. It’s just not the whole story. And that’s really what poetics wraps up for us. A lot of people are putting a lot of faith in the truth to save us. The truth is not going to save us. I’m sorry. It’s not. Sometimes the truth has to be sacrificed for the good. The fact of the matter is, the thing doesn’t happen without the great man. And there are lots of great men that never become great. That sucks. They’re both true. The truth is that we can’t understand the relationships that are true. We might be able to see some of them some of the time if we’re lucky and we’re good. The fact of the matter is that the truth has to be in proper relationship to the things around it. And scale matters. Forbidden knowledge is a problem. Plato talks about it in the Republic. Everybody seems to ignore this somehow. No one ever mentioned it. Weird. If you want a great man, maybe the last great man, maybe the only great man was Plato. There’s the thought. Maybe that’s why he haunts Nietzsche and Heidegger. And they wrote about it. It’s not me making this up. And maybe that’s why Plato says the great man is bad. The whole American stories are bad. Although maybe he changes his mind later on. It’s hard to know. Might be a more recent plot to discredit myth as such. Because in some ways Homer had it right, for sure. What’s the truth? The poetic Homeric tale? Or the theoretical thing that never replaced it that Plato and Aristotle thought was so important, allegedly? There’s a good question. I think the poetics is probably more important, more necessary to get at the truth. Because the truth is, Little Red Riding Hood happens all the time. The truth is Hansel and Gretel are real. The truth is Goldilocks happens. The truth is the Irish fairies are dangerous. Knowing that won’t save you or anyone else. But getting an intuitive feeling for these things. Being poetically informed about the world in a way that deeply connects you to what’s around you. And opens you up to what could be that you cannot or will not see. That’s important. And that’s why poetics is almost a solution to the age of gnosis. Now I wanted to pen an article about the age of gnosis and I’ve been pondering it for some time. And it’s a difficult thing to do because there’s a lot of other stuff going on. And taking breaks to do things like drive out to Arkansas. Have a wonderful experience. And I’ll be getting to that at some point. I’ll launch my sub-step probably early next year. All things going well on Monday, hopefully. So thoughts and prayers for Monday. Monday is a big day for me. Things go well. All will be well. And things don’t go well. Nothing will be well, most likely. Because I don’t have any more plans. I’m out of backup plans. On Monday I ran out of backup plans. Monday has to go well. Monday has to go very well. But there’s a good possibility that it will. Always helpful. Let me know what you think about poetics. I’m going to catch up to the chat here because I know I’ve been a little negligent. Get some delicious bear claw tea. Hopefully Jesse will be catching up here in a bit. And Sandy, do people still read poetry to their children? I don’t know. I don’t think parents are doing a good job of parenting anymore. Because I think that Dr. Spock divided the world up. And allowed everyone to parent poorly. Just a theory. But yeah, 1960 is bad. I think it’s better to keep writing near to everyday experience rather than too far in the direction of fantasy. Well, in the line of fantasy is a tricky one. And I think to some extent, as much as I like CS Lewis’s fantasy, I think it’s no good. I don’t think it’s particularly well written either. So yeah. I might be wrong about that. But Sandy asks, why symmetry? Well, everybody assumes symmetry. The first thing that happens when you accuse people on a certain side of the political aisle of something going on in the world is that they’re not going to be able to do it. Something going horribly wrong is they say, well, yeah, but we’re no worse than the other side. Only one side does that, by the way. Not both. It’s also an asymmetrical relationship. Is it related to synchronicity? No, it’s not. What is the relationship between these and poetry? Look, poetry is how things are connected. They’re not symmetrical. If they were symmetrical, poetry would be boring. Synchronicity is when things connect. It might be poetic. It might not. It might be very matter of fact. Like I said, I mean, driving along the road and listening to a book recommended by somebody I greatly respect who has a great deal of knowledge, who gave me the most unexpected recommendation I could imagine. Like, the guy is into stories. You think you recommend a story, he recommends a biography. Right? Fair enough. Now I’ve got to pay attention to that. Right? And that leads me to listen to this other thing that leads me to the deep realization that I’m a mopping. But, you know, I already knew that. And I have a cup to prove that I knew that. And if you want one of these cups, you can buy one at my store. Link in the description. Shop.markoawisdom.org. Just to remind yourself that you’re a mopping. You don’t know anything. Chain. Book. Sin of certainty. Covers many of these ideas. Humans. Me included one simple, graspable, knowable world. And when we are lost, right? The confines of the known world. We want more. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we always don’t like to be boxed in. That’s why it’s the Peterson’s sphere and not some ridiculous corner you’re trapped in. Or roped into or whatever. Nathaniel was listening to an evangelical pastor talk about you have to exit the cave like Plato says. I’m out of mark. Losing his mind. Yes. This even makes me lose my mind. I’m convinced fundamentalists are modern Gnostics. Yeah. Well, the age of gnosis makes fundamentalism pretty attractive, right? I mean, it really puts it front and center because it’s easy to fight against and it’s easy to fall into. Because knowledge. And the knowledge is right there. Like, oh, we know how these things happen. It’s outlined in the Bible. Is that the purpose of the Bible? I don’t think the Bible is a history book. I think the Bible is a poetic book, though. Right. It’s not story and not stories. And it’s certainly not only stories, right? Like, we already know that. Psalms, anybody? I don’t know. Ecclesiastes. That’s some pretty whacked out stuff. So what is it? If it’s not a mythos, there’s all kinds of stuff in that crazy text. I mean, I haven’t read it, but I have it on Good Authority. So it’s worth asking the question, like, what is going on there? I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. Yeah. And I think it’s a worthy question. Hello, Alexander. That’s a strange name. La Jexander? Does it have some strange meaning I’m not aware of? Sounds cool. Good to see you. Oh, that bear claw tea just really hits the spot today. So who heard the whole monologue? Who got something out of it? Nathaniel. Where would we get Nathaniel? I think it’s a good question. The theological and mythological stories of wisdom or maybe an exit plan out of this hellscape still deciding. Yeah. Well, maybe you can’t convey wisdom through propositions. Maybe wisdom is poetic only. Might be somewhere in my notes. Vast amounts of notes. I think we’re going to be hitting the notes hard next year, hopefully. A lot of stuff should happen in December and January here, hopefully. We’ll see. Everything depends on Monday. Monday has to go well. If Monday goes well, I can get back to focusing on these other things. Get back to my project of three and a half, four years, however long it’s been. Get back to addressing the meaning crisis, intimacy crisis stuff, which is what I should be doing. And, you know, I’m attempting to do to some extent in these live streams, which are very poetic endeavors, at least I should think. I should hope. I should hope there’s poetics going on. What happened to Jesse? He said he was going to be here. The problem with Australia is that soon doesn’t mean the same thing in Australia, apparently, as it does here in the right-side-up world. I’m just saying. No one, no one has heard my whole monologue and wants to comment on whether it sucked or was confusing or didn’t make any sense or sort of made sense or was awesome. Nothing. Nothing at all. No engagement. I guess I’ll just open it up. Feel free to hop in and engage as you see fit. It took a while to get going. What are you nuts? I jumped right into story. Weird complaint. It always takes a while to get going, too. I mean, come on. What was the get going part? Wasn’t my nice story about convivium and the point about emulation was just that for my entire career, emulation was not something that was couched as invented by a large corporation. It was very much a thing that was couched as somebody invented it in their basement. Oh, there’s Shane. How are you doing? Hey, my lighting is really horrible here. Can you hear me? I can hear you just fine, sir. Awesome. Awesome. I commented earlier today on your exchange with Kale Zeldin, and you mentioned that this livestream would be addressing that. And I think you did a good job of that. I’m kind of curious. I feel like that there’s there’s room or maybe value to quote unquote like steel man. What I saw is perhaps valuable in what he was saying that the gravity of a person’s worldview, like it, it certainly does influence every aspect of your life. The story that you feel like you’re participating in. And I felt like I understood where you were coming from. But I don’t know. I was just curious if you could add any if you could put what he said in like some kind of poetic presentation that would communicate any of the value that that I thought he was trying to add. Sure. Look, I mean, I don’t have a problem with Kale per se. I mean, the problem I have with Kale is probably with everybody, right, including Paul Van der Kley and Jordan Peterson and John Vervecky. Right. Which is you guys are all looking at this all wrong. This is why you’re confused. Right. And so I try very hard and maybe I fail at this, but try very hard, especially on Twitter, but pretty much everywhere. Not to counter what people are saying, unless it’s absolutely wrong, which case I don’t waste my time. I go, no, I just say, no, you’re wrong. Right. And if something’s just wrong, I just do that. So what I’m commenting on, I’m usually not trying to comment in a way that is countering what the other person is saying. Worldview is very important. Yes. Worldview is couching agiagnosis, though, like almost everybody’s. I’m not. The thing is, I’m not exempting myself from agiagnosis or anything. Right. I’m not exempting myself from materialism. The difference is I just hit the end of materialism. Oh, I know a few other people have done that, by the way. We’re all sort of like, what’s wrong with these people? Like, don’t they understand this isn’t going to work? Haven’t they hit the end and figured out there’s no road there? They haven’t, by the way. They seem bright. It seems smarter than me. And maybe they are. But also they haven’t hit the end of materialism. And so when you couch worldviews and you say, look, the problem is your worldview. If you’re not addressing the agiagnosis framing, you could change worldviews up a thousand times. And you’re going to end up with the same freaking problem because the agiagnosis is going to constrain you. And that’s my objection is that I get it. You’re not actually wrong, but your solution isn’t going to work either. You know, and this is where John Bravicki is right. He talks about we have to have a good problem definition. OK, so that’s what we don’t have. Would I? I don’t know if I was feeling the same sort of twinge that you felt when you read it, but it seemed like the way that he stated it, it was saying, here’s the answer. And that is an agiagnosis approach. And yet, boy, our story sure is going to be a huge element of whatever draws us out of the age of gnosis. And so I just see great value because there is a different story to tell. Yeah, but I think any story you tell, you’re going to end up in the same place. And that’s what I think is