What is Generative？ Live Pirate Navigation (isDF67it2HY)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=isDF67it2HY

Young girl dancing to the latest beat, has found new ways to move her feet. And the lonely voice of youth cries, what is truth? Young man speaking in the city square, trying to tell somebody that he cares. Can you blame the voice of youth, asking what is truth? Yeah, the ones that you’ll call in love, are gonna be the leaders in a little while. When will the lonely voice of youth cry, what is truth? This all world’s wakened to a newborn babe, and I solemnly swear it’ll be their way. You better help that voice of youth find what is true. And the lonely voice of youth cries, what is truth? Alright, we are live. Welcome, welcome. I know I missed last week. Sorry about that. Had to go and visit somebody in California real quick for the weekend, which is interesting. And so, you know, things have to get done. Got to see Pastor Paul VanderKlaai again, got to see Joey finally in person. Saw Jared, but saw Adam from Ireland who is in Fremont, California training. Just had the weekend, you know, no one died, so it’s all good. So we’re back. We’re going to talk about what generative is. A lot of people have a problem being generative. So we’ve got our Sam Pell. So we’re good. Got some La Croix, also good. Got some Jordan Ammons to snack on. Yummy, delicious. This is why I shouldn’t be allowed to go to the store by myself, because I will buy Jordan Ammons. I got some tea. We’re out of Marathon tea. I have to go order some from Table Rock. I haven’t done that. So instead I got some apple cinnamon tea. It’s lovely stuff. So yeah, now I feel like I’m rusty and checking the camera. I’m like, am I naked? I’m not naked. OK, good. You know, also announcement looks like earlier today, within the past like three hours, we got accepted into the membership thing for YouTube. So allegedly things like Super Chats are supposed to be enabled or will get enabled. I don’t know how that works yet, because I didn’t have time to research it before I was coming on. But I enabled everything. So who knows if it’s active now or if it’ll take a little while. I have no idea. So that’s great. Thank you, everybody, for watching videos and checking out and subscribing and all that stuff, because it takes subs. It takes watch hours. It takes total number of videos. It takes a bunch of stuff. Oh, they’re on, Mills? Oh, great. Thanks. Well, that’s wonderful. So, yeah, we’ve got we’ve got big exciting things. We’re sort of moving into the next tier here on on YouTube. So thank you, everybody, for participating. So, yeah, let’s let’s jump in. I got some notes. I was frantically trying to finish them today because. I fell asleep when I got home instead of being able to do work, but seem to be awake now. So that helps when you’re doing a live stream. Being awake. I recommended. Let’s talk about what generative is and sort of the way this came up. So a lot of times, Manuel and I in particular will explain to people, you know, when they’re saying stuff, they’re not being generative, but that’s not generative. And people get upset because they’re like, I don’t know what what do you mean? What do you mean generative? I’m saying things. Things are happening in the world. Right. So what do we mean by, you know, generative? What does it mean to generate something to be generative? And generation for us sort of in the recent recent times is all about power, usually electrical power. We talk about electrical generation. That’s a big topic. Right. We generate our energy. Where does our electricity come from? Right. What’s our electric generation? Right. But, you know, the problem with with that sort of oversimplification is that we use the term power in all kinds of crazy ways. Right. Like we’re just all over the place. We don’t we don’t have we don’t have a good definition of power. I mean, most of us, of course, I have a video on that. So I’ll just post that because I have it ready. I’m way more prepared than normal, I guess. So, yeah, I mean, we have to think about that. Like what does generation actually point to? Right. Because it’s not it’s not the always it’s not always like something from nothing. Right. But we’ll see often we think of it that way. We think of, oh, there’s nothing there. And we’ve generated something. And of course, the easiest way to do that is generating an idea. And we’ll go into that more later. So being generative generation, as in generations of persons, I think is a better way to think about it. Right. So, again, it’s it’s not something from nothing, but something where there was nothing manifest before. And that’s what I want you to consider. Right. Is this idea of manifestation. Right. And how value and generation are connected. Because if there was nothing there, we’ll say, and then something was there, was it generated? Or did it move from somewhere else? Right. Because that’s really the issue. Just because something’s there doesn’t mean it was generated. It could have been moved. Right. You could argue, oh, you generated something and moving it. I would say no. Just move things. And this is, you know, again, one of these places where people get sort of wrapped up. Right. They get they get really confused. They get stuck in this idea. Like, well, what do we mean? How do we how do we come to terms with with generation? What is generation? Why is generation valuable? This is why it’s wrapped up in the concept of value. Right. If if something can can be generated, it should be of value or it should have a value. It should have certain qualities, not quantities, qualities. Electrical power has qualities. You can measure some of electrical power in quantity, but it’s the qualities that we use it for. Right. Not the not the numbers. The numbers help us describe it, help us understand it. And it’s the same thing with all generation. Right. What we’re generating is something with a set of qualities. And value doesn’t generate things, but it helps you to generate things. And that’s going to get wrapped up. And I’ll talk about this later, too, in principles. So what I’m what I’m trying to outline here is the process of generation. Is bringing potential into being right. Manifesting that potential. Several components, aspects, values, principles, combining or becoming ordered. Placed into a pattern. A relationship, hopefully a right relationship or a form becoming informed. Right. And then once you’ve done that, whatever that entails, it probably entails quite a bit of effort, actually. Now it must be cultivated. Right. Because a lot of people say, oh, well, something’s generated and therefore that’s good. And we can walk away. Now we generated something. It’s like, oh, I think once you generate something, you have a responsibility. And that, you know, that’s, I think, one of those places where people get a little lost. Like, yeah, the generation side happened. But. But now, right. There’s a cultivation, there’s a responsibility. If something has been generated, especially if it’s good, you want it to continue. Right. So you need to account for that in your sort of definition and conception of generation. And. Do all the things you think of manifest in the world, like everything that you think, is that going to become manifest in the world? Obviously not. Right. We have dreams. We have fantasies. We have ideas all the time. You know, like, oh, I’m going to be Elon Musk. Right. And. Doesn’t happen. So how do we sort of get a handle on things being generated? Right. What is generative if it’s not just our thoughts, we’ll say. And not to say thoughts aren’t important. Right. But they’re not the generative component. It might be an aspect of generation, but they can’t be the only aspect. They can’t be the only way to generate things. And. You know. We need to struggle with the idea of what’s generative. When are we wasting time? And when are we being generative? When are we able to enact with enact. Sorry. Act within the world in a way that things happen that are able to be cultivated, that are able to persist. Right. That’s the formation, the informing of things. Right. That makes them generative. It’s that manifestation that we should now care for, or at least pay attention to, or at least have other people who can care for. Right. You see this a lot in businesses. Like when you start a business, right. You’re not. You’re not the business. The business is technically and legally a separate entity and other people participate in it. And that is generative. So referring to the higher thing, the thing that isn’t just me or me. But also has a structure to it. A formation. You form a company. Right. That is what generates a business. Until then it’s just an idea. I mean, you just set up business paperwork and file it with the state and don’t do anything with it. That’s not generative. I mean, you generated a bunch of paperwork, maybe, but nothing happened. Right. And that’s the idea. So that’s what to sort of think of. And you can say, you know, look, look, Master Muppet, all this negative talk. Right. But perhaps you need the contrast to see. So a lot of things just aren’t generative. So what is this generative? Right. Action. Action is the thing that you’re going to see. Right. We’ve talked about action before. The previous live stream on action. Wonderful live stream. Check it out. Right. Action isn’t just what’s in your hat. What’s in your head can help you take action, but it isn’t in action. And not all action is generative. Like some action is destructive. Right. So you’re going to see that action is not just what’s in your head. Right. So you’re going to see that action is not just what’s in your head. Right. You need action to be generative. Like some action is destructive. So you can’t link the two all that tightly. Right. But you need action to be generative. And what is the aspect of action that’s generative? Right. And that’s the worst. Right. Because I’m not here to solve a problem for you. Right. To give you answers. That’s not what I’m here for. Right. That’s not what this is all about. Right. What this is about is pointing out the difficulties in especially these concepts. But in the world in general. Like things are difficult, man. We tend to think, oh, I know exactly what action is. I know exactly how to be generative. Right. No, you don’t. You don’t. And that’s the thing. We have to let that sink in. We have to ask the question of ourselves in the moment. Am I being generative? Am I generating something that requires and can be cultivated? Because if you’re not, maybe you’re being destructive. And I’m not saying you should never be destructive. I certainly don’t believe that. Sometimes things have to be destroyed so new things can be put in their place. Where do the components for generation come from? Sometimes they come from old dead things that you’ve destroyed. Ever play with Legos? You build your nice little Lego spaceship. You built the spaceship, right? Then you want to build something else, you take the spaceship apart. There’s your destructive aspect. You’ve got to take something that you had manifested that was generated, destroy it. You know, and