The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 262. Beyond Order: Montreal Lecture | Jonathan Pageau

Episode Date: June 16, 2022

We had the honor of having our dear friend Jonathan Pageau host this Beyond Order lecture in Montreal on May 23rd, 2022. Jonathan opens the show by describing how he first heard (and subsequently met) Jordan. This event, then, serves as a continuation of the conversations they first had. Throughout this hour-and-a-half-long event, Dr. Peterson and Jonathan Pageau discuss perception, symbolism, values, and the relationship between perception and the cognitive scientist’s attempts to understand consciousness.—Links—Check out Jonathan Pageau’s YouTube channel:https://youtube.com/channel/UCtCTSf3UwRU14nYWr_xm-dQWebsites:https://thesymbolicworld.com (speaking)https://pageaucarvings.com (carving)https://orthodoxartsjournal.org (writing) —Chapters— 0:00 — Intro4:55 — Dr. Peterson enters the stage8:00 — Perception, Cognitive Science, and the problem of bodyless AI 11:30 — The visual cliff experiment & perceiving the world18:30 — The awe of infinity & complexity of the Heavens 21:00 — Awe, imitation, & why humans celebrate28:00 — The role of sacrifice & delaying gratification32:00 — Egyptian gods & ancient symbolism36:00 — Pyramids vs. mountains in The Bible44:00 — The cost of not aiming properly 52:30 — Bottom-up vs. top-down conceptualizations of the world57:00 — Sam Harris1:05:00 — Why the Diversity, Inclusivity, and Equity types are taking on STEM 1:10:00 — Is it possible to create values from scratch? Nietzsche, Freud, & Jung1:16:00 — Why go to church?1:22:00 — Q&A#Perception #BeyondOrder #JonathanPageau #Symbolism #Values #SamHarris

Welcome to episode 262 of the JBP Podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. This episode is a lecture dad did in Montreal with Jonathan Pazzo as moderator. This was a unique conversation. They discussed the problem of perception, the feeling of awe, the Bible, why going to church matters, and much more. I hope you enjoy this episode. And now, please welcome tonight's host from the symbolic world podcast, Jonathan Pajou. Welcome everybody. I am very excited because for the first time Jordan Peterson is in Montreal. It is the first time that he's speaking here. Jordan has lived here. He lived here for eight years. He was at McGill and he loves this city and so it's really great to have everybody here to listen to him speak. I want to rewind you in my life to 2015.

This is before Jordan Peterson was famous. He was a psychologist at the University of Toronto and I was driving down the road and I was listening to the CDC and I don't know. I was just getting my son at his friend's house on one evening and there's this conference on on the, and there's this conference on the CBC, and here's this professor. And he's saying things that I am not used to hearing on the CBC. The way that he was speaking, the references that he was making, he was going through Solzenitsyn and Milton and Dostoevsky.

He was talking about the nature of reality using words like logos, which you usually don't hear on the radio. I was really surprised. I was very surprised because he was saying things that were connecting to something that I was already thinking. And this is an experience that I've heard many people say about Jordan's work, which is that when they hear him, he's expressing something that they had on the tip of their mind, that they could almost see, that they could kind of perceive, and Jordan is able to bring it together for them in a more succinct and very powerful way. And I was so excited that I was hitting the steering wheel. I was like screaming in the car.

I am not like that. This is not usually the way that I act. I was so excited that I went to get my son and all I could think about was what I was what I'd heard on the radio. I couldn't believe it. I got home and I'm online on Google. Who is this during Pearson fellow? I find him you of T.

You know, he's a professor of psychology, start listening to some of his lectures, and every lecture I'm astounded at the way at which he's talking about the world. And especially for me, what was fascinating was that he was giving, he was helping the secular world understand what some of the religious patterns, some of the mythology, some of the rituals that we engage with, what it is that they could mean for them. Why do they make sense? Why do we do these strange things like have rituals?

Why do we have these strange stories that when you look at them on the surface, are completely absurd. He was really helping people to gather that together. So I was so excited. I wrote him a little email and I said, thank you so much for everything you do. And I sent him a link to a talk that I had given. Talk that I had given at a university also at a college in Ontario, at King's University, I think.

And I was talking about similar things as Jordan in that conference. I was talking about the problem of complexity and how patterns come together and manifest certain reality. But I just said, I'll just thank him, because like I said, I've never done this before. So I write him, I'm like, thank you so much. And the next day, I get a nice little answer.

You know, thank you so much for your message with a link to a few more videos. But then two hours later, he calls me. That's it. I did not expect that either. And I was as much sock as I was experiencing. I felt like on the end of the phone, he also had the same kind of shock.

Because he had detected it in the things that I was talking about, similar patterns to what was interesting him. And so since then, since that moment in 2015, Jordan and I have been having an ongoing conversation, conversation about the pattern of reality, conversation about how complexity relates to the question of religion. Because he was coming to Montreal, Jordan said,

why don't we try to continue this conversation together? Tonight with Jordan, that is what I hope to do. We'll be going through the different arguments about question of the pattern of reality of how complexity comes about and how it moves into all the way that we act, how we decide what is good and how we move into the goods. I'm super excited to have Jordan with us and I'm really, I know he's excited to be in, so everybody, please welcome Dr. Jordan Peterson. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, well, it's great. It's great to be here. It's always such a thrill for me to come to Montreal.

It's such a great city. I love living here. And we haven't been here for, I don't know, five years or six years. I have lots of friends here. My former advisor and business partners here, he's in the audience tonight. Robert Peel, Bob was one of the people who helped design the self-authoring program and understand myself program and got lots of old graduate student buddies in the audience tonight. So that's pretty fun. And I wish I could go walk wander around the streets and see how the city is doing, but look great when we came in today.

So I'm really happy to be here and thank all of you for coming. And I'm really happy to be talking to Jonathan. As he pointed out, we've been conversing seriously with a variety of other people too, including Bishop Baron and John Verbecky in particular. I just Jonathan came up to my house in Toronto We could go we could go yeah, not very long and we had a three hour conversation with Professor Verbecki of the University of Toronto and

And that went really well We're gonna really set on YouTube at some point in the relative linear future and and so we're hammering out the same Problems in some sense from different perspectives, and that's quite fun. And so I thought it would be a good opportunity to, I like to use these lectures or these opportunities to push my thinking on a particular question farther than I've been able to push before.

