The Future - a Live Navigation! (3d4_z284Xho)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=3d4_z284Xho

[“Truth or Dare”] Young girl dancing to the latest beat Has found new ways to move her feet And the lonely voice of youth cries What is truth? Young men speaking in the city square Trying to tell somebody that it cares Can you blame the voice of youth for asking What is truth? Yeah, the ones that you’re calling love Are gonna be the leaders in a little while When will the lonely voice of youth cry What is truth? 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? [“Truth or Dare”] All right. We are live. I think, I hope, I feel alive. I might not be alive in the future, though. So, welcome. We’ve got our Sam Pal in our Muppet Cup, of course. Everybody should have a Muppet Cup. Gotta have some Sam Pal. Sorry, William, if I’m a little late. Man, demanding fans here. It’s been a rough week, especially the past two days. Under assault by people who don’t want me around, but want me around. Go away. Go do your thing. Leave me out of your thing. You didn’t want my help. That’s cool. Go away. Oh, jeez. I got my Jordan Ammons, which, yeah, only the pink ones are left. I left the best for last. Which my buddy Ethan sent me for Christmas. Thank you, Ethan. It wasn’t the only thing he sent me for Christmas, but it was the best. 502, not bad. Jacob is worse, is he? I don’t know. I’ve been following him. PVK has been mean of late. He kind of has, yeah. Well, and the crew is worse. I mean, PVK and I are fine. I’ve met the guy, right? We’re fine. I understand what he’s doing. Maybe the people who watch him don’t understand what he’s doing. Whatever. I don’t care. PVK and I are fine. We’re buds. Everything’s cool. His motley crew of rebels, that’s a different problem. He’s just annoying. I can’t wait. I didn’t use the word exile. He did. So, yeah, whatever. He loves to troll. It’s so much fun. Yeah, a lot of dust up. Yeah, and I had to win a game of Risk on my phone. So, yeah, it was very important to me. But we are talking about the future. We should define the future because I think the problem is people don’t understand. I talk a lot about these threes and these relationships. You run into the three frames, you with yourself, you with others, you with nature. And the future is similar because your relationship to the future and your relationship to the present and your relationship to the past are different relationships. They’re fundamentally different. They have to be. You can’t treat them the same at all. And I think people are confused about that. Or at least I see some people being confused about that. So that’s why I wanted to cover the future today. Plus, first stream of the new year, right? I did it super, unbelievably successful stream somehow. Last was a Thursday. I don’t know why it took off. That time frame is weird. Probably everyone’s on vacation. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll get some comments and people say, like, do more streams at this time. And then maybe I can make that work. I don’t know. I was surprised that none of my European friends showed up on my stream that I put in the European time zone for them. I’m grateful, audience members. People miss stuff, whatever. I was just like, I was all excited. I’m like, oh, the European people will be so excited. They’ll have a stream closer to their evening time. It will be great. And none of them showed up. But I’m glad everyone’s here today. And yeah, I mean, so in that case, I didn’t plan the stream. I was like, oh, well, I have a stream. Well, I’m not. I’m traveling. It’s the holidays. Who knows if people are watching? Sort of in the present moment, I decided to have a stream. I didn’t plan it a day out or two days out like I did this one. And so the relationship with that stream is different because it wasn’t planned for the future. In other words, by the time the present for that stream came along, there was no past indication that it was going to happen. Right. Right. And then at the time I would have made the notification, there was no future notification that was going to happen. Those are fundamentally different relationships. And of course, the problem of time is important. And that’s what I’m talking about the future. And I will do predictions and all that, too, or at least I’ll try some. Man, I wish this thing were better. Why is this? There we go. That’s my turn. You know, why is it that we don’t understand the different stream of these three things? This is the flattening of the world. Right. Part of the flattening of the world is people are removing the component of time from their thinking. And so they’re like, well, you know, everybody should be able to read any book at any time. It’s like, are you saying three-year-olds should be able to read the Kama Sutra or whatever? I don’t think it’s like really? Is that right? It’s like, well, no. And then they go, no, of course not. OK, fine. But where’s that line? That’s where everybody gets into trouble. They don’t know where to draw that line. So we have to draw boundaries in all sorts of situations. I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole necessarily, but we certainly have to draw the line between the future, the past and the present. Right. And maybe you can define the present as a smaller or larger window, but you should define it. You shouldn’t leave it sort of out there unknown. Right. You should kind of figure out what am I calling the present? Where is the line between the present and the past and the present and the future? Because the future is representation of potential that has not yet manifest. Ah, right. How much potential is dependent upon the past and mediated by the present? So you have the past that you’ve built up or that was built for you or both, probably both. And then that’s your foundation for shaping what’s coming next. And the thing that’s coming next is the future. Now, you have a limited amount of control over the future, obviously. Right. Just you have a limited amount of control over things that are further away from you physically. In space, you have a limited amount of control over things that are further away from you in time. And you have no control over what’s in your past. You have some control over what’s in the present. And you have in some ways more and in some ways less control over the future. You don’t even have the same amount of control over the past, present and future. And this is what I mean by we have a different relationship with the past, the present and the future. And different constraints around that. And that’s important for us to account for. Because while we’re compressing the world down and not considering the fact that things change over time because entropy is real in some sense, right, we’re not thinking about things in that way. We’re universalizing them in time, which is very dangerous. Nothing is universal in time or maybe only certain ethereal things are universal in time. I don’t want to get into that as straying into dangerous territory. So we have to account for the fact that we need to think about the past, the present and the future as three separate relationships that we have. With three separate boundaries, three separate constraints, right? Everything is constrained. But there are things that are constrained differently. It’s important, right? You don’t tell a three year old how to build a plane in the same way you might tell a 30 year old how to build a plane. Right? These are different things or fly a plane or drive a car. These are all different things. And that difference is massively important. And when we don’t account for it, we create problems for ourselves and for others. So the future is where the potential exists. Right? Things get manifest in the future by mediating them in the present. So the present is the process of manifesting the future. Right? And the past is not negotiable, but it can be understood differently. So typically the problem that we have with the past is that we understand it in a particular way because it unfolded in a particular way. We have particular memories or a particular relationship to it. Right? But when we change that relationship, that can open things up for us or it can close things off for us. Right? And usually it does both. Everything’s tradeoffs. Right? So you end up in a situation where the past might be static, but your relationship to the past is not. And your ability to change that relationship is important. It is limited, but it’s important. So if you see yourself as having been a victim of something in the past, even though maybe there’s a better way to see it, a more positive way, that may constrain your present and therefore constrain your future. And once you get rid of that barrier of, well, maybe I wasn’t a victim, maybe this just happened by accident or whatever, all of a sudden the future opens up to you. And the tools to manifest that future in the present become available when they weren’t before. And that’s super hopeful. Right? It’s super useful. And we also have to be aware that we don’t have perfect memories and our memory of the past, sometimes unavailable to us. Like maybe the memory is there, but it’s not there right now. Right? Maybe the memory is actually not there. Right? Or maybe the memory is available, but it’s flawed because our memories are not perfect. And as we flatten the world, we squish it down, we compress it, we reduce it. We tend to think about the way we think and the way other people think in terms of perfect memory. But we don’t have a perfect memory and they don’t have a perfect memory. And so somebody forgets to take out the trash and you’re like, they did that on purpose. They remember to take out the trash every other time. Therefore, they’re mad at me or spiteful towards me or whatever. It’s like, really? Are you sure? Because when you think that way, the future will unfold differently for you. Not all the time, but almost certainly. Because how you approach the present matters for what’s going to manifest in the future. Because your present constrains the future manifestation. And so this works at all layers or scale, fractal, self-similar patterns of reality. And so if most of the population of your country has a negative view of your country, the odds that in the future things will go better go down. And that scales all the way down to you. If you think your spouse is being mean to you or whatever, or your friend is not talking to you because they’re mad at you about something, your relationship is going to suffer. And of course, you can take the other side of that and go, well, you can’t just be positive and give everybody the benefit of that all the time. True. But you can know the difference. And that goes back to a live stream I’ve had in the past. Discernment. And maybe we’ll do another discernment. We’ll do a roll-up discernment judgment action stream or something. If you want to see that, put it in the comments, put it in the live stream, whatever. I do take requests, at least to some extent. So we always try to figure these things out, especially the live streams. But I’ll also do like regular videos on things that get requested. And you can request the Discord server, the Market Wisdom Discord server, whatever. So this affects this attitude about the present that you can measure is affected by your attitude about the past. So your version of history and what history you know and don’t know and how you understand that history all affects how you act in the present, whether you like it or not. It’s not an optional thing. It’s not like, oh, we can get around this by invoking some postmodern. No, you can’t. It’s just a hard constraint. So that means history matters. Your attitude in the present matters. So your attitude towards the past matters. Your attitude in the present matters. And that affects what might happen in the future. And it actually affects what might happen in the future. Look, this is the Peterson’s sphere, Paul. Right. Peterson talks about this. What you do matters. What you do matters. What you do matters to the present and the future. And that means how you look at the past matters. If you look at the past as a history of conquest and slavery, you’re going to have a bad time. I’m not saying that didn’t happen. I’m saying that if that’s the only thing that happened in the past was like conquest and slavery, that view of the world is going to give you a very pessimistic operation in the future, in the present rather, and that’s going to affect the future. And it’s going to affect the future in a negative fashion. So the future will not go as positively as it could. That’s why the past matters to the present. The present matters to the future. So they’re all connected. But again, the relationships are different. And we need to be mindful of that, not only for ourselves but for others. Right. There’s lots of historical situations where I’m just like, man, if you knew these four things about that particular historical event, you might think differently about it. And that might change how you think about things. There’s a lot of talk, especially recently over the past five, six years, where people are like, well, women have never been in charge. And I’m like, in the British Empire, where over the past 150 years, it’s been mostly women in charge, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I literally don’t know what you’re talking about. But you’re acting as if that’s true in the present, and that’s just screwing up the future and the present, but mostly the future, right? Because then people believe garbage like that that’s just observably false. There’s been many female rulers, not as many as men. Fair, but maybe there shouldn’t be. Like, men and women still seem to be different to me. If you can’t tell the difference, that’s your problem, and I feel sorry for you, and I’ll pray for you, but that’s about all I can do. I’m not going to try to convince you. Like, sorry. You’re on your own, kid. Catch you later. Bye. Two genders, still. Just two. When we don’t have that proper relationship with the past, we’re also open to changing our attitude about the past. The past doesn’t have to change for us to change our attitude about it. Maybe the past does change, like we get new information about the past that we didn’t have before. Fair. The past doesn’t even have to change to change your attitude. That’s the thing. If you don’t change your attitude, then that’ll make a better present, and that’ll make a better future, and it will be better. This is why, when you have a more optimistic outlook, things go better for you. I think there was a Nassim Taleb quote I saw on Twitter recently. It wasn’t Nassim Taleb. He’s got a couple guys who mirror him. One of them is like anti-fragile something based on the book, and the other one is like anti-fragile. If you haven’t read Nassim Taleb, read all his books. They’re great. The optimist makes more money, right? But it’s like, okay. The realist is not, by the way. The realist is not making more money. Optimists make more money than realists. I was like, yeah, that sounds about right. I think that’s from Better Procrustes, which is his book of aphorisms. I have it over here somewhere. I think it’s out of the shit. It’s on the bookshelf. I did. I got a couple books for Christmas, by the way. Thank you, Jesse. Lovely books. But that means I have to read. There’s nothing worse than reading. Dyslexics have a rough life, let me tell you. The future matters. Your relationship to it matters. Optimism helps. Optimism about the past. Optimism in the present. Optimism for the future actually makes a difference. It moves the needle. Because Jordan Peterson says everything you do matters. And I agree with him. We help shape the future. If you don’t believe that, you’re on the road to nihilism and you’re in trouble. And if you’re stuck, go to Stoicism. It’s not a full answer, but at least it’ll get you out of the nihilism. Or keep you from going further into the nihilism. This is important. Because we’re all stuck here together in the past, present, and future. I’m not trapped in here with you. You’re trapped in here with me. So we have to work this out. We have to recognize that potential means things can go well. Potential means the good is still available to us no matter how dark the present is. No matter how dark the past was. No matter how dark the future is. We have to work this out. No matter how dark the past was. No matter how dark the trajectory of the past and the present seem projected into the future. The good is still available in the future. It’s still there. You can still help to manifest at least part of it. And maybe that doesn’t seem to help you in the moment. But maybe it does and you just can’t see it. And part of optimism in general is really a question of faith at the end of the day. You have to have faith that good is there and that you can help manifest part of it. Or maybe a bunch of it. Who knows? I don’t know how big a part. Having that relationship towards the future is super important. And the good is bigger than you. So even if you can’t see the good, that doesn’t mean it can’t manifest around you or as a result of your actions. Or because of you. It doesn’t mean that. And because the good isn’t limited to you, because it’s bigger than you, maybe you can’t even see the good that’s possible. And that’s why you should believe in the good in the future. Because it’s there. It’s always been there and it’s always unfolding. Sometimes it doesn’t unfold the way we expect or whatever. But there it is. The good is there. It’s able to manifest. And you’re able to help it manifest. And that’ll make a better future. And the world that we live in was built by a bunch of people in the past. It wasn’t their past. It was their present. Who put extra time, energy, and attention into the world so that you could be here and have the stuff that you have. That of course is the door to gratitude. We had a live stream on gratitude. You can watch that. It was good. All my live streams are good. Honest. That’s really important about the future. The good thing about the future is that you’re present with somebody else’s future. And that was important to them so that you would be where you’re at. You can argue that sometimes that’s a negative and they’ve done things in the past that made a negative future for you. Maybe. Maybe that was the best they could do. Maybe as negative as it was, that was as positive as it was going to get. I don’t know. But looking at it that way may help you in the present to manifest a better future. For yourself and for others. And that’s important. That’s what’s important about the future is your ability to impact it. Regardless of what you think about. Michael Martin talks about the archons. The lizard people or the political climate. Somebody asked me today, like, isn’t the GOP in charge of the house or something? I was like, I don’t know. I have no idea politically who’s in charge in the country I live in. I just don’t know. And there is a value that was handed down to you from the past. From people you never met and never could meet. For better or for worse, from whatever your perspective, that made the present that you have that allows you to stand somewhere to manifest a future. And that’s really important. I will address this, Mills. Mills, I think you’ve got a great point. I hope so. I can’t make you value something, man. I hope you do. You should. And again, we’re living in this flat world. So our ability to value things outside of ourselves seems limited lately. And I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. I think that’s a great point. Right. We had Pastor Paul Vanderclay, my good friend Father Eric, he’s a very good friend, Joey, who started the Bridges of Meaning Discord server and all that, and myself. And in that conversation, we talked about a number of cool things. It was like the atheist versus although I’m not an atheist, I never was an atheist. It was like the atheist versus the religious folk, right? We talked about a number of things. And one comment that somebody made after the video, although I think that comment got deleted, was