then put it back, put something else in its place. And that cyclical nature to being generative is important because things you generate, maybe they don’t last forever. Maybe they’re not supposed to. Maybe they’re only supposed to last for a short time. And the fact that they last for a short time doesn’t mean you aren’t generative. People get caught up in that too, right? You get the people who, oh, I bother. It’s the heat death of the universe anyway. Yeah, well, that’s not generative. That attitude is not generative. Because then why would you actually bother to generate anything to make things that you can cultivate? And look, let that sink in. So now let me be clear because this is the postmodern problem of our age, right? And obviously I talked about the postmodern problem of our age before. I have a video on it. Criticism in and of itself is not generative. Okay. The fact that it could lead to something generative is not a function of the criticism or the critique. And lots of other things are far better at being generative. Okay. The fact that it could lead to something generative is not a function of the criticism or the critique. Okay. The fact that you engage in criticism and that sometimes that makes people think about their points is not necessarily anything that is going to lead anywhere. And it may not lead to the good even if it leads somewhere. And it may not lead to actual important considerations that people do not generally account for for whatever reason. Lots of things are better than criticism and critique at being generative. So this is all about time, energy, and attention. And using that effectively to become a creator, or perhaps better said a manifesting agent. An agent that can manifest things in the world, that can generate things. So manifestation is wrapped up in creation, in being, in agency, in generation. Without agents, generation does not happen. It does not exist. It does not work. And so when you’re engaging in, we’ll say, a critique. Or you’re finding a flaw with someone’s argument. Or you’re looking for a way in which they’re wrong. And the problem is with communication, language in general, and again this is the postmodern problem, language is imprecise. So the fact that you can find an imprecision or an inaccuracy in speech is a given. It’s not a bonus point. It’s a kept an obvious moment. The fact that sometimes you can point out a flaw in someone’s logic, and sometimes that’s actually relevant, and sometimes they actually understand it, and sometimes they correct themselves because of it, doesn’t make it generative. Good things can’t come from it, but the odds of all that happening are small. Even if you’re right and they’re wrong and they don’t acknowledge that they’re wrong, I’m not going to do you any good. And so we have to be careful with this idea of critique, or this non-existent notion of deconstruction, which is just garbage. You’re just talking about destruction, and calling it something fancy to sound good. But if you think about the idea of deconstruction, it’s foolish. To construct is the process of being generative, putting things together, and manifesting in the world. You can’t undo that or reverse it. A lot of things are not symmetrical and can’t be reversed. Our whole universe, the whole way in which we exist, is asymmetrical. This assumption of symmetry is foolishness. And that’s why generative is so hard for people, because they don’t realize it’s very easy to blow up a building. It’s very hard to construct a building. It’s very easy to take someone’s life. I studied martial arts. There are lots of ways to kill people, unfortunately. It’s very easy. They don’t know that hard. People are pretty fragile creatures at the end of the day. But it’s very hard to generate life, and cultivate it, and manifest it. Raising children is not a trivial thing. It’s a non-trivial thing. And that’s where people get wrapped up. Generative is hard. It’s not easy. It’s nice when you get things in your head, and you can do them very quickly with very little effort. And that feels good. And it feels good in the moment, and it’s always accessible. And that’s what you’re doing. You’re not necessarily being generative. A lot of times you’re just wasting time. And you’re not putting your time, energy, and attention to some place where your time, energy, and attention can manifest into something that you can cultivate that will do something in the world outside of your thoughts. And again, this is wrapped up in action. I did a livestream on action. I talked about that. Action has to be outside yourself. You have to have independent measurement of it. And so we get wrapped up with this idea of being creators of the world, or whatever, and it being easy because we can think. And you can go, oh, well, it’s not that easy. We also have to think out loud with our language, whatever. And this fools us into believing we’re being generative when we’re not. We have to use our time, energy, and attention, employ our agency, and move things in the world. That’s what being generative is all about. That’s why a lot of people talk about negative thoughts and negative thinking and say, well, that’s not generative. Fair enough. And that’s what we’re talking about. And so generative is hard because it’s not just you. And any time something isn’t just you, just within your head, just within your total control, or the most control that you have is the control over your own imagination, we’ll say, then you run into problems. And the problems you run into are constraints. Constraints of time, constraints of resources, constraints of energy, constraints of attention, other people, other items in the world. Sometimes you’re doing something and just run out of energy. Sometimes you’re doing something and someone comes along and needs help. You’ve got to stop what you’re doing. And all of these things are impediments to generation. So we tend to try to do it in our head. And things can get really tricky here. When we talk about sort of what’s pre-existing and what’s generated, how much power we have to generate, we have some responsibility for reality. But how much? And how much is tricky? And how much responsibility do we have for the things we generate if we’re not generating them alone by ourselves in our head? These are tricky things. And whether or not something gets generated is largely a function of how much time, energy, and attention you put into it over how long a period of time. And if someone takes responsibility for that, things don’t last. Nobody pays attention to a company, eventually it dies. And that goes for all your projects. If you don’t cultivate your garden, you’ll lose it. That happens. So you need to find a way to be generative so that the world continues. It’s that big. I mean, Jordan Peterson talks about this. What if everything you do matters? Yeah. And the inverse property is true too, right? What if the things you don’t do have an impact? Like your lack of involvement in things also has an impact. You’re busy playing video games or drinking yourself into a stupor or snorting coke or shooting heroin or watching porn all day or whatever it is. You’re not generating things. You’re being parasitic upon the things that have already pre-existed you, right? Upon other people. You know, you want to talk about, oh, we’re slaves to the man or whatever. We’re all slaves to each other to some extent because I don’t know about you, but I don’t generate my own electricity to the extent that I can. I can’t generate enough to run all the stuff in this house. And even if I did, boy, I’d have to get some copper and I probably didn’t mine the copper or refine it. It goes on and on. I didn’t design and develop the computers. I didn’t build them. Maybe I could. I didn’t. Right. And so all these other people are wrapped up in this. Whether they’re still alive or not, it’s not relevant. They generated something and we’re using that. And if we’re not responsible for regenerating it, then, you know, we won’t have it eventually. But we tend in the scientific frame to fall into this idea of the pre-existence of things. And we’re not taking that level of responsibility for the fact that things need to be created or manifest in the world, generated, regenerated and continued. And it’s a tricky thing. Like, I’m not again, I’m not here to give you answers. These are hard things to think about, but, you know, presumably you’re here to think about them. And look, there’s fake it till you make it. Right. And there’s a point in that. Right. But doing things doesn’t guarantee outcome. You aren’t the thing you want to be until you try to be the thing. Right. So there’s a gap there between the idea that you want to manifest or generate in the world and actually generating it. Right. There’s the idea of having a company. And then there’s all the work that goes into creating the structure for a company. And then the work that goes into putting that structure into action and manifesting the company. And that goes for everything. If you want to be a world champion snowboarder, you’re not the world champion snowboarder when you start. You have to generate that world champion aspect to you. You have to fake it till you make it, kind of. Because there’s a gap. Right. And while you’re trying to be the thing, you’re, quote, faking it. I mean, I get it. But this ignores time. It kills the idea of generative because generative has to happen over time. And we’ve compressed time down into this thing that doesn’t exist anymore. So everything’s kind of pre-existing. And I get that. It’s very comfortable to exist in a pre-existing world. You’re not imposing on anybody. Right. All the things you have are yours because they were there before you. So they’re just kind of there. They’re yours. You can do whatever you want with them. You don’t have to be generative. You don’t have to generate new things because you have all the things you need. It’s very tempting to have that attitude about it. But that’s why thinking about being generative is important. You have to think about when and where you can generate things, where you can be generative instead of just tearing things down. Because you’re still in the world. You’re still acting in the world, whether you like it or not. That means you’re judging. That means you’re making discernments. Those are inevitable for action. And you’re not just going to be able to make things happen. And if you’re not taking action, you’re technically dead. You can argue about lesser and greater degrees of being alive. Like if you’re just caught in a drunken stupor, maybe you’re less alive. Maybe. You weren’t when you were drinking to get into the stupor. You’re being generative? No. But that’s coming at a cost somewhere and not just to you. Because you’re in a world with other people. So that’s something worth thinking about. And regeneration, right? Taking something that was not in the world. And you’re not just going to be able to make things happen. And regeneration, right? Taking something that was generated. And revivifying it, redeeming it, giving it new life, right? Putting your time, energy and attention into it. To make it better. That’s