I don't like to give the same lecture, and I like to discover something new. And Jonathan's a really good person to talk to when you're trying to discover something new, especially on this symbolic front. And we've had quite a fruitful interaction, especially about ritual, I would say, and traditional belief. And the ideas of traditional, not just Christianity, it's broader than that. Jonathan's very well versed in postmodern theory,

which is extremely helpful, and also in cognitive science, as well as deeply read theologically and a great artist. You should check out his website, he's really something. He's made some lovely pieces for us. Well, so away we go. Thank you very much for agreeing to do this, and again, thank you all for coming.

I hope we have a bang up evening. That's the plan, man. So one of the things that prompted your foray into religious thinking, there are different, different venues that you kind of brought you into it but one of them was definitely the problem of perception that is the manner which humans perceive and the the place where cognitive science was coming in realizing the limit of perception at least how

object in the world aren't just self-evident and that there's a process by which we're able to come together and the the way in which the world kind of shows us or manifest to us how it is that we're supposed to inhabit it. So maybe you can start with that and talk a little about that. Okay, so we can hit that from a variety of different perspectives. I mean the first problem, the cognitive scientists really stumbled across and the AI types who are developing robots, same thing, and the postmodernists, the literary critics, they all run across this problem at the same time, which was that any reasonably complex environment is susceptible to a near-infinite number of interpretations. And so when you hear the postmodernists say things like, well, there's no fixed meaning

for a text, which is something they really started to understand. I would say, really, in the 1960s, they're actually right. You know, when you think about Shakespearean play or a biblical story, well, how many interpretations are there of Hamlet or of the story of Canaan Abel? Well, there's an indefinite number of interpretations. Maybe one for every reader. Now, there's some overlap because we can commonly understand the stories. But, well, if there's some overlap because we can commonly understand the stories. But, well, if there's that many interpretations, which one's right? And if none of them are right,

well, then are none of them right? And is there even any such thing as right in that situation? And so, that's the problem with textual analysis. And then in the real world, outside of texts, let's say, every visual scene is incomprehensibly complex. There's an indefinite number of ways of seeing everything. And this is partly why we don't have general-purpose robots, is because AI engineers originally believe that the problem of robotics would be the computation of action in the world, but it turned out that the problem of robotics was seeing the world. And that really shocked everyone because when you look at the world, it's like, well, there it is, you know, no problem. You just open your eyes and bang there are the objects.

And yeah, there are objects. It's like, well, how many of them? Well, you could get lost in the details of this carpet. If you were a photorealist painter, you know, you take just a section of the carpet and it would take you maybe three weeks to paint it in a high-resolution manner. And even then, you wouldn't have captured anywhere near the detail and you'd only have done it under one condition of illumination. And that's just a fragment of the visual scene. And so I started to get extremely interested in this problem, which was the problem of attention.

How do we reduce the indefinite multiplicity of the potential landscape of perceptions to the self-evident things that we see? And the answer to that turns out to be extremely bizarre. Apparently it's, well, we don't see objects. We see meaning, and we infer objects, and that's quite the bloody revelation when you start to understand that,

because modern people, atheistic materialist types, they think, what's sort of a dead world intrinsically, and you overlay a meaning on top of that, and that's a secondary overlay, because the object perception is primary and It's not real the meaning. It's like that isn't how your brain works. You see meanings So for example with little children There's this experiment for example called a visual cliff

If you if you take a Baby who can crawl and you put imagine a Table like this and then another table the same set here and then a plate of glass between them. If you have the baby crawl towards the visual cliff, the baby will stop and the reason for isn't, the reason isn't that the baby sees like an objective pattern and thinks, oh no, I can fall. They see a falling off place. And then they maybe they can infer some common objective pattern out of that.

But we see meanings, our primary element of our perception is meaning, mapped right onto her body. And that's, that really upendsends the whole in some sense, the whole empirical notion of the way that we act in the world, the whole rationalist enterprise, although less that. And it poses very strange epistemological questions. So that's questions about the theory of knowledge, but also very strange ontological questions. So for example, if you're a Darwinian, think, okay, well, we evolved to perceive the world in a manner that's accurate enough to ensure our survival. And that's about as accurate as it gets in some sense if you're a Darwinian.

Well, we perceive the world through stories, actually, like technically, does that mean that the world is a story? Like technically, does that mean that the world is a story? Or if not, what does it mean? And the answer to that is, it's not so obvious. And one thing that has become obvious that Jonathan and I have talked about a lot is that it's clearly the case that we see the world through something that when we describe it is a story. So you prioritize your attention through a structure value. And you can't see unless you do that. And so that even means that the objective world, and this is something the postmodernist also kind of pointed out, the objective world isn't even so clearly objective. Not in a way we thought because you can't even see objects except through a hierarchy of value. And so we've talked a lot about what that hierarchy of value might be. And you've hit that particularly from a more theological perspective.

Well, one of the surprising things that comes out of it is the idea that we are aiming when we're acting. That is, in the world, when we're moving, when we're doing things, we're always kind of aiming towards a good and avoiding the bad, we could say. And that that actually becomes, in a certain manner, the definition of how we perceive objects themselves, right? So like if I see an apple, without even thinking about it, I'm always asking myself, is it a good apple? Is it an apple that will reach its purpose?