missing. Can you explain that a little bit? Because I mean, any story I tell, sure. But there are stories that are bigger than me, that I’m sort of participating in. And to me, that’s where the poetry comes in. And it’s a dance and it’s a relationship. And so it’s not a story I own, but it is certainly a story that I have to sort of understand to a certain degree to participate in. Ah, that’s where we disagree. No, you don’t have to understand any of it. Like literally, that’s what I understand. Okay, I’ll even grant you that. I will totally grant you that. Right. And so if you think the key is tell a better story, I would say you’re already absolutely, completely wrong. Because telling a story means, to a very large extent, like understanding, well let’s just say understanding the limitations of your worldview, which is something I talk about. So you don’t understand the limitations of your worldview. Fair enough. I’m not wrong about that. But also it’s a stupid thing to say, right? Because that won’t fix anything. I don’t want to dominate here. I want to hear what Father Eric has to say too, but I am a little bit curious how you integrate the role of story that is useful and powerful in communication. Like there are aspects of life that came into my awareness and I have been able to participate in helping my kids mature into… I don’t even know if that’s even true. At some level, they’re able to read and recognize bigger stories. And having them read those stories is beneficial. I don’t know if you ever heard, I can’t remember who introduced the concepts of like narrative dependent and then narrative like transcendent, whatever. But where we’re like the little kid, like they were told where babies come from or who Santa Claus is. And at some point they’re like defending the story that they know. And somebody tells them a little bit different story in there. They’re sort of traumatized by the fact that this other story is a little like has has truth to it that kind of corrupts their understanding. And so they’re panicked. They’re like, oh, my God, my world is falling apart. And so they go through a process of realizing, oh, there are actually many different stories. And some of them actually are more inclusive of different sort of verifiable truths that I understand. None of them can capture it perfectly. Whatever all of that. And so, so all I’m all I was wanting to get kind of as my last little question before I bow out here is how do you how do you recognize and and and support the value of story and story? Of story and storytelling and still and the value or whatever the presence, maybe it’s not even value. It’s just the truth that different stages of maturity have the capacity to understand different depth of story. How do you recognize that without what and simultaneously hold on to what you’re saying about there not being a need to understand to participate? Because I also understand that to be like it must be true because we’re participating in stories so far beyond beyond our comprehension. Right. So, again, I think and I will let Father Eric take this because he’s going to be able to talk about this better than I can, especially with his say love of the Latin mass, which which I’m sort of a fan of. I don’t necessarily participate in such things. Although I have been right. You don’t understand. And I actually took that and I feel that and quite spectacularly every year I took it. But I don’t understand the Latin mass. I’m just I’m not that I was never that fluent in Latin. I did fail it after all. Right. But I can still participate in it. And so my understanding of the language is not important. Now, if you want to extend story past language, fair enough. Yeah. Problem with stories that lots of people have lots of stories. Sam Harris can give you a story about your determinism. It’s wrong, by the way. Right. But and I can counter with the postmodern all stories are wrong argument. Postmoderns aren’t incorrect about that. Just their point is irrelevant, which is a different problem. Right. They’re also lying to you by omission because they’re not talking about the hierarchy of correctness of story. Right. Yeah. No story is true. Fair enough. No author. You know, the meaning of a story that an author wrote is not the only meaning of the story. Yeah. Fair enough. Who cares? You’re a moron. Like this is not an interesting point. Right. Because there’s a participation the author is in that is past what they understand and can propositionalize. Absolutely. Like, but tell me something new. Like all you’ve told me is the sun rises in the east. I already knew that. Like I get it. You for Cohen, Derrida put a lot of fancy words around it. But like not interested. So Father Eric, you’re a priest. You do this thing. This participation thing. How many people do you think understand the story they’re participating in versus how many people in the world? Versus how many people are just participating without, we’ll say, a deep understanding of the story. And how important do you think that is? Like to really get it at the question. Yeah. I think it is worthwhile to take a look at this word understanding. And I think if you look at etymologically, the way that you’re using it would also be very similar to comprehend. Which literally means to get your hands around something. And if that’s the way you’re doing using the word understand, then there is like one person who fully understands what’s happening in, let’s say, the mass. And that’s Jesus Christ himself. Everybody else, you know. No, no, we don’t properly understand that. But the goal isn’t actually understanding or or it’s sort of like if you wait until you understand something before you begin practicing it, that you’ll never actually go anywhere. You’ll never actually even get started. Instead, you will just sit there and like continue to try and stack a proposition on top of property. A proposition on top of proposition, continuing to just learn more and more, uselessly spinning your wheels, things that you can figure out with a couple hours of practice there. And I think ultimately the goal of a lot of this participation, we’re just going to assume we’re talking participation in good things here, not participating in evil, is to actually grow into it, to actually step into whatever it is that you’re participating in, the mass, the life of the church, Christianity. Those are things I happen to be a fan of and grow into it to the point where you can reach a level of maturity of it, which is why I don’t think that churches should have sectioned off cry rooms for children to stay in for the entirety of the liturgy. What’s nice about my old parish is they’ve got these little shrines off to the side, off to the side altar, so parents can like dash in there if they’ve got a kid who’s really getting out of line and they can calm them down in there. They can get out of the way. It’s a quick escape too. I think they like that. They don’t have to go all the way to the back of the church, right off to the side. And there’s big statues in there. The kids will just look at them. But yeah, the kids need to be a part of mass because even though they would understand less than I do, I don’t actually fully understand what I’m doing. Even when I’m doing mass, just the regular simple daily mass in English, I don’t fully understand what I’m doing. And that’s why things like poetry are really cool because I’m just going to toot my own horn here. With a good, a well written poem, the words convey more than they signify. Right. It’s just, and this is just something I’ve been thinking about after arguing with a dedicated, very pious materialist over Thanksgiving. It’s just, yeah, no, this is now, praise God, is worked into a fundamental axiom of my worldview is that a whole is more than the sum of its parts. And yeah, yeah, and poetry, like somehow putting together propositions. If you if you have the correct, we’ll say harmony and truth and brilliance to them. They bring more than the words actually mean. No, it’s a good world. No, that’s that’s good. That’s good. Yeah. And I think that’s it. Like there are ways to participate with something that have nothing to do with whether or not you know what’s going on or how much you know what’s going on. Sometimes you need to know very little about what’s going on. Look, every company needs a bookkeeper, which is not the same as an accountant. Every company needs a bookkeeper. Someone has to do that work. Now, somebody who can also do other work can do that work, maybe. Right. But you can have somebody who can just do the bookkeeping. There’s nothing about your business. They’re participating in the business without understanding what you make or what you do or how it’s done. There’s nothing wrong with that. Right. In fact, it’s better because they can focus on doing good bookkeeping. Right. If I try to do bookkeeping, I’m like, oh yeah, this is it. Oh yeah, that’s related to this thing. And that that was this project. And I get lost in that stuff sometimes. I mean, I have special skills. Sometimes I can shut that off. But boy, it’s hard. You have to actually shut it off in my brain. My brain. That’s why God gave us bean counters to count the beans so that somebody else doesn’t have to count the beans. Yeah, it’s all it’s all beautiful. It’s all good. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, hopefully, Sandy, this is answering your question. What does it mean to not to understand the story to participate in it? Right. Well, you don’t need to. Right. And what does what does understand mean in this context? Look, in order for me to go to the convivium retreat event, right, and participate with them, I didn’t know what I was getting into. They didn’t know what the hell they were doing. And this is a big joke there, mainly because just before I got there, or maybe on my way, in fact, I listened to. Yeah, I was on my way up. I listened to Rafe Kelly talk to Paul Van Du Clea about the art conference, and they opened with a bunch of criticism and they closed with a bunch of criticism, too. And the criticism, from my perspective, that was peppered throughout that, it’s a good conversation, actually, in many ways, not in the ways they intended. I’ll say that right. So they’re participating in something they don’t understand right there. The criticism was ridiculous. They were like, I feel like they should know better what they were doing. How many conferences of groups of people fighting other groups of people do you think these people have actually run? How about zero, right? That had to be their first one. Like, I’m going to set up a group counter to the WEF. How many people have ever done that? Peterson’s never done that. I can just tell you right off the top of my head. I’m kind of an expert there. No, he’s never done that. And you expect him to be able to do that in a certain way and make it clear to you? That’s a ridiculous set of expectations. I think we have to make an important distinction here between understanding what you’re doing and orienting yourself towards a goal. Those are very, very different things. You know, I think about my brother. He was a very good musician, right? He didn’t understand music now the way that he did when he was in seventh grade, the way that he when he picked up the guitar, the way he does now. He had no ability to comprehend, you know, like all of the crazy jazz theory that he’s got running through his head now. And it just it just flows out of him. It’s kind of annoying, actually, because he’ll just sit there like playing the guitar and be like, hey, man, this is like from Stevie Wonder’s fulfilling his first finale album. But everybody’s trying to like talk about anything else, you know, but I keep him entertained so the rest of the party can go on. But he set out as a seventh grader and he had this goal of learning how to play the guitar. And while he was pursuing that goal, it opened up a whole bunch of the world for him. Right. Really, he found a spot there. He’s a music teacher now. He loves he loves being a music teacher. So now look, it looks like that did it. Right. Yeah. Any day I can