generative. It doesn’t have to be from nothing. And this theme of generation and being generative comes up a lot in the best science fiction show of all time, Blake 7, in season 4, episode 2. And I did write that in my notes. I did remember it from memory. I did check it on the internet. That’s the step people always miss, checking their own work. And it’s called Power. Which is just funny. I wonder where I got all this stuff from. I don’t know. It’s about a war of the sexes, basically. And it’s kind of odd for the time because this is the early 80s, season 4, yeah, I would say 81, 82, something like that. So you can see these deep patterns have been around a while. The basic premise of the episode is that they’re on this planet and there’s a war between the men and the women. And the women have these magical necklaces with this magical crystal on it, basically, that they happen to need, by the way, to do teleportation. Of course. So very much, it’s not an implication. The crystal that allows the women to do telekinesis and to have supernatural, if you will, strength is also the crystal that enables teleportation of matter across distance in very little time. So dynamon, I think it’s called, dynamon crystals. Anyway, so there’s this idea in there that the crystals take and amplify energies, including psychic energies. When the women get power in the episode, when they get this ability to do this, they free themselves from the men. But unfortunately, then there’s no babies anymore. Does this sound like a familiar argument? This is the early 1980s, guys. Sure, of course it does. Absolutely. But this pattern has come up before and it keeps coming up. This pattern of what is generation. That’s the generation. That’s Big G generation. Generation of life. Generation of being. Bringing new being into the world. I hope that, I hope this doesn’t come as a shock. So the idea of children is all about generation. You’re generating being in the moment. You’re creating being, manifesting being in the world. And that takes cultivation. As it turns out, even though Rousseau wrote about this, he apparently wasn’t being serious, even though people took him seriously because he’s an irresponsible jerk. You can’t just have a baby and leave it in the woods. That’s not going to work out for the baby. And you’re going to pay the cost of having the baby without getting the advantages of seeing it grow up and maybe contribute to your life. Because babies very much are generative of your re-enchantment of the world. And that’s the idea of being in the moment. And as people watch children notice houses and ask questions about what about that house. They give you these details that you had glossed over. Through years of just engaging with how that was another house. Children, they ask so many questions. They pay attention to children. They pay attention to the children. They notice different details. Details you may have glossed over. And they revivify the world for you or regenerate it. So this is an important way to think about it. This revivification, this regeneration of the world. And that’s the generative of being in that way. Because now that being can help regenerate the world, revivify the world for you. That’s sort of like the payback from the cost of bringing this being in to existence. And that generation of the child. Generations, generations of people. Generative is wrapped up in that. That is the thing that continues. Why? Things that are just random can’t continue. It’s not that they won’t be around for some unspecified amount of time. They’re not going to be in existence. But they’re not staying there. So that’s what we’re thinking about. Is this nature of forming, informing the thing that is generated. And maybe the process of generation is about the formation. You generate the spaceship. You generate the spaceship using the Legos and your time, energy, and attention. And again, that’s not all there is to generation. And I wanted to switch gears back to the thing I alluded to earlier, which is critique. Ideas are not generative. They may lead to something generative. But the problem is, this is just a hallucination. We talked about this before on our previous live stream, hallucination. It has no external effect on the world. I have ideas all the time. You know nothing about them. You will know nothing about almost all of them. Most of my ideas are not wrapped up in the live stream. Where I get ideas for topics for the live stream are from other people and their struggles. And then I go, why are you struggling with that, Muppet? That’s easy. And then I go, oh, but how do I explain it? That’s not easy. And not to detour us too much, but look, we always get this idea that we know something and that knowledge is this one static state that is easily accessible and well understood and bounded, but it’s not. There are things that I know so well that I’m not even aware of their knowledge. And usually what happens is I’ll refer to those as common sense. I think we all do that. When people say common sense, what they mean is things they know so well that they can’t describe them in language at all. They’re just like, well, why would that ever happen? Everybody knows the world isn’t set up that way or something. And I don’t think we give that enough credit. I don’t think that we really pay enough attention to that to go, oh, wait a minute. That’s true. We say common sense and we can’t describe what the common sense thing is and why it’s common and why it’s sensible. Because we know it too deep. We know it embodied. Right? This is Piaget. Right? This is Moore-Peterson. Piaget. We know this thing embodied. It’s something that we participated with, that we grew up with. And so there’s things that we’ll say we know that well. Then there’s things we know well enough that we can interact with them, but we can’t describe them to others. But clearly we have a confidence in them. And I think those are two different types of knowledge. And then I think there’s things that we know well enough to discuss with somebody with a similar enough experience. Right? I don’t want to say an expert. That gets a little tricky because you’re appealing to an objective third party sort of authority. But let’s say two carpenters have an easy time talking about their building tricks and techniques to each other. And that’s easier than talking to somebody who has never worked on a building before. Right? Never worked in carpentry. So there’s that level of knowledge. Then there’s the level of knowledge where you can explain it to say most people, right, who are aware of most things. And then there’s a level of knowledge where you can actually teach it. And see, there’s a lot there. And I don’t want to get that too wrapped up in generative because I think there’s a split. There’s that old saying, those who can do, those who can’t teach. There’s exceptions to those rules. Sometimes people do things and then when they get too old to do them or they’re bored, they go and teach them. Some of those people are really good teachers and some of those people are really terrible teachers in my experience. So not solving a problem there. But this is the problem. We get wrapped up in ideas and we don’t realize there’s levels to ideas. There’s these deep levels. And you don’t have an external effect in the world with your ideas. Right? Nothing is spread to others until it’s put into action. And you can say, look, one action that you can point to with ideas is speaking them out. Okay, kind of. Right? But that is at least external to you. Right? And again, I went over this in my last stream on action. It’s got to be external to you for reasons. There are good reasons behind this. Philosophy is not generative. Do you generate ideas? Do you? Or do they come to you? Are they the synthesis of that which is already within you and something outside of you? Are you generating them? And even if you’re generating the ideas, is that generative? Because again, the generative stuff is outside of you. It’s not the stuff in your heart. There’s no action involved. It’s just to re-enchant this idea. You can’t compress the world down to, I have an idea, therefore I’m generative. What? And people do. People do this all the time. You see it all the time. Oh, Elon Musk, he just has good ideas and that’s why he has all this money. Goodness, no. He actually produces product for people. Does he physically do it himself? No, but he informs people, forms people around producing that product. He didn’t build Tesla. Well, he took Tesla from what it was and made it what it is. That’s generative. Do people have ideas? Or do ideas have people? It’s not a statement. It’s two questions. Might answering these questions generate something? Something? Or does it lead to more questions? Perhaps it just breaks down your certainty and puts you into wonder. Is that generative? It can be. It isn’t in and of itself by itself. Thinking things through propositionally gives you the feeling of having accomplished something. But it’s not necessarily generative. It can be. It can lead to something generative, but it’s not generative by itself. Ideas are not generative. You’ll generate ideas without doing anything, no process, no effort, nothing, and things will be generated without ideas. There has to be a space into which you generate. That space must be opened. Perhaps it is opened by ideas or by silence or sometimes by perspective or a change in perspective. Our realization. But then they aren’t generation. It’s just the recognition of the potential of generation. Welcome to the enchantment of the world. The world is not simply made up of pre-existing things that are already there or things that are there and then you see them or things that are there and then you see them and you do something with them and things pop in. No. It’s way more complex than that. We don’t just have ideas and things generate and manifest in the world. You need that discernment judgment action. The idea itself is insufficient. It’s mere hallucination. It’s just imaginal. Things that are imaginal are inside your head. They are not outside in the world. They’re not generative. They can lead to something that can be generative. They can lead to manifestation, but also none of that is required. The world is full of randomness. Things will randomly generate. Things will emerge without any effort on your part or anyone else’s. This world is full of randomness. That’s terrifying. Maybe that’s why we have the concepts of good and evil. Things are randomly popping up. How do we know if they’re good or not? Emergence is not good. It would be good. Maybe goodness has to be generated because it’s rare and it’s formed and it’s shaped. Maybe the same is true for truth and beauty. Beauty pops up randomly. It happens all the time. It doesn’t mean it’s good. It doesn’t mean it’s true. Now the real issue becomes, do you stay in your head? In fantasy land? Trapped in thinking? Where there are fewer consequences being generated? Or do you take an action with an unknown impact? This is a false dichotomy. Impacts are going to happen to you whether you take an action or not. The rest of the world is still