And when we say its purpose, it's actually our embodied human purpose. That is, if I see an apple, I'm asking myself, is it good to eat? Right, and then, as you can see, well, and you're also assuming then, there's a platonic element to that too. So, does it fulfill its function as an apple,

which would be for us? It would be, well, it's ripe and it's not rotten and it's delicious. And then, the reason you see it, it's tied into an ethic. And you might say, well, what kind of ethic is it tied in? It's like, well, do you want to eat? And do you eat because you want to live? And do you want to live because you think living is worthwhile? And to what end are you devoting your life? And you think, well, none of that's there when I see an apple. And that's absolutely 100% wrong. All of that is there when you see

everything. And so you're embedded in an ethic of aim and you can't organize your perceptions without that. And that ethic of aim fundamentally, the highest order aims or the most fundamental aims you can use either metaphor. So the most basic things or the highest things, they are phenomenologically religious in structure. And I mean that by definition. So like when you talk about the deepest things, and so those would be the things that move you the most or the things that are your ultimate aim,

you're in the landscape that produces religious experiences when people are in that domain. And that's deeply rooted biologically. So one of the religious instincts, for example, is the instinct that's associated with awe and with the compulsion to imitate. So, you know, maybe you imitate a hero, you know, and the ultimate hero would be a divine figure. And so that's why, for example, religious people might talk about the imitation of Christ. But that experience of awe, which you might have when you look up at the night sky, that's associated with pylorection, which is the

feeling of your hair standing on end, and or chills running up your and down your back, which sometimes you'll feel, for example, if you listen to music and you're deeply moved by it, and that is a reflex that's probably 60 million years old, because it's the same reflex that you see a cat when it sees a dog, you know, maybe it's afraid it puffs itself up, that's pylowirection, and does that so it looks big, and then it dances sideways, and the experience the cat is having is something like the experience of awe. And that's not cognitive, like that's 60 million years old, it's really old. And it's a primary religious experience. And so, and it's tied into perception in an extraordinarily deep level, partly because the things that you're in awe of will be

the things towards which you are in your perceptions and your actions at the highest level of organization. And so that's actually what the awe experience in some sense is for, right? It's to show you what is at the top of the structure that directs your attention. And that happens with everything you do. So in a way, it also becomes a way to understand two aspects of the religious, we could say. One which is the terrible aspect of it, this idea of this terrifying figure, and the other is the imitative part, right? So you have this notion that the cat sees the dog or let's say a young boy sees this giant warrior that walks out in front of him

and he feels this sense of mixture of fear, of being impressed, and of wanting something from that, or wanting to move up towards that. Well, I think we talked about this in relationship to the night sky. There's a very famous image of Mary that Renaissance artists really went to town on there's hundreds of paintings of this So it's Mary with her head head in the stars and her foot on this on a serpent So it's that serpent is the serpent in the garden of Eden or Satan or evil and The idea there it's a image of the divine feminine and the idea is that

in order to protect the vulnerable from evil, you have to be oriented to the highest that the cosmos has to offer. And the reason that's assimilated to some degree to the stars is because when you go out at night and you look up at the heavens, well first of all notice that you're looking up at the heavens that that that's the term we use, but that You also do come face-to-face with the infinite in some real sense, right? I mean you're looking out towards the nearest thing to the infinite. You're going to encounter and that does produce a sense of awe and that's in one

Part of that that's a humility like the cat might feel in relationship to a dog, but in another thing, it's a call to imitate even the cosmos, because along with that sense of being awe-inspired by the heavens and feeling insignificant in some sense and humble, there's also a call to a greater form of being. And that's, you know, one of the things human beings did, because we were preyed upon and became predators. One of the things we did was imitate the predator. You know, and so we were in awe of a predatory animal like we still might be if you meet a grizzly bear in the woods, you know, it's, you might freeze and you're certainly going

to attend to it. But then there's part of you that is deeply called upon to imitate the capacity for aggression of the predator so that you can defend your loved ones against predatory action. And some of that would be to be the warrior that can fight off the grizzly bear. But then abstracted up into the religious sense, it would be to be the warrior that can fight off the grizzly bear, but then abstract it up into the religious sense. It would be to be the ethical actor who can protect your family from unscrupulous psychopaths, you know, forces of malevolence that border on the satanic. And so, and that's all part of the ethical enterprise. And weirdly enough, all of your acts of perception are necessarily nested inside a structure that's pointing to what is at the highest.

Or you're in coherent, those are the options. Well, that's a strange thing, right? Because you can say, well, maybe your hierarchy value isn't unified and there's nothing at the top. It's like, okay, it's not unified. Well, then you're confused. And if you're with someone and your hierarchies of value aren't unified, then you are in conflict. Or you're aimless or you're hopeless or you're anxious or you're lost. That's the phenomenological consequence of lacking this united pyramid, pyramid, pyramid ethic. So you can't get away from the necessity of this unless you want to live, you know,

aimless nihilistic, confused, hopeless, all of that. So we've got awe and we've got the desire to imitate. And I think the third part that I'd like to bring up and hear what you want to think about that is the notion of celebrating. That's something that I don't know. It seems to be particularly human. Maybe there's examples of that in the animal world. I don't know.

But there's something about humans which celebrate. And in celebrating what we're doing is we're recognizing these pinnacles, whether it be celebrating a great basketball player, or celebrating the images of our nation or the unity of our family when we come for Thanksgiving. There seems to be something, well, you really helped me understand the relationship,

the technical relationship between the concept of worship and the concept of celebration, because you might say, well, what does it mean to worship? And a cynical person would say, it means to believe things that no one but a damn fool would believe. You know, and that's kind of the dismissive modern attitude, but that isn't what it means. Like, worship is, it has this celebratory aspect.

And that is tied into this instinct to imitate. So if you have a sports hero, first of all, he's a hero. And he has someone you put on a pedestal, which indicates an elevation towards the divine or towards the sky, metaphorically speaking. And then there is this compulsion to imitate, and that's no different than celebration. And so partly what's happening in a church ceremony, for example, is that an object of celebratory worship is specified in the Christian tradition that's Christ, which is a very strange thing because, of course, he met tragic element of human life is to be voluntarily apprehended in the deepest possible sense. And that what that produces paradoxically is a celebration and then also a vision of

the resurrection. And that's an idea that's so deep, you could, you could lose yourself and that. Well, we've lost ourselves in it for 2000 years. Because one of the things that this attention problem brings about is the question of sacrifice too. And you see it in religious ceremonies, but you realize that in order to exist in the world, you're constantly having to sacrifice.