make Sandy’s day a little better is a good day. That’s yes, I agree. I struggle with that. That’s that’s one of those situations. There’s lots of things that I engage him without understanding. I remember Lynn, you know, who actually did a wonderful, wonderful chat with with Vanderclay. And I remember distinctly the first day Lynn came on the Discord server was the after MC, the awakening from the meeting crisis Discord server. And I said to Manuel right away, I think Manuel probably remembers this. I said, dude, I don’t know what’s up with Lynn, but I don’t think we’re going to be able to help her. And I was wrong. I was totally wrong. We totally helped her. And I don’t understand what we did for her or how we did it. I know what we did worked. She said so. Clear as day now. Right. But back then, no, I didn’t think I didn’t think we had the tools. I didn’t really capability. And we participated with her in such a way that she got help. And it really helped her out quite a bit. And, you know, she said she said as much in that talk with Paul Vanderclay. And I’m very grateful for what she said. And that’s the thing. That that’s participation without understanding like I don’t understand what the hell I’m doing. I’ve had a busy week preparing for big event on Monday and, you know, traveling and all this other stuff and absorbing all the wonderfulness from convivium event, which words are not going to be able to convey. And boy, there’s not a lot of prep for this for this monologue. I’m just going with the flow, literally. Right. I’m in the flow. And, yeah, I mean, I think I think that’s important to to to recognize music and poetry. It’s a gift. Yeah. Yeah, it really is. It really is. Sandy Mark, you did draw me in with the intriguing title. Good. Well, we’re experimenting with with language and words and what’s drawing who and all that. So that’s good to know. Thank you. Thank you. It’s good information for me to have so that I can sort of reorient what’s working and what’s not working. We’re working on renaming practices and things like that to make them more appealing. So that’s that’s helpful. Thank you, Anselman. Good night. It’s always nice to see you. And I hope you have a wonderful time this next coming week. I’ll see you back next week and more bright eyed and bushy tailed and prepared for for monologues and such not. Let’s see how it goes. Yeah. I mean, I think having you know, doing this particular experiment, this is an experiment. We’ll see how it goes, especially with Twitter, because people have been asking me for videos on agenosis on Twitter. And I’m like, wow, that’s overwhelming. I’m not prepared for that. But I just saw this segue, this opportunity to talk about convivium, talk about what happened as the result of convivium, more importantly, because it’s actually a better story in some sense. And how that plays into the age of gnosis. Right. Because people are asking me for solutions or you get this great framing for age of gnosis. Yes. And I backed into it. So I do have solutions for age of gnosis. But first, we’ve got to lay some groundwork and oh, by the way, I’m traveling. Oh, by the way, I got some stuff going on. This is not easy. Right. So so so yeah, I mean, it’s good. I’m glad to be able to engage with this. And I have a lot of help from you, Father Eric and and other lots of other people to Sally, Joe and Manuel and Michelle and all these other people. So that’s that’s really helpful. Sandy Market probably aligns with how my YouTube thinks. Oh, your YouTube thinks, does it? I don’t always go check every channel that I follow. But YouTube knows interests that I follow. Yeah. Fetch me a lunch break. Oh, OK. And you like the title. Well, that’s good to know. Thank you. That’s really helpful. Maybe I can glean some insight from the silly algorithm because they changed everything recently on YouTube. The algorithm is completely scrambled up compared to how it was before. I’m not sure there’s rhyme and reason to it, but it might just be scrambled every once in a while so it doesn’t get overfit. Yeah, they do. Well, right. It’s it’s worse than overfit. It’s it’s a bigger problem, right. It’s it’s that the distributed cognition of the people that are trying to gain the system, which is significantly smarter than the people that build the system because it’s always always. They they figure they fit to the algorithm, then the algorithm has to change to unfit them. And yeah, and that’s an imperfect process. And that’s why when people are like the algorithms manipulating you, like actually the people manipulating the algorithm are manipulating you, not the algorithm. You don’t know how bad this problem is. Well, there it is. OK, so soon. All right, Jesse, tell us what soon means to you in a poetic way. Listen, Jesus promised us he was returning soon, and that was about 2000 years ago. So all right, I’m going to give Jesse this one. He’s doing all right. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to. I think it’s the quote from Tolkien. So that is that is the quote. Well done. Well done. There’s your poetics, too. Yeah, so this is an interesting thought. So I just watched this afternoon a conversation between P.V.K. and Cale Zeldin. They were talking about stories. That was something that Cale Zeldin, the English teacher, wanted to talk about with P.V.K. And I thought it was a really interesting conversation. And just as one of the little side they put in there, they talked about how sometime in the mid 1990s, the world was really primed. Yes, I have considered it. The world was really primed for a story where you’re a wizard. I wonder why. Right, right. And it’s like on the one hand, you know, you can see that at first for enchantment there, which fantasy story seems to provide. And I’m not saying that nobody should read Harry Potter. But what does a wizard do? Wizard uses his magic words to produce the effects of his power in the world. So we all think that we’re wizards. We could just say the magic words, make what we want to have happen happen and without cost and without effect. Because that’s the problem. Because that’s the problem. You know, it’s like I don’t know why Dumbledore is a better wizard than Harry Potter, because all of the energy seems to just come from nowhere. Yes, right. It seems to be an equal access force situation where the force of the elder wand can’t lose a duel. Right. Yet it’s not it’s not explainable, which is fine. Right. And it was still a decent story. I don’t mind it. So, yeah, it was. Well, and just just, Jesse, you did not disappoint. My request was filled perfectly. That was very good. Not that I ever doubted that you pull it off. I just wanted to say, though, that this is the problem with story. Story is still a compression, a flattening, a reduction. Right. And if you noticed what I would call the postmodern critique, which I think it was, I don’t get this from nowhere. I actually read this stuff, guys. This isn’t hard. You could read it, too. You have to do a lot of research. That’s my one thing. I do a lot of research. I’ve done a lot of research. A lot. If you look at the horrors of the mid nineteen hundred early early to mid nineteen hundreds. Right. And what sprang from that? It certainly looks like. Charisma used words to change the world. And to shape the world the way they wanted to. It looks like that. It looks like that’s what was going on. And you see that reflected in the art. That’s where the wizardry comes from. Right. That’s why they’re writing about wizards. They see a wizard. They see these wizards. Those wizards are real. They’re actual. They manifested in a way that we can relate to because they were persons. And they did things seemingly, but only seemingly. Simulacra with words. The words correlated and corresponded to what happened. But I’m telling you it works without the words for real. And so we fooled ourselves in the age of gnosis to believe that it’s the propositions that did the thing. Then you get Harry Potter later. But also to some extent you get Tolkien. There’s so many wonderful places we could go with this. There’s less magic in Tolkien. That’s true. Can I address one thing first? Let me grab Shane because I’ve known Shane for a while. I’m at Shane and Clubhouse. Wonderful person. How do you add anti-gnostic motivation to more willing, humble participate in the epic? Okay. Oh, gosh. This is the problem, right? So you’ve already used the actual magic word, by the way. No, really. You’ve invoked it. A form of it. Humility. That’s a good question. I think this is where I agree with Pervaiki. One of the places. One of the many places. Because I agree with Pervaiki on a bunch of things. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practically. Practices are that. The better question then is how do you get people to do practices and how do you get them interested in the right practices? Because I can tell you, okay, DMT and psilocybin are not the right practices. I can just tell you that, right? I already know this. All the scientific data also backs me up. By the way. There might be one or two pieces of scientific data I’m not aware of that don’t back me up. I would like to see that though because people have literally been telling you this for decades that these pieces of scientific data exist and they have been unable to produce them. Which makes me suspicious by the way. Just a little bugaboo that I have. Because I do research. So when I tell people, no that’s not what the scientific data says, it’s because I actually read it and they didn’t. Because they’re telling me it says something and they can’t produce it. So you don’t think so. Anyway. That’s my little rant over about that. I’m getting really pissed about that though. Jesse, take it away. Okay. Okay. So roughly speaking from that 1900 onward point of view from there, we see the magnification or emphasis in materialism. This gets kind of repeated over time in different forms. We can most see this transition from artisanship being a lifestyle or a class of people and it’s transferred onto materialistic examples or role models. It’s no longer a certain type of person, it’s the person, it’s an individual. I would say this is best made clear in the 1960s rock and roll where you have the rock and roll guitarist is now a wizard of music. He’s doing the magic trick of the electric guitar solo. This changes the emphasis from a wizard as a lifestyle into wizardry or magic in a materialistic sense that’s just a one off event that people can excuse. Whether you’re talking in sort of a magic role when we can talk more about that and how he defines that because I just recently learned about this, which is interesting. Yes. But what I wanted to bring up here is that transition from artistry as in you are the artist producing something out in the world versus artistry in a specific context, time and place. And then when that happens, what happens to the 1960s rock star or guitar wizard, they go into realms of chaos because they’re containing their artistry or magic or technique in a purely economic sense at the bottom for them. They’re kind of self-decepting themselves in this is just music that I do. It’s not resonating anywhere else in my life. And then you get all sorts of craziness. Yeah. Well, in the meantime, the drummer runs the band, which is even funnier, right? It’s 90% true, right? I think with the Who, it probably would have been John Edwistle. Well, or the bassist, right? But it’s one of the guys in the back that does the steady beats and keeps things moving. It’s not the guy who does the flashy cool thing that is all over the place, right? It’s not the guitar solo guy, generally speaking. It’s not the singer guy, right? It’s actually the guy that holds everything together in the music, actually, who holds the band together, actually. A little weird. But also, and I think Tolkien actually got this wrong, dare I say it. I know I just lost a bunch of fans right there, but he talks about the mechanistic world. That’s incorrect. What he’s describing is the materialistic world. And he’s contrasting it deliberately, although perhaps unknowingly, perhaps