there. You don’t get around anything by drinking yourself into a stupor or shooting heroin all day or snorting coke or playing video games or just hanging out with your porn. And damn it, Mark, why did you do that to me? And why did I indeed? It’s a false choice. Not taking an action means time still passes. Things still happen outside of you. And sure, sometimes you have little or no control or influence and you need to step back to wait, to have things unfold until there is or is not space for you to act appropriately or inappropriately. And I think that’s part of wisdom. Understanding these things. Because again, things are constantly emerging. All that is emerging is not generative even if it could be. The fact that generative things seem to be happening all the time is an illusion. It’s just randomness. Could be, right? But this is where people get deeply confused. At least, apparently to me, just constantly. And this is much to my personal dismay and disappointment. People are constantly, oh, well, we’ll just do this. We’ll just get this thing together, this group together, whatever, and something will emerge. Yeah, something might emerge. Is that generative? Or is it destructive? There’s a lot of groups. Mobs destroy things all the time. Occupy Wall Street wasn’t generative. There was a lot of time, energy, and attention to it. We’re going to get together and we’re going to protest and we’re going to walk down the street and that’s going to change the world like it did in the Civil Rights era. The Civil Rights era was informed. It was a process of change. It was a process of change towards a purpose or a delos. It had a driving ethos behind it to generate a series of changes, mostly legal changes, but also changes in attention primarily that led to all the other changes, is what enabled that to generate a better world. It wasn’t just get in the streets and whine about wealthy bankers. Look, I was in the middle of the Occupy Wall Street thing to some extent because I was getting my house taken. I’m screaming at these people. Why aren’t you here protecting the houses that are being illegally foreclosed on? Why are you there at the wrong banks? Not that they’re necessarily the wrong banks. I mean, they certainly contributed, but there weren’t the ones taking the physical action to foreclose on houses. It’s not like that wasn’t discussed. It’s not like that never happened. There were a couple people that they occupied houses and prevented foreclosures, but only a handful. There were probably hundreds of thousands of foreclosures that were illegal. It was Occupy Wall Street. People didn’t do anything. It wasn’t generative. It was mostly destructive. It’s not that they didn’t have an impact, but it wasn’t informed. It didn’t generate positive anything over the long term. It generated a lot of negative changes. Made the problem worse, that’s for sure. Tim Poole talks a lot about this because he was on the ground at Occupy Wall Street. Here’s some wonderful stories about his time on the ground there, doing real reporting as he’s still doing. Good for him. Wasn’t generative. And this is part of this deep confusion around emergence. Things that emerge are not necessarily going to be generative, and even if they are, that doesn’t mean they’re good. It doesn’t mean they’re true, and it doesn’t mean they’re beautiful. Dictators of the 1900s. Some of it wasn’t true. Some of it wasn’t beautiful. None of it was good. Some of it was beautiful. Beauty is a good way to trap people. You can just show them something beautiful and they’re like, ah, that’s beautiful. We’ll go where you’re going. Yeah. Yeah, that happened. That definitely happened. You study dictators of the 1900s. You see that all over the place, the instantiation of beauty as a lure to get people in. It’s something that wasn’t good. Did I mention that it wasn’t good? Because we’re confused on that point. And sometimes things are true and beautiful and not good. And you could argue, oh, you can generate a great army that takes over the world or could take over the world. Yeah, fair enough. Fair enough. You can. Generative isn’t some magical solution. I went over that earlier. And this is where we get into this idea of determinism. Determinism is definitionally non-generative. Determinism is the statement that generative doesn’t exist. It’s this compression. Right. And how do we get there? How do we get to this determinism idea? This is so dumb. It’s hard to imagine how anybody can possibly twist their brain into this. And yet Sam Harris manages it seemingly without effort. We get confused by constraints. What we’re constrained by versus what we’re determined by. You want to talk about what we’re determined by. We’re determined by our ineffable creator. However that works. However you concede that to be. I don’t really care. If you have a conception, probably a Christian conception, great. If you have a Buddhist conception, if you’re in the West, it’s probably wrong, but whatever. You have one. If you’re in the East, you probably have a better conception of the Buddhist conception. That’s what determined means. Which is to say it’s not something we can understand. It’s so much bigger than us. That’s why it’s ineffable. So much bigger than us. That we can’t understand it. That’s okay. Lots of things we can’t understand. I can’t understand most things. I’m still alive. People in the 1800s couldn’t understand a tenth of what we understand about technology. They managed just fine. I know that because we’re here. If knowledge at this level were required to survive, we wouldn’t be here to have the knowledge at this level. It’s really not a difficult thing. And so we’re not constrained by lack of knowledge. At least not in the recent conception of knowledge. We’re not constrained by lack of propositional understanding. We’re not constrained by lack of science. We’re not constrained by those things. Those things do not constrain us. Being determined comes from above. And you have no choice. Control is outside of you entirely. And that’s why there’s no space to be generous. Because you’re no longer an agent in the world. And that’s why selling determinism is difficult. Because people are like, wait, then I’m not an agent in the world. That’s technically correct. You’re not an agent in the world if determinism is true. That’s why determinism is not true. And what people are looking at is constraint and saying, well, I can’t make any choice I want, any way I want, with any set of consequences I choose, and therefore it must be determined. It’s like, man, you just compressed everything right down to nothing. And you’re not living in frustration because you’re not living in the world in your head. Totally get that. The world in your head is not generative, dude. And just because something is generative doesn’t mean it’s not subject to constraints. That’s crazy. In fact, without the constraints, generative can’t exist. That’s what’s worth thinking about. Being generative means being responsible. That’s why I talked about cultivation. It’s important to know that things are going to be generated around you. And if you took no control over responsibility for it, have no influence over them, yeah, the world’s going to feel determined to you. Yeah, maybe you won’t cultivate things. Maybe you’ll just let the weeds grow in the garden. And maybe they’ll take over. And then you will be more constrained than you would have been had you cultivated things. Yeah. Where do you think clean your room comes from? Jordan Peterson talks about this. Why do you clean your room? That’s a form of cultivation. And once you learn to cultivate and see the benefits of cultivation, it generates the ability to do more. You can use verbatim language, exact that out. Oh, I can clean my room. Oh, I can clean the house. Oh, I can clean the street when I’m walking on it and see trash. Oh, all of this has a positive impact on the world and makes the world a better place and forms the world a certain way. If you let nature form the world, it’ll get wild and overrun. I know I’ve got 12 acres of land. It’s not hard. Why did I have a snake in my house? Well, because I didn’t muggle on. That’s what happens. Then you get the snakes. They get out of the garden and come into your house and scare the avaliving bejesus out of you. So it’s a good thing to clean up. And I just want to make an important point where another point where people who will have a say they have a more nuanced, a more enchanted view of the world. They will try to redeem things. And I’ve seen this lot a lot lately with, say, something like the so-called Barbie movie, Barbie is not a movie. media for sure, it’s not a movie, not a film. They try to redeem this and say, oh look there’s a good message here somewhere and there’s lots of good messages in there. There’s an equal number of bad messages in there. What are we saying? You can’t redeem everything. You shouldn’t redeem everything. And I would argue you can’t redeem things that aren’t asking for redemption. Maybe you can only redeem beings, people, maybe. Not here to give you answers. But redeeming is not necessarily generative. And putting effort that would be generative into something like redemption might be a waste of your time, energy, and attention. I’m not going to state that outright, but it’s certainly possible. And you need to account for that because I think it’s important. Being generative is important. Jordan Peterson wouldn’t tell you to clean up your room if it weren’t. The ability to redeem is important, but it’s not universally applicable because you feel like it. It’s a relationship. Being generative in general is about a relationship, a formation, information. It’s to put things in formation to generate something, we’ll say, outside of the things you started with. To enchant the world, to make it bigger. I think those are the important points. It’s not just some random generation and then poof. Being generative needs to be deliberate, well thought out, carefully considered. It needs to have these qualities. And to that end, this is a generative experience. We’re trying to generate community, we’re trying to generate participation, we’re trying to generate a positive affect. I’m trying to resolve complicated issues, not necessarily give you answers, although occasionally answers may come. I’m trying to manifest something that you’re not involved in because I don’t think that’s healthy. That would be tyrannical force or something. I’m not a force type of a person, not that I don’t employ force or a threat of force. I do occasionally, but that’s not what this is about. And to that end, I’m going to just open this up. Anybody who wants to join, throw the link in the air. And as long as you’re well behaved and willing to be generative in a positive fashion, try to randomly redeem stupid things like Barbie, which nobody seems to have the same opinion of. See my Barbenheimer stream, which is excellent. It actually kind of took off and got me a bunch of subs, which I’m very grateful for. With Adam and Manuel. And with that, I’m going to sip my tea because it’s getting cold. I didn’t see too many like question questions come up here, but I’ll go through real quick. And make sure there’s nothing that needs answering. Defend pregnant Barbie. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Yes, Mills arranging raw material into a structure. Yes, I think informing. Yeah, arranging material into structure. Oh, well, thank you, Mills. That’s that’s very kind of you, sir. I do appreciate my first my first super chat. Fantastic. Dally likes my eyepiece. I hope he’s still with us. I think he left, but that’s OK. Thank you. I like my eyepiece, too. Mills, who’s who’s who’s what’s this Brett’s finale? I don’t feel like doing like me. Mills, I’m going to dive into a physical group project. I expect it’ll be harder to manifest than it was to design. Yeah, I’ll probably look foolish. Yeah, probably. I’m still going to do it. Good. I mean, that’s what it’s all about. And we do get caught up in not wanting to manifest. And we’re like, oh, I might make a mistake. Really genius. Like like most of the time, I’m like, oh, I’m going to make a mistake. I’m going to make a mistake. I’m going to make a mistake. I’m going to make a mistake. I’m going to make a mistake. Really genius. Like like most of your life hasn’t been you making mistakes. When we’re children, we just do nothing but make people Peterson and verveculates to call it serious. This is a scientist. Everything has to be serious because science or something. All play is is making a lot of mistakes and not caring. That’s really all it is. And so, David, generative is is hard because because it has consequences. And how to make being generative flow better. Other people. Yeah. Well, other people, other things. Right. Oh, here we go. Never ask. What do I want to be? Ask. What do I want to do? Yeah, there you go. The you’ll be something as a result of a tea loss of a result as a result of doing something that that will definitely happen. Anselman. That’s good to see you, Anselman. Good and evil are not random. They are a matter of will. There’s a lot of random stuff, though, and it could be good or evil. And Anselman, again, some weeds are pretty wildflowers. They are indeed. That is always my my struggle. Yeah, I’m glad that that helps you, Mills. And thank you so much for the for the super chat. That’s that’s wonderful. Oh, well, this nice talk. I played this left to X. I’m assuming you caught up because you started late. It’s not like it’s hard to figure out when I start. Anselman has rediscovered green tea with Jasmine. Oh, yeah. Wonderful. Green green tea with Jasmine is great stuff. Absolutely fantastic. Yeah, I I I love green tea with Jasmine. I don’t have any at the moment. I should probably I should probably get some now. What’s everyone got? Anyone got some Sam Powell? What’s what’s going on? Got some tea. My apple cinnamon tea is quite delicious. I like actually I like I like letting it steep for like an hour because then it’s nice and it’s at the right temperature. I’m like, oh, it’s not too hot. Just suck it down if I want. So, yeah, these live streams are good for for tea timing the tea. I often get into trouble with tea because I make tea and then I don’t do anything with it. I forget I made it and then it’s on the counter and then I have to heat it back up. And it’s a mess. It’s a total mess. It’s not generative to have cold tea. Oh, Double Viz. Yeah, caught up indeed. You’re 18 minutes in when I started the live. Well, I’m glad you caught up. Nathaniel, thanks, Mark. Oh, you’re most welcome. Thoughts on the Catholic idea of truth being symphonic. I’m not familiar with the Catholic idea of truth being symphonic. This is not completed with postmodernism, but the proponents, the ideas of truth being symphonic. The proponents of the idea, thinking of the good, symphonic, true and beautiful. Well, nothing’s completed with postmodernism. Postmodernism eats everything it touches. It’s a civilization ending mind virus. Yeah, I mean, the problem with terms like symphonic and resonant and I use them. I’m not I’m not trying to bash on them or anything is that we we really don’t understand how to relate to that. And so you’ll hear on the science side, symphonic and resonant and all that is actually just wrapped up in the word intelligibility. That’s how that that’s how the science people deal with it. Right. They just are intelligibility. And therefore, right. And they just can’t wait. Oh, the word’s intelligible to us. So there you go. And it’s like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, let’s unpack intelligible for a second. What are you talking about? Right. Because that’s what would if they ever took it seriously lead them back to creation. And that’s where you’re back into the Christian ideas, Catholicism, religion as such. Doesn’t matter what religion you engage in. They all have this idea of. Of. Of creation, right. Of where things started. What’s bigger than us that we’re involved in, that we were thrown into thrownness. If you want to get all heideggerian on it, you had to invent a new word for something obvious. It doesn’t work. That’s all I have to say on that. Anselman, my sister is staying with me, consuming my Sam Pell. Oh, monster. You’ll have to I don’t know, you have to constrain her somehow. Josh. Good to see you, Josh. I think redemption is generative. Well, I think redemption can be generated. Seems related to creation. Well, maybe in the beginning, God is hovering over the void and makes it good. At least in the Genesis narrative, creation is redemption of the void. Not disagreeing. However, the problem is when you say talk about. A piece of media that you think is a movie or a film and you try to say it’s good when it clearly. Because everything has good aspects that you’re not making a whopping statement. You’re trying to redeem it. And maybe you shouldn’t like maybe maybe that’s not generative or maybe what is generating is is that right? Look at the reviews for Barbie. They’re all over the map. No two people saw the same thing on the screen. I’m sorry. It just didn’t. I talk about this in the Barber and Hammer live stream. It’s wonderful. You should watch it. I don’t know what to make of that. It’s a very peak postmodern sort of an experience. I would say the same thing about Richmond, north of Richmond. You’re going to hear whatever you want to hear out of that song, man, because there’s a lot there and a lot of it’s contradictory. Chad, the alcoholic, did a wonderful video on that. Actually, I think he’s done two. He did a wonderful critique of that song. And it’s very valid. It is. It is. And it was so good that Vanderkley called Pastor Paul Vanderkley actually tweeted it out. And I think that was good because there you know, that is not a positive song. That is not redemptive. And that is not generated. It’s not that it’s not generating something. But my goodness. And so you’ve got to be careful. Redemption is not something you can just do. It’s like, oh, I can be deep. No, you can’t. Things can be redeemed and maybe without you or maybe nothing can be redeemed with you. Right. Like maybe redemption is outside of your control. I think that’s a better way to think about it. You’re going to be real careful when you try to like, oh, this was really good. Is it? Mike, I find the word resonate to be a great one. It is very descriptive. Yeah, it’s very it resonates with our experience. It’s very concurrent with our experience. There’s a lot of baggage with it, but that doesn’t make it the wrong word to use. Yeah, I again, I use it all the time. I you know, because we don’t at some point language just has these limits and we bump into them. There’s something to resonance. There’s something to the idea of intelligibility. Like, absolutely. These things are there. I’m yeah, I use them. I use them for a reason. Right. Handsome and darkness and the void are not called evil in Genesis. They were good in themselves. Sure. Well, because again, you need space to be generative in. And so darkness and void are space. Right. So yeah. Mills is going to cause trouble again to get into engineering terms. See, that’s trouble right there is is a feedback driver generative. Yeah, I think so. I think a feedback driver is generative. Right. So you’re taking something right and. Feedback controller. Yeah, whatever. I knew what you meant. I know you fumbled. It’s fine. I fumble all the time. Fortunately, no one calls me out because you’re all pussies. But that’s a different problem. Yeah. Fumbling happens. When you when you’re taking something and you’re adding to it, you’re taking something and you’re adding to it. That can be generative. It’s not always generative. That can be generative. And like I said, you can take something like the Barbie media and you can add to it or Richmond north of Richmond and you can add to it. And that can be generative. Right. But is it like is that generation good? Like what are you amplifying a bad signal? If you tell people to see Barbie, you’re basically telling more people to find more of their personal expression resonated back to them and amplified back to them. Is that good? Probably not for most people. Most people are pretty narcissistic. And that’s you know, that’s a very recent problem. We’ll say is the narcissism levels have just ratcheted up through the sky, you know, and we’ve already reached the point where I’m sure people have seen this. I was rather shocked by it the other day. Right. You get a mug shot and then everyone’s talking about the mug shot and one group of people. Right. This is the polarization. Everyone’s talking about one group of people. Aha. See, bad man. And the other group of people is like, victory is ours. Now, hey, the victory is ours. People is an overwhelming majority, by the way, just by counting like those numbers just like to count. I don’t get complicated with political things. It’s just counting. And B, they’re right. Victory. Victory is here. What you thought you were generating, what you thought was generative may generate something unexpected. And so trying to redeem a piece of media like Barbie, maybe generative of chaos and maybe generative individualism and spreading out. And, you know, more of this spreading out polarization. That’s what’s going to happen if you if you engage in going to see Barbie. It’s going to polarize you for sure. It’s going to put you in that polarization because it’s going to show you what you want to see. It’s like the cave in the Empire Strikes Back. Right. What’s there? Only what you bring with you. That’s that’s what’s going to happen. My personal evil is on the other other hand overthinking. Yes. Well, personal sin, perhaps. Yeah, we get caught up in this because it feels generative. Like I came up with a new idea the other day. Yeah, generative. Really? Like, you know, that’s why I put in the action live stream. I put action outside yourself. Like I I explained it in that live stream. Yeah, here’s the handsome and that’s not evil. Nathaniel could be excessive, but it’s prudent to think of all angles. Yeah. Problem is, I plan to find the best generative A.I. works. It’s interesting. Yeah, well, all A.I. is technically generative A.I. and I’m not going to be able to find the best generative A.I. Yeah, well, all