That is, you have to sacrifice the idiosyncrasies in order to be able to grasp the object, because this can be all kinds of things, right? It could be a dog's chutoic, could you a million things? But in order to be able to grasp the object, because this can be all kinds of things, right? It can be a dog's, chutoic, could be a million things. But in order to be able to grasp it, I have to sacrifice the dosyncrasies. And I also have to somehow, let's say, recognize it in its highest form, or kind of move it towards its highest form. And that seems to be an aspect of religious thinking, which is actually part of attention,

which is... Yeah. think of religious thinking, which is actually part of attention, which is exactly. Well, the sacrificial aspect of attention in part is that whenever you see something as that thing, you sacrifice the possibility of all the other things it could be. And that's delimiting to a large degree. It hens you in, but that's also a relief because how many bloody million things do you want to attend to at one time. But so part of the reason, you know, the idea of sacrifice, conscious idea of sacrifice emerges very easily early on, for example, in the biblical writings because the second story in Genesis, I think it's Genesis 3, is that the Canadian, is that the Canadian

able story is Genesis 3 or 2? I think it's after Genesis 3. Genesis 4, I guess. 4, okay, so it's very early on. And there's this insistence that so human beings are already destined to work as a consequence of the fall out of the Garden of Eden. But the Canaan Abel story is specifically about sacrifice and about the degree to which sacrifice has to be of the highest quality. So you have this one protagonist able who's a prototype for a mode of being that stretches throughout history and Abel's

sacrifices are to the highest, to that which is the highest imaginable. So he's aiming as high as he can. And they're genuine and honest. And the consequence of that is that God smiles upon him, let's say, but that his life is extremely successful. He gets everything that sensible human being would want and need. And he's contrasted with Cain, who's bitter and arrogant, and makes second rate sacrifices. And you want to think about that personally.

It's like, well, did you give it your best shot when you failed? And if the answer is no, it's like, well, who are you trying to fool exactly? You're trying to fool yourself? Well, good luck with that. You're trying to fool other people. It's like, well, who made you so smart and them so dumb? And is that how you think about other people? You can just pull the wool over the rise. And then is it more than that?

Do you think you can bend the structure of reality? And so you're going to make these half-witted sacrifices. And that's going to please God too. And that's what you believe. And you know, Cain is very annoyed that his sacrifices aren't being rewarded. And he goes and talks to God and basically calls them out and says something like

You know kind of stupid cosmos. Did you make here? Here? I am breaking myself in half and all the good things are going to able It's like what's up with you? Which is really quite the thing to do, you know And if you don't think people do that you don't know much about them and God basically tells them you are people do that all the time Which is why it's an archetypal story and God basically tells them, you are people do that all the time, which is why it's an archetypal story. And God basically tells Kane that he doesn't make good sacrifices. He knows that perfectly well, that he was tempted by bitterness and arrogance and deceit to enter into a consensual sexual relationship with the spirit of vengeful sin itself, which is a hell of an accusation. And well, you know, these people who shoot up high schools, for

example, they dwell on their sin for months or years before they commit that act. And they are entering into a creative relationship with temptation. They let a terrible spirit inhabit them and they enter into a creative relationship with temptation, they let a terrible spirit inhabit them and they enter into a creative union with that. It's not, it's, they brewed and you know, that's a sexual metaphor too. And they go to some plenty dark places. You have to go to some plenty dark places before you take an automatic rifle out in an elementary school. And so if you don't think there's any brooding in that and any communing in a creative way with the spirit of vengefulness and misplaced aim,

then you don't have much of an imagination for that sort of thing. And then good for you, but you better be careful if you meet someone like that. And so there's this idea of necessary sacrifice, right? And that sacrifice is necessary for even for seeing. For any, like think of a basketball player, I like to always bring it to something

that at first not religious at all for people to see what we're talking about. The basketball player has to one sacrifice, a million things that all these friends are doing that are fun or that he could be doing. He has to just, he has to take away all the idiosyncrasies and focus on one thing and then he has to that's when the able sacrifice comes in he has to give his best he doesn't give his best and he won't make it there's no way and so the sacrificial pattern enters into pretty much any type of excellence or

excellent behavior weekend. Yeah well and it also might so it's int's integrally tied with the problem of perception itself, and the fact that we have to sacrifice a multiplicity of potential interpretations or patterns of action to focus on one. But it's also integrally associated with the idea of the future, because to ensure that people are aware of the future in ways that animals aren't or animals are only partially aware.

We're very aware of the future and aware of our mortal limitations in a manner that seems unique to human beings. We constantly sacrifice the present to the future. That's actually the definition of work. That emerges very early on in the biblical narrative corpus. The idea that humans are destined to work, but that also work is the sacrifice of the present. And that's part of the fall, in some sense.

It's the sacrifice of the present to the future. And we regard that as the hallmark of maturity, fundamentally. Can you delay gratification? Well, if the answer is no, it's the well, then you're two. Can you delay gratification? Well, then I mean that technically, because two-year-olds can't delay gratification, which makes it very difficult for other people to play with them, for example. If you can delay gratification, then you can work.

If you can work, then you're mature. It's the definition of maturity and responsibility. And it does, it's so interesting to see that it pervades the active attention itself and that there's no, because I just asked my students, because I was trying to figure this out. I'd ask them question like, well, why are you writing this essay? Or what are you doing when you're writing this essay? That's a better question. So you think, what is someone doing when writing an essay? And one answer is, say they're doing it on a computer.

Well, they're moving their fingers up and down. And that's actually a really good answer because that's not an idea, right? Moving your fingers up and down, that's not an idea. That's where your spirit meets your body. You're actually moving something physical. And you don't really have consciousness of the musculature or you don't know how you move your fingers, but you can do it.

And so at the highest level of resolution when you're writing an essay, you're moving your fingers. And now you know how to type and you have automated structures for doing that. And then your composing words and the words are in phrases and the phrases are in sentences and the sentences are in paragraphs and the paragraphs are in sections and the whole thing makes an essay. But then that's a subset of a class and you want to grade for the class because you want to pass the class because you want to get your degree. But why do you want to get your degree? It's well maybe you're interested in that field of study and you think being a scholar is a good thing and you want to have a job and so so while you're writing an essay, what are you doing preparing to have your career?

And then does that, are you doing that because you want to be a good citizen and a good father? Perhaps good mother. And do you want to do that because you want to be a good person? And are you mixed up in all of that? But so you're doing all of those things well or badly at the same time all the time with everything you do All the time and there's no way around that it can't be simplified the whole structure has to be there And that's another reason why we don't have general purpose robots yet is that they're just not embedded in that

Ethic that stretches all the way up from the most minute motor patterns of action and perception to the highest possible ethical striving. And then the question becomes too, is like what's at the top? And that's the fundamental religious question and that the idea of what's at the top has transformed across the centuries.