something that helped a lot of people that that person was working with, they were like a social worker or therapist or something, I don’t remember the details, was knowing where is a person becoming aware of where they end and other things begin. And the relationship between the future, the present, and the past is the same sort of a thing. You have to know where the present you is, and where it ends, and where it began. Jonathan, I’ve said this before, maybe you’ve heard it, Jonathan Pigeot talks a lot about where are you standing. Right? So, he doesn’t do it anymore, he used to say, where are you standing when you’re saying that, right? I think the better question is where are you starting? Where are you starting assumptions? Where are you starting axioms? What foundation are you standing on to make the proclamations that you’re making? That is your starting point, it’s not just your standing point, it’s also your starting point. And that’s really important because knowing where we are in time, and when we are in time, and how we are in time, and what our relationship is to the past, and what our relationship is to the present, and what our relationship will be to the future, right, is important. We have to manifest better stuff. At the end of the day, the following is true. The world needs you to be better. Right? The future needs you to be better. It has to happen. It has to happen that way. It’s not optional to try it any other way. And when we understand that we should always have some degree of gratitude for the past, and some degree of hope in the present, for the future, then we are better able to fit ourselves into the timeline. And that’s what we experience in the moment. We are always tied to our experience of the past, although we have a way to change that, a limited way granted, but a way, right, we are always tied to our relationship with the present and in the present, and we are always open about what we can manifest or what can be manifest, what good can be manifest in the future. Alright, let’s get down to pragmatics. So, we are going to take a drink. Pardon me. Do consider. Do consider. As we are here today, we need to consider that that is the result of other people doing things. How do we do that? How do we do that? So, we need to consider that that is the result of other people doing things, having done things. So, in the present, people are doing things, sure there are people out there checking on my electricity and my internet connection and all that stuff. Great. You can say, oh, Mark, you are paying them. Well, actually, I pay them a pittance, individually, right, and the collective money is, you know, probably significant. Although my electric company doesn’t make any money because they are non-profit, they are still a relationship there. It doesn’t go away because you can reduce it to money. If they reduce it to money, my internet is not so good, my electricity is not so good. Because if they think of the present, the present time, the time that they are living in, as a transactional procedural operation of getting a paycheck, rather than a regular, rather than a relationship with the people that are relying on them for electricity, or internet, or whatever it is, then everything falls apart. I mean that technically. And you can prove this. It’s been proven in history, it will be proven out. Not good. Also, have a relationship with the people in the past who built the electric grid, laid all the lines for the internet. I mean, we go into internet history, but I don’t want to bore everybody. The people who made the sacrifice to have the country that I have, because I’m in the United States, in case that wasn’t clear. The people that made the sacrifice to build the building that I live in, because I didn’t build this house, the people that made the sacrifice to build my car, little things, that aren’t so little, they’re conveniences that I’m taking advantage of. I’m standing on their shoulders. People have done things throughout history, all the way back. Wars were fought, lost and won. People fled, people stayed. People destroyed the monasteries, that was bad. People destroyed all the icons, shame on them. All kinds of things happen. And all kinds of those things, good and bad, made the world that you’re in today. And you have a relationship with that past. If your relationship is negative, your present is going to be less happy than it could be, or less contented than it could be. So, try to fix that. Try to have some gratitude again. In the present, there’s a bunch of stuff I can do. I can decide to write a book, which would make Elizabeth happy. Not yet, Elizabeth, I can’t start until after March, hopefully. Fingers crossed. I could decide to write some software. In any present moment, I could decide to have a live stream on a Thursday in the afternoon and hope that all the Europeans who betrayed you would be able to see it. I could be a good friend, and I could be a friend of the Europeans who betrayed you would show up, but they didn’t. Super successful live stream, too. Everybody watched it after it was transmitted. You could decide any number of things, right? You could decide to beat Adam over the head about doing our Echoes of the Past video, which we will probably do tomorrow. So, it’ll be coming out next week sometime. Those decisions are informed by the past, enabled or disabled by the past. And what you decide shapes the future. If I decide not to write a book, then I make Elizabeth sad. And who wants that? Nobody. Nobody. Elizabeth is lovely. Don’t make her sad. If I decide to write some software that takes over AI and turns it into AGI or something equally unlikely and silly that can’t work, that affects the world. Then we have Terminator and the machines take over the world, and that would not be good. Would good things manifest from it? Maybe, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. And also, our relationship to the future matters. Well, humanity ultimately would be better off if the machines took over. Maybe, but that seems like a big bet to take in a very far future when the immediate future from that set of actions is kind of negative. And again, as you get further out, especially on the future, your certainty goes way down. Way down. If you get further back in the past, your certainty goes way down. It’s almost as if locality matters in time and space. Weird, huh? Very strange. We need to account for this, because locality does matter. We need to keep in mind that you, in terms of things like prediction, you can usually, well, somebody who’s good, maybe not you, maybe you can’t do this, maybe most people can’t do this, and that’s okay. People who are good at predicting things, can typically either predict a time when an event will occur, or a type of event, but not the time. It’s a very strange relationship, but you see it everywhere. It’s actually written about in books about prediction. There are such books. I own some of them, by the way. I have read them. I haven’t read all the books I have, but those I have. Usually when I buy technical books, I read them. Not all of them. The fact of the matter is, you can make predictions about the future. The further out, the less precise. Sometimes you can see a through line from the past to the present to the future. Some of those through lines are causal, and some of them are not. There’s a lot more descriptions in the world than there are explanations that are precise and accurate enough to be true, and an even fewer number that are predictive. The problem is, maps are easy to make. Anyone can make a map. You see this a lot in the Peterson sphere, with people taking like Vervecki’s work and making a map. I get sent a lot of these things for whatever reason. I try to comment on them and steer people in a direction if I can. I’m a collector of maps. I don’t collect them anymore. I have a mustache of them somewhere in the shed, I’m sure, still. I used to love maps, and then I figured, hey, these maps change a lot, and oh, this map isn’t good if I want to do this thing, but it’s really good if I want to do that, right? And it just turns out that in the world, you can do that all day long. You can map Peterson’s work, you can map the big five, you can map the big four, you can map the big five to relevance realization, you can map Paul Van der Kley’s God I and God II to Agent and Arena. I don’t recommend it. He does a good job of it, actually. There’s all sorts of things you can map. That doesn’t mean the map is valid. Valid maps aren’t all useful. Useful maps aren’t all predictive. So there’s three relationships there. Hmm, weird, huh? Just like there’s three relationships in time, past, present, and future. Threes are a big thing on this channel, if you haven’t noticed. The relationships of those maps are similar, but not the same, as the relationships to time. Some maps allow you to predict what’s going to happen, and some are not. Some maps allow you to predict… most maps don’t. Some maps allow you to to navigate the space you’re in, in the moment you’re in. Most maps don’t. A lot of maps map to the past. Because there’s just a lot of detail in the past, and you can’t know it all. One of the more interesting timebased maps that I’ve seen is in Colin Woodard’s excellent And so and he goes through this he’s like I’m pretty sure I’m getting this right. I think I’m remembering it correct There’s been a couple years since I read the book He kind of discovered this American nations concept where there’s like 11 nations in North America through maps It’s like oh this map shows a different vision of the world where there’s divisions that match Something else culture Immigration lines right and they all sort of coalesce You’ve got all these maps mapping different things and map lines end up to look very close because they’re not based on states they’re not based on Resources or Terrain or trees or anything like that some of them overlap with resources and trees, but not not perfectly right like You know all all the people on the coast aren’t the same in the United States Coastal US is very different. Yeah, I’m on the East Coast Maps are Very tricky because you can just make an infinite number of maps especially of the past Maps of the present are a lot harder to come by But most of them aren’t predictive anyway, and many of them aren’t explanatory So they’re just true at a very fixed point in time and they become Irrelevant immediately and We don’t have an appreciation for that So we go and we look at a political situation and we say ha I can map the political situation to this and This theory and this set of procedures and this ridiculous thing and then look I know exactly How it happened and it just turns out that’s wrong. It’s coincidental You know correlation does not equal causation right and even when that’s true Often maps that are accurate and causal causes aren’t well known and Change and so they’re not predictive Lot of things look right in the present but aren’t predictive at all And I mean you can look at Elections and say well that didn’t go the way any of these maps said it would right up to the electoral maps by the way That’s interesting so you have a map designed for political measurement and it’s not accurate enough to do political prediction and We get caught up in maps and ways of thinking about things and worldviews and which lead to ideologies I would argue right these bad maps lead to an ideology you get into this blue church thing Which I think is a garbage frame not that there isn’t something to it. It’s not enough to it to be useful, right? It’s important for us to recognize these different relationships between the past the present and the future in that Maps are a tricky business Because locality matters how close you are to something makes a difference And now here’s the part where we get into the performative contradiction It’s easier to communicate somebody when you’re physically with them in person Says the man on the internet broadcasting Although not just broadcasting because I have your your feedback comments right here, which I’m very grateful for and I’ll be letting people in soon So don’t worry. You’ll get to talk to me if you want And I do try to answer questions and whatnot in the chat as always. I Don’t address everything but often I do And oh, yeah, I did I did want to agree with Nathaniel here because yes books are maps books are narrative Well, they’re narrative maps of the story type I would say by and large not all books obviously I have technical books They’re not narrative at all. They’re kind of boring But super useful actually they’re way more accurate and precise accuracy and precision is good in some cases, but useless in most cases Very specific cases the more specific the more accurate and precise you want that’s a hint When you’re near to something in time and space When I drive out to Arkansas and have a lovely time with Ted at his retreat which he called the conference by mistake But we all make mistakes Ted The richness of that experience is not Conveyed by the recordings of the convivium event Vivian was awesome. Had a great time. I met dr. Jim I think I said this before dr. Jim is far more awesome in person than you can imagine your imagination is insufficient and I Look, I mean the richness of pastor Paul van der Kley cannot be conveyed in his YouTube Interactions and certainly he seems a lot more trollish In those than he is in person, etc. And it’s true for most of us like this is a flat Flattened view of the world You can blame technology for our flattening, but I don’t think so I think the flattening comes first and technology comes second mainly because technology is driven by people You can have that discussion someday if you’re interested put in the comments live stream text, whatever I can I can go over that in a future stream or video or whatever Your locality matters because Things that are closer to you you have more available information Because things that are closer to you you have more available connections to Talked about this before there’s a poetic way of informing the world One of the four P’s of information not knowledge John Vervikis get that all backwards He describes knowledge calls it describes information calls it knowledge. It’s not knowledge is describing information When you participate with somebody in person you can’t reduce that to a series of propositions and procedures I cannot describe for you the awesomeness of being at the Arkansas event. I can just say it’s awesome Or it was awesome. I can’t describe to you the richness of Being at a campfire and discussing Peterson’s fear stuff with a bunch of people some of whom I was just meeting for the first time some of whom I had only met online right and You know at least one of whom I you know discussed in person with before very rich set of experiences Both in time and in physical location That richness that you have available to you is most available to you in the present That’s the locality of time John Vervicki came up with this I think it was a practice But anyway, we turned it into a practice. It doesn’t matter called savoring We’re Part of his meditation series his meditation series is great If you’re into meditation should watch it most people I know won’t resonate with red meditation. Uh-huh. That’s okay You can do this without meditation. Although it works better if you have a meditative mindset you like look at your desk and you start noticing things on your desk and thinking about your connection to them and savoring that connection that savoring practice was amazing and Use it outside you go for a walk you savor The feel of your feet on the ground the smells the sights the sounds that you’re experiencing on your walk It’s a very powerful practice because it connects you with the present and gives you an appreciation for the things that are around you right now We need to be appreciative for the things that are around us right now And they wouldn’t be here without the future sacrifices that people made in the past or us So we should have a little gratitude for that We should also be aware of the fact that The present is the fleeting thing it has the power to do the things that are around us your own Your flute performance rising on pop music Fighting on stage We have to avoid that, like we have to be aware of that and avoid that because Peterson says, you know, you’re always negotiating with your future self, right? There’s always a trade-off in the future that you could make, right? To make the future better for a little bit of sacrifice, maybe a little pain in the present. We do this all the time. People go to the gym, you take cold showers, people fast, right? Better for you in the long term. It’s no fun in the short term. One of the things that came up while we were in Arkansas was this idea of a type 2 fun. So Cory, who was there, and Ted had gone on this pilgrimage and they were like, talk about the pilgrimage and it’s, you know, it’s pilgrimage, like they’re walking and walking all day and it’s, you know, it’s not supposed to be easy, guys, but then you look back on it, right? It’s in the moment, it seemed like a lot of fun. Look back on it and go, that was fun. So your relationship to the present was not positive. Then your relationship afterwards was. That fact that you can do something painful and no fun and difficult and struggle-y or whatever now and enjoy it later is important. That pragmatic approach. That’s sort of worth considering. Pardon me. Every once in a while when I go to do these streams, my nose is like, I’m gonna run now. I don’t know why. The future holds everything that we could possibly imagine and more. We need to be aware of that. We also need to be aware that the past constrains how that manifestation can happen. And it can always be a manifestation for good or for something not good or for something bad. And I predict, for example, that as we go forward, it’s not necessarily sense making that’s gonna become the big issue. I think that people tried to make sense making the big thing, but it’s too hard to define. It’s too hard to sell. The big issue is going to be wisdom. John Verbeke started talking about wisdom. I was like, that’s the key. That’s the one thing Peterson’s not really talking about or not talking about in a useful way that really explains the what, where, why, how of things. That’s really where the focus needs to be is on wisdom. Now, that’s not an easy thing because we right now do not have a good handle on wisdom. And I think John Verbeke was right when he said, we don’t need to make everybody wiser, but we need more wise men. And that’s still part of my Mark of Wisdom project. It’s part of this Navigating Patterns project. It’s all tied together. If you want to help, reach out. We’ve got a Discord server. I’ve got my YouTube channel here. We always need help. There’s plenty of work to do. Plenty of work that we can’t even think about doing because we don’t even have relevant skills. Wisdom is the path to making everything better. How do you know how much of the Ukraine-Russia thing to pay attention to? That’s wisdom. And it’s going to vary from person to person. There isn’t one answer, although further away from something you are, maybe the less attention you should pay to it. And maybe as it gets closer, you pay more attention. And now that means you have to pay some attention, not none. Fair. That’s a question of discernment. I have a live stream on that. I’ll do more work on discernment if people ask. But discernment, big key. And I think the thing that’s most wrapped up in wisdom is discernment. The thing we’re missing most in the world is discernment because we see actions. We infer judgments and discernment. But that’s not how the world unfolds. That’s how we see the world unfolding. The world unfolds, discernment, judgment, action. Obviously, discern first, then you can judge, then you can act. We squish the world down. We go from our observation. We see it in the other direction. We don’t even realize we’re doing discernment, judgment, action. We think we’re just acting in the world because we’re actors or whatever. And then it’s, oh, we’re actors. Oh, now it’s K-fabe. Now it’s everyone’s a large being. No, that’s not happening. That was never happening. People are discerning the world in a certain way. They’re making a judgment whether they realize it or not. And that’s leading to an action. That affects the future. That discernment is dependent upon the past and the present. You can look at things and say, well, look, because these people have money and they want us to eat bugs and know nothing and be happy, that’s what’s going to happen. The bottom line is, you can’t do that. You can’t do that. You can’t do that. The bottom line is money doesn’t work that way. We should all be grateful, by the way. So, yay. Not that they won’t do a lot of damage in the process of implementing that. The more money they have, the more damage they can do, of course. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We need more discernment all around. We need to discern how much attention to pay to things. We need to know how much attention we have. Not everybody has the same amount of attention. My attention level is really high for whatever reason. And I can maintain it for a very long time for whatever silly reason. That’s why I can do eight-hour live streams. Although I have a plan on doing it anytime soon. Don’t ask me to. I did it a couple times. That was enough. Just to prove that I could do it. Had a lot of help, of course. Can’t do these things alone. It’s important that we look towards the future with more wise people. That we not try to over predict the next election, what’s going to happen in the Israel, Hamas, Palestine catastrophe. That we discern where and when and how to get involved. You can get involved by marching down the street, you can get involved by talking on the internet, you can get involved by sending money, you can get involved by going someplace and actually doing something. Locality matters in both time and space. That level of discernment we’re actually missing. I see it all over Twitter, I see it all over Facebook, I see it all over everywhere. I see it on Discord channels, I see it on Facebook, I see it on YouTube channels, I see it in comment sections, on YouTube channels. People don’t understand time at all. They don’t understand that there’s three different types of time and we have three different relationships to each. They have different constraints and there’s no getting around that. And people like to get around constraints. A lot of the liberal ethos is freedom from constraint and consequence. That’s what they’re talking about with freedom. That’s not up to you. It’s not optional. So my prediction is that if we want things to go well in the world, we need to focus on wisdom. And we need to focus on our discernment, judgment, and action. And we need to focus on our relationship. And we need to re-enchant that relationship with the poetic way of informing the world. I’m not talking about mere poetry. Poetry is one poetic aspect, but it’s not the only one. There is a poetic interaction in your experience of beauty in the flower. There’s a poetic interaction in a good conversation with Ted, who’s so brilliant. It’s a little insane, actually. There’s a poetic interaction in hugging your good friend after not having seen them for however long. There’s a poetic interaction in driving down the road in your cool sports car, which I have. Both the cool sports car and the poetic interaction. These ways of relating are important to pay attention to, because in the future, we’re going to need those tools more than we have been in the past. And we have lost them because we’ve been feeding on the past and not revivifying the present. Talk about this before. I went to Scotland, loved Scotland, loved Edinburgh. What a ridiculously gorgeous place. I didn’t think a place that gorgeous could exist. It was more gorgeous than I imagined Athens, Greece will be, whenever I visit. Shop.markovisdom.org. Let’s get some merchandise going so I can go to Greece someday. I’d love to go to Athens. That’d be great. I’m going to go to Rome, too. I’d love to see my Roman brethren. There are past exploits that led to all of us being here, at least all of us in the West. And the wisdom that they passed down, both the Greeks and the Romans, by the way, right? Because wisdom is timeless in some way that is ineffable. It’s not understandable by us. That past legacy, something we’re living off of still. And we’ve forgotten to some extent, people have not been interacting with poetry. They haven’t been reading Shakespeare and Tolstoy and whomever else, right? All the great works of the Western canon, most of which, by the way, I haven’t read. Different problem. Although I did finally finish Plato’s Republic. That video’s coming someday. I have to sit down again and finish my last bit of notes before I make that video on Plato’s cave. I might make another one because the end of the book is also fascinatingly miscast by everybody who ever talked about it, apparently. We don’t have an appreciation for how badly we misunderstand things like Plato’s Republic. How badly misread some of these authors are. How little we really get about Enlightenment thinking and how they would have thought of it given their context. We’ve lost, because we didn’t keep revivifying it, the sense of how these things worked in the past. And so our present understanding is wrong. And that’s destroying our future. We don’t have that poetic revivifying relationship that will enable that future to continue in a direction towards the good. And at the end of the day, it’s very important because you have to consider your relationship with the past. You have to consider your attitude in the present in order to create a future that is towards the good. Because the world needs you to be better. All right, I think I’m gonna end it there. I hope that was helpful. Elizabeth, wisdom means listening to the elders and the ancients. Yeah, in some cases it does. But also being careful how you interpret them because, my goodness, people talking about Plato’s Republic, I don’t think they read the book. I really don’t think they read it. And I know some people did read it, and I don’t know what they read. But it wasn’t more Plato wrote, that’s for sure. And some of the Romans and slaves that might angle distant relatives. Get over it, dude. Great gratitude. Maybe they wouldn’t have been worse off if they weren’t enslaved. I’ll put the link out. Anybody who wants to join can feel free to do so. Yeah, I think at the end of the day, we’ve really lost our sense of time. We’ve really lost our appreciation for how things work. We’ve really lost the most important understanding of relationship and how to revivify the past so that it makes a good future or a better future. And that’s really what I wanted to highlight today. I really wanted to get that through that we’ve flattened everything down to time as though time doesn’t exist, as though people don’t change over time, as though children don’t exist. And so do whatever you want with children, just like you can with adults. And A, you can’t do whatever you want with adults. And B, you shouldn’t treat children like adults. I don’t know why I have to say that, but apparently that’s the word we’re living in. Imagine living in a present where you have to explain to people that in fact children can’t make the same decisions about their lives that adults can because some children think they’re fire engines. And we need to put an end to that because they’re not fire engines. It’s really important in some sense to make sure that you engage in a way that you’re accounting for what came before and where you are now and where you want to go. And on all levels. So what culture you came from, where the culture is now, where you want the culture to go. And yeah, you have a limited ability to steer the culture because you’re one little component of it. But that doesn’t mean you should act outside of accordance of where you want the culture to go. And of course there are limits to that. Yeah, okay, there’s constraints and limits to everything. Doesn’t that suck? But also we’re all stuck here in that world. And that’s the issue. Like our relationship with time affects our ability to manifest meaning in the world. You want the part of the meaning crisis? There it is. What do I think causes the meaning crisis? The intimacy crisis. What’s intimacy? The quality of your relationships. You have three different qualities of relationship with time. Past, present, and future. They’re different qualities because they have different constraints and different constraints, right? And different capabilities and different relationships to you. You’re not changing the past. Somebody years ago really liked this. That said the past is like a room that you can visit but you can’t change anything. You can’t move anything around. I don’t know why that helps her at the time but she really liked that. She said, can I quote you on that? Of course, go right ahead. The present is the place where your actions happen. And if you’re aware of what guided your actions, which is your past and your attitude towards your past and your attitude in the present, right? Two attitudes. That enables you to make a better future or a future with more good in it. Or both. Antrimon, the people telling children they can become fire engines know that they are doing it to subvert society. A, I doubt that by the way. Some of them are for sure. I don’t think it’s the fire engines that’s the problem. I use that to be as non-controversial as possible. Look, you have to give stupidity a lot more credit. I know everybody wants to live in this rational world where everything is rational. But we’re not rational creatures. We’re mostly irrational creatures that are capable at great cost of being rational for short periods of time. Literally all the scientific data ever gathered on this subject shows the same thing, by the way. Make sure I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I think I’m saying that because that’s what the data shows. We want to believe we’re capable of anything. And we, a lot of people have been told that we are. Maybe anything you want to be. No, you can’t. That’s a load of garbage. That was never true. There are probably more things than you can be, than you can think of, but that doesn’t mean you can be anything. And it doesn’t mean you can be anything you can think of. And we get very confused with those statements, especially when we make them to children who can’t disambiguate the nuance between those statements, which is hard for adults. It’s impossible for children. A lot of people think that if they prove that somebody else can be a fire engine, then they can be a unicorn. They never think about the implications either way, because time doesn’t exist and things are reversible. And having a healthy relationship with the past tells us things aren’t reversible. Like once you manifest them in the present, they’re stuck, or aspects of them are stuck, and become part of the past. And maybe you can’t reverse that, because in many cases you can’t. In some cases reversing is just enormously expensive. In some cases, it’s prohibitively expensive. In most cases, it’s impossible. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing. So it’s better to approach the present with wisdom. I think, I’ll kind of go out on a limb here, that part of exemplifying wisdom will impart a wisdom pattern in people, so they won’t have to quote become more wise. They’ll just automatically act wiser without us training them or educating them or anything in the traditional or formal sense, we’ll say. I don’t think we’re accounting for that. I like John Brevicki’s work. Obviously, I use a lot of it. We’ve modified a bunch of it, thanks to Manuel and Andre and Michelle and Sally Jo and a whole bunch of people I’m forgetting. I apologize. We worked on this for years. We have hundreds of pages of notes, which we need to revisit, by the way. And still fix. There’s a lot more work that needs to be done. One thing that people aren’t accounting for is four types of information and what that means in terms of education and training and change. I think we’re mostly unconscious creatures, and the way you alter the unconscious of a person is through exemplification. So what you see, especially at a given point in your life, is what you will do when you hit that point in life because that’s what you know. Also, three-year-olds try to act like adults all the time, too, and they should. That’s part of their development. That’s a good thing. And of course, some of it works and some of it doesn’t and some of it can’t and some of it can’t, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, sure, there’s a bunch of problems there. Those are all problems of discernment, by the way. Discernment’s the key. Everything else is garbage. Discernment, judgment, action. Just focus on those three things. Everything else gets better for you. I apologize. I apologize. I apologize. Everything else gets better for you, I promise. Simple. I know. Nobody likes simple answers. We’re living in the age of gnosis. In gnosis, people like complex answers so they can feel smart, so they can have status in the world where knowledge is the high value, or the highest value, probably. That’s bollocks. The highest value thing is niceness, caring. Caring. And caring isn’t only niceness. Caring is also knowing when to backhand somebody because they’re being annoying. Because they need to know they’re being annoying. And sometimes when they’re that annoying, they need to know that they’re that annoying. So annoying, I’m willing to backhand you and risk a fight. Yep. Sometimes that’s the right answer. Sorry, I don’t like it any better than you do, but I’m not willing to not do something just because I don’t like it. I’ll take the sacrifice of my like or my happiness, another way to say that, by the way, in order to make the world a better place. Maybe you won’t. That’s your personal decision. I don’t have any opinion on that right now. Make up your own mind. Yes, Mills. People are not always aware of their motives. Actually, almost nobody is ever aware of their motives ever. And if you are, that’s an exception. I’m sure you are a couple times a day. It’s great. Mostly, you’re not aware of your motives. The number of times my craving for carbs moves my eating decisions is embarrassingly high. Another reason why I should just, so wait, the reason why I only have pink ones left, which is the right answer, by the way, should always eat pink ones less. Everybody knows this. In fact, if you don’t eat the pink whatever’s or the red whatever’s last, you will destroy the world. The future will end. Don’t do that. I make the sacrifice for you. Make sure I always do it this way. It has nothing to do with having OCD. The reason why that’s all that’s left is because I ate way too many Jordan Omens yesterday. I made myself sick. So there you go. I had Jordan Omens. I was doing real well. The first time I picked it, I was fine. The second time I picked it, I was fine. Third time I picked it, I went too far and got sick. We’re not aware of our motivations. Anselman, would you relate it to the transhumanist agenda? I don’t think transhumanists have an agenda. I think, again, this is the mistake. We’re looking for a rational world. I think the results of transhumanism cause you to seek out instances where you can prove that the purple talking unicorn in your head is real to people who aren’t in your head. That has lots of weird second-order effects. One of them is, well, if somebody else can do it, then it’s more real. It’s correspondence theory. But aha, two people have purple talking unicorns in their head. So mine must be real or realer or closer to realness or however you want to say it. People do that all the time. And hey, if you can make children do that and they grow up that way, then we’ll live in a world where that’s true. We’ll have changed. Sure. In that way, the world is perfectly rational. In the way you suggest, the world is not rational. That’s my thesis. I could be wrong. That’s sort of how I look at that. Nathaniel, take some of those great losses to understand how important what you just said is. That’s wisdom right there. Thank you, Nathaniel. I don’t know about the wisdom moniker, but I’ll take it. I hope I’m imparting something like wisdom sometimes when I speak, hopefully. It is just a hope because that’s a big burden. Trying to be wise. Yeah, I don’t even want to try that. But hey, if it happens, I’m grateful. If I can help people, that’s kind of the goal. And a lot of people say they’re being helped, so that’s good. With various different things. So that’s even better. Things I didn’t know I was helping you with that. That’s fantastic. That’s what you want. You want to be out in the world, able to do things for people that make their future better, give them a better relationship to the past. A lot of my videos on navigating patterns are all about that. Here’s a better way to think about money. Here’s a better way to think about the economy. Here’s a better way to think about one of churches. Here’s a better way to think about the fall of the fourth estate. These are better ways to think about things, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but if they’re helpful to you, that’s great. That’s great. Nathaniel, the inability to change the past is the bit I was referring to. See, every time somebody talks about this, I just get blown away. How does everybody not understand that you can’t change the past? And yet, people, and they know some people know this and they forget because I’ve told them before. I’ve told you personally before, and you’ve already forgotten. You can’t change the past. But you can change your relationship to it. You can change your attitude about the past. Your attitude, man, your attitude just changes everything. That’s why this John Breveke practice, when he did the savoring thing, just blew me away. I wasn’t like, I didn’t know about it. Of course I did. I had savored before. The way he did his practice is amazing. John’s Meditation Series and Cultivating Wisdom Series, if you can find them, or if you’ve hidden them for some odd reason, is best work by far. Amazing stuff. Just amazing stuff. I do have the playlist. I should put it on the Market Wisdom Discord server and on the website, which I’ll do at some point. If you don’t see them, remind me. But I will try to do that because it’s just very special stuff. That savoring, that ability to pay attention to your relationship in the present, to the things that are around you immediately, whether you’re out in the woods walking, during walking, when you’re stopped, when you’re sitting at your desk looking at your cool elephant that somebody gave you from India, hand-carved, years ago, or your little canine robot, which is cool, which actually says affirmative master and little eyes light up. It doesn’t really matter. I got a bunch of toys on my desk. Just redoing that, doing that again after having forgotten about the whole practice and not doing it for years, was helpful because it was like, oh, I’m related to the here and now in a very deep poetic way with lots of different connections that I can make, a depth and a richness that is important. And because of that, I can appreciate the past that led me here. I was homeless. I lived in a car in New England in the winter. Not the best time. Not recommended. Normally, I recommend everybody try everything they can. Not that. Don’t do that. I did that. Don’t do that. No. Not recommended. But even that, I have an appreciation for. I have an attitude about a relationship with it that does not destroy my present and my future in the way that it once did. And that’s important because, yeah, you can’t change your past, but you can change your relationship to it. You can change your attitude about it. And that can positively affect your attitude about the present, and that positively affects how you shape the future. And that’s important to people you will never meet and have no awareness of. Your interaction with the future changes somebody else’s present and their past. Anselman, use the past to take lessons from the present future. That