A.I. is technically generative A.I. It’s kind of fun. So the generating without adding ready. It’s generating by taking a large thing and giving you a small, small, randomly connected portion or maybe not randomly, but somewhat randomly. Paralysis by analysis. Yes, mails. Maybe a vice at some threshold. Yeah, it’s not evil. Do you think they might do a G.I. Joe action movie follow up? I have no idea. I do not understand. What the point like I saw Barbie, like I don’t understand what they thought they were trying to do. I just know what happened. And and and that’s the problem. I just know what happened. What happened is they created a mirror, a funhouse mirror, much like A.I. This funhouse mirror theme is everywhere, right? So I think we’re trying to generate. We’re trying to be creative. We’re trying to enact and enable these things and we’re failing. And that’s how we’re failing. So yeah, I think that’s important. Ethan, my good friend. Thank you so much, my good friend. Thank you. Thank you. Congrats on the YouTube partnership. Yeah, I’m quite happy. I can’t believe it came through today. It’s two or three hours before the last stream. That was Sally knew about it before I did somehow. Because she’s magical, I guess. Nathaniel Kilkegard thought of all things. So I don’t have to. I don’t know. Kilkegard made up a lot of things. Kilkegard is just the Lutheran Lutheranism that explains his whole thought thought thought process. And I don’t have to I don’t have to leave the love of my life for sport. Yeah. Well, Mike, maybe the funhouse mirror is the same as Peugeot’s Carnival. I don’t know. I think there’s more to Peugeot’s Carnival. I mean, Carnival is engagement in the margin. Like you can’t stay in the center safe forever. Right. So that’s worth thinking about considering. Like, oh, I can’t stay in the center forever. I have to go out to the margin to Mardi Gras or whatever. Right. The funhouse mirror is an element of it where you’re reflecting back on your side. That’s important. And look, you can take the Freudian and Jungian psychological models and all the models since then. And you can say there’s a self and there’s one or more mirrors. And that explains everything. It explains the ego and the id and all those other things. You can use a very simple model that explains all this stuff much better. Right. Because your self sees itself in the mirror. Self sees self in the mirror, but it’s a flattened image. Right. It’s compression and it’s incomplete. And that’s where you get all the weird applications around ego and id and stuff like that. Right. So that’s one way to kind of explain it. Bubbleviz. Well done, Ethan. I agree. Well done, Ethan. Mills. Nobody can think of all the angles. Just coarse grain, contingency plan, and hope you paid attention good enough. Exactly. Yeah. I think that’s the… We get caught up in the… You know what you should do is you call it the age of knowing. Yes. That’s what I’m going to do. No more. All right. Now I’ve got a term to replace modern. The age of knowing. The age of knowing is characterized by propositional knowledge. I’ll probably take notes, but I have video notes. It’ll be good. The age of knowing is characterized by propositional knowledge. And so we’re in the age of knowing where we’re engaging ourselves in the propositional tyranny that John Verbeke talks about because there’s a there there for sure. And that age of knowing… Oh, I like this, Mills. We’re age of gnosis. Yeah. The age of gnosis. Yeah, that’s a good way to think about it. So this age of gnosis that we’re stuck in, we are preferring this propositional approach, which is effectively a language-based approach to knowledge and knowing and really to prioritizing the world. And that’s the problem is that we are fundamentally prioritizing the world of knowledge. That’s a good way to think about it. And that’s when people are talking about modernism. I think that’s what they’re talking about is prioritizing gnosis over interaction, participation. Right. And that’s what enables us to watch TV. Too much TV. Nathaniel, gnosis is like perspectival knowing, but we are in the age of gnosis, which is different. See Wolfgang Smith. But no, gnosis is devoid of all perspectival knowing, if you use even John Breveke’s format. Perspectival… The idea of perspectival knowing is a capitulation to the postmodern concept. It is, oh, my framing matters and is primary. The problem is your framing doesn’t matter because you’re going to die. And so what matters is what you can pass on through generations. We’re back to generative. See, that’s what matters. And look, if anybody wants to join, please jump in. Feel free. And I think this is where we get confused. Right. We get confused in this idea in the age of gnosis between knowledge and participation, because we’re preferring knowledge over participation. We’re preferring our ideas, saying our ideas are generative, saying that redemption is something we can do, say, by ourselves, for ourselves. Right. And that’s not correct. Nathaniel, or perhaps the synthesis of the foreknowings. All right. Well, now we’re getting closer. So why are we getting closer? I’ll tell you why we’re getting closer. We’re getting closer. Wait a minute. Why is my system all messed up? We’re getting closer for the following reason. I’m going to assume that you have not seen my video on the knowledge engine, which sort of goes over this. I would say we’re getting closer, because in the outline that we’ve sort of worked out, the way this works is that perspectival is more fundamental than a type of knowing or even a type of information. We recapitulate the four P’s of knowing into the four P’s of information, because that’s what John Verbeck is actually describing. Right. It doesn’t make any sense that you remember knowledge, you remember information, you put it together into knowledge. This is all outlined video on the four P’s of information. Boom. Watch this video. It’s wonderful. It will explain a better model than John’s model. Right. And when you make perspectival at the base of your interaction of the world, your processing of signals and informing of them, so it comes into the perspectival, goes into the four types of information, there’s a back and forth between the perspectival and the four buckets of information, and then it results in one or both types of knowledge. That’s the format that we use. We use that for a reason, mainly because we see the flaws in John’s stuff. Engage the video I pasted in. Mills. I have heard of the GI Joe fallacy. I don’t recall it up top of my head. Nathaniel, I definitely will. I like John, but I am not a cult of Verbeck, remember? Yeah, it’s unfortunate that the cult of Verbeck has emerged. We were sort of dismayed at this prospect, but saw the danger all along, we’ll say. And tried to avoid it as much as we could. Oh, what is this new thing? Oh, a star. Interesting. Sorry, Streamy Art distracted me with a new thing. Shiny. Ooh, shiny. And I think that, yeah, if you look at the model we’ve worked on instead of John’s, you’ll find a lot more richness there. It’s really explanatory. I have a ton of things I wish I could even begin to do a better treatment of it, but there’s so much there. We’re always running into new, oh, yeah, that fits right in this model that we came up with three years ago now, or maybe a little bit more. Mills, is it implicit learning based on information? It gets tricky. Like, the model that I use generally is signals, right? Everything signals, whether you like it or not, you just bombard it with signals 24-7. And those get informed. That’s your information, right? And then, right, the signals come in. They get informed by perspective, roughly speaking, informed by this interaction, this reciprocal interaction between perspective and the information buckets, the ways of informing the four P’s of information. And then that gets translated into knowledge. And so when you’re talking about learning, though, what learning is the process of taking information and turning it into knowledge, roughly speaking. That’s probably the best I can do quickly for learning. And then that means that education is refining the process of taking in signals, using your perspective, informing those signals, and creating knowledge. That’s what good education is. You can now argue I should have put that in my video on training versus education, but try to keep them to 30, 35 minutes, or try to keep them to 20 minutes. Sometimes they stray. Yeah, there’s a lot more to learning. I should probably do a video on learning. Maybe I’ll put that on the list. Not that I don’t have too many things on the list already, but we can always add more. It’s just a list. It won’t hurt us. So yeah, I mean, we can put learning here. Learning. Okay, information, signals. Knowledge. Creation of. That should do it. There. See, I take notes. You want a superpower? You want to know how to be a better person, how to have a superpower above everybody else? It’s not just cleaning your room with take notes. You take notes, man, you’re ahead of everybody. Taking notes makes you a super being, guaranteed. I’m not super great at taking notes, but I’m way better than most people. Like, I will actually do it. I just did it. I’ll do more. I’ll go back and listen to this video and get notes for the other stuff I was talking about where I was like, maybe I should write all this down. But, you know, and there’s this tension between being in the flow and exploring ideas and stopping to take notes. There’s always a take. There’s no free lunch. There’s no free lunch. Bubble this. Copyright as pertaining to music is diminishing the ease to generate music. I don’t know about that. I think copyright, well, copyright is diminishing the ease to generate music. Copyright, well, copyright in the US is pretty much automatic now, but copyright is good. It allows people to get credit for their work. Without copyright, no one gets credit for anything. You can’t get paid. You can’t get remunerated for your work easily. Other people can take your stuff. It allows more leeches. And a lot of culture, especially now, is how much parasitic behavior is allowable. We’re really trapped in that question right now. That’s really the battle. Like if you wanted to, and I kind of go over this, right? I have a video on the culture war. It’s a great video. My conception of what the culture war actually is. So, and this is concurrent with that view. If you want to think about what we’re going through right now in terms of how we’re seeing the world and what’s actually happening around us and this culture war idea, you can think of it in terms of trying to work out as a society how much parasitic behavior is okay based on how much production. And there’s a big imbalance in the world because the US has a lot of production. The method of production of generation in the US is fundamentally different from the method of generation in Europe. I kind of go over this with Adam on our talk Frontier of Ideas. If you haven’t seen Frontier of Ideas, you check that out. It’s a really good talk. Adam does a wonderful job as always. I’m always better when I talk with other people. You can really