The ancient Egyptians, they put two's at the top has transformed across the centuries. The ancient Egyptians, they put two things at the top. They put a god known as Osiris, who is basically the spirit of the state. So you can think about him as the spirit of tradition. And the problem with Osiris was that he was old and the Nacranistic and willfully blind and lost in the underworld, all of those things, real problem. And it's sort of like when everybody complains about how corrupt society has become and how they feel alienated from their culture, that's all Osiris fundamentally, that's how the Egyptians represented it. And so that was one part of what should be at the highest tradition. And the other part was Horus. And Horus is the famous Egyptian eye. And Horus is a falcon because falcons have great vision. And so Horus is the spirit of living attention. And the Egyptians believed that the Pharaoh who was sovereignty embodied

was the incarnation of the union of tradition and vision. And so that's what they thought should be at the highest, which is, and that's what they symbolized by the gold cap by the way on the pyramids. And so because the gold cap is, it's at the top of the pyramid, which is an ethical hierarchy of pyramid. And the top is qualitatively distinct in some sense from the structure itself. It's, it's, because it's in the highest place, it's, It's different than everything else that is underneath it. And we all wrestle with the problem of what should be in the highest place. There's no way of escaping that problem. And you might say, well, nothing is fine.

You're polytheistic. You're confused. You're all over the place. You're scattered. That's the consequence of not having this unified internal structure. And if your society doesn't have it, well, then you can't get along with people and you're in conflict. And so these aren't, none of this is optional. It's, we're doomed to, well, my new book is going to be called We Who Ressel with God. And I would say, well, because that's Israel, right? That, that's the definition of the

term Israel is We Who Ressel with God, which is so interesting. And those are God's chosen people. We who wrestle with God. And it's because that's our fate. We're going to wrestle with ethical issues. Period. And it doesn't matter if you're atheistic or religious. In fact, lots of people who are atheistic are way more obsessed with religious ethics than religious people are.

Well, they are, right? Because they are. And they're more honest about it sometimes, because they all events, genuine confusion and distress, which is appropriate. But it's not like they just ignore it. It's, they're often so anti-religious that it consumes their life.

It's like, well, that's fine. They're wrestle away, man. It's your wrestling with God. It's like, I don't believe in him. It's like, yeah, he doesn't believe in you either, but you know Or maybe he does which would even be worse And so we have the we have the pyramid and in the Bible we have Especially the mountain we have a few structures like that. There's the mountain the mountain of paradise in particular or the mount our Mount Sinai

Mount Zion we also have the temple, which has this structure in terms of pyramid towards unity, this invisible unity of this transcended unity. And so the question is, what comes down from the mountain? This is because one of the things we talk about is how we, most of the things we've been discussing from the beginning and a lot of the big discussion that's happening is bottom up. And I'm totally fine with that, but there is something which comes down from the mountain, let's say the law.

But what is that? How do you see that? What it is, what kind of nominal or structural power or authority comes down from that hierarchy? Well, one of the things maybe before we address that precisely, maybe you could just run through the sorts of things we talked about in relationship to sacred architecture, and the relationship between the sacred architecture and the structure of a perceptual or cognitive category, because that's extremely interesting. So why don't you lay out this church structure

with the holiest of holi- and this is very common anthropological structure. So the idea is that just like Jordan was talking about in terms of multiplicity and the problem of complexity, we have that problem when we act, we also have that problem in space, that is how do we encounter space? How do we embody space? And our space is end up being hierarchical, right? A house is a hierarchical.

Your house has a has a porch where you meet strangers, you know, you have an entry where you maybe let a few people in. You'll have your dining room where it's more intimate. Ultimately, you have your bedroom when all where only you and your lover will be in this secret place. So there's this hierarchy of intimacy that we normally have, that you have to live with, or also go crazy. But you can understand that as scaling up in terms of societies as well, where there were these spaces, these temples, usually would have three sections. And there would be a section that was more open in the Jewish temple, for example, you had courts for the strangers, courts for people that were still impure that weren't supposed to go in, then you had people

a court for the Israelites, then a court for the priests, then ultimately you had to place this one invisible place that only one person was allowed to go in, and that's what they would receive the revelation of God. She the same thing with Moses going up the mountain, at the bottom of the mountain, all these crazy people were spring golden calves, and then it's kind of wild and crazy, and as he goes up, there's this, let's say, rushing away of multiplicity. The elders remain on the mountain, then he moves up and then he enters into that space alone. So you can see that space itself has that kind of hierarchy. And when you experience it yourself, you can do it.

Go up a mountain. I always tell people, if you want to understand what holiness is, just go up a mountain. Because at the bottom of the mountain, you see idiosyncrasies, you see little things, you see details, you don't have a big picture. As you go up the mountain, that picture starts to become clear and clear. When you reach the summit of the mountain, you have the experience of seeing all reality in one breath, like in one moment.

That is really this hierarchy of perception, but it's also the hierarchy of the good. We have the idea that ultimately that's the same thing for ethics, that there is something, there is a good up there. Well, that would bond them all together. And that structure, it's, this is a difficult leap, but that structure manifests itself with every act of perception you make. So for example, you know, I can look at the scene I'm in in a lot of different ways. I can look at most of you are in the dark, so I can't see you very clearly, but I can see a bunch of people, or I can see one person,

or I can see the arm of one person, or I can look at the floor here, or I can focus on this. And by focusing on this, I center it. I privilege it. I give it a sacred quality, and you might think, well, no, you don't. It's like, yes, you do. Really? Because now you've determined that this is the most important thing that you can do at this moment, at in this place, in relationship to the entire ethic that you inhabit. And you can't see this without doing that. And if you get it wrong, you pay for it. Yeah, well, you might spill it, for example. Or if you're driving and you don't end up focusing on the right thing, you will die. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so it's a, it's not, it's not a theoretical problem. It's a real problem of the structure.