knowingly, I wasn’t there, with the ethereal world, right? Like, Hobbiton is a magical place. It’s actually what it is. And you can point and say the elves are magical, but they’re too magical. They’re leaving the world. Hobbits are the ones holding the damn world together. That’s what’s happening. Is that deliberate on Tolkien’s part? Maybe. I don’t know. But he described everything as metal and tekne. Tekne is actually not the problem. Tekne aimed at the right goal, right? And oriented in the right way. Gives you the Sharp Cathedral. Right. Right. And we could build Sharp Cathedral with cranes. And we’re not. But what the hell is up with that? Like, what is wrong with us? We have cranes, right? We have hydraulics. We’ve got encrete. We’ve got big trucks that could move stones in a day that would take months in the medieval world to move. Right. And you can make an argument that we shouldn’t. Like, I would buy that argument. Like, maybe it should take days. I’ve mentioned this before, but there’s a wonderful documentary. I think it’s on Amazon Prime for free. If you have Prime, it’s not really free, I guess. It’s called ITER, or ITER, right? And it’s based on this fusion reactor project. And, you know, it’s one of those things like, I know all about fusions. It’s one of those cool things that I like to follow because it’s cool. If it happens, I’m there, man. Fusion has been talked about as a mystical, magical solution to all our energy needs since the 1940s. It showed some of the commercials. And I was like, what the hell? Like, this is unimaginable. I mean, actually, I could not imagine it. I’m watching it going like, is this Doctor? Because we’re living in that age anyway. We’re like, I don’t know. It’s real. This looks like 1940s, but really, I think it was 47. Like, really on TV. What? So they’ve been foisting this garbage on us the whole time. But the interesting thing about it’s a fascinating documentary. I totally recommend it. The interesting thing about the documentary is one part. They keep showing this guy. This is so fascinating. Just showing this guy. He’s a scientist dude, right? He’s on the project team to build the one, the big fusion reactor, the big, you know, 70-year project they’ve been on for this fusion reactor. And they keep showing him on the site of the reactor, like either in his office or on the construction site, and then in his garden at his house. And I was just like, oh, that’s so fascinating. And then I think he’s in his garden, if I remember correctly, although he might have said this more than once. He says, I won’t be alive when this project is completed. Right. And then he’s talking to the workers. And he goes, you guys probably don’t understand this. Right. So they’re participating in something. The guy pouring the concrete or setting the blocks or whatever for the fusion reactor clearly doesn’t understand what he’s working on. Come on. Nobody on that project understands what they’re working on. They’re lucky if they understand part of the piece they’re working on. That would be fantastic. Also, that’s in the documentary. If you watch carefully, you’ll notice nobody understands the hell they’re doing. Projects are a mess. Totally off budget and off time and totally confused. Right. They don’t understand what they’re doing. He goes to these workers who don’t understand what they’re working on. And he says, I know you probably don’t understand this, but this is going to revolutionize the lives of your children and grandchildren. Isn’t that cool? And gets them all pumped up on this. Very unusual scientists, by the way. I’ve met a lot of scientists. I live in Boston. I hung out at MIT. No, really. I actually hung out at MIT. It’s not that hard. It’s an open campus. Got a whole lot of orators there. Look, I like those types of people. I get along well with engineers. I translate engineering speak into all other languages. I’m a great translator of that stuff. But man, these guys are not the most inspiring people on the planet for the most part. And the ones that are are so rare that they are a treasure and they should be treated as such. I agree. The Dean Kamens of the world absolutely deserve all the kudos in the world. Right. Absolutely. Right. Elon Musk, big fan. Don’t like any of his projects. Maybe one of them. Twitter. I like Twitter. I think that’s a good project. Electric cars are stupid. Whatever. But I’m still a fan of Elon Musk and I still support him doing electric cars. Going to Mars? Completely retarded. Total dumb on all fronts. At least electric cars is feasible at some scale. Going to Mars is not even remotely useful in any scale. Having the project of going to Mars and then ending up going somewhere else, which is a theme of the IBM story I was talking about earlier, is useful in many unexpected ways because you don’t know what comes out from that. I kind of know that story from the breakup of AT&T and that whole instance in the computer industry. AT&T created a bunch of stuff for computers to, you know. But again, without IBM, I’m not sure how that story plays out. I’d have to do some more research on that. Maybe I will because, boy, am I hooked into the large scale, top-down, emanation version of how the computer industry grew, which I apparently, unbeknownst to me, knew nothing about. I’m like, oh, look, I’ve just invalidated a bunch of things I thought I knew. Now I have a bunch more research to do. So, oh, thanks, Father Eric. That’s wonderful. I appreciate that. I admit that all the time. You people just don’t listen. Ears. You don’t sound like you admit that. That’s the problem. That’s interesting because I actually say that all the time. Humility. Humility. I say that all the time. I say, oh, I don’t know about that. Oh, I don’t know about that. Or I thought I knew that, but turns out I knew nothing. And I say that all the time and you guys don’t hear it, which I just, it cracks me up. I’m like, I don’t understand this. Yeah, man. Tone is real. Tone is real. I agree. I agree. I agree. If we want to get back to Tolkien for a moment, he has a distinction in his, which is really good because Tolkien’s sense of magic is a closed world or Tolkien’s storytelling, more or less, because when you use magic in any of these stories, you actually, it’s a storytelling element. So in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series or Fantastic World or whatever, Wizarding World, she’s trying to rebrand it as in hindsight because she made a lot of errors, a lot of errors in her, you could say, concreting of a world. But hers is an open world where she can constantly explain and change the rules and then forgets that she’s changing the rules and how things work and what it actually means in terms of the story. So, which is why the Fantastic Beasts project will fail. It already has failed miserably. The last two movies suck. Like hardcore suck. They just, they just dead in the water. Oh no. No, no, no. You can’t re-enchant the thing that you already tried to re-enchant. It didn’t work in the first time because she doesn’t actually have an ending to Harry Potter. She has several endings. And that’s the same problem with the Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings movie is that he didn’t actually have an ending. He just tried seven endings and said, there you go, guys, just you make it, you make it work. And then he’s like, oh, you still don’t like that? We’ll do an extended edition and we’ll give you even more endings. Maybe that will work. Tolkien actually has a clear, this is the thing I was trying to say when he ends his story. Again, because he’s got a closed world mindset. Right. It was like the whole story was so that Sam and Rosie could live happily ever after in Hobbiton. Right. And that’s what all the fighting is about. Well, and so this is so when I talked about Dr. Jim and, you know, my utter amazement at meeting him in person and finding out he’s all that and more like his conversations with Vanderclaar are all about this. His closed world versus open world is U-shaped story where High Noon, right. Oh, he rides off and marries the woman. And who knows what happens. Right. Versus notice I said Sam and Rosie, even though Rosie is barely a character in Lord of the Rings. Right. Those two. That’s important. Well, and it contrasts that with James Bond, right, where there’s no pairing that goes on. Right. There’s a temporary sort of hedonistic. James Bond stories end in the books with him losing someone or not getting the girl, which is a complete antithesis to what the movies do, which is the movies like he always gets it and he gets away at the end, which is that. That was Ian Fleming’s point. He gets it. And his lifestyle of a secret agent is to basically be miserable for the rest of your life serving the government that you don’t understand. Right. Well, and that’s the thing that people that serve the government don’t understand anything. They have no idea. Right. Yeah. The president of the United States has no idea what’s getting in. That’s why they all get gray hair early. Right. Like they think they know what they’re getting into. And then it just turns up. They had no freaking clue what they had signed up for, what forces were ruling over them, despite the fact that they’re at the top of the hierarchy, because that isn’t how hierarchy actually works ever. Right. That’s the postmodern view is top down power through force or threat of force from above. But that never happened. There are rare exceptions where that appears to happen for a short period of time, but it doesn’t last very long. That’s the story of the chimps that Peterson tells. Right. Friends to wall and all that. But, you know, ultimately, that’s not the way of things for very long. And that’s the problem. Like lots of things work at small scale. Lots of things work for a short time. Lots of things. But it’s lots of things. This is where people get confused with emergence. And emergence is good. And, oh, yeah, you know, these big chip factories like TI, we’re just cranking on all these freaking chips. And then, you know, there’s was in the basement building the first Apple computer and, you know, whatever. And, you know, the BBC is building their BBC micros. None of that happens. None of that. Even with was Steve Jobs opening, you have open and closed systems coming up there, too, with was just trying to say, no, people want to add on and do different things. And right. And Jobs goes, no, no, no. This is it. This is what it does. It’s pragmatic. It’s high level, like highly sophisticated in what it does. It doesn’t do anything else. It’s a great Apple computer. It’s not this thing that you have to keep adding into and re-expanding in order for it to be great. Right. Practical. Well, and that’s funny, right? Because there’s the trade off. And people don’t like that at all. Right. But there’s a trade off there. It’s a very important trade off because Steve Jobs is right. Ultimately, obviously. My mom doesn’t want to tinker with electronics. She wants her phone to work. So she has an iPhone. Right. Well, and you don’t want to learn how to use it. And you don’t have to because the iPhone is way more intuitive. Right. It just matches what you want to do. It’s a very consistent interface. It lacks a lot of features. But the things it does well, it does really well. And it is hard to get that level of proficiency on the competing product line of Android. But there’s so much more you can do with an Android phone. I think everyone’s against too that he didn’t just start from nothing. He released the iPod. So it was an MP3 player that had a different interface to all the MP3 players, CD players. And then it was the touch. It was kind of this expanded thing. You can go on the web with your music player. Isn’t that great? And then it became, oh, it’s a phone now, slash the library of Alexandria, slash the thing that’s going to destroy the world. But that and LED lights don’t like LED lights. But it was a constant growing. It wasn’t just, oh, here’s the closed system. It was, okay, seeding the concept, getting you familiar with this. You already know how to operate as a