kind of see some of that. I think that, yeah, there’s more of that concept in the new video that I have recorded but hasn’t been edited yet. Apologies. That will be coming out with Adam and I. So a lot of what’s happening is this reflection between Europe. This is in Frontier of Ideas between Europe and the United States. They’re both following these reflections of one another and not the reality. And so we’re struggling with this concept behind how many people should not have to work off the backs of other people’s work. And the number is not zero. Like it can’t be. Like some people are disabled. Some people just have lower skill sets. Right. You want to take care of family member and friends when they’re in trouble. Right. It can’t be zero. It’s nowhere near zero. The question is, what is the right amount of welfare? What is the right amount of charity? What is the right amount of work hours in a week? I happen to think the US got it pretty good with 40. But and there are technical reasons for that. Like if you wanted to measure it and you kind of can, there are technical reasons to believe that 40 is actually the right answer because beneath that productivity goes down. Your ability to be generative goes down as a corporation, as an individual. And above that, the rewards compound nonlinearly. So it’s like 40, 38, somewhere in that range actually looks like the right number. But that’s part of how much generative do we need? I don’t know. But that I think is is is. Is the idea of the culture war like that’s what we’re seeing. It manifests as a culture war. But that’s not what the culture war is. So it’s worth thinking about. And I’ll just paste that in here because I can. And that’s the thing. You know, that that’s the battle. It’s how much parasitic behavior. Mills following false reflections driving reciprocal dynamics. Gold. Oh, thank you. I like it. Josh. And how do you measure work? It’s a good question. How do you measure work? I’m not going to paste it because I’ve pasted enough videos for one for one live stream. But it’s out there. I go over this in my video on economy. Most of the economy of the United States is non-monetary. That’s why that’s that’s that’s actually the technical reason why economists get everything wrong. Like I know Taleb bashes on them for a number of reasons. And all of his reasons are correct and valid as near as I can tell. Taleb is wonderful. Read all his books. Pay attention to his Twitter feed. It’s terrible. Read all his books. He’s wonderful in his books. He’s not 100 percent right, but he’s damn close. It’s close enough. Don’t worry about the things people have wrong when they have so many things right. That’s why you don’t critique Peterson publicly. There are lots of reasons why. Economists get get things drastically wrong. But the primary reason why they get things drastically wrong is because almost it. Well, the overwhelming majority of the economy is non-monetary, not being measured in money. People are doing work or works without renumeration in cash. And it’s not going to be a good thing. It’s going to be a bad thing. It’s going to be a bad thing. It’s going to be a bad thing. And it’s hard to know what that is. If my neighbor comes over here and helps me mow my lawn or something, which hasn’t happened, unfortunately. But that’s probably because I’m a hermit and don’t really have any neighbors. So and don’t interact with people. That doesn’t show up anywhere that an economist can find it. There’s no way for them to measure that. What would they do? Find satellite pictures before and after a calculator. And you can’t because when you scale, you have to deal with averages. So if it takes my neighbor 10 minutes to cut my lawn, takes my other neighbor 30 minutes to cut my lawn. What does that mean for an economic measurement? I don’t know. Right. And so that’s why economists get things wrong. But again, if you want to tie it to money and you want to tie it to corporation and you want a way to make people feel good and also facilitate them to do things they would not otherwise be able to do without, you know, without an abstracted barter system, which is what money is. Just abstracted barter. See my videos on money, two of them, and my video on economy. Again, I’m not going to paste any more videos. I’m not going to have a bar to chat with my pasted videos because I have videos on a bunch of this stuff. Right. This is important to understand because that abstraction allows a level of efficiency and it allows a way to generate things that isn’t available without the abstraction. If you don’t have money, if it’s a pure barter system, there’s a bunch of things that we cannot do at scale like computer. You can’t. You’re never going to get a computer ever in a barter system. It’s never going to happen. I’m not saying once you have a non barter system, you can’t trade for computers. Of course you can. But without money, without an abstraction, you’re never going to get really complex, technically difficult things to be built. It’s harder to build long distance things. Right. You need an empire and then they need a reason and blah. You can see this in the history too. And Nathaniel, like food production in Russia, it’s a good example. People grow their own food at a much higher rate and throw off the statistics. Right. You can’t look at Russia from an economic perspective and figure out how it works with a bunch of countries like that. Or you could look at Germany. So what happened in Germany? So they shut down all the nuclear plants. They incentivize solar development. Right. And it crashes the German economy to some extent, not a huge extent, but to some extent. And of course now they’re back to coal. This stuff closed all your nuclear plants like a bunch of idiots. Most efficient and cheapest power you can possibly generate. People put solar cells in their backyards because they were getting paid abstraction money to do so. But they got rid of their chickens and their gardens because solar cells cover gardens, you muppets. Now you can’t grow food. No, really. There’s an actual conflict there that people don’t account for. And so what ends up happening is, bang, they run out of basically farm food because they export a lot of food because they’re the largest food producer in Europe. I think the Netherlands is second. Netherlands is first in agricultural production, but most of its flowers. So you end up with a problem manifesting because you tried to solve this green energy problem, which you didn’t solve, but made worse. Well done, Germany. Right. Economists didn’t see any of that coming. Of course I did. I was like, oh, that’s a bad idea. This is going to have all kinds of second order effects. You guys aren’t understanding. I said it at the time. You can’t prove that. I don’t have videos from back then to prove, oh, yeah, I saw this coming. But I did. It was obvious. I’m sorry. I’m sorry if you didn’t. I mentioned fair enough you shouldn’t. I happened to be, I was like, oh, that’s a dumb idea. It’s going to cause all kinds of problems because these people raise their own livestock in their yards. They grow their own vegetables. They’re going to stop doing that to try and get solar going. And they did. And it was horrible. It was horrible. And yeah, economists didn’t see that coming. They thought solar cells are a net positive to the economy because they sectioned everything off. They science everything. That means dividing it up. You know, mills related to things in the economy that are not accounted for. Do you have thoughts on cost externalities? I would just call this second order effects. The problem is that, again, the economy is non-monetary. Primarily, all of the things are generated that build an economy from not money. Let’s suppose you are starting a business. I’m involved in yet another startup. Or better, or for worse. We’ll see. We’ll see if we actually have a customer at the end of September here or not. That doesn’t get, the start of building a startup is not getting funding. The start of building a startup is actually building things with no renumeration in almost all cases. And whether those things are PowerPoint presentations to convince somebody to give you money or their actual product to convince people to pay you or convince people that you’re capable of building product, it doesn’t matter. People don’t understand. The start of things is always non-material. The start of everything. The beginning of generation is always non-material. Always. Always. Without exception. And that’s why people get confused between ideas and generations. Like, oh, I generated an idea. No, you didn’t. Ideas happen. They’re going to happen with or without your involvement. Like many things. Emergence happens. It happens with or without your involvement. You can make it better or worse. But you better be careful and know which you’re doing. And to make things generative, you have to inform them. Things happen. And that’s where it’s tricky. Like, if you think the economy is some monetary thing that you can measure, you’ve already made the big mistake. That mistake’s only going to get worse, not better. Sorry. It’s not a good thing. And that’s why this idea of generative is important. I mean, that’s why I did the livestream. Because I see this deep confusion with people in what’s generative and what’s not. So there’s a problem there. And that is the fundamental problem. The problem of understanding generation, the idea of generation as such. Josh, I like that, Josh. Spirit all the way down. No turtles. Yeah, well, it’s certainly spirit at the bottom. It’s not spirit all the way up, oddly. And yet the top is always spirit. It’s a thing. It’s hard to understand. But yeah, I mean, that’s why economists suck. They don’t. They’re very materialistic. They like to measure things. Those things aren’t measurable. Qualities do not have measure. Investors invest in the quality of the team, not in the product. And that’s why pivoting is a thing in startups. Oh, are you prepared to pivot? You write your business plan. You never follow it. You throw it out, basically. You write the business plan to show you’ve thought about something. Thinking about things is good. But it’s not generative. Right. Doing things is generative. Taking action in the world is generative. So yeah, it’s spirit all the way down. No turtles. Turtles are for ponds. I have turtles. I have turtles all over. I have a huge turtle somewhere. Gigantic. He’s like, oh, this big. Is it what? Is this tall? Yeah, he’s pretty tall. Big old guy. Snapping turtle, I assume. I don’t know turtles that well. I keep looking down. I don’t see turtles. Sometimes they’re there. Usually they’re out in one of the logs on the pond, hanging out in the sun in the summer. Just sunning them, especially in the spring. They’ll be out there getting some heat. Yeah, one day the big one was over by where the car is. I was like, dude, you got to move. I got to drive. You got to get out of the way. I’m not going to squish you. Turtles happens. No one wants to jump in? Come on. We got a link on navigating patterns. You can jump in and say hi and be generative. Generative of my live stream. It’s all