No, and it's a very strange thing to understand that you inhabit this sacred architecture with every perceptual act you undertake. And also perception is an act, by the way, you know, you think, well, you just open your eyes, and then you see the world. It's like, no, that isn't how it works. Your eyes are moving all the time. If they stop moving for more than a tenth of a second, you will go blind, because the cells exhaust themselves. And so there's all sorts of little micro movements that your eyes are making, some of them involuntary, and some of them voluntary, without which you can't see. And the act of visual perception is very much like the act of exploring something with your hands, which is why, you know, if you close your eyes and someone hands you a cup,

you won't be able to tell if it's transparent or not, but you can feel it out and you can develop a pretty good visual picture of the object. So you can see with your hands, and that's partly why kids want to grab everything, because it's hard to see with just your eyes. And if you can add your hands to that, it makes it easier to see. And so, and that's active exploration. And you're feeling out the world with your eyes. It's you're never a passive recipient of a priori sense data. So the empiricists are just wrong. And the rationalists have been arguing with them for centuries, because the rationalists always presume that you didn't just get raw

sense data. You had to impose a a priori interpretive schema on the world, and that's the difference between rationalism and empiricism. And the rationalists are right, although they thought that was just rational, and that's where they were wrong. So it's not rational in the same sense that a reductive materialist atheist would use that term. And so it's very strange that the structure of sacred architecture, say duplicates the structure of cognitive category and also the structure of perceptual category. So we inhabit a temple, corrupt though it may be, with every interaction with the world that we undertake.

And that's really quite a frightening thing to realize. It's a very frightening thing to realize when you really realize it. It's like, oh, oh, this is real. And it's even worse than that. It's like the precondition for the idea of reality itself, which is, that's really real, right? I mean, you've got real, that's nothing. It's the precondition for reality itself. That's super real.

And to some degree, the Christian idea of the logos and the Greek idea as well is the expression of the recognition of the precondition for the real itself. And that's really something to understand as well. You know, scientists, I talk to Richard Dawkins when I was at Oxford, you know, and one of the things that characterizes Dawkins is that Dawkins believes that the truth will set you free. That is not a scientific presupposition.

That is a religious presupposition. But it also might be the religious presupposition without which science is not possible, because all the scientists I know who are real scientists, they're undyundbied by the truth to an unbelievable degree. If you're a social scientist and you have a data set in front of you, say 200 columns of 500 rows, you know, a complex data set. Man, there are a lot of ways you can get that to talk to you statistically. And you make thousands of decisions when you're doing a statistical analysis. And every single one of those is an ethical decision.

And one of the decisions is, well, do I prioritize my career or do I prioritize my pursuit of the truth? And often those are antagonistic because if you have a big data set, you wanna discover something in it, and maybe there's nothing there, and then you've wasted two years, and that's pretty hard on your career. And so that battle between career promotion

and adherence to the truth goes on with every statistical decision. And so much of social science is just not true because the incentive structures are set up badly. And so people will falsify their data with a million micro decisions and produce nonsensical patterns as a consequence. It's all an ethical enterprise.

And not just nonsensical, but dangerous, like dangerous for society as well. Oh yeah. These have consequences. dangerous, dangerous for society as well. Oh yeah. These have consequences. Yeah, well, yeah, yeah. If you falsify what hypothetically constitutes objective truth, it's devalously awful. Because you actually harness the validity of science to your own self-aggrandizement or your own ideology.

And that's happening. That's happening plenty at the moment, folks. So yeah, it's really bad. One of the things that you've been able to bring about as well is this idea that of aiming or the notion of sin as missing the mark, let's say. It's a great quote by St. Paul that says, everybody knows it says, the wages of sin is death.

But there is a manner in which that's even technically, it seems like something that we could defend, like if you do not aim properly, right? So the price of not aiming properly. It's not pessimistic enough. Yeah, because death is one thing, but hell is another thing. You know, and so hell is the place that you go

when you'd rather be dead. Yeah. And if you haven't been there, well, that's great for you. But that is a technical help. It's like a technical description of the place where unity breaks down. Like the way, you know, when you die, that's what happens. Your body stops to coquire.

Your cells start to go their own way and things start to break down. And if we don't aim properly, then that's death. Yeah. Well, that, that, that touches on another interesting problem. So I talked to Sam Harris relatively recently again. It's about the fifth or sixth time I've talked to him publicly. And I did it better this time, one of the problems

with the discussions I had with Sam Harris, for those of you who don't know, he's one of the world's most famous atheists. And I suppose that's his primary claim to fame. Well, I'm not being sarcastic about that. He was well known with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and the... The Denet. Tough, yeah, the Denet.

Before them, the four atheistic horsemen, essentially. Well, that's how they were known and he he he became very well known as an advocate for this rationalistic atheism along with these other three and they're you know they're pretty damn good at defending it But I talked to Harris and for the first four or five times I talked to him I did something I don't usually do when I talk to people which is I was having an argument I was trying to win I wanted to establish a point usually do when I talk to people, which is I was having an argument and I was trying to win. I wanted to establish a point because I believe that the way he was looking at things was wrong and that was my role to show how that was wrong.

And I don't do that when I'm talking to people generally. Generally what I do is listen to them and try to figure out what they think. And the last time I talked to Harris, that's all I did. I just asked him questions and we got way farther in our discussion than we ever had. And I found out that with Harris, he identified the spirit of totalitarian certainty with the religious impulse. So for him, there was no differentiation between those things. And so what Harris is objecting to, when he objects to religion, apart from the meditative religion that he practices,

was the totalitarian dogmatism of the sort that might be responsible for social atrocity. And so, fine, no wonder you're against that. It's like, is that the same as the religious enterprises? Like, no, I'm afraid not. That's not a very differentiated analysis. But I get your point at least. And then the other thing Harris wanted to do is he wanted partly because he was so upset about the moral relativism that threatens us, let's say, and that he believed was responsible for such things as the Auschwitz-Nightmares, that he wanted to ground an ethic in objective

fact, because the only thing he believes is real is objective fact. And so that's his motivation. Now, that's problematic as far as I'm concerned, because of some of the issues we already raised, which is well, which objective facts. There's like an infinite number of them. And that's actually a fatal error. That's a fatal problem with your supposition.