device like this. So it wasn’t too much of a buy-in that you had to do. It was, oh, really actually quite pragmatic and practical. Oh, it’s a magic Swiss Army knife now that we can all use to communicate with. And that was the great sales pitch. He kept saying over and over again, and that video has popped up a lot lately, which I find interesting. It’s a phone. It’s an Internet browser. It’s a music player. It’s a phone. He does it over and over again until people realize, oh, he’s talking about one thing, talking about three functions, but one device. And that’s this huge, huge breakthrough at the time. We don’t see the tradeoff and we don’t recognize the value in that, but also the tradeoff we’ve made to get that value. Now, I want to look back at wizards and dictators in the 20th century. That seems like there was something different that happened there, and that is the possibility of amplification and recording that the technology available at that time meant that, let’s say, at a rally, you could amplify your voice so that thousand people could hear you as if you were right there. Yeah, this is also the printing press. Yeah. And that seems to, though both of those things seem to amplify the power of the spoken word, which I think is always more powerful than the written word. No, no, they don’t. They cause the age of gnosis. In other words, what they do is they allow you, you, Father Eric, you have direct access to something that in the past you could never have direct access to. Now what happens is that the technology is not available to you. You can have direct access to the speech of the guy who saved Germany single-handedly. For real. For real. It’s a part of the story everybody misses because they’re middle-out thinkers. The guy saved Germany. No, I’m not being hyperbolic. Probably the biggest actual, I’m not being hyperbolic. The guy saved Germany. No, I’m not being hyperbolic. Probably the biggest actual miracle from the perspective of the time since somebody walking on water. No, really. I’m not being hyperbolic. I think this is a literal sea change, right? But you have direct access to, like, this is, now I can turn that around. And I do. Go on the web, wherever you have to go, find, I think it’s the Nuremberg rally actually, find the speech that he gives. Either shut the translation off or don’t have a translation. I do not want you even listening to the audio. Just watch the rally and pay attention to how you feel when Hitler’s out there. Look, you don’t have to sell me on this. The uniforms get me. You could take the biggest dweeb in the world and put them in those boots with the big shoulders and nice sharp lines on it. It’s like, oh, man, instant makeover right there. And what is that? And if you have the sound on, even if you don’t understand, because I don’t understand a word of German, really, maybe one or two words of German. If you have the sound on, all there is there, and this is the danger. This is the thing that really bothers me. More beauty. The uniforms are beautiful. The stage is beautiful. The lighting is beautiful. The tone is beautiful. The language is spoken. Choreography. The choreography is beautiful. All of it is beautiful. OK, you watch the parade. Watch one of the parades where he’s in the car with whatever. I don’t care. That’s beautiful. Really is. It’s also extremely dangerous and extremely bad and extremely evil. But it’s beautiful. Beauty is not going to save the world either. Right. But again, turn it around. Right. Age of Gnosis has flattened the world. Well, now we can go back and we can look and we can say, all right, well, what the hell did the guy do? Now, I can tell you because I have research. Boy, did I research. Microfisha. Libraries and reading actual newspaper articles. Contemporary newspaper articles. And sections and whatever, you know, not whole books because I’m lazy. Reading is hard. Super dyslexic. Right. But actual segments and stuff of people talking about what was actually going on in real time. OK. Very different story. Very different story. When Peterson says you’d be a Nazi guard. Boy, he has no idea how right he is. I’m sorry. But I don’t. He’s not a Nazi guard. He’s a Nazi guard. I’m sorry. But I don’t. He does not emphasize this correctly at all. You would totally be on board with that. You know which demographic Hitler was least popular with? Catholics. Oh. We already had the uniforms and the pageantry and the beauty. So he couldn’t he couldn’t allure us in with that. I say us as if I was there. Right. Well, and then and then people were also hungering for leadership. Right. And you’ve been banging on about leadership recently. And it’s like, well, we have the pope, you know, it’s it’s even if even if let’s say the elites of the Weimar Republic are useless. We can look somewhere and find it because it’s a thick hierarchy. It was it was resisting flattening. That’s right. That’s right. Well, and when you’re embedded in that heart, you know, we talked about this with Corey a few weeks ago on your open mic Sunday live stream. Right. I was like, oh, the loss of the monastery is way bigger than people talk about, like way bigger. Because when you have a monastery and you have a church and you have the rest of the village and all the things that normally go on in the village, you have a much deeper, much deeper hierarchy. And that depth, even though it looks like one layer, is actually a huge, big deal because now you learn to deal with deep hierarchy as such. That changes everything. So when you when you go back to, oh, it’s the technology and now we’ve got the printing press and the ability to what you have the ability to do on the other side is more important. But that’s also why it breaks down. Right. So Stalin and Hitler and Mao can only do what they do in that time frame. Actually, why? Because right after that, that technology to do that level of transmission to individuals democratizes as it’s called, right, or spreads out. It’s another way to think about democracy. It’s spreading out. I know. Flattening. Yeah. Right. And now all of a sudden, what rises in that place? Well, we don’t want a single person. Maybe we’ll have three big news networks. Really? So that’s another way to look at it. Right. And then what happens is, well, they corrupt eventually, too, because corruption. Right. They spread out. There’s five big or six big news networks. Yeah. The big three lose their grip. Now there’s CNN and Fox and MSNBC. Right. And they’re coming from other places. Effectively. Right. They’re not coming from where the original news organizations came from. Maybe I’ll do a video on this. Fascinating history, actually. Right. And then, and now what’s happened? Oh yeah. All that corrupted. So now people are getting their news from social media. Because this is all the same progression. It’s all the same pattern. Nobody thinks of it that way. And everybody thinks of it from, well, what about this one guy has this power projection? Yeah. That was only a short period of time. It was only 50 years, 30 years, something like that, somewhere in that range. I don’t want to pin it down. It’s not important. It’s over. It became over. The problem didn’t go away though. Right. Because the problems on the receiver end. I now have direct access to what this great person or this potential great person is saying. Right. Like I can now just engage with Jordan Peterson in some direct way. And like I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Obviously I’m a huge Peterson fan. I’m rah rah Peterson all the way. Maybe to the chagrin of certain people. Sorry, Elizabeth. Not that I think everything he says is right, but big fan. I can engage with these great people, potentially greater people. There you go. What are you pointing at, Jason? In particular. He’s pointing at 12 more rules. The other 12 more rules. Yeah. I have a copy of 12 more rules. Signed by Peterson. Thanking me for. Oh, you have a relic. I do actually have a relic. He has a relic. Relic from the 2016 Meemaw’s. Yeah. But that’s the impact. The impact is the amplification of individualism. The amplification of no sickness. Of, oh, I now have direct access to this information unfiltered. But the problem is unfiltered is not good for me. Because I can’t actually discern that the guy up on the beautiful stage with the beautiful choreography and the beautiful uniforms and the beautiful equipment behind him with the lyrical speech is full of it. I don’t have that level of discernment. I need to rely on somebody for that. As I was saying, when I started coming on the 1960s rock star, where did that come from? That fascination. How was that different from what we’re talking about in mid-century Germany? It’s one guy. Often it’s one or two guys. In the case of the mid-century Germans, it was literally three or four guys that were a band, essentially. It was a small elite that captivated an entire audience. It had all the women screaming and losing their minds. Beatles equals globalism confirmed. The effect of the Beatles on the United States is a thing. And it’s enabled by the same technique. But it’s not initially at least bad. I mean, I’m not a fan of the Beatles for many, many reasons. Their early work is great, by the way. But to Bern Power’s excellent point, there was a change in the Beatles. And boy, that wasn’t good. And not all their music after that was bad or anything like that. But I’ve never been a Beatles fan ever, not even once. I never understood the fascination personally, but they certainly have. Random aside, which will make a point. The Beatles became bad when they started imitating others rather than doing their own work. When the Beatles said, we want to make something as good as the Beach Boys’ pet sounds, and we will try to do that, that was the moment when the Beatles became ideological. And then you can see all the later work after that, it’s all gone. It’s all garbage. When they said, we’re going to start imitating someone else rather than being essentially part of our own spirit. So that would change our brand would be the easiest way for materialistic people to understand. Bern Power says it’s when they take Bob Dylan’s critique seriously. Well, which is interesting because it’s a critique. And this is a dangerous thing. Well, and I think that follows from that to some extent. They’re like, oh, yeah, he’s right. And also, we want to carve this up. Oh, everybody likes this Beach Boys sound. Maybe we can use that, combine the critique of Bob Dylan and our talents, what we bring to the table, and then form this thing. And then that extensively actually kind of seems to work to some extent. Right. But I’ve noticed patterns in people who like the Beatles, by the way. They are not good patterns. They may seem good on the surface. And they all seem good on the surface. Like all the people that like the Beatles seem really nice and friendly on the surface. And I’m not saying they’re necessarily bad people or anything, but there’s a place where that ends, where it leads to. And that place is not great at all. Like that place is bad for everyone. It’s bad for the person from what I’ve seen. Like one huge fan of the Beatles that I know killed himself. And there were lots of combining factors. But also, like that’s a contributing factor. I’m sorry. I could explain it, but I don’t care to. I’ll just assert it and drop it there. And I think that’s worth noting that those people do not lead happy, go lucky, excellent lives on average. At all that I can find. I mean, my sample set’s obviously small, but also… This wouldn’t have anything to do with individualism? Where the group no longer becoming important or the community and people started having individual political ideologies. Well, or looking at it this way. Let’s suppose you… And flatten the world because everyone has their slight nuance of what they think the politics is. Well, and let’s suppose you do flatten the world and that you’ve isolated yourself as an individual somehow. Or maybe isolated down to the family unit. And something bad happens to your family. And there’s nothing there to mitigate that from another