requires honesty and reconsidering it and your part in it. Yeah, exactly. Well, and the nice thing about the past is that you get to consider yourself in different frames and in different perspectives. Because in the present, you can really only consider one perspective. Other people will disagree with me. They’re wrong. They’re just wrong. They’re wrong experimentally. They’re wrong logically. They’re wrong rationally. They’re wrong reasonably. Like, no. Obviously, you can only have one perspective at once, and you can try to switch between them, whatever. I don’t think you can at all. I think you’re lying to yourself. I think you can. If you take a very long time, you use something like the Pomodoro technique, although I disagree with their timeframes. They’re not a little weird, so maybe those timeframes work better for most people. That can help with that problem of perspective and changing perspective and renewing perspective, revivifying perspective. But yeah, your past is where you can go, oh, this was my role, or oh, this is how I inadvertently affected that without realizing it in the moment. Oh, this is something that I could have done differently that I didn’t know in the moment. And one of the convivium talks to you. The one that Father Eric did there. He’s talking about after wit, right? Or staircase wit. Where, oh, I should have said this back then, right? In that moment. And I didn’t. You’re like, oh, that would have been a better thing to say. And that happens to probably everybody all the time. At least happens to me all the time. That’s a real thing. And reconsidering that why I didn’t have the capacity in the moment to do that, makes you feel a little bit better about yourself. But you did have the capacity to notice that you could have said something better that should make you feel even better about yourself, because then you’re considering it in a similar situation. Or next time, you might actually be that much smarter about it or that much quick-witted about it, however you want to frame it. Nathaniel. Delusion to be sure. I sobered up and I still don’t hear from my kids. Oh, that’s tough, man. That’s terrible. So anyone who isn’t willing to listen to wise men know that there are real consequences, indeed. I still appreciate the past, but it took years, I bet. Oh, that’s tough, man. I’m sorry to hear that. That’s terrible. And that’s the thing. You know, one of the things we’re missing is we don’t share our past with one another. We don’t talk about it enough, right? And then what happens is everybody thinks everybody’s, whatever they see on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, where they’re happy and on vacation, whatever, they don’t see, oh yeah, I was homeless. Oh yeah, I was a drunk and I lost my family. Oh yeah, my kids died. I think they don’t see that. They don’t know that you’ve been struggling. And so they think their struggle is unique to them. And they’re the first and only person who’s ever struggled about anything ever. And because we have all these positive signals, I mean, hell, you can’t even hit the down vote button on Google anymore. You know, I mean, you can hit it, but no one’s going to see it. Because of that, we have this warped view that no one’s walked through anything remotely resembling struggle. And so we’re alone in our struggle and that leads to nihilism. It gives you a bad relationship with your past and present, and therefore destroys your future. And that’s a problem. We don’t share our past struggles with each other. Anselman, the greatest regret is if the person or persons have passed on that you would like to make amends and say the right thing to. Yeah, well, that’s a big problem. All right. Hopefully Elizabeth remembered to close the tab of the YouTube video so that she doesn’t have that sound echo problem that she often has. See, Elizabeth tends to forget. Then I can let her in. Let’s see. Let’s see. Did I give her enough time? Oh, it sounds good, Elizabeth. Oh my, it’s incredible. I actually X the right X. Good point, Mark. Great point. We’re all phonies. We’re all phonies to that extent, yeah. As Selinger said, phonies, phonies everywhere. No, I think it’s… Now, that’s for your intimacy chapter, but I think it’s critically important. We actually, going back to stories, we don’t know other people’s stories. At all. Like here we are talking and well, I mean, we know each other a little bit, some of us, a teensy bit. Right. So what good is that? Are we all just paper doll cutouts? We’re all… Yeah, it’s a problem. And then that happens a lot in churches too. That’s one of my major gripes with churches, right? Well, I think that’s the… Yeah, if you wanted to criticize churches, and boy, I would love to do that. I kind of hold back, but that would be the biggest criticism. I mean, this is one of the things Sally Jo talks about a lot. Sally Jo talks about dark testimony and the lack of, or gray testimony, she calls it, the lack of gray testimony in churches. And I’m like, well, that’s really kind of a Baptist thing. Although fair enough, the Catholics are just, oh, they have so many problems. And so do the Orthodox. Orthodox have a different set of problems. It’s similar. We’re not talking about each other’s struggles. We’re not really aware of that. And to some extent, I think that’s what’s contributed to, not caused, but contributed to, a lot of churches will do things overseas and they’re not helping their neighbors, right, in front of them. Because everyone’s pretending like they’re not struggling. And as near as I can tell, Elizabeth, and like, I don’t, I mean, we don’t know each other well. We’ve met a couple times in person though, right? Like, I’m sure you’ve struggled in your life. Like, and I don’t know what your struggles have been, right? And some people know some of my struggles, not all of them. I’m embroiled in this ridiculous lawsuit, right? I lost a home. I did a whole video on that. If people like that, let me know. It’s a good video, right? That’s my domicile story. And this idea of being able to go into the church and say, I had a crisis of faith. I’m back here, but I don’t know if I’m going to come back next week, right? And not get cast out. Now, how real that is, or how prevalent that is, I don’t know. This is something that Sally Jo brought up that I take very seriously. Boy, it sounds like you just have a problem. I think it’s a big problem. I think things like that are an issue. And yeah, we don’t know each other’s past. And like, I know some of, like I know some of say Jesse’s current struggles, right? But I don’t know so many of his past struggles, for example. And look, I mean, to be fair, I just, I was talking about my past. My first video with Paul Vanderlip, if you haven’t seen it, it’s actually quite good. Some of these videos, I’m going to get all the links up. I talked the first hour, just me talking about me. I had to prep for that for like a week to make sure I could tell him a story. Cause I don’t talk about that, that way. I never did. I mean, I’m a stoic, so it’s kind of like, oh, who cares about the past, man? We just got to soldier on, right? Like, but he does affect you. And I was always aware of that, but I was never aware of sharing it because my people relationship skills are not the best in many, many ways. They have many deficits. I wouldn’t say that. I wouldn’t say that at all, frankly. I mean, here you are. Thank you. Well, I’m, I’m, this is, a lot of this is just trying to do this better. A lot of this is like, you know, the first I did tell, I told this when I talked to Vanu Klay the first time, she’s like, probably three years ago now, geez, it’s been a long time. Like I took a job at a call center because I don’t like talking on the phone. I still don’t like talking on the phone. Like if Jesse said like, Hey man, give me a call sometime. The odds that I’d call him are very low. Cause I’d always be like, well, there’s a time difference. And then if he’s busy and he doesn’t answer, right. Because, because we’re paranoid. Well, I’m super paranoid, but like a lot of people are paranoid. Like, like I said, like you can read, like he didn’t pick up the phone or he didn’t answer my text as, Oh my God, he, he, he hates me. Or he just gave me his number to placate me or be nice to me. And really, right. And we, we, we get into that habit of projecting that negativity into the future. Yeah. This is a really interesting conversation. And I think it’s more fundamental than I had ever thought before. Because it ties into narrative and stories. So if we’re actually, if we’re not living close to one another, because that’s actually storying, right. You’re actually, when you live in community, you are storying constantly. And we don’t have, like maybe, maybe this is, I hate to simplify, but because I live in a very small community when I go to Italy and it’s remarkable how cohesive it is. And everybody knows everybody else’s story. And it somehow makes people at peace with one another strangely enough. It’s as if it’s, it’s as if, you know why, because you can’t fly into gnosticism when you know everybody else’s stories. It’s impossible. You can’t, you can’t go anywhere else. It’s, you’re too grounded in what’s actually happened in real time and space. And I’m wondering, fundamentally, is this really what the meaning crisis is? Is this a lack of, of story, story in the sense of knowing each other’s stories and, and living side by side? Because by knowing one another’s stories, it’s amazing going back to your exemplification, right. Those are exemplars. You know about so and so, and this happened and this is how they dealt with it in the community. You learn a lot from that. So it’s, if we, if we aren’t actually telling each other our real stories, maybe we all need to be writing our stories, like seriously writing our stories. I don’t think, I don’t think we can, Elizabeth. I mean, I think that’s one of the beauty, beautiful things about Peterson’s past authoring, present authoring, future authoring, is that he starts to give you a sense that you can’t do this thing that you should be able to do. And so you start to develop the skill. That’s one way in. The other way in, and we are working on this, Manuel’s been working really hard on this, revivifying our, our, one of our practices that has had a great deal of success that we sort of modified from one of her vacay’s practices from his meditation series, right. And we’re going to get that going. We’re prepping to do that probably in the next couple of weeks. We’re going to get it renamed. We’ve got the instructions almost done, right. It’s going to be part of the wisdom community project. Yeah. And, and, but, but it’s sort of a larger issue. And I, but I do want to address quickly and I’ll get back to talking about this story stuff for you, but I want to address this real quickly. Hello. That, that struggle between profilicity and authenticity was meant by Paul, Paul VanderKlay a lot in a few weeks ago. I understand pastor Paul, my good friend and his obsession with Hans George Mueller. And I like Hans George Mueller, except his stuff in the present and about the future is total garbage. And that’s one of the things. Profilicity and authenticity are just bifurcations of the identity politics frame. It’s the same frame, just differentiated. I don’t like it. It’s a garbage frame. What do you mean? Give us one more little sentence or two on that one, because keep going. Well, I will keep going. Benjamin Franklin, I’m, you know, sometimes you have really good contributions. I still find profilicity versus authenticity kind of dubious. Right. And hello says, I haven’t put my thumb on it yet either. Benjamin, look, profilicity is this idea that you are have, or are trying to project a profile. The problem is it’s very individualistic out. Individuals don’t exist. I know no one likes to hear that. I’m very sorry, but also true. Individuals don’t exist. That’s so true. You are connected. You are a person who is connected to other persons. Now that connection may be far away from you in time. You may live alone in the woods. I don’t live alone anymore in the woods, by the way. You may live alone in the woods and get your electricity and your food and whatever, your internet, whatever else, by means of money. But there’s other people somewhere on the other end of that connection. And as I said earlier in my monologue, if those people don’t care and they reduce that transaction with you to money, it’s going to be a bad time for you living alone. Period. And so you rely on their grace to make sure that that monetary transaction works well for you. Nicely said. Write it down. You rely on their grace. That is a fabulous concept. You rely on their grace. I love it. Because people, yeah, you’re just fractally anchoring the concept. I love that. I love that. Can’t we be thankful? I hate the word gratitude. Sorry. I just think thankfulness does it. What’s gratitude anyway? Does anybody know? What does it mean? Gratitude is the ability to have appreciation for the sacrifices that you did not make. And what’s thank, how is it different from being thankful? I’m not sure. Hold on, Elizabeth. Let’s not buzz past that. I did that off the top of my head. I need a little bit more from you. Just a little bit. I did that on the top of my head. Come on. I know it was good. Look off the top of my head. Just for you. Gratitude, Elizabeth. I do appreciate you. You know I do, Mark. I know. I know. I know. But it was a good opportunity to exemplify the gratitude. I know. But I was so focused on thankful that I wasn’t really, you know, I missed my chance. See, there you go. You weren’t focused in the right way. Your attention was all over the place. Yeah, it really was indeed. But yeah, I’m allergic to the word a bit. But yeah, okay. There is a difference. Maybe there is maybe appreciation. Maybe there’s a sense of appreciation and gratitude somehow. There’s something a little different. Maybe I need to think about it a little bit. Okay. Yeah, because why do people not like the word thankful? I just don’t know. Everybody says gratitude now and I just wondered if there’s something that was missing. It’s a magic word. Like a lot of people will whip out the word empathy, right? And it’s a magic word. I hate the word empathy too. How’d you guess? Yeah, empathy is the worst. I have no idea. What the hell is it? Well, empathy. Well, I think I can do empathy pretty well. We struggle with this for a month. I think we figured out empathy is only appropriate for mothers towards children under the age of four. And after that, empathy isn’t possible anymore. Or it gets less and attenuates out, right, as the child gets older. As the formation happens, you can’t track the other human, right? That’s why women are very focused on people. A three-year-old is a simple person by any imagination, right? Okay, that was brilliant there. I hate to tell you again, but that was brilliant because- That’s not me. That’s Manuel and Sally Jo and a lot of people. What, that you can’t track? That you can’t track? That I have no idea. We worked for a very long time on empathy. That took a lot of work. That took a lot of work. That was months and months and months of powering through that. Yeah, yeah. Ethan helped with that. Ethan helps with everything. I can’t thank Ethan enough for everything he does. He’s another one. He’s got to be in your book. I think it’d be great to have several authors. It’d be kind of cool. So, yeah, empathy because you can’t track. So we’re going back to the Gnostic problem in a sense, aren’t we? It’s Gnosticism. Empathy past the age of four is Gnosticism. Is that fair? That sounds right. I like that. I like that idea. Well, it’s certainly hubris in the age of Gnosis. Have you been- Yeah, nice. Nice. Yeah. Yeah. It’s this idea that you can know that much about a person, like an adult person. And it’s like, no, you can’t. You don’t even know that much about yourself. Why do you think you can know that much about somebody else when you don’t even know that much about yourself? So that ties into friendship, doesn’t it? Because, yeah, so what are we talking about? Friendship is a certain class of intimate relationships. Right? And I did talk with Andrea with the banks. It’s actually one of her most popular videos of that. It’s the most popular video of that type on her channel. It’s got over a thousand views. Oh, wow. It’s called As Deep as a Puddle. Oh, yeah. That video’s gangbusters. Well, for somebody who didn’t have an audience and bring it to her channel, that video just freaking burned it up. Burned up her channel. It’s fantastic. Yeah. That was our talk on intimacy. So she was trying to understand this intimacy concept that I said, look, if you’re a materialist, a friendship between two men has to be gay. It has to be sexual. Because you don’t have the enchanted idea of different qualities of relationships. So one type of friendship is that type of bond of hobbit servants. I don’t have to say manservant because they’re hobbits. Hobbit servants. Right? You’ve got hobbit master and hobbit servants. Right? And then what that lesser, not lesser in every way because he ends up greater, ends up marrying and having children, for example. Right? What that relationship enables is for the ring to be destroyed. No, sorry. The ultimate power in the universe to be destroyed. Because the ring in Tolkien’s story is the ultimate power in the universe. Power for evil. And because it’s only an evil power, right? Because it only tends towards evil because it was born of evil and had evil placed in it deliberately. This is how evil works, by the way. It’s always deliberate, malicious. It’s the ultimate enabler. It’s not the ultimate evil. It’s the ultimate enabler. Whoever has the ring is enabled to their most extreme potential. Right. But it’s also the most powerful thing. Yes. But that is the most powerful thing. If your potential, your possibility to enact the future that you desire, which often brings out the evil in most men. Right. That’s a nuance of a point that I think gets lost because it’s the ultimate potential. So it brings out the ultimate evil in Sauron or the ultimate evil in men with dropped hearts. But it does not bring out the ultimate evil in Frodo. What it does is it increases his burden or his, yeah, his sense of suffering. No, it doesn’t. It does. It does bring him towards evil. And I think there’s a fundamental difference between the rings, right? Because the elves master the other rings, but they don’t even think they can master that one. Yes. Right. They can’t override with goodness the evil of that ring. It’s very, wow, we should break down the Hobbit in terms of plus, minus and neutral, right? Because there the plus minus neutral, right? Like you can’t get around three frames in the Hobbit. You can’t. Everyone does. But actually, if you think about it for 10 seconds, it’s all three frames all the way down. Right. It’s all that neutral state. Well, a lot of the characters in Tolkien’s world are neutral. Yes. The Rohirrim aren’t contributing to the project of the ring at all. They’re focused on the Gondor restoration project. Frontier, essentially. Yeah. Right. They don’t contribute to the journey in any meaningful way except by accident, really. They’re not even aware of the quest to destroy the ring. Almost nobody’s aware of the quest. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that’s the real secret. Right. So most of the actors in the world are neutral with respect to good and evil in that way. Right. And that’s why some of them go to Sauron’s side. Right. But it’s the nature of the relationships in the story. And story is the thing that highlights the quality of relationships. Right. And I think that’s the key. So the question is, how does all that work? Well, and this is what thing I was talking about with Ted. So in Ted’s convivium talk, he very nicely shouts me out and says, oh, this is an idea that Mark gave to me, the many to many relationship. That’s our idea of the poetic way of informing the world. This goes back four P’s of information. See my video on the Knowledge Engine. Knowledge Engine video on navigating patterns is a great video. I need more views on that one for sure. I need more people asking me questions so I could do another video to explain all this stuff, whatever they’re not understanding. It’s perfectly clear to me. I did the video. I had slides. Anybody wants to do slides for me? Let me know. I need more slides. I got two other videos I want to do with slides. That idea of having a poetic connection navigation relationship in the world where it’s a many to many relationship, it’s not linear, it’s not discrete, it’s not one to one, it’s not like procedure, follow this, then follow that, then follow this. It’s, oh, you can enter any of these points and you’re in this world. Then you can go to different places from where you enter. Not all the places maybe, but you can decide which way to go. The land of decisions is the land of poetic participation. When you’re living in a world of propositions and procedures, you’re screwed. Everything just works exactly the way it works and you don’t have any agency. Yeah, well said. That’s denialism. You need boundaries. You need boundaries and constrictions. In fact, boundaries and constrictions help you to enact good in the world. When you lift off those boundaries and constrictions and you’re able to fully live out your potential, well, you don’t know what that is because you’ve lived within boundaries and constrictions most of your life and that it’s caused you to suffer, which has developed your character. As soon as you take away those boundaries and constrictions, all of a sudden anything is possible and that will bring out corruption in you because gravity actually makes you a stronger person. That’s the thing I wanted to point to there. Having those boundaries and constrictions helps you enact good to the future. If the future is open to you, but it’s not everything as you’re saying before, not everything is possible for you. That actually helps you choose what you should choose the good in the world to live out from. Well, in knowing that there’s good and not good in the world helps to give you the contrast. You can have the discernment so you can make the judgment to choose the good in your action. Yeah, I got to do a roll up video on this. In fact, I should probably do a recorded video on discernment judgment action again and make it. I told you. So in the world of propositions, there’s no agency. Wow, exactly. You build a closed world. And then you’ve got abstraction and God and Gnosis. Wow, exactly. Cool. All right. Good. People are seeing it. It’s only been like three years I’ve been talking about this. That’s great. Well, I got a lot of what I want to tell you. Yeah, a lot of the paradigms that you overlap so well with Dr. McGill, Chris, that it’s just it’s really good to that’s why I love listening to you as well because then I hear it in a different voice, but it’s the same concept. So it’s very exciting. But I don’t think he went that far. I think he hasn’t said that specifically. And I really think that’s a brilliant insight that there can’t be agency. So that’s the frozen world. That’s the inferno. Right. Yeah. Flat. Well, enough denial is flat, flat, if we like flat, frozen, and nihilistic because you have no agency. So the heat depth of the universe. Why do anything? I yeah. So no stories either. No stories. Stories are full of potential impossibilities because when you engage with story or with poetry or whatever, but when you engage poetically, you see yourself potentially as different characters. And you see different decisions that could have been made, even though the story doesn’t unfold that way. That’s why I do have a video of this navigating patterns called story narrative archetype. Right. And if you understand it in that way, a lot of things make a lot more sense in terms of your engagement. It’s like, oh, a story is an instance. Stories, multiple stories point to archetypes and those archetypes, sorry, point to narratives and those narratives point off to the archetypes. And so it’s a filtering system effectively. And so it doesn’t make any sense to talk about story and then narrative because you need multiple stories contrasted to see narrative. Because narrative is the template or the framework that stories use. And Peterson, one of the mistakes I actually think he makes it, I will go after him publicly for right now is he swaps the word story and narrative like they’re not different words. And that is an error. That is a deep, deep error. There you go, Elizabeth. I made you happy. I’ve critiqued Peterson. Also, Elizabeth, it’s important to note you’re talking about the sense of knowing each other’s story, right? As we become more and more of a globalized culture, more globalized nations, the boundaries and constrictions of what your neighborhood is, who your neighbors actually are and the makeup of those neighborhoods is flattened down. And so people don’t get as invested in becoming neighbors or becoming local participants or civilians, say however you want, patriots. You can see a number of different ways. These are all scales of sentiments and potential relationships. So as we flatten the world, people are less and less interested in forming bonds of intimacy or sentimentality. Well, that works two ways. What’s in it for them? Well, it means that you share your life. You share your life, I mean, and then- You can’t. You can’t. And then- Yeah, you can. Yeah, you can. We’re kind of doing it a little bit here. There’s a little bit of sharing. I mean, this is- No, but Elizabeth, let me explain it differently. A lot of people think, oh, making the world one big tent, right? Or one boundariless thing like the transhumanism, whatever, that’s not a flattening. When you flatten, things spread out. So the boundaries of your community get larger. Yeah, for sure. But two problems happen. One is there are too many people to track. And so there’s, to Jessie’s point, there’s no reason to invest because you can’t invest that heavily in the 3,000 people. You can’t. You can’t track this, right? But there’s another second order effect from that, which is your attention gets spread out because you’re not prioritizing the people closest to you. And so now there’s no reason to do it because the idea of doing that is overwhelming because after all, if those people are the same as people living the next town over, how do I know which ones to pay attention to? Now, you get enticed into that, and there’s a negative sort of second order loopback effect. What happens is you now seek out the people that are already the most like you. And maybe that’s the incident. Why do you do that? Why do you think that’s happening? Well, because it’s too overwhelming to try and think about, all right, so this neighbor over here. Yeah, I think that’s true. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is this, I think, I’m not even sure. I don’t even know my neighbors, unfortunately. I live in the woods. This neighbor over here is from a different culture. They’re Mexican, whatever. These guys are also Mexican. Maybe I have less. The person in back of me, yeah, but he’s older, right? Which of those relationships should I prioritize? Well, look, you know what I can do? I can get on and I can talk to Jesse from Australia and we already get along great. Why do I want to make that connection with the person across the street? Or I can find somebody who knows as much about computers as I do or whatever, right? Those are easier relationships. So when you flatten the world and spread things out like that and even them out, this is equality doctrine, equality is bad, just equality runaway, right? When you do that, you create a crisis where people don’t want to do the hard thing near them because they can have a lesser relationship, but an easier relationship in some other medium like this, the irony of ironies, right? But like, yeah, no kidding. And that’s where the technology is dangerous. Now, I argue that we enabled the technology because that problem already existed. Everybody else, materialists are going to say, no, the technology caused it. I’m like, technology doesn’t cause problems. I agree. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, we we saw this. We all saw this and went, yes, it’s obvious, right? Right. For sure. For sure. Yeah. And you can blame- Let’s be honest, it felt natural. Right. Well, you can blame Twitter for being a dumpster fire and then Elon Musk buys it and it’s not as much of a dumpster fire. You can say what you want about how much of a dumpster fire it is, but you can’t say it’s not much less of a dumpster fire now. It’s more personable. That’s an untenable thesis given the data that has already unfolded that is in the past that you cannot change. As much as you may not want it to have been better after he bought it, it’s certainly improved in lots of ways and not, you know, technically it got better, right? He’s running it with fewer people, right? It’s no longer a propaganda arm of the government or multiple governments potentially. Who knows at this point? And who cares? It’s just a better place now and we don’t have to focus on that past. We can say, yay, it’s better now. Let’s be happy. There’s more flowers. There’s more happiness. There’s a lot more pictures of landscapes and people saying positive things and having positive interactions and conversations. And even though Vanderclay is still out there trolling on Twitter, there’s still a lot more positivity. I’m going to poke Paul for sure. Yeah, it has a different vibe now. It definitely has a different vibe. You can feel it for sure. It does. Yeah. Well, there was a joy right after he bought it. And I do want to go back because Mills wants to, I think we need to unpack the idea that ultimate potential is necessarily evil. I don’t agree with that. Maybe Jesse is going to stand by that one. I don’t know. I don’t think, I think the problem with unlimited potential is that anything unlimited, there’s more evil than good in the world. And so the more you have, the more likely you are to tend towards evil. That’s what I will say. But I don’t think it’s necessarily evil. Right. And it would be unchristian in my opinion. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that’s not where I was going at all. Also, I think for men, for men, for people that have seeds of corruption in them, like the ultimate potential should be God or some, in some sense. It’s a, it’s a, the being outside of time and space, the divine, you could say, that’s the ultimate potential because it’s uncorrupted, uncorruptible. So that, that is the true open future, the true, the ologos. We carry the image of God. So we have potential. But yeah, left your own devices to, yeah, we will, we will necessarily tend towards, even if it’s gradually over time, which you see in Tolkien. Yeah. We, we, yeah. We’re not ready for that potential. That would be the orthodox way, way of saying things. We’re in the process of theotokos or sanctification. That would be, that would be, these are all very, very, very Christian terms. And as soon as we get here, I check out because the theology is meant for Pope’s, Bishop’s, saints, priests. I don’t think it’s for, I don’t think it’s for widow artists like myself, who are just trying to make sense of the world. Well, not even that, no, trying to participate with others in the sense making project of figuring out what you should eat. There you go. It’s a very long string of words that get you to the most practical outcome, which is what should we eat? Pretty much every conversation goes back to what should we eat tonight? That’s, that’s, that’s about it. Like, and that’s why it’s actually a lot of, if you can trace a lot of narrative threads back to hospitality, like you were saying before, Elizabeth, which is a form of gratefulness. They literally come back to food or festival, even most festivals are actually festivals of hospitality, which implies food or most religious rituals around the world actually involve some form of consumption of food or something of that nature, some sacrificial element. So actually the best movie on this, I know I’m going a tangent of a tangent is Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, which if you, if you missed that movie, it’s got nothing to do with the 17th century and has everything to do with hospitality. Every pivotal scene in that movie is about someone sitting at a table, making a decision. That’s it. That’s the entire movie is a series of people sitting at tables, making decisions. And that’s it. And the movie ends with her sitting at the table, having to make decisions about what to do with her household. That’s it. That’s the entire film. And he strings you along for three hours of that one concept. Wow. There you go. But again, it actually comes down to the sense of hospitality and how essentially I would, I would point towards that. Kubrick is critiquing the British Empire through its loss of hospitality. And that’s what led to its decline. So there you go. Esoteric of an esoteric. It’s lack of hospi- no, but I think this ties in with everything else we were talking about. It ties into story. If you don’t practice hospitality, you don’t have story. I mean, hospitality, and I like the fact that you connected it to appreciation and gratitude, and there we go to grace. Right. And so, but, but maybe that’s the, the ancient mechanism of, of, of sense-making is hospitality. Wow. That I think this is important. Chapter nine. Yeah. Well, I think, I think that what we’ve lost in recent times is the ability to inform ourselves poetically about the world. And so we can’t have hospitality. We’ve got a bunch of people who can’t read poetry. They can’t find anything in poetry. Ted’s giving his talk, right? He’s, he’s, he says, yeah. So the, the AI engineers say, oh, look, AI can write poetry and it’s indistinguishable from human poetry. And Ted goes, no, it wasn’t. Like I could tell the difference. He said, but I could see why a bunch of AI engineers couldn’t tell the difference. Well, that’s very telling about what’s wrong with today. They don’t know. They don’t have the discernment of proper poetry and it’s not arbitrary. And I got to push back on Pastor Paul’s video about poetry, re-knitting the world and blah. He just misunderstood a bunch of things. In my opinion, I’m going to claim to be the expert in this since this is our work. Actually, right. We were here three or four years ago now. We heard a long time ago with the poetics and how that, and we called it parabolic in the beginning. Fair enough. Whatever Mary Cohen came up with that, you know, I hope she’s resting, resting in peace in her soul in heaven. She’s a wonderful woman. I really miss her. I wish we could have gotten to talk to her more before she passed, but she was onto the parabolic and a different way of knowing. Obviously we replaced the perspectival with what, what we’re now naming the poetic. And I think that’s important. We’ve lost, people have lost the way to interact with something that isn’t propositional and procedural. And they go, well, those propositions make no sense. So they’re word salad, but actually word salad was originally used. Meal wise to talk about the likes of Sam Harris. Those, the original memes around word salad were all about guys like Sam Harris, right? Who were not making sense, but we’re making lots of words. Yeah. That’s what word salad is. You’re saying lots of words, but you’re not making sense. Those words don’t fit together. I know there is a difference between that and poetry and the difference is discernment. There’s lots of people making lots of words that can never ever, ever make sense. You cannot take random words and put them together and make coherent, sensible things. That isn’t how the world works. That scales up and down. Fractal, it’s worlds itself, similar fractal, right? You also can’t do that with pieces. You can’t take a brick, a cinder block and a block of wood and make anything out of that by itself. Right. Like if you want to make a brick house, you need a bunch of bricks. You don’t only need bricks, but you need a bunch of bricks. You can’t substitute some of those bricks for something random. That doesn’t work. Right. In the same way, you can’t just pick a name out of a hat and go, aha, relevance realization. Relevance realization and the problem of attention are the same thing. Look, I like relevance realization. I’m still a Vervecki fan in that way, but no. Relevance realization is a black box and what it really is is the problem of attention. It’s the same thing Peterson talks about. I think using relevance realization is a good term, but actually Peterson, Peugeot and Vervecki are talking about exactly the same thing using different language. Probably Peugeot understands this perfectly well and the other two do not. That would be my guess. Maybe I’m not giving Peterson enough credit, but whatever. No, no, no. He doesn’t get it like Jonathan does for sure. Yeah, not like Jonathan. He may get it more than John does. Yeah, because he listens to Jonathan, Peugeot and steals all his ideas. It’s true. Thank you, Michelle. That’s very generous of you. Thank you. I found sharing our struggles, we overemphasized or dismissed it, advising, find joy in life by worrying, alas, about the temporary yet no avail. I ask them, is grace being exemplified through this actions? Yeah. Look, I think the way we share has changed and what we share has changed. And we’re not talking about our present struggles, our past struggles, like any of our struggles. We’re just not talking about struggle because struggle is hard to relate to because you need a poetic way of relating. Yeah. Because if you don’t have poetics to relate to your struggles, if you don’t see your struggles like, man, I’m going through this stupid lawsuit. This is inane, bizarre things are happening that I could tell you about potentially, but a are not believable and b are ridiculous. Like all things. Like all struggles. Might jeopardize my ability to be victorious. So the struggle is there. And if I think of it in terms of what might happen that would be bad, like, oh, we get to the end of this and it doesn’t go in my favor and I lose the investment of, you know, probably a hundred thousand dollars to date and probably a lot more. But a time we’re done and get nothing out of it, but four years of struggle. If I focus on that, that’s no good. If I focus on the best possible outcome, it’s still a terrible outcome because, you know, it’s been five years. This is a long road. If you had told me it was going to take five years to resolve this, when it started, I would have been like, there’s no possible way that that could happen. The only way I’ve been able to keep going on this is to look towards the potential that might be opened up by it being over. Right. Not in a particular outcome, just by when this is over, what will be freed up for me. And it may be that I lost a hell of a lot of money and didn’t get sort of justice. Right. Because that would be the outcome. If the monetary side doesn’t hit at all, the outcome will be unjust by definition, by the way. I don’t argue about the definition of justice. Plato can’t do that. I don’t think I can. But also I could point to this and you would know justice pretty quick. You know. But either way, it will be over. And that affords a bunch of things in the future when it’s over. Hopefully, in the March, it should be over, over. That affords a bunch of things. It opens up a bunch of potential and possibility. It opens up space for me to think about other things that I haven’t been able to think about. Maybe go through the damn notes, get them straightened away. Right. Maybe start writing my book. Right. Whatever. Right. There’s a bunch of things. If I don’t focus on that, if I over focus on a particular outcome, like, oh, if I don’t prevail financially to this degree, it was all for naught. If I go down that rabbit hole, I’m totally screwed. So we don’t have an appreciation for that level of struggle. Yeah, I think that’s true. I think we’re lacking courage for all of this. It seems that, yeah, we’re so just wanting, I’ll speak for myself. It’s just so easy to go the easy route. Right. And the struggle