Now, it's complicated, right? Because you say, well, the wages of sin are death. You can take an ecological and evolutionary view of that. It's like, obviously, whatever ethic we use to organize our behavior and our societies has to serve the functions of, let's say, reproductive fitness. So there's got to be a concordance between the functions of, let's say, reproductive fitness. So there's going to be a concordance between the domain of ethics and the domain of evolutionary biology, let's say. And then

it's an open question to what degree you can use the findings of evolutionary biology to buttress your ethical claims. So here's an example. I talked to friends to wall two weeks ago, and that'll be out soon. And he's the world's greatest living primatologist, perhaps. The only his only competitor would be, which is named he wrote, catching fire, Richard Rangham, who I also talked to about a week ago. And DeWall's work is unbelievably important. It's unbelievably important because he's concentrated on the idea of the alpha male. And, you know, we have in popular parlance, we have an idea of the alpha chimp,

right, or the alpha male for that matter. And it's pretty much a postmodern Neomarch's view of primate sociology. And that is that the biggest, ugliest, meanest male dominates by brute force. And so now he's at the top of the pyramid. And so the implicit claim there from the biologist is that power, those who express power most effectively, power being the ability to compel, those who express power most effectively will dominate the pyramid of dominance, of social hierarchy, and they'll prevail reproductively. Well, that's pretty gloomy that idea, you know, but people think, well, that's how you look at the world if you're sensible. It's like, well,

friends to walls have been studying chimps for 30 years. And that's not true. That is not what happens. He told me flat out that frequently, small male can become alpha, especially if he has the support of a influential female. And the small male becomes alpha and has the support of the influential female,

not because he expresses arbitrary power, but because he's unbelievably good at mutual reciprocation. And so he has friends, and he does things for his friends, and they do things for him, and they trust each other. And he has lots of friends, which also means he has no enemies, which turns out to be really important because the brute chimps, like the psychopaths, Elphas, they do rule now and then, but they get torn to shreds by their enemies because, you know, they're tough, let's say, and mean, but they have an off day and two chimps they

stomped a week before, ally together and tear them, literally tear them into shreds. And so the psychopath chimps types who use power to attain dominance have very short rules and end in a very bloody way. And so DeWal has pointed out, like Piaget did among children, that power is an unstable ethic upon which to base the social hierarchy, even for chimps and chimps are male dominated. They have a patriarchal society and they're relatively brutal and it doesn't even work for them. It certainly doesn't work for human beings.

So whatever is at the apex of the pyramid, it's not as the bloody Marxists insist, you know, the raw expression of power and exploitation. Wrong, wrong, not the case. Doesn't even work in nature. Doesn't work for rats. Doesn't work for chimpanzees. Certainly doesn't work for people. And then there is a kind of natural effect that emerges out of that, right? Because with rats and with chimps, and other social animals, it varies to some degree from species to species. There's the necessity for something like mutual reciprocity as the basis for successful social organization.

And that's something like treat your neighbor like you would wanna be treated. It's something like that. It's the behavioral equivalent of that. And you asked earlier, you know, from whence does the highest injunction emerge or when comes down? Yeah, well, it's strange, right?

Because some of it's bottom up. It's like, even among animals, mutual reciprocity seems to be a cardinal organizing feature, even done in the spirit of play interestingly enough, because play is a mammalian universal. And that's kind of bottom up, but then at the same time, and this, I suppose, pertains to the role of the mysterious role of consciousness in the world. It's like, well, we're also aware of this, right? And we also, we also think about it abstractly as a good,

and we don't only learn it, bottom up, we also conceptualize it, top down, and then they meet. And that is the, that's Moses coming down the mountain with the tablets is and so what did he meet on the mountain? Well God, well he met whatever is at the highest place and we all are stuck with the problem of determining what we are going to put in the highest place and then increasingly I've been viewing the biblical corpus as an attempt to cast narrative light on the nature of the spirit that should be at the highest place. So I can give you an example of that. So in the earliest stages of Genesis, God is, so what should be in the highest place. Remember, that's ineffable and not terrible in some sense and also incomprehensible. That's technically insisted upon by the religious types. But whatever it is is, it's that witch encounters chaotic potential and then uses

truthful language rooted in love to extract habitable order. That's what should be in the highest place. And then that's the spirit in which men and women, after which men and women are, men and women are fashion. And you might say, well, I don't believe that. It's like, well, I don't know what you mean when you say that. Because do you believe that people have intrinsic worth? And you might say, no, it's like, well, is that how you treat the people around you? Because if you don't treat them like they have intrinsic worth, if they have any sense, they're going to get the hell away from you real fast, right? Because that's the one thing that everyone wants is they want the relationship they have with another person to be predicated on mutual recognition of intrinsic worth.

And that's very much tied in the idea, tied in with the idea of the logos that inhabits us all. It's certainly tied in with the idea of self-evidence in the Declaration of Independence, the American Declaration of Independence, you know, we hold these truths as self-evident. Well, what do you mean self-evident? Exactly. Well, part of it is, you know, individuals, people are fashioned in the image of God. Well, I don't believe that.

Well, who says you don't believe that? And maybe you don't, but that's not so good for you. And it's certainly not so good for the people you're interacting with, even if that person happens to be you. Because like, what's the alternative? People have no intrinsic worth. Then you're in Dostoevsky in territory. It's like his book, Crime and Punishment, because Ryszkall Nikov, the protagonist, decides that all this is nonsense, right?

There's no intrinsic worth. There's just power. And so he decides he's going to murder his landlady, decides that all this is nonsense. There's no intrinsic worth. There's just power. He decides he's going to murder his landlady, who's a really nasty piece of work. You can make a real good case that the world would be better without her in it. He makes that case. She's horrible. She's a horrible person. She basically enslaves her niece and tortures her.

She's this mentally impaired young woman and she's a grasping greedy psychopath who makes everyone's life brutally miserable. And so, Rick and Skull of Nicole, thanks. Well, you know, it's the act of the ubermanch to dispense with this woman. And he lays out the argument perfectly coherently. Well, it's a complete bloody catastrophe because he commits the murder and he gets away with it, not really, because you can't really. And so, that's the pathway, and Dostoevsky do this perfectly well. He said, if there's no God, everything is permitted. And modern people, especially the atheist materialist types, they look at that and they think,

well, no, that isn't what we mean. It's like, yeah, maybe you're not Dostoevsky. Like he was a man who could see way down into the bottom of things. And so you might disagree. It's like, well, fair enough. But you're you and he was Dostoevsky. So you might wonder who you should be listening to.