source. Right? Like, you know, I mean, there’s obvious examples like, oh, your house burns down in a fire and nobody’s there to help you. Right? There’s no charity agency to help you and the government. You fall through the cracks because that happens all the time with the government. Yeah, it could be that obvious and banal. But also, what if there’s just no one there for emotional support when you’re going through something like that? I think that’s way more important. Right? Like, what if no one rushes in from some charitable organization or maybe some religious fraternity or maybe a church and is there to help support you? With a neighborhood? Right. And so or what if it’s something more banal? What if what if a cop has it out for your family for whatever reason? There’s a grudge between whatever. Who knows? A thing happened. There was a misunderstanding. These things happen all the time. Right. And they go too far. And nobody does anything about it because they protect the cop over your family that nobody knows. Because you have no connection to the community. And they’re like, well, this guy’s at least a cop. He has a connection to the community. Even if he’s wrong, technically for the good of the group, we should protect him. Actually, doesn’t that suck? Because again, the truth is subordinate to the good. And the higher good is still the higher good. Right. And so the truth has to be subordinate to that. I’m sorry. The truth has not solved this problem. I had a better example earlier today, but it floated on my brain. But that’s a really good example. Right. Like, you have to privilege that. You have no choice. And now there’s nobody there to mediate that. There’s no one there to make that better for you because you’ve disconnected from your neighbourhood, from your community, from your religious tradition, from whatever, any number of things actually. Culture. Well, and you’re allowed to do that. That is enabled by the thing Father Eric was talking about. This large scale transmission. This large scale engagement where you can engage directly with the great man. Where do you think the great man theory comes from? It comes from the direct observation that there are great men. And I would counter that with Homer says no. And you would go, oh, the myths are all about, you’re reading the myths wrong, dude. I don’t know what else to tell you. You’re missing the story. Because it’s the gods who are doing everything. No, no, no. It’s way deeper than that. Like Odysseus doesn’t Odyssee without his crew. It’s the ship captain problem. What the hell is a ship’s captain anyway? Who’s the most important person on the ship? There’s no single most important person on a ship. You Muppet. How Muppet are you? I’m a sailor. I’ve done this. Guess what? You can kind of sail a boat alone. But you know what you can do way better? Sail a boat with two or three people. In fact, you can sail a boat better with three people, even if one of them never touches the rest of the boat, just sits there and does what you tell them. No, really. Like, sorry. I don’t know what to tell you about that. The materialist math fails immediately in that case. That’s not always true. It doesn’t have to be true. But it can be true. And if you follow science, one example, one counterexample destroys your thesis. If your thesis is that materialism explains this stuff, I got news for you. I can show you all day long materialism doesn’t work on that. And a bunch of other things, too. There’s a bunch of things. And I’ve talked about this before. I have worked on software teams where there was one guy who was a completely useless software engineer who did nothing but cause software problems. Now, they usually didn’t have him code much. And I was always like, well, what the hell? Let’s get this guy out of the way. This is inefficient. Without him there, when he was just out on freaking vacation, absolutely nothing got done because the two idiot engineers who were equally smart and had just different ideas about how to do software, either of which would have worked on its own, couldn’t get along. Because that one guy who had almost no software skill whatsoever, and in fact would make everything worse, wasn’t there to mediate their engagement. Like, that’s real. The math doesn’t work. The math fails you. It tells you the wrong thing for real. Nobody engaged. Even people, I know other people who were there witnessing this, they never understood what I just explained. They never got it. They were just befuddled by the whole thing and couldn’t understand why that incompetent bastard was there and wanted him gone because he clearly wasn’t a good software engineer. And so why have him there? Even though they made the same observation I did, gee, when he’s not there, why would he be there? I did, gee, when he’s not here, they argue more. And now the software doesn’t even get written, which is worse than bad software is no software. So I’m thinking about the opposite of what you’re talking about, this flattening out individualism and the way things end up actually working in the Catholic Church is that most people aren’t directly engaged with, we’ll say, church news and church politics. And as a result, they’re just happier. They’re just much happier people because they’re not, you know, hanging on every little word that Pope Francis says. They’re not, you know, reading every article on Pillar Catholic, which is a great website. And then I think about what seminary was, and I’ve had this conviction for a while is that basically a good formation program involves getting, let’s say, some decently exemplary priests and putting the seminary into the same building that they’re in. And basically, if you can manage that, then whatever these basically decent priests come up with as a formation program is going to work. It doesn’t actually matter what they do. As long as I mean, there’s obviously we’re assuming exemplary priests here, so they’re going to be doing the things that are the fundamentals. But like the exact details of how they’re chopping up the schedule. It’s not going to matter that much because a good seminary is basically a place where you go to get infected by the spirit of good priests. And it’s just like in participation in life with them, you get a feel for what’s important. Right. You get a feel for what’s secondary through the exemplification, through the participation, not through the propositions, not through the procedures. Right. Even though we had propositions and procedures because, you know, right. Well, and people get confused by this. This is where the linearity comes in that I talk about. Right. Yeah. But that’s the linearity. Right. Is that, oh, we need a certain number of propositions to start from. Totally you do. No, no. So it also rises in the East genius, by the way, and we three year old knows this. But thanks for the update, Captain Obvious. I get it. Okay. You sound really smart, by the way. That’s wonderful. Right. But more propositions doesn’t equal better formation. Sorry. Right. It doesn’t equal better learning. It doesn’t equal better. It doesn’t map. It doesn’t correlate at all. Had you looked at the data, you’d know that, by the way, but you didn’t because you’re lazy and didn’t research. Just saying. My bugaboo for the day, obviously. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. Like you think that you can add to that. Right. Just plus it away and it will be fine. And I did a video on this called one, two and three. Right. Right. Tried to talk about that. Probably did a poor job, but I did my best at the time. Maybe I’ll do it again in a different way. Things unfold in a way with unfolding in three dimensions, not two. And linearity only works in a two dimensional system. It doesn’t work in three dimensions at all. It fails completely. In fact, this is like the difference. If you know the difference between Euclidean and non Euclidean geometry. Right. In Euclidean geometry, parallel lines never meet. Non Euclidean geometry, parallel lines always meet. That’s kind of a big difference, guys. It’s like, whoa. And once you that’s the difference between two dimensions and three dimensions as well, by the way. It’s not how it was explained to me. It was probably PBS. But also, like I saw it right away. I went, oh, you guys are talking about the difference of adding a dimension and how adding a dimension changes and in some cases reverses or contradicts. Right. Exactly what was true one dimension below. Well, isn’t that interesting to read the book Flatland and everybody should read the book Flatland. Hopefully you’ll understand that. So some people will read. News on the Internet, church news on the Internet. It’ll make them go insane. But if you go a level up and they know how to handle that knowledge, then it’s like, OK, there’s another daggone thing that happens. Well, just keep on moving on. But, you know, I’m not informed by it. Right. And so prior to we’ll say printing press, radio, television, Internet, if you wanted to know something, you had to go find I don’t have a good word for this. Somebody who’s a bad word, an expert in it or an authority and maybe an authority is a better word for it. Well, but better yet. See, that’s an individualistic emergence is good way of thinking about it. What actually happened was the authority would inform you when the authority thought you needed to be informed. Your your formation or information was mediated by an authority period. It’s all top down, all of it. And so what that means is the filter is already there and the age of gnosis is removing the filter and saying that I can handle this myself. And talked about this before. Catherine Brodsky has gone completely off the rails, unfortunately, because the Middle East, the Middle East will kill you every time. Right. You just get overwhelmed with a moral issue or an informational issue or whatever. No one’s paying attention to Africa. Same same stuff happens in Africa all the time, by the way. No one ever talks about that. Just saying. Also, Asia. But the river’s there. So who cares? Exactly. No, no important books are written about that place. Who cares? Right. There’s lots of ways you can slice it. But the point is, oh, I want Twitter not to filter anything to send me all the data. You don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about at that point. Like as a technical expert, I can tell you’ve had discussions with this with somebody who used to have, I don’t know if he still has it, access to the to the main Twitter feed. Like the unfiltered feed. He gave me the numbers. OK, I don’t remember what they were. They were too big for me to imagine. I work at that scale all the time. Or I used to. I used to work at the scale of millions of transactions a second, a second all the time. Twitter’s big. OK. OK. Unfiltered Twitter is not something that you can conceive of, much less engage in. You want to filter yourself. It would just be chaos, right? It wouldn’t even. You would die in the flood. You would actually die in the actual flood. No, for real. Like it would destroy you mentally in the same way that trying to living in North Carolina. In North America and trying to resolve even understanding what’s happening with Hamas, Palestine and Israel. Will it’ll just take the life out of you because you you’re not there. First of all, none of it affects you in the way you would imagine that it does. I’m saying that you can’t understand the downstream second order effects from something happening in the Middle East, no matter what it is. Right. You don’t understand when the same thing happens in Africa how it affects you either, by the way. You can even notice Africa still. Right. But also you’re spending your time, energy and attention on that instead of participating in things that you actually have way more influence over. And some things that you actually have some control over. You know, you have no control over Hamas, Israel and Palestine. Sorry, you have zero. You’re here, man. You can get no control over that place. You’re not even there. Benjamin Nehe Gattu is listening to this stream. I don’t think so. I don’t think