in itself. I mean, that’s Peterson. And he’s right about that. Right. And struggle with God. That’s his new book. Right. So I think it’s fractal. Right. And it does something to you. Like you just said. Yeah, the process in itself is, what’s it doing? It’s something that needed to be done, obviously. Or you wouldn’t have embarked on it. Had to be done, for whatever reason. It attracted your attention, Mark. And that was that. Right. Well, that’s navigation. Like you can’t go through the world without navigating. Right. And if you try to limit your navigation, you just get worse navigation skills. And the bottom line is, in the future, a storm is coming. Right. And if your navigation skills suck, that storm is going to be worse for you. The storm’s not going to be any worse. The storm is the storm. Right. The thing that’s going to be worse is your ability to weather it. I agree. Wow. Yep. Are you a sailor? I am. I am. Yeah. Well, I mean, anybody who’s a sailor understands that. Is that where this came from? Oh, yeah. That’s why it’s pirate. Absolutely. Oh, yeah. This is Sally Jo. This is the divine, feminine hand of Sally Jo manipulating all of this. Right. Yeah. But anybody who’s learned sail understands what you’re talking about. It’s not easy. It’s not easy. That’s why she pushed me into this stupid pirate outfit. Some of which I had. The hat I had all along. Oh, is that Sally Jo? Oh, she’s wonderful. She’s had such a good effect on you. It’s remarkable. I know. Well, and all the artwork and the logos. She’s kind of created you in a sense, we might say. Or discovered you. It’s a co-manifestation for sure. We help each other out. Right. Well, I mean, you have to look at it in light of how the world works. And how do I think the world works? I think the world works exactly like this. Right. Women point up to the higher thing that the man can’t see. The man points down at the thing he’s built. You need both of them. They are not optional. And this is the ultimate collaboration. Right. This is probably a year, at least several months of me struggling. Yeah. Well, I’m trying to explain this simple diagram. It’s simple. It’s right in front of you. It was very simple all along. And Sally Jo took forever to draw it. Right. I mean, that’s how it is. Right. And of course, I have one right there on Canvas. You can buy that at shop.mark of wisdom. Oh. I’ll post a link. Yeah, you can buy that. You can buy this lovely mug too to help you consider. What’s your website? I don’t even know. I think we have it in black even. Oh, you have it in black? What’s your website? Tell me. The website is mark of wisdom dot org. And the shop is here. I’ll post a link. Mark of wisdom. I’d like that picture. I don’t know about the mug though. I don’t know. I’m kind of too old to be a Muffet. No. Oh, no, you’re definitely a Muffet. No, you’re definitely. Yeah. Well, if there’s a black one. If there’s a black one. Yeah. Yeah. It’s a brilliant image for sure. And so why is there feedback? Can you hear it? Yeah, there’s a little bit. I don’t think it’s bad enough to worry about. OK. So hospitality and Sally Jo’s image. Go. Come on. Hospitality and Sally Jo’s image. So. For the future. Sure. Can only be enabled through poetic engagement. You can’t do hospitality and navigate that relationship with people without that poetic engagement. Right. Right. Everything is about poetics. Yeah. Go back to any of my live streams or any of my videos. Yeah, I’m with you. It’s all about the model with poetics. The whole thing. I’m totally with you. But I’d love. I mean, there’s a lot to say, right? Oh, so I should be listening to a lot to many of your videos, I’m assuming. You should. That’s true. All the model videos in particular. I have a model’s playlist. That’s a really good playlist because it gives you that simple model that sort of inspired the whole channel. Like, oh, here where people are stuck. One of these places. Right. And what I’m trying to do in the early model videos with the terrible slides, but I have slides, is to show you how to identify where people’s worldviews are stuck, like at what dimensionality, at what level. Right. And then what’s the next step to give them? Ah. Right. And then once they get that next step, you get the next step. That’s all outlined in the videos, actually. Is it outlined well? I have no idea. Those are the early videos. Although, I have it on good authority from Australia that there’s gold in some of them there videos, right, Jesse? So hopefully, hopefully it’s there. And maybe I just need to do them again or do more or whatever. And I’m happy to do that if people request it. But and then you get to the knowledge engine video and it’s like, oh, you can use those models plus this knowledge engine system, right? This layout, it’s a map. And now you can just help lots of people very easily. And soon we’ll get the new practice out, this new wisdom practice, hopefully, probably next week, maybe the week after. So we’ll be able to help people with poetics because that particular practice actually helps people with poetics. Now, the problem is, it’s a mid-tier practice. You can’t just get somebody off the street, introduce them to the practice and they do it four times and magic happens. That’s no good. You got to get them in with the first step, which is showing up, showing up on a regular basis, getting self-aware, right? Having some relationship. Maybe it’s meditation, maybe it’s not, right? Something where they’re engaged, hopefully on a daily basis or at least twice a week. And then you can draw them into this practice, right? And then get them engaged with, you have to give them the boundaries where they end and other things begin, right? And then maybe they can engage further, right? And then you can get them into poetry. And once you get them into the idea that poetry is not drivel, it’s not world salad, right? You do this practice, we open up the poetry for you effectively. First, we open up prose, then we open up poetry and bang. Now all of a sudden, your own capability, your own navigation takes over. Now you can’t weather that storm. The storm is not going to get worse. But you can get worse and make the storm worse for you. Yeah, and if you’re not, if you don’t get what you just said, oh my, heaven help you, all I can say, heaven help you, because yeah, wow. So what are you calling it? Poetics? We don’t have a name yet. We’ve got a number of candidate names. Culture. We have to, we have to fight over it. Culture. Nice. Culture. No, we’re not calling it, we’re not calling it culture. To your point though, Elizabeth, I know you’re not on Twitter, but this week, a poetic engagement is quite good. And I’m about to echo that sentiment. I’m going to use a word, it’s a bit taboo on this channel, but I’m using it for very technical reasons. It was actually having a minor Twitter spat with the great burn power. I called great technically. Yes. I am on Twitter, actually. I think. She is on Twitter. What are we talking about? Secret channel. Do you follow me? That’s the real question. I didn’t know you were there. I don’t, but I might. Anyway, tell me about the burn power thing. That’s, I’m fascinated. I’m interested. Go. Yeah. Mark can send you my, my different Twitter channels. The, when we adopted modernism as the standard of society and civil practice, we changed from a culture of participation to a culture of distraction. Ah. Participation is that hospitality that sits at the bedrock of all local different, different places, different things. You participate in the community, participate in the street. You smile at each other. You maybe go to church or use the same baker. You buy the same meat from someone, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. When we, when modernism became at its peak, let’s say somewhere in the late 19th century, maybe the late eighties, we became a, a people that were consumed with distraction, with products rather than with participation. There’s that lack of hospitality. There’s that changing of the sentiments of the people. There’s that lack of culture. Um, we, uh, and then as Mark has been saying many times through this channel, it’s actually that participation, that embodiment that, that brings the wisdom, it brings people back together that forms those bonds or sentiments that we need to restore. Um, and that’s how, that’s how you best learn as well is actually with others. Like I’ve learned more yet through doing and being a part of this channel, being part of Mark’s project, than reading any of those books back there, purely because it’s a participation practice. It’s the same thing with meditation or, um, you’d say musicianship or anything. You learn more, um, as a craftsman, let’s say that another big broad term, um, by doing it with someone, we’re having that regular feedback than you do if you do it as a solo in silo. So yeah, absolutely. That’s what Mark’s last name means. It means craftsman. I looked it up because Paul VanderKlay was talking about the spelling. So I looked up your name and it means craftsman. I still call him an artist in private though. I like craftsman. He’s a pirate craftsman. Like how cool is that? It’s Smith. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, usually blacksmith. Oh, usually blacksmith. Oh, Lefebvre. Oh yeah. That makes sense. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But I love your connection with, between participation and wisdom. Well said. That’s exactly it. And it’s like hospitality. Sorry. It’s the thing that’s right here, right? And we’re busy doing this and it’s, oh, it’s actually right. Like often a lot of what we encounter in 2024 are things that are just so here, but we’re so used to being distracted by looking what’s around rather than the thing itself. Yeah. That gets back to the locality. Oh, keep going. I’m really curious about this. Go. Well, that’s participation is all about locality. Keep going. You can get a book on how to play the piano and that book could teach you how to play the piano. But the person that wrote that book is far away. They might be dead. That’s not to say you can’t learn from them, but you’re going to, you would learn better if there were a person there teaching you what did that book has. So what do you mean by locality then? Are you talking about distance in a sense? It’s distance, right? But it’s distance in time or space and usually both. Oh, distance. Why are you calling it locality per se? It was the best word I could come up with. Intimacy. I can just keep saying that word again. Again, it’s like the thing that’s like right there and we’re like, oh, it’s maybe something. No, it’s right there. It’s like whatever is right there you are intimate with or not intimate with trying to avoid through distraction. That’s causing you to either trip up or not see the next step. If we want to talk about the future often, the future isn’t like not three years. The future is literally tomorrow. Like that’s it. Like if that is what you were intimate with, like there’s a common saying that tomorrow starts at 6 p.m. today. As soon as the sun’s setting, like tomorrow’s, so whatever you’re choosing to do to set yourself up as the sun is setting, that is literally your tomorrow. There’s no way to avoid that. It is coming for you or the storm as Mark has been saying. I don’t know where you got that from. Is that an old custom, an old wisdom saying that you after six the future is now? You could say it. Yeah, you could say in a number of different ways. I won’t tell you the source because you’d be like what? But sometimes sources aren’t actually relevant. It’s the weirdness behind them. Yeah, but you know when I was growing up, it’s really interesting you said that because I’d be in 71 when I was growing up. That was part of our culture. We all knew that. In the family, for example, that’s how we lived with that piece of wisdom. For example, just the way we did in the evenings, you put out your clothes for the next day, you’re already in the next day, you’re already there. We already knew that. We’ve lost that. We’re so distracted. Here we are. You knew it in participation. You knew it because you participated with it in the moment. You didn’t know it because someone told it to you. No, but it worked. You were like, oh, now I have that knowledge. Participatory knowledge is not something you have. It’s not something you transfer from person to person in that way. That’s the locality. For sure. It was a ritual that we put out our clothes the night before you put out your clothes for the next day. It’s really nice. What it’s doing is creating time as duration is what it’s doing, right? Which is another really important concept. Right, but to see that’s the locality. There are things you can train people to do through exemplification, for example, that you can’t train them to do any other way. Absolutely. If you’re training through exemplification, they have to be near enough for you to exemplify them. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Key point. Key point. Locality also works the following way. A book about how to play piano written 100 years ago is not as useful to you as a book that was written last year. On average, not entirely. On average, because the context for the world you live in has been updated. For example, a book 100 years ago wouldn’t tell you anything about the feel of an electronic keyboard. That varies greatly. Whereas actual physical pianos did not have such great variation in them. Maybe you’re talking about technical books because I have to go back to Dante. I’m telling you Dante is so today that he talks to me. Those are stories, right? Right, right. Technically poems. Technically poems, but anyway. Right, right. Michelle, thank you Michelle. Nice, Jesse. Hospitality rhymes with politely. There you go. I like that. That’s cute. That’s really cute. Thank you. Hello. Hospitality and politely. That’s good. That’s good. Sally Jo could do a picture on that. No, maybe. No, seriously. Hospitality and politely. That is really great. Wow. Smart. What’s the latest thing? I want a mug that says awakening to the muppet crisis. Uh oh. Well, we can do that. I will put it on the list. We’ll get that on the store. Why aren’t we talking about politely? As long as it uses the picture that I used for my laptop. Yeah, sure. Oh, we’ll have to get together. Is that on? Well, we’ll have to chat about that, Jesse. Do you have access to that? I’ll steal that. No problem. It’s literally just an internet picture that I subcontinued. Oh, okay. Well, we’ll have to see what the… We’ll have to see what the trademarks and copyrights and all that are on that thing. Hey, hey. You guys have to go. You have to go back to this politely idea and etiquette and hospitality. I’m waiting. I think they’re really connected and I think it’s super important and it’s connected to ritual and going to church. Politeness, right. Politeness is the ultimate ritual of cooperation. And I was going to do a whole stream of that. Ultimate ritual of cooperation. It is. And I quote you. Yes. And politeness… I miss listening to you, Mark. You’re good. Why did you stop listening to me? I was in Europe and it was like three in whatever time it was, I was already half dead. You people in your Europe. I’m glad you’re back. That’s what matters. So anyway, like this is completely required for something like the Protestant experiment of the United States or even the Protestant experiment of England where you have different religions mixing because you don’t have the religious traditions to hold you together. You don’t have the religious rituals to hold you together. So now this politeness thing emerges as a result of Protestant ethos, roughly speaking. In fact, it could be, I’m not sure this, it could be that politeness as we can see of it today doesn’t exist before Protestantism. Oh yeah. Yeah. I bet it doesn’t exist in Italy to this day. It doesn’t. It’s something else. It’s more Catholic ritual the way they interact. They’ve got the Catholic ritual. They don’t need this extra politeness. No, they don’t need politeness. It’s lovely. From the outside, we would grab those things and say, oh, well, the way you interact with the stranger and all that, we would call that politeness. They wouldn’t ever call that politeness because they have no contrast. And they’re right. It’s not for them. This is what you do. Right. Right. And it’s in their bones. But it’s required as a bootstrap to the poetic engagement, to the intimate relationship, or just for any basic cooperation. So let’s just suppose there’s a landscape of cooperation. I still hate Sam Harris, but the landscape idea is useful. So if there’s a landscape of cooperation, a bunch of it is enabled just by politeness. But to go any further than that, to go to have a deeper, more intimate relationship, you have to go beyond politeness. And that transition is dangerous. I mean, that’s where we get the whole like, well, you know, you need consent before you hug somebody garbage. Right. Because politeness is gone. We don’t even have that first layer. But even when you have that first layer, that second layer, a lot of people used to talk about this. How do we how do we we have a friend who’s of the opposite sex? How do we transition into, you know, in the past, nobody ever had questions like that, because that never came up. Right. Because your relationships were a lot more clear. The way you interacted with the person you might be interested in was at the dance. One of the great insights I was talking about this two nights ago, last night, maybe with Bruce, actually love Bruce. I was I was pointing out that Berm Power taught me something very interesting, sort of by accident, because I don’t think he actually goes into this, although I might be I might be misremembered. When rap music comes along, rap music is literally somebody hijacked a truck of high end audio equipment. So it’s built that the thing the actual mechanism by which they create the art is stolen. And then of course, rap music is stolen beats from other people’s songs. So the whole thing is that be very whole right. It’s the whole thing. At the same time, what happens? Breakdancing happens. What’s breakdancing? Breakdancing is not cooperative dancing. All dancing before this pretty much is cooperative. It’s between men and women or it’s multiple, right? It’s groups. Breakdancing is inherently competitive. And it’s Brazilian and based, but it’s Brazilian is based the practice, the movements from are based upon Brazilian samba dancing. And all of that is into New York. Yeah. All of that is born into this milieu of this very diverse immigrant population. And that’s part of the reason why rap, you know, sort of gained popularity is like, oh, look, it’s a bunch of people who were here, right? People who came from Africa, you know, were new African immigrants. People came from the Caribbean who are new Caribbean immigrants. And people came from Brazil who were Brazilian immigrants all living roughly in the same neighborhoods, actually, or adjacent neighborhoods who are interacting with one another. And there’s all this theft. And then they create create something new. But did they know, right, they really just carved up the world and put it back together in a dream of their own device. Right. And all of a sudden, you’ve got this competitive spirit, because everybody wants to put things together slightly differently. Right. And then it leads all the way up to someone like Eminem, right, who, you know, is in these rap battle things. And I look, I’m not I’m not casting an opinion, right. I’m just stating factually what happened. You can say rap battles are good. You say rap battles are good. You say bad. You could say, oh, it destroyed the world. It saved the world, whatever. I don’t care. But all I’m saying is this is how it happened. And that is very interesting that that happened in that way. Because there’s a lot of talk recently, Pastor Paul Vanderklink, there’s a lot of talk recently about how you can just carve up the world and use those pieces and create a new world. No, you can not. And if that was even possible, you can’t do it for all values of you. And groups of you