about what is generative. Yeah, I should do another video on economy or something. And learning. I want to do this learning video now. I always want to do videos right when I think of them. And then I’ve got this huge list of probably 120 topics I haven’t done. Videos are hard. Sitting down and getting all the examples straight in the way in your head and finding the time. And a lot of work. YouTube channels are a lot of work. That’s why I’m happy that we finally made finally made monetization. Thank you so much, everybody. It’s fantastic. It’s great. It’s great to be monetized. And Nathaniel thinking symbolically the cross is the symbol symbol has a longer downward vertical causality. Wonder if there’s something there. Yeah, vertical causality is primary. The horizontal causality is not primary. Right. And that’s why the cross shouldn’t be equal. Because the vertical causality matters more. It’s primary. This is the main problem of materialism. Like this is why I define materialism the way I do. Materialism is thinking that material is primary. Not that material is the only thing. Just that it’s the primary thing. Like, oh, you’re involved in a political party and therefore. It’s like, no. You know, oh, it’s the economy. It’s the economy. It’s the capitalism makes you do this. It’s like, no, that’s that’s not true. Right. And that’s the problem. Mills, I’m always managing kids this time of day. Can’t jump in. Well, look, I keep trying to explain this to people. The reason why we have closets with those super big hooks is for children. You put the children on hooks, you close the door. Now you can’t hear them. Then you can do what you need to do. It’s this proper parenting 101. Just saying. I always try to explain that to people. They don’t believe me. But that’s why that was designed. What do you think those big hooks are for? Coats? Come on. They’re for kids. And according to people who’ve been to boarding school, they’re definitely like years and stories of kids who’ve been to boarding school, man. Awful. I’m just saying there’s you can tie children up. There’s things you can do, Mills. There’s things you can do. Oh, don’t tempt me. Maybe I shouldn’t. Fair. Fair. Maybe I shouldn’t tempt you. Yeah, sometimes you’re like, oh, duct tape and children, two great tastes that go great together. I know many a parent who has acquiesced. Not to actually duct tape into children, to be clear, just to the concept that, hey, maybe that’s a possibility. Children can get quite frustrating. If you listen to enough parents, you’ll learn that. Or if you’re around enough children for long enough, it’s like, oh. The frustrating part for parents is when children are hellish all day and they go over someone else’s house and they’re perfectly well behaved. You’re like, oh, your child is so lovely, not like my children. You’re like, no. Why can’t the child be like that for me? Yeah. Yeah, I’ve seen parents do that too. It’s always your excuse, you parents, for not being generative. Like, I’m busy with the children. But that’s super generative. We kind of covered that. Generation. Those are your generations or somebody else’s generation. It doesn’t really matter. Generation as such. That’s the most important type of generation. Oh, man. No, Jesse. Jesse’s busy, I guess. I thought he at least was going to jump in. Sally Jo never prepares for Friday. She’s always taken off guard. So I don’t know why. But yeah, she always has a hard time jumping in. She’s got a child too. She uses that as an excuse to not do all kinds of things. Oh, I can’t do this and that because I have a child. Like, what? I don’t know. Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes. I don’t know. Just thinking like you can make plans. You can make plans. Yeah, I mean, another thing about economy is economy is all about generation at scale. Right? That’s what an economy is. What are you measuring? You’re measuring the generation of your culture at scale. And I don’t think economists account for culture at all. It’s like, but economy is a function of having a culture. Right? Not that it only happens, say, within a culture. It only happens because of culture. And I think, again, because of the reduction we do, we don’t account for that. Or certainly economists still. I think generation two ties together a lot of concepts that people think are unrelated, like economy and culture and politics. Because the art of politics is the art of generating laws, the art of generating norms, right? And the art of pointing towards the generation of other things. And you can argue that the economy has much the same function in some ways. It didn’t generate laws, but it certainly points to generating things. And that’s true. That is true. Mills, my kids are asking me stuff like, would I time travel back to when they were babies? I don’t have ready-made responses for this stuff. Well, that’s the regeneration of the world, right? That’s the revivification of reality for you, right? That’s one of the things that kids give you that Peterson talks about. Which, you know, that’s a good thing, I guess, I think. That’s why we have kids, right? Not only so that they can survive us, but also so they can revivify the world for us. And a lot of people do things for their children, right? They start businesses for their children. So it’s a lot of the reason why things get generated is children. Not the only reason. And another reason things get generated by people who don’t have children is because they want something that lasts past themselves. So that’s important to think about, too. Generation actually runs a lot of the world, right? It’s sort of the thing that runs the world is this idea of being generated. And not just the idea of being generated, but having things that we are generating over time. That is, to some extent, the world. That is, culture is generating. Or it’s the process of being generative, right? Politics is the process of being generative. It also points to more generative stuff, right? Things are generated from the systems, the structures that we build, all of it sort of flows into the future, right? And it takes potential and makes it manifest. That’s really the point of generation for me is things that flow in and manifest. I’m running out of things to say about generative and in general. General and generative. Pretty close words there. Hmm. Another thing worth thinking about. Anyone want to jump in? No? No? We didn’t have a super number of watchers today. We went up to like 11 or 12 for a bit. Now we’re down to a mere seven. But all right. Well, if no one’s going to jump in, I’m going to end the stream. I just don’t have much more useful to say. But look, I thought this was generative. I thought I generated a lot of good ideas for people to think about. And that was the point, right? It was to point to the live streams in general for participation and generation of ideas and thoughts and appreciation of complexity to redeem some of these over-compressed ideas, right? And put them in a frame where you can use them in multiple ways, understand the world better, engender some humility. I am trying to generate humility. It’s going to tell you, yeah, you think you understand these concepts, but they’re way more complicated, right? Well, Mills is going to join us. All right, my friend, welcome. The audio is not synced up for some reason, but I’m going to snuck away for a smoke break. Show my face. Say hi. Well, it’s good to finally see you. Welcome. It’s wonderful to have you on, finally. Still no audio. I don’t know what’s up. No audio? Uh-oh. That’s not good. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll figure out the technical details next time. Hopefully. All right, man. It’s good to see you. Thank you. That was a nice visit. Finally, we get to see somebody who doesn’t come on very often. So hopefully that will happen more in the future. Yeah, look, I really appreciate people engaging in this. I think this is generative, these live streams. I hope you engage the other videos. I know I put a bunch of links in just because I could. Sometimes I can’t manage it. But it’s nice. It’s nice to have everybody engage. And we’ll do it again next week. Yeah. We’ll figure out what we’re going to do for a topic next week. I know we have a bunch in the queue somewhere, but I’m not tracking them actively while I’m in the streams. Nathaniel, if you cut it short tonight, it was quality, which is better than quantity anyway. I agree. There’s always this tension between how long a monologue and then how long after and then whether or not we can stay on topic and all of that. So I don’t mind if we go under two hours. It looks like we’ve got to. I’m fine with all that. This is experimentation, live streams, and participation. And I’m happy that the channel is finally monetized. And that’s wonderful. And thank you, everybody, for making that happen. So yeah, I don’t mind short live streams. I think they’re fine. I like engagement. We get to finally see mails. That was wonderful. So I feel blessed for that. Hopefully, he’ll get audio next time. Weird. Usually, Streamy Art is pretty solid. But yeah, weird things happen. Yeah, no, it was wonderful, everybody. Thank you for engaging. I found it very generative. And we’re going to do it again next Friday, hopefully, unless something comes up. I don’t think so. I don’t have anything on the horizon. And we’ll see where we go. If you have suggestions for topics, you can put them in the comments, whatever. And look, I’ve got a store now, a Redbubble store. We’ve got some wonderful artwork from Sally Jo on there. She’s my artist collaborator for a lot of stuff. And we’re trying to generate better conversation around things like gender. So we’ve got some artwork to that effect that you might find interesting. And also, there’s some of the Closed on Sunday stuff that we’re going to be doing more of. So I will post a link to the Redbubble store in the description. I don’t think I have one handy. Otherwise, I post it here now. Yeah, I mean, look, these are wonderful engagements. And I’m very happy that people engage with them. And I’m very grateful to have people here. And oh, no, here’s my store. And yeah, the future videos are all going to have links to the store in them, the ones that are prerecorded. And then we’ll work on the live streams and hopefully making them better. Probably next week we’ll get Jesse back and at least have his crazy artisty thoughts on everything. Aussies always have good takes on stuff. And look, have a great week, everybody. Have a good weekend. It was lovely to see you all. Thank you for helping make these things a success. It’s your involvement and your participation, even just in the comments of live stream or even just as watchers, that makes all this possible that allows me to keep doing it. So I will see you all next week. Hopefully I’ll have videos out during the week here once my editor gets back and gets back on the stick. We’ll get some I’ve got stuff in the queue. I could do some recordings. Maybe I can do that later tonight since I have some time, although maybe I’m exhausted from the live streaming. So thank you, everybody. Have a wonderful night.