he’s listening. And I would argue he has no control of that situation. And this is where the conspiracy comes in. Well, you know, the Israeli, the Israeli secret service is so smart, they must have known it was happening and therefore they must have known and therefore they must have let it happen. And therefore it must be a grand conspiracy so that they can attack Palestine. Nothing else makes any sense. Really? That’s nuts. I’m sorry, but you’re crazy. Like the world is not that rational. People are not that intentional. And they’re not that competent. Even the Israelis have a great deal of respect for Israelis. I work with Israelis. They’re very difficult people to work with sometimes, but also they get stuff done, which I love. I love people that get stuff done and they do it fast. They are fantastic if you need something done. But also they get a lot of stuff wrong, man. They get a lot like Stuxnet, by the way. Oh, yeah, that. Anyway, moving on. Jesse, please. They also had one guy guarding like an entire military base that had fallen asleep. But, you know, that’s easy things to miss. Implementation errors also happen. Right. It’s so stacked. Right. It’s like you have to be intentional. You have to be rational. You have to be competent. Right. And you have to be lucky. And then the world works the way you think it does in your head. That never happens. They also relied on this AI for all their military targets that has all these problems with it because it anytime any rabbits or any crickets or anything basically moves on the ground near these turrets, it over. It just, you know, throws out hundreds of dollars of ammunition at it. And so they basically turned off the AI because it was unreliable to shoot anything. And that’s not what you want. To the point of the floods, Father Eric, there’s a famous Psalm 93 about that. Floods have risen up their voice. That’s what Twitter is. It’s literally the rising up of the floods of chaos. Yeah, you don’t want that. In fact, I think… I don’t want that. I don’t have Twitter. Exactly. Any poetic about floods and rivers is basically the end of the world, by the way. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Well, of course it’s the end of the world. You can’t live on a river or an ocean or in a flood. Floods. So you water well. So you water well for that. Right. But it’s the end of that world. And we don’t live in one world. Right. That’s the problem. That’s the problem. We keep projecting everything down to one. I mean, this is probably my greatest critique of Vervecki is he talks about the agent arena relationship. OK. One agent and one arena, whenever he talks about it. The problem is that I hate to break this to everybody. You do not live in a world where there’s only one arena that any agent is in. There’s no agent that is in one arena. That cannot happen in the world that you’re in. I’m sorry. Also, there’s no arena, none with one agent. That also doesn’t exist. It’s not the world you’re in. That’s poetic. Poetics is the recognition that there are no places where there’s one agent and one arena. There are no places where you’re an agent in only one arena. And there’s no places where there’s an arena with only one agent. None, zero, zip. How do you resolve that? You know how you don’t resolve it? And John Vervecki actually talks about this without sort of understanding making the connections, in my opinion. That’s combinatorial explosion if you use logic, reason, and rationality. So you can’t, cannot be using that to resolve it. What are you using? Poetics. You’re using your intuition. How do you train that? You read poetry. You read fairy tales. You read parables. That’s how you train it. You play with your brothers in the park. Your brothers and your friends in the park. You go to retreats. And listen to Ted read poetry and other people. Right? You go meet people at conferences. Right? And one small step. And this is the problem. People don’t appreciate how many steps there are and how far away people are. Like how many steps down the staircase they are. Like one small step is coming in and joining us. Right? And just talking to other people in real time, even if it’s online. If that’s the best you can manage, hey, that’s better than what you’re doing now. And that’s part of re-enchantment. In the world this flat, like people don’t understand the flatness. They don’t understand the age of gnosis. In a world this flat, you’re way down. You need to take one small step. That’s one of the things Peterson talks about. Right? Like oh, maybe you can be 15 feet away from the elevator. Right? And then you get eight feet away from the elevator. Right? Oh, yeah. How many steps are there? People don’t recognize this. And this goes back to Shane’s question. How do we get people to engage with humility and whoa, dude, you’re like six steps up the staircase. First, we’ve got to get them interested. That’s already hard. It’s already almost impossibly difficult. Right? And then how did that happen? Like because it happened with Peterson, for example. That’s a good question. I mean, I got answers to that. But this is not the time or place for that. Also, since we’re to wrap up one thread that was being loosely found out here when we’re talking about Homer and the great, great man, the Iliad often forgotten that is there often is forgotten. That’s probably a prequel to the Odyssey or at least an addendum to the Odyssey ends with the death of Hector. It does not end with the falling or sacking of Troy. It ends with the death of Hector. It ends with essentially a contrast between Achilles quest for revenge on the death of a friend and Hector’s death of standing up for the city or protecting the city from evil, which is being not Achilles, but the master that Achilles serves. So it’s quite a different emphasis when you feel like that. What is it better to do? Is it better to seek revenge? Or is it better to die for just cause? Like, what is the just cause? What like who is the greater man? And I actually think the think you think Homer’s done there is actually it’s Hector. The story is actually about Hector, even though all the emphasis is on Achilles and his supposed virtue. When the most virtuous thing is Hector and also the fact that the father came for his body. You don’t just leave a great man die. You give him proper burial rights, which is how the story ends. Right. Well, and we sort of hinted at this, right? Like, what’s the end of the Lord of the Rings? It’s Sam and Rosie, the hidden divine feminine that isn’t in the story, but is the story. Ultimately, whoa, there’s a mic drop moment for you. And I think that’s the problem. We’re not recognizing that. And then we have this flood of information. So literally any idiot and I think most of them are unfortunately high IQ, well educated or not, can read The Republic. And I’m here to tell you that most of the people that read The Republic didn’t read it correctly. They have low reading comprehension. I’m sorry to say that, but really, like it’s getting to the point now where I’m getting a little angry. Like you people are lying to everybody about what that book says. You’re just flat out lying. You’re leaving out all the most important parts, even though they’re not the most mentioned parts. I get that. This is where the materialism fails us. But now we have this flood of information. Anybody can read The Republic. Really? Is that wise? Should you really have anybody read The Republic? Because a lot of these people are talking about Plato’s cave and man, they have this individualistic perspective. And what they’re saying is a lie. It’s actually a lie. Actually, no, Plato says physically in text, the opposite of what you’re actually telling people, Plato says. You bastard. Like you utter intellectually dishonest piece of garbage. Why are you doing this? And it’s because of their worldview, the story that they have. And I’m here to tell you again, Shane, sorry, all the stories in the world are not going to fix that problem because that is a lack of humility. Right. And it’s a belief that because you can physically read the words on the page that you can also understand them. And that even if you did, that you can properly convey that understanding. And even if you did, that conveyance of your understanding can be conveyed to the person you’re talking to or people you’re talking to in a way that corresponds to what you actually understood. That’s a lot of assumptions, man. And they’re all wrong, by the way, in most cases, not in all cases. Sometimes you know somebody well enough, you know the text well enough and you’re smart enough and you have the language and you pulled it off that day because you were having a good day. That’s happened to me occasionally, very occasionally. Most of the time I fail miserably. No one understands the hell I’m talking about. Or they get 20 percent of it. And I’m so thrilled with 20 percent that I just don’t care that I failed 80 percent of my messaging. That, by the way, is every time I speak just so we’re clear about that. Recall that on video, folks. Oh, yeah. Oh, believe me. This is the great this is the great frustration of my existence. It’s like I’m really you didn’t happen to me today. Like really, really went through this for how many years. And now finally you’re coming to the conclusion that the thing I told you initially the story that I’ll give you initially was actually true. And that this thing that happened was way more horrible than you had actually realized up until this point. And I thought three other times we had gotten you to that point. But but we’re there. So that’s good. People are seeing the evil. See the evil. Finally, oh, come on. Just just just to just to wrap up another point to that may have been missed for some folks. I just I just need to answer this with the video. Go on, please go on. Always, always. In the 19th century, mid-century politics replaced religion. So the lowest frame lowest of all low frames, the lowest of all. Even in church. Even in church. Well, that’s that’s actually the materialistic virus, you know, affecting zombie virus affecting everything there. Yeah, it is. No, it is. It is. No, it’s a recession in the church. Yeah, that church. The church leaves a hole. Right. The church leaves a whole religion. Right. Church leaves a hole for doesn’t fill the religion hole anymore. Politics sneaks in. Yeah. But yes, the mode of participation changes. And that’s that’s actually how the chaos we got to today. And now it’s only ramping up with things like increased neurotic categorization of individuals that have special traits that make them even more shining. No, no. Your identity. Good. Yeah. Your identity can’t come from quality. Right. Yeah, it cannot come from quality. It’s definitely doesn’t come from quantity. Doesn’t come from substance either. Oh, boy, we’ve covered three of the we’ll say major categories from Aristotle’s categories. He had 10, but you can reduce them to substance, quality, quantity and relation. It all comes from relation. That’s why the Fed has his last name because it tells us who his dad is. That’s why I have my last name because that tells you who my dad is. Yeah. Oh, I can drop a knowledge bomb here. Maybe I shouldn’t do something. Do it. My brother. My brother. I was away last weekend. My brother has decided that he will first. It was going to be taking on his now wife’s last surname. And then they decided four days before the wedding, we will just come up with a new last name. Oh, wow. They’re breaking the historical grounding. Oh, yeah. It was a it was a Hollywood level. It was a Hollywood level drama. I can feel it in my liver. I have to do I have to do a video on historical grounding because that was one of my great insights. But but also, look, I do want to go back to this because this is like this is one of those things like you can’t I’ve got videos. OK, here’s Aaron. Aaron, watch my videos. I literally multiple times in multiple videos say I am a Muppet. I say that all the time. I’ve got the mug. I don’t know what you’re talking about, dude. Maybe this will be some of the 20 percent that gets