also can’t do that. And the odd that even if you as a group, you could get a large enough group of smart enough people, and competent enough people, more importantly, that cared enough, the odds that what you would build would work, say, for a long time or maybe for all. No, it’s impossible. Zero. Yeah, yeah, it’s impossible. Zero. Yeah, it doesn’t exist. Can I make a caveat here too, not to just fully underline a point with many asterisks, but the rap music ethos starts actually with a community approach, because it’s about what do they call it? Street parties, there’s a particular name for it. Block party. Block party, that’s it. Right. So it’s actually bringing people together at first. And it’s not necessarily a competitive thing. It’s a way to participate together. And as the, let’s just say, the style of music, because that’s all I think it is, it’s not actually a culture. It just doesn’t hold anything once you poke it a little, it just balloon that pops. But at first, something at least brings people together for the good of the community. And then once it starts becoming widely adopted, it becomes individualized. And then it becomes extremely individualized to the point where you have one person stands in for maybe a whole city or whole group of cities or like a whole country or a whole segment of time. Like, let’s just pick someone easy like Jay-Z, you know, defines the era of that style of music as one person rather than a whole group of people. Right. So it becomes anti-art in a sense, because art is always a collective or a scenius, a movement of people. That’s what everyone participates in and that aesthetic. You can see that there was a bit of, I’m going esoteric again, but you can see that there was an attempt to release, re-reverse this with some group like the Wu-Tang Clan, where it’s a clan. It’s still, it’s a collective of people that are all coming together. And that’s how essentially you go from what was the hip hop golden years to the hip hop group. And that fades out just as much too, as everyone. No longer becomes up the collective of Wu-Tang Clan, it becomes about the individual stars. There you go again, hyper individualism. And then it becomes out, it’s basically about RZA at the end of the day. So like there’s those, you know, sense of hospitality getting together to make something, to build something up that brings people together. It becomes, it loses its meaning or taos. And then it just becomes about gives or takes or. And, and well, it becomes about competition. It becomes about betterment, individuality, right? Rather than cooperation. Hospitality is the assumption that cooperation is possible and should be preferred. Right? Like somebody knocks on your door, if you are hospitable to them, you invite them in and help them out. And if you are not, you either turn your back on them or war with them because you think they’re trying to rob you. And so it’s the difference between cooperation and opposition. And that’s why opponent processing is bad. I don’t care what anybody says, it’s pretty easy to see. I don’t know why you’d support it, but whatever. That’s your cross to bear. Also bad. Cooperation is good. It’s cooperative processing. You don’t want opponent processing. I do want to address this. Hello, or rather pluralism is a broken thing and there are endless rituals to try and evaluate it. Oralism is fine with the politeness ritual. You take the politeness ritual out, pluralism starts to fail pretty quickly. Also, you can have too much pluralism. That’s a different problem. It’s the wedge that cracks open the door to a lot of broken stuff we have going on today. For sure. For sure. There’s a couple of wedges though. There’s not one. This is part of the problem. Hello, is break dancing really a weaponized dance for slaves forbidden from having weapons or is that just a video game? It’s partially true. A lot of dancing practices from cultures that were removed. Not even enslaved, just cultures that were removed from their originating space. And you see this worldwide, by the way, not just with African slaves or whatever. There’s lots of slaves, by the way, there’s Indian slaves, all kinds of white slaves. There were slaves everywhere. The Indians stole white children all the time. I don’t know what to tell you. I know it’s just how people, I hate to say it, it’s how people lived. Well, it is and also there’s different types of slavery and yeah, we get into craziness. And I don’t want to, one of these days I’ll disambiguate all that stuff. Is the word politely though, or is there, I like the hospitality and politely going together, but is there something else that plumps out the concept as well? Is etiquette, I’ve always been interested in etiquette, is etiquette a media form of interaction, for example? It seems to me like it has more of a sense of ritual to it. Yeah, let me finish my people removed from cultures comment and then I’ll adjust that for you. When people are removed from cultures, whatever they were doing before, and cultures have certain components, that gets morphed. So if you have, like if you remove a Shaolin monk from the monastery, they don’t stop fighting or learning the things that are tied up with fighting because monasteries in the West and the East always taught martial arts, is what they’re called, right? They always taught fighting practices, always. That doesn’t go away. If that scene is aggressive, it morphs into dance, but all dances is also useful in battle. Like all the skills to dance are useful in battle. You see that theme in movies? It’s true. Absolutely, because everything’s connected. In some ways, you can’t learn to dance and not learn to fight, and you also can’t learn to fight and not learn to dance. Wow. Right, because it’s all connected. Oh my gosh. I’m not going to say it. That’s why the monasteries are like that. Monasteries did a bunch of things. We destroyed them in the West. Unfortunately, we’ve been suffering, but I have a video about that on Navigating Patterns. See my monastery video, right? They served a lot of purposes. So a lot of dance practices are also martial arts practices, and they were before too. It’s just that more so now, because yes, when you are removed from your culture and you’re in another culture, you can’t seem to be dangerous because you’re in the minority. So you have to hide that aspect. That much is true, and it’s obviously true, and it’s observable across cultures, by the way. You can do a quick survey, actually. It’s not that hard. You can do the research yourself. You don’t need anybody else to tell you, and you can see that this happens all the time. Now, back to etiquette. I think etiquette is a form of politeness, right? For example, and I do want to tie it together because it does tie together. The etiquette of your culture changes as your culture diversifies. Right? So when you go to different neighborhoods, different etiquette is in place. Politeness doesn’t change, but etiquette is more of the implementation that is local to the place. So what is polite is roughly the same, but it’s a very high level of abstraction. So politeness in the U.S. when you meet somebody new is to shake their hand, and politeness in Japan when you meet somebody new is to bow. They’re both polite, but the etiquette is different. Japanese etiquette and U.S. etiquette are different. Right? And I think that’s- So is politeness, what is polite then is a stance, is it? Polite is a reference to an abstract set of rituals that allow us to cooperate at a certain level. But is it- it’s connected to character though. It can’t be separated out like that, right? Well, no, you can connect it to character, but I think that’s the problem. One way to look at the problems of today, and I do mean at a global level, the Nere crisis, I think it would matter so much, I want to murder everybody that uses it at this point, that you can look at the crises of today, although they’re all related to the intimacy crisis, and I can prove it, whatever. You can look at those, and you can say, look, this is strictly a problem of the loss of politeness, because we don’t have a way in to interact with one another anymore. We’re all basically autistic, because I can just- if you annoy me, Elizabeth, I can just click you off. Go ahead, tell me, tell me I should author a book one more time. You know, I’ll just click you off. Like, I could do that. Now, that wouldn’t be polite, and I wouldn’t do that, by the way, in case anybody’s curious. Especially not to Elizabeth. First of all, I might run into her in person again, and she’s pretty formidable. That would be funny. It would actually be funny. Not with the divine feminine. I might do it to Jessie to be funny, because also men fight, so it would just be like, yeah, whatever, bro. I know, but I love humor. Like, I love strange things, and that would just be funny if I just disappeared. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, that would, that would hurt my soul. Men joust. No, no, no, we’ll say it correctly. Men joust, and that’s iron sharpening iron. Right, right, right. The way we treat women is a little bit different. Men don’t fight. Yes, yeah, yeah. But that interaction, that idea of that interaction, because we have so many more possibilities now on the internet, is gone. Like, people ask this question all the time. They come into the discord, they’re like, well, you guys were talking, and I didn’t know if I should speak up. And so, we developed a policy early on. If somebody new comes in, you say hi to them. You midstream of your conversation, you have to stop your conversation necessarily, although you should try to wind it down. You stop your conversation, briefly say hey to the new person, and then move on. And then, we used to have bigger policies on Awakening from the Meeting Crisis server, where we would stop everything, greet them and ask them why they’re there, sort of thing. Like, how did you find John Breveke’s server? What do you think about his work? You know, that sort of thing. We don’t do that on Mark of Wisdom quite so much, or quite so well. But we do have that policy. And the reason why we have that policy is because people would say, like, oh, I didn’t know that I could interrupt, or I didn’t know when to interrupt, I didn’t know when to speak up, I didn’t know what to say, I didn’t know how to introduce myself. These are all problems, people on the internet, you can say, Mark, you’re sampling the extreme end. Fair, I don’t care, though. This is a problem in the world, and it never existed before. This extreme is a new level of extreme that you haven’t seen. Not that extremes don’t exist, they always did. But like, the distance between extremes matters a lot. That’s the flattening of the world. As things spread out, the extremes get less, sort of lessened, right? But also more extreme, and if you read Nassim Taleb, read all his books, they’re great, you’ll understand how dangerous that is. Because when you have extreme outliers, you get very extreme results very quickly that you cannot see coming. That’s part of Black Swan. It’s all sort of connected. Politeness holds that in and holds that together because it gives you a ritual, and maybe it’s too abstract and you need etiquette too, but it gives you a ritual for interacting with new people, with strangers, so that you can develop an intimacy with them that allows you to cooperate more and more and more over time. And that’s super important because when you first meet somebody, you don’t know anything about them. The first time I met Jesse, I was like, what the hell is this crazy Australian doing on my channel? I don’t even like Australians, to be quite honest. I had many problems with many Aussies. And kangaroos, like what even- So it’ll last. Because there was an etiquette established for the channel and for the way I deal with people online in general, we were able to develop a more intimate relationship, right? Where we now talk to each other in a way we didn’t when we first met. Obviously, it develops over time. That’s why future, present, and past are important to understand because the relationship I had with Jesse a year ago is not the same as the relationship I have with Jesse now. They’re different fundamentally. And that’s actually important because that allows for potential. When you squish time down, when you flatten, when you reduce it and compress things, your potential goes away first. Yeah, and now I can’t be friends with you people because I can’t develop the relationship over time, add to the quality or qualities of it. I can’t do that because time doesn’t exist. And now I can’t have this deep relationship where I could just boot Jesse off the stream and he’d laugh. Because if you do that too soon in the relationship, he gets pissed off and never comes back. Time is important. Intimacy is important and it develops through that timeline. Yeah. And politeness is the structure that allows that development to take place. It’s a place to allow that to happen. Etiquette and politeness allow that interaction to unfold, to begin, and then to progress in a healthy way. Progression without a framework, without a T loss, without a container and without a head is pointless and will lead to bad things most of the time, maybe all of the time, but at least most of the time. Also, so the etiquette comes through culture. So the way if as a culture kind of either is building itself up or is shrinking itself down, you’ll see the rise and fall of etiquette or people using etiquette. Such as one of my pet peeves is people not using just basic headphones, any headphone, any headphone at all. There are thousands of cheap ones on any public transport system ever. It’s just good etiquette. Don’t come on and talk out loud. No one wants to hear your video, watch your music, whatever it is that you’re doing on a public transport service. But the thing is, it’s those things that ruin a culture. It’s symbiotic. The etiquette and the culture talk to each other and then it informs the higher level, which is the politeness. No one feels like they can actually interact with one another because there’s not that shared sense of direction. We could say the shared sense of belief. It’s a belief in the good. If you want direction to work, you need a container to make direction work. Direction’s fine. You need direction. It’s insufficient. You need navigation. One way to cheat that system is to start with a framework. Frameworks are tyrannical by definition. Get used to the tyranny. I will give Benjamin Franklin this dude, all this should be taught in schools. No, all this should be taught by your parents. Schools should reinforce it, maybe. It should be exemplified by your parents. But it has to be taught by your parents. It has to be way earlier than you go into school. Oh yeah. You have to see politeness exemplified anyway. It’s very hard to teach etiquette in school, although you can do it. But by that point, it’s too late. I did it. I did it. By that point, it’s too late. No, you can do it with younger children. No, you can do it with children if you understand what they need exactly. But you’d be surprised. They’re hungry for it too, on the other hand. I’m going to be honest. They’re just so glad. Oh my gosh. They’ve entered paradise. Oh yeah. Nothing like a strict old-fashioned teacher, right? Who’s highly creative? It focuses your attention, right? Being in a container focuses your attention. Your attention is very limited. You don’t want it spread out. That’s bad. Equality is bad. You want to know where to order your attention. And I think Ted said this in convivium. Poetics, poetry in particular, gives you an ordering for your attention. It’s the way you order your attention. It trains you to order your attention properly. That’s what it does. That is correct. And poetic is the way that you do that. It trains you to order your attention. Okay, two more sentences, please. Reading poetry gives you an order for things that you’re attending to in the moment. So tiger, tiger, burning bright in the forests of the night. Look at the ordering there. You’re starting from the individual thing, the tiger, right? And what it’s doing something, it’s burning bright. And then it’s in the forests of the night, so there’s set and setting, right? So that’s ordering your attention. And then because you engaged with that verse, that’s helping you to order your attention in the world. Yeah, exactly. It’s zapping out. So your engagement with poetry is zapping out. Now my argument is, roughly speaking, people in a crisis of faith have the ability to read poetry and may have lost it or maybe weakened, right? But they can get back into it because they know the tasteful flavor of poetry. Right? People in a mean crisis never get into poetry. There’s no attractant for them there, and they don’t have the skill. And we need, for those people, we need to give them the skill. Now again, we have this practice where I like poetic engagement. We will call poetic engagement. We’re going to call it something, we’re going to get it rolling. We’ve done it before. It’s before, it’s unbelievably effective. It’s insanely effective. It’s been 100% effective. I hear you. I hear you. I think that’s totally, yeah, I understand that totally from reading Dante because I actually posted something on Twitter to Cale, what’s his name? Cale Zeldin, because he was talking about Dante. And it’s true. If I don’t read Dante fairly frequently, I’m out of sync with reality. Seriously. So to your point. Right. Well, and that was Ted’s point at convivium. If you haven’t seen the convivium talk, they’re great. I should post one. Who is this guy that you keep, who is this gentleman you keep referring to? You don’t know Ted. You haven’t seen Ted. He’s in the Peterson sphere with us. He put on this convivium event and it was wonderful. Yeah. I’ll give you the Golden Echo channel. I think he’s got all the, oops, there we go. How did you find them though? How did you find Ted? Oh, you found Father Eric’s Sunday streams. He’s been on that. Yeah. Visit the Golden Echo channel. He’s got the convivium talks there or at least a couple of them. Yeah. I think he’s got them all there. You can watch the convivium talks. It was a wonderful experience. I was there. It was great. Ted does wonderful work. I mean, yeah, he’s super smart too. He’s amazing. And a lot of that was informed by our conversations on the Father Eric live streams, which are on Sundays there. So those are nice too. And Father Eric was one of the speakers, right? Dr. Jim. Dr. Jim’s awesome. Dr. Jim was the speaker. And they were talking about poetry and reading poetry and engaging with poetry. And it was basically a retreat. So it was started out with an evening. Well, it started out with a paintball. That was great. There’s nothing more satisfying than hitting Ted with paintballs. I can tell you that. And the joy of getting hit with paintballs too, because that was definitely happening in both directions. And then we went to dinner at his house. And that was lovely. And we had dinner around an enormous bonfire, which was just delightful. And then the next day, and we slept in the retreat place. And then the next day, most everybody who wasn’t at dinner showed up. And then every night we had a bonfire and it was sleep together, wake up in the morning, go to breakfast together, go to a talk, coffee break, another talk, lunch together, talk, coffee break, talk, dinner together, campfire together. It was crazy. It was just like, boom. The whole thing was just one continuous event. It was fantastic. Hospitality. Yeah. There’s that hospitality. And in the middle, people are getting up and reading poetry, their favorite poems and stuff. That’s not recorded, obviously, but it was amazing. And having conversations around campfires is magical. And so all of that was rich. And so you should check out the convivium talks. There’s a playlist on the Mark of Wisdom that Father Eric posted. I think he’s built a playlist of all the talks. But it was just wonderful to hear people talking about poetry. They were talking about Dante, that we’re talking about poetry in general, right? We’re talking about the four quartets, talking about the story of Job with Jess. And Jess is awesome. Yeah, meeting Jess was awesome. And that’s the thing is that idea of the many to many relationship, that poetic navigation was a theme all throughout, effectively. Oh, wow. So how long have you been working on this? Did you say this whole poetic engagement idea? About four years now. Wow. I’ve been a while. Where did it’s from? Where did it’s? I can’t figure it out. Like, how did you get there? It’s all Vervecki’s. Look, it’s Vervecki’s work. And it’s whole in Vervecki’s work. And Mary Cohen came up with it separately. I mean, she called it the parabolic way of knowing. We called it parabolic way of knowing. And then I was like, wait, but I’ve heard that before. Oh, Mary Cohen. Right. Oh, she had that. And she talked to John about it a couple times. And he just never got her point. Those are fascinating conversations. And that was too bad. I’ll get all that on the website at some point, by the way, Elizabeth. I’ll get that on the website soon. That’s brilliant. Yeah, you can watch her talk to John about this concept and what he was missing. Right. Because she has this whole thing. See if I can remember. The fork is the daddy and the spoon is the mommy. And like every kid knows that. And she was like, how do kids make that relationship? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Parabolic way of knowing. It’s like, oh, and I thought that example was brilliant. And I just like, yes. And we tried to explain this to John and he didn’t buy it either. Fair enough. It’s his work from 20 years of work or whatever. Here are these young upstarts. You’re messing with it. All right. But also, this is correct. Definitely correct. So it’s so powerful when we outline it and replace the perspectival and then just call that a different thing. And yeah, that whole model is so much more powerful. And once you understand that what we’re missing is the poetic engagement. And there’s two ways we’re missing it. Either we just atrophied or we never had it. Meaning crisis versus crisis of faith. And that gives you a sense for where the Peterson overlap is and why there’s a bunch of people who are going from non-church going to church going. And then there’s a bunch of people who are starting to take seriously the idea that religion isn’t stupid. Oh yeah, for sure. Those are different sets of people though. Right. But there’s a lot of overlap and Peterson overlaps them somehow. And if you watch my videos on Peterson, I’ve got three. One of them is over a thousand views. Maybe you’ll understand it better because I try to outline some of his tricks there. Some of the things he’s actually doing. Oh yeah. He’s got these, he’s doing that. He’s got these tricks. I don’t know. Sometimes not, but that’s- Sorry, I need to use my- I need to use my politeness and say goodbye. Oh, good night. Love you. Be consistent this year. And take the next step. Embrace the future. Bye. Bye. That’s exciting, Mark. Well said. I’m so happy for you. I’m so happy. That’s, that’s, it sounds wonderful. So, so that’s going to happen when, when this, this year, do you think you’ll have it up and running? Yeah. Yeah. We’re, we’re, we’re, working on getting stuff going. I’ve just been tied up with ridiculous lawsuits. So we’re, we’re going to get, we’re going to get the, we’ll, we’ll get the new, not new, we’ll get the renamed practice going in a couple of weeks. We’ll get some practices around it. We’ll start the wisdom community stuff going. We’ll get playlists set up, the whole website going. We’re going to, we’re going to do all that in the next couple of months. Who’s do- Are you going to set up, set up a completely independent website for this? Yeah, I have one. Ah, yeah. Mark of wisdom.org is already up. Oh, but, oh, it’s going to connect to your website. Yeah. Wow. No, we’re going to get all this stuff rolling. I’m so excited about that. Yeah. Yeah. And we’ll publish practices. We’ll get the wisdom community docs up. We’ll get, we’ll get all that going. It’s just, it’s hard to get things going when you’re constantly fighting with people instead of trying to co-op, instead of them trying to cooperate with something that’s already, you know, well-formed, we’ll say. And a lot of people just don’t like structure that they didn’t build. And it’s like, yeah, but maybe you can’t build the structure. Maybe you should just go to an existing structure. Right. And a lot of people have problems like, well, I don’t want to work. It’s like, well, but you know, oh, the only reason why I work is because I have to. It’s like, you should, you, it’s a joy to cooperate with people when you make it a joy to cooperate with people. It doesn’t matter what you’re actually doing. You can be directing traffic in the parking lot at Chick-fil-A. I use that example on purpose. You could be, you could be collecting carts at the grocery store. It really doesn’t matter. All of that stuff can be joyful when you realize the value that you’re bringing to people, to their future. Even if they’re not appreciative of it, you can be appreciative of the fact that you’ve brought that to them, even if they don’t know about it. Like, that’s within your control entirely of all the things we try to control, like the Middle East or freaking Ukraine or who’s going to get elected. Like you don’t control any of that. Your control is so limited. You shouldn’t waste your time. You should put your time, energy and effort on the things you can control, like your attitude in the present, your attitude towards the future and your attitude towards the past. Right. And then what you’re going to do and make the things you do joyful, because life is a struggle and we all struggle and you don’t know other people’s struggles. Some of the stories I hear from people, I’m just like, what? And you’re still alive? How is it? I’m like, well, I wouldn’t survive that. I crumpled under something like that. That’s insane. How do people even live through, you know, trauma like that or an experience that that’s, that is that harsh? But they do. And, you know, that’s, we should be grateful that they do because they bring riches to our lives, even if they don’t tell us their story. Right. And, and, right. Go the other way. You can get too focused on people’s stories and not enough on the thing they’re bringing you now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But they’re exemplars of resilience. It’s exemplars of resilience. I think that’s what it does. Right. You hear a story and then you see the person and you go, oh, okay. Doable. It’s doable. Right. It’s no, it’s an exemplar for sure. It’s powerful, powerful. And it can be, I love what you say though. It can be in any, in any situation that, that you can, you can, you’re changing, you’re opening the magical door to the, to, to, to possibility when you do that, when you, when you extend, when you extend goodness to other people and, and, and the poetic engagement idea, the poetic engagement is so important in everyday interactions. Cause, cause what you’re doing is you’re actually, I hate to say it, but you’re shifting them from the left hemisphere to the right hemisphere is what you’re doing. Yeah. Yeah. No, absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, and, and, and that’s what’s important is that having this poetic navigation, again, the storm is the storm. It doesn’t get better or worse. It just is what it is. But your skill to weather that storm is super important and you need to level up because then the storm won’t be so bad. It’s not that you’re not, it’s not that you’re going to get around it. That’s not going to happen. The storm is coming, but your ability to weather that storm is up to you. And, and if you understand that even when bad things happen, you can get something good out of them, then that, that’s super helpful. And, and, and, and, you know, you need to help yourself and you need to let other people help you. And you need to help other people, like all three of those things. There’s three things, right? It’s always three things. Yeah. And the poetic engagement demands, demands that, that the vision of the relationships, right? It can’t, it can’t exist. The concept can’t exist without that, obviously. Exactly. Wow. That’s just, that is so exciting. It’s not useful in a binary frame, right? Right. It doesn’t exist in a binary frame. Left versus right. Right. Conservative versus Republican. You know, Ukrainian versus Russian. Like these frames don’t work, right? Like, oh, Palestinian versus Israeli or Palestinian versus Hamas. Like these frames don’t work. You just won’t understand the world if you divide things up that way. It’s too low resolution. I’m always disappointed when Peterson does it. I’m like, dude, you talk about low resolution pictures and then you’re casting something in a binary frame. What do you, what did you just do? That’s the lowest possible residue. You can’t get any lower because then you can’t see, because there’s no contrast, right? Everything’s all one thing. Yeah. And, you know, we need to reduce the world to understand it. Sure. But maybe we should know the limits of our understanding and not over-reduce. That’s where people get, they’ve been told they can understand things that they cannot, I can’t understand Israel, Hamas, Palestine. I can’t understand Ukraine and Russia. Like I still have no idea why, and I know not everyone does this, but every single Ukrainian that I ever met told me they were Russian and never told me that they were Ukrainian until the war. That’s a little weird. I don’t know what to make of that. I can’t understand that situation that complicated that I’ve never been, I’ve never been there. You know, like, I mean, maybe if I had been there, I’d have some chance of kind of almost maybe understanding. Maybe, maybe, Mark. I don’t know. Probably not, but maybe if I spend a month in the country, I don’t know. I don’t even know what would take me to maybe understand it. No, they didn’t even bother. It’s really interesting. I was listening to this, my Italian historian talking about World War I. They didn’t even bother to try to make it understandable to people. They just didn’t, and people didn’t expect them to. People didn’t expect them to, and they didn’t bother to do it. Like, they gotta live their lives. Who do we think we are? We’re so out of… And how would you? We don’t understand World War I now, and we have a lot more information and the pie. We still don’t understand World War I. Like, World War II? Forget it. First of all, I still insist there was no World War II. It’s World War I with a break in the middle. Yeah, for sure. And I don’t think you can actually understand World War II as a separate… I don’t think that makes any sense. I agree with you. I agree with you totally. Absolutely. I don’t think there’s any question. So I would say we don’t understand the first and only World War now at all. We’re still developing a cohesive theory. Yeah, we’re still living… We’re kind of still there because we haven’t… There isn’t any distance to it whatsoever. That’s burn power. That’s burn power. We’re reacting to the wars. I’m with them totally. He’s spent a fair bit of time in Europe, right? So you’re closer to it. He’s living there now. I know. He’s quite a character. He was at Le Brie, right? He’s quite an interesting person. Yeah. So great conversation. So you’ve got an exciting year ahead of you. Hopefully. I mean, we’ll see. Everything will get easier after March, I think, and then we’ll see where we go. But it’d be nice to go somewhere before that. Are you going to the symbolic conference, the Peugeot conference? No, I don’t think there’s any possible chance of that. I mean, I could win the lottery. Some miracle could happen. But even if I had the capital to do it, I don’t know that I’ll have the time. I hope that if I could get the capital, I would have the time, but I’m not even sure that’s true. And I might know in a week or two if I would have the time. And then if it’s just a matter of capital, maybe I make a plea or something. But no, I don’t. I don’t have the capital. It’s an expensive conference to begin with. I know. But staying down there and all that gets… So yeah, it would be… It’s a little too much work. Yeah, it’s rich. It’s rich for sure. But I would love to go. I mean, Neil deGrade was like, oh, I hope to see you there. And I’m like, oh, I’d love to meet him. That would be fantastic. And see Peugeot again. And yeah, no, that would be great. Yeah. And I’ve got a conference I’ve been invited to. So there’s a potential conference in Texas coming up in November, October, November timeframe, potentially. And I’m potentially going to be a speaker at that conference. And that’s going to be with Richard Roland and PVK. Whoa! Whoa! We’ll see if that manifests. I think it will. So yeah, that’d be exciting. And we’ll see what else comes up. I mean, a lot of things might come up. Richard Roland and PVK and you. What’s happening in our world? Wow! Well, I think things are converging. I keep talking about when I listen to things, they’re converging on our language, on our framing pretty regularly. So yeah. Yeah. So we’ll see what the future holds. Like it’s hard to predict. Right. But the future looks good. I’m always optimistic because there’s potential for the good in the future. And will we drop into a world war? Maybe. But I’m going to do what I do and I’m going to try to do it as joyfully as I can manage. And if it’s dark days ahead for everything else, I’m going to try to be, you know, as much of a beacon for the work that we’re carrying on as I can be. Well, it’s definitely coming and we’re definitely going to be going to be involved in poetic engagement. It’s inevitable, as Jonathan Pechot says, because the false paradigms are disintegrating before our eyes and everybody knows it. So it’s actually going to necessitate people searching because they’ll have to because it’s not going to work. Nothing’s going to work anymore. It’s going to be hell. But at least we’ll be back into reality. So that’ll, I mean, it’ll be a hard way to face it. But it’s inevitable right now. There’s no way. You can feel it. It’s amazing. It’s amazing that everything’s functioning as well as it is right now. I think it’s incredible. Right. But things are worth talking. I mean, we’re not starving to death right now. Right. Are you starving to death, Mark? Not yet. But wow, boy, do I see the breakdown of a lot of stuff. So like this. How soon? What are you seeing? Like soon? Oh, all kinds of bureaucracies are completely broken. Yeah. All kinds of stuff is completely broke. All kinds of tech is broken. But like all kinds of stuff is broken. The institutions are all toast. Everything’s toast. And yeah, and they’re if they’re they’re so malfunctioning, right? You can just wall. Really? The government? Yeah, the government programs and the way they operate and Oh, everything. Everything is kind of like corruption everywhere you look right now. There’s nothing mostly mostly through incompetence. But there’s there’s a lot of bad actors out there to taking advantage of this. I mean, that’s what my domicile losing a home video was about was like, I can’t believe you. I have to listen to that one. You should listen to that one. That’s my personal story. That’s the first of its kind. That’s like, well done. Was that did that take courage, Mark? I think so. Oh, yeah, I had to work up to it for sure. I mean, it’s hard to talk about that stuff, especially. No kidding. It’s not like I’m not going through something similar now with lawsuits. It’s like, oh, man, you know, I got to dredge this up. So what what inspired you to do the domicile one? Well, the topics come up a number of times and, you know, I’m still experimenting with the, you know, with the channel. It’s an ongoing experiment. It’s got it. And it’s got to change. And this idea of story, you know, I have to get better at that anyway. So I was like, well, this is a story I can tell that I have been telling for years, basically, except for when I was a long time ago. But I’ve been telling it for years and getting better at explaining it to people. So I was like, all right, maybe I can do it in a video. Right. Maybe I can maybe I can explain it in a video in this way. And you also get more information, you know, about about these things like this time passes, obviously, right, past becomes more clear. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I like in there, I referenced the movie, The Big Short. It’s a great movie. But if you pay attention to the movie, you’re going to get a very different message than the message the movie makers intended because there’s stuff that was in there that was like, wait a minute. And I talked about that in my video. And then having framework like that makes it easier. Like, you know, you get you get somebody like Eric Weinstein, who years ago talked about the 2008 housing crisis. And he’s just wrong about a bunch of stuff. And fair, maybe he couldn’t have known what I found out. Right. Fair. But also, he shouldn’t have been talking about it, because he’s totally wrong. Everything he said about is wrong. It’s way simpler story. And in the age of gnosis, we prefer these complicated, complex sort of reason why things were wrong is because, you know, there was a ghost in the complicated machine. It’s like, no, actually, something very simple happened fraud. It’s not that hard. It’s just simple fraud. And nobody likes that story because it’s like, well, you can’t commit simple fraud as a bank. It’s like, I don’t know, there was a whole and I didn’t even mention this in my video, I probably should have. There’s a 60 minutes episode that I forget when it came out, maybe 2012, maybe 2013. There was a company that was falsifying banking paperwork to facilitate foreclosures. And they got caught. It was a 60 minutes episode, guys. You know, like, no, really, no, they industrialized the fraud at the corporate level. And then a company arose that was servicing multiple banks, making up paperwork so banks could foreclose on houses. And Eric Weinstein wants to make this about some economic framed, it’s not an economic frame, buddy. It’s literally just lying. An old fashioned story, man. Old fashioned story. Right. That’s hysterical. I will listen to that. Actually, it’s interesting. Yeah, so it’s good. Cool. So good to see you, Mark. Look, I’m glad you’re back. I’m sure you’re like, Oh, I love I love where I where I was in Italy. But I am going back again. I am going back. So I’m just really glad to I find it fascinating listening to your live stream. So I really enjoy them. Thank you. Oh, you’re most welcome. I’m always happy to have you and others engage. It’s good that you’re back here so you can engage more. And we’ll see. We’ll see where it where it leads. The the future is full of good potential. So hopefully we can all manifest that together. Do you have any any other closing thoughts or? No, just really appreciate what you’re doing. All right. Well, thank you for joining Elizabeth and everybody. And hopefully I’ll see you next week. I don’t know what the topic will be. If you’ve got suggestions, put them in the comments or whatever, and we’ll consider them. And we’ll try to come up with a good topic with so many topics here. I’m probably gonna have to re listen to this and grab one of the ones that are here just to continue the thread because I thought this was really good. Things are sort of converging, right? So in the future, that’s what I see. I see more convergence around this stuff, more greater understanding. Some things are gonna break apart. Yeah, Pastor Paul, some things are gonna break apart for sure. All right. Once people see things like, oh, how organized symbolic world is relative to everything else, things are gonna start to splinter a bit, but for the better. And look, everybody have a good week. It’s wonderful that everybody’s here. I really appreciate your engagement. I hope to get the website going and buy stuff from my store. And hopefully, you can all understand time better and engage better with your past, engage better with your present, and that will give everybody a better future. See you later.