through. Used to here. Well, maybe. Right. Maybe it’s so funny, though, right? Because like that’s a big dramatic play for me. I know what I’m doing. I’m doing the messaging correctly there. Maybe the rest of it, I’m doing shitty messaging. But there I’m not doing the right messaging there. I’ve got the whole thing. Right. Right. The whole all the movements, everything and well, no, I’ll I’ll put this in. Mark said people don’t remember what you say. They remember how you make them feel. That’s true. That’s true. Yeah. That that is also true. Well, and and and it’s a tricky thing. I mean, this is this is part of the difference between the meaning crisis, the crisis of faith. Certain sets of skills that you were granted through your interaction when you were young. Very useful. And if you don’t have those later on, right, like maybe you can’t read poetry. Like we we engaged with a bunch of people who just could not read, understand poetry. So I’m no use in it whatsoever. This is not unusual for meaning crisis people at all. In fact, I would say it was a universal truth for them. None of them read poetry. None of them read poetry or could we couldn’t even understand it. They’re like, what the hell are you talking about? No, it doesn’t mean that. Like they would say things like that. Even when we read poetry. Right. And there is a trick, if you want to call it that, to getting them out of that. And it can be done. And more coming out about that soon. Right. Hopefully. It’s why it’s why the Hobbit movie suck. You know, because they took the Tolkien’s most poetic story and just made it flat, made it materialistic, made it like a Disney watershed. What are they going down the river ride like a water ride? Well, I don’t know. Carnival story ideas. I don’t think it’s nice. I like the Hobbit movies suck. Well, I think if you didn’t read the book, I can see where that might be, where they may not. They may not be as rich, but I look great. But then I’ve read the books. It’s like, OK, well, you know, there you go. In fact, I read that. Well, I had it read to me when I was younger. I read it once. Same with Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings was read to me. And then when the movies came out, I went, I don’t remember this. I don’t remember that. And boy, this is a much richer story. And then I read the whole thing and the Unabridged version in like six months, just absolute freaking rocket time for me. It’s probably the fastest I’ve ever read anything and actually understood it in my life. And I read the Bridge of San Luis Rey in like an hour once. I did the speed reading thing because I can do it. I have retained zero of that book. I think there was actually a bridge in it. But with the Lord of the Rings, for some reason, I was able to read relatively quickly and seem to have gotten most of it for some reason, as I was told by third party. Not me. I was like, really? Oh, OK. Because I did a critique. I did a two and a half hour critique. I was told it missed nothing, which if that was true, that would be amazing. And I’m a little skeptical on that claim, but that was the claim that was made by somebody way smarter than me. So I was like, all right, well, maybe that would be amazing. That would be wonderful if it were true. Well, poetics. Yeah, this is the problem. Critique leaves no room for the spirit or for mystery. Right. Poetics leaves space for mystery. By definition, it’s a revelation that points to a higher revelation. But critique is specifically the action of removing poetics, revelatory experience, experience as such. Right. It’s saying, no, no, no, no, no, your experience doesn’t matter. What matters is this is what the text said and this is a contradiction or this is what the text said. And there’s also interpretations. And that invalidates your personal experience with the text. This is the thing that people make. People go like, well, the postmoderns have a point. Yeah, but it was evil. So maybe the fact that they had a point is bad because it’s evil. It’s actually evil. No, really. Not only is it self-referential and needs its own tale for sure and is utterly parasitic, but it’s actually evil because it invalidates the fact that it’s evil. Because it invalidates your experience and places it with an experience you did not have. Like, whoa. Something like the Matrix 4? Or it gives you the authority and permission to do that to someone else. Neither of those things is good. Like, there’s no goodness in either of those moves, guys. I hate to break it to you. There is nothing good coming out of postmodernism. I know this because I’ve asked literally a hundred people, almost all of them with PhDs in philosophy, who’ve actually read Foucault and Derrida for some odd reason. Why the hell would you read that garbage? But whatever. And they cannot give me an answer to what’s good about postmodernism. I’ve never met a human being that can answer a simple question. It’s an easy question. People can’t answer easy questions. You need to start thinking. Maybe I should listen to this person about anything. And I mean that technically. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong about everything. But my goodness, guys, at a certain point, do you want somebody who gives you ten things and only write about one of them? Maybe throw out all ten of them and be OK with the loss. Take the loss. It’s OK. You’ll be better for it. Lose the one thing and save the nine bad, bad mistakes you’ll make. It’s OK. We don’t want any loss. The age of gnosis, we know. So we can know ahead of time. Are they right or wrong? Information can be preserved perfectly forever. So. Well, and it’s useful. The problem is information is not useful. People think information is useful. No, what’s useful is what you do with the information, assuming you act on it. Like, I’ve got so much information in my head that’s completely useless. Now, I can maybe win a trivia game with a bunch of it. And I used to do I was frickin monster at trivia. I would just wreck people at trivia, just wreck them. It was horrible. What? One year we used to have a trivia game up in May. One year. I don’t know what the hell happened. I got lucky. Obviously, it was one of those days. It was just on. When I’m on, it’s over for everybody else. The world has no chance against me. See, this is why people, when you talk like that, that’s why they don’t think you think you make mistakes. There you go. I make mistakes all the time. But this day, I did not make any mistakes. I took on a group of seven people and I single handedly won the trivia game. It was bad. There was one sports answer my cousin came up with. The rest of it was actually mine. It was bizarre. I was like, well, I don’t even know what the hell happened. But hey, we won. Who cares? And that was totally the wrong attitude by the way. But also, hey, we won. I do like to win. So I was okay with it. But like that happens. Like people have good days, right? And most days aren’t like that. Most days I lose trivia games because trivia can be hard. And I only know certain categories in trivia like science and technology. Those are big for me. I know a lot of geography. You want to talk about pop culture? I lose instantly. I don’t know any pop culture. I don’t know enough music. I don’t know enough. I don’t know. I know a bunch of history. I’m talking about the wrong period of history though. I’m completely done. That’s why I have Adam. Adam knows all the history I don’t. So that’s useful, right? And that’s the problem is that we don’t recognize that, right? We only hear what we want to hear or what we’re tuned to hear. We’re not listening for, oh, this isn’t happening most of the time. This is an outlier event. We have access to everything. So we’re filtering this flood of information on things we want to pick out. So if you want to pick out the bad thing that the bad group did, whether it’s Hamas or Palestine or Israel, you can do that yourself, unmediated. And you will because you have to because you have to filter out the flood. The problem is you’re stuck in a loop where you’re feeding yourself whatever it is you already want to hear. And that just goes on and on and on and never ends. And you get worse. This is the spiraling in. And then you blame social media or you blame the group that you’re part of in social media or you blame the fact that you can be part of a group in social media. And then you think the solution is we just need a different story or we just need friends that don’t agree with us or something. And it’s like you do need all of those things, but none of them will work. And that’s where people get confused. Those things are insufficient to solve the problem that you have because there’s a flood of information and you need to be able to filter it. And maybe the answer is get out of the flood. Seek high ground. Well, I think I’m going to seek out recuperation. Excellent. Well, it was lovely to have you, Father. Thank you so much for jumping in. It was good to be on. I think this was some good stuff here. I hope so. Yeah. We’ll have to hear about your convivium experience at some point, too. Yes, yes, we’ll see about that. Good night and God bless you all. Good night. Yeah, it’s probably a good place to wrap up. I would say the Mark’s intro this morning was actually even lower energy, but more content there, particularly in spite of a lot of thoughts for me about our upcoming Matrix discussions. Matrix is the foundational myth of the evil millennials being my generation. Also, maybe some thoughts on the Animorphs coming up soon. There’s another weird story that’s infected a lot of people. Yes, engage in not poetry, but in poetics, which is an expression of participation in the spirit of not creativity, not exploration, but the good, the true, and the beautiful. Well said, Jesse. I like that. Well, yeah, we’ll have to do some wrap up stuff on the monologue for sure with many people. But yeah, I think that poetics is all about the navigation of participation. If you listen to the Knowledge Engine video, that’s what I talk about. That’s how I describe it. That’s how we’ve always described it. That model of understanding the world itself, I would argue for Shane, I’m sure he’ll listen at some point if he’s not still listening. That’s how you, quote, fix the aggagnosis problem. That’s how you sort of engender the humility and keep it running. Now, I would argue that we were able to use John Breveke’s work to help people to get into that state. And it seems to have worked for a bunch of people. It didn’t work for everybody. Nothing worked for everybody. I’m not making a claim like that. Don’t have to. But poetics is the proper way to navigate the world. You can’t do it with propositions. You can’t do it with procedures. You can’t do it with propositions and procedures. You also can’t do it without those things. I get that. Nobody likes that answer. I get that. You need the poetics to have the proper participation in the world so that it opens up, connects you to things, it grounds you to things, also opens you up to things that you cannot imagine. And they’re wonderful. And they’re also terrible. Some of them, right? But you have to be aware of the terrible things to steer away from them. You have to have a good sense of evil and maliciousness. But you also can have the awe and wonder of engaging in something so much bigger than you and then your story. And what you understand and what you know and what you’ve done that will reverberate in ways you cannot imagine. That, I would argue, is what happened at convivium. Can’t wait for those talks to come out. Thank you, everybody, for joining. It’s wonderful to have you. Hopefully, I’ll do this again next week. I don’t see any bars to that. So hopefully, it’ll happen. And I hope everybody has a wonderful week. I don’t know what the topic will be. We’ll work something out. If you’ve got suggestions, put them in the comments. You know, if you want a cop to remind yourself that you’re a muppet, please buy one. Shop.marketwisdom.com. Links should be in the description, if I remember correctly. And have a wonderful week. I’ll see you all later.