Yeah, and if you look at historically, you can see that at the first moment, when let's say the religious ideal starts to crack you get some positive things like you know science and the enlightenment but machi desad is right there waiting to manifest the spirit that does the effigy finds in riscona call it's it's there um in terms of sam one of the things that i haven't heard you talk about too much but there's something about about what you said with him that brings it up to me, is that he sees this hierarchy or this religious structure,

as a totalitarian impulse, as this kind of structure that comes down and manifests itself. One of the things that comes down from the mountain, let's say in religious stories, is also compassion. Without the hierarchy, there is, is it possible for there to be compassion? Because compassion is also the manner in which we accept that

nothing ever reaches the ideal that we can recognize it. But we also know that it's always kind of beyond us. And so there is a sense that it's judging us. But there's also a sense in which it kind of yields because every glass is imperfect and everything, every house is imperfect, every building, everything that we notice, we can also see that it doesn't reach that ideal. I don't know if you ever thought about that a little bit. Well, let me think about that for a second.

We've never talked about compassion before, so. Yeah, well, when I think about compassion, I mean, first of all, I do not believe that compassion is an untrammeled moral virtue. And I think one of the terrible things about our society, one of the deadly, eadipal things about our society, is that we've put compassion in the highest place unthinkingly.

And compassion is for infants. And I really mean that technically. So like if imagine that your ethic was that you were 100% compassionate. Okay, so what are you like? Well, you're like a good mother with a child under six months of age because human babies are born premature

in some fundamental sense. So, you know, the average gestation period for a mammal of about our size should be two years. And so our babies are born radically premature. And there's complex reasons for that. One is that there's our arms race, an evolutionary arms race between the circumference of the infant's head and the dimensions of the pelvic hole through which the baby has to pass to be born. And if the pelvis of women was any wider, they couldn't run.

And if it was any narrower than the child would die, like many children did, right? I mean, the human birth mortality rate was abysmal right up till about, well, certainly a hundred years ago. And then baby's heads are compressible, right? The bones aren't fully formed when they're born and often kids are born and their heads are cone-shaped because they've been subject to such pressure during birth. So it's a really, it's a narrow needle to thread and there's been a lot of evolutionary tinkering to get that right.

Now, why in the hell did I say that? We're talking about compassion. Sorry, sorry, just for... Oh, sorry. Lost my place. No, compassion. Right, yes. We were talking about the excess of compassion.

Compassion, yes, yes, yes. Sorry about that. So you know, our infants are born unbelievably helpless, and they are basically prenatal until they can crawl. And that's say seven or eight months. And so prior to that, because they're so utterly helpless, everything they do has to be regarded as above moral reproach and 100% right. And so if you have an infant who is crying, who's six months old or four months old, your job is not to judge the infant or to punish the infant or to discipline the infant. It's like the infant has a problem.

And all of your attention is to be focused on solving that problem. Period. 100% that's it. And that's great for people who are under six months. But it's deadly. It's increasingly deadly as the child matures, because that kind of all-encompassing I will do everything for you

is also the enemy of development. And that's the whole Freudian nightmare. I mean, that's what Freud put his finger on. And he knew that that was the pathology of the age, the Edible Mother. And it's like, yeah, well, welcome to the age of the Edible Mother, everyone, the E.D.P. Mother. And it's like, yeah, well, welcome to the age of the E.D.P. Mother, everyone. Because that's certainly what we see now.

And so if you put compassion in the highest place, well, then that's what you have is you have a state of being where everything is in infant. And the only hallmark of ethic is pity. Now, Jung talked about classic conceptions of what is in the highest place. God, he said, well, God rules with two hands, mercy and justice. And that's that discrimination, you know, how bad discrimination is. It's like, well, no, it's not. It's differentiation.

It's judgment. It's putting things in their proper place. It's setting the highest above the lowest. It's formulating a pathway for further development. And, you know, a mother might say, you're just fine the way you are. But what's that to say to someone who's, well, 10? It's like, you're not fine the way you are. You're 10.

You got a lot of growing up to do. And you're probably not fine the way you are when you're 20. It's like, you're just a fraction of what you could be. And if it's all maternal compassion, and I mean that in this symbolic sense, it's all maternal compassion. It's while where in this symbolic sense, it's all maternal compassion It's while we're the impetus for development and there's no Judgment there and I think the most dismal thing you can tell 18-year-old boys in particular

Especially if they're miserable is well, you're just okay the way you are and they you're not first of all and no one thinks they are including them Well, they don't. No one gives a damn about malfunctioning 18-year-old boys. Like, you know, but you can say with the proper admixture of justice and mercy, it's like, yeah, well, you know, you're not so bad for 18, and you could be way more and good for you and then you can encourage that and that's the spirit of justice and that's a patriarchal spirit, fundamentally, it's the encouragement and the calling forth of further development.

And so you could see it like in terms of we bring it back to something very ground, like very technical, which is walking down the street. And so I'm walking from this point to that point, and there is a perfect way which I could get there. But if I do that, I might spend all my time trying to figure what that out, and I might not even be able to move. There's also a man in which I could go anywhere

and fall over. So there has to be even in almost every actor perception, that right hand and left hand that you talk. Right, right. That mercy and justice has to be hard. There has to be even in almost every actor perception, that right hand and left hand that you talk about. Right. Right. That mercy and justice has the heart. There has to be allowance for imperfection and error. Well, well, also, also orientation towards they.

Yeah. And getting that balance right, well, that's part of what consciousness does, I would say, is it constantly adjudicates between those two higher order principles. Now those aren't the only principles, but, and that that and there's no final solution to that, right? You can't just say, well, we're all compassionate and we're done with it. It's like, no, and it's it's an ongoing problem, right? With your kids, you're always wondering, they make a mistake. It's, well, how much do you forgive them and how much do you say, you know, how about you don't do that again? It's really embarrassing. It's terrible for you. If you replicate that error,

your life is going to be a bloody catastrophe. You're old enough to figure it out. It's like, clue in. And you might say, well, who loves the child more? The one who says, oh, it's okay. Everything you do is lovely, which it isn't. Or the person who says, you could do better. And, you know, the answer is, well, it's a discussion between those two viewpoints constantly, constantly, because in your relationship with yourself, it's like how much do you forgive yourself? And the answer certainly is zero. It's not zero, that's no one can live

without being able to forgive themselves to some degree. But by the same token, you don't wanna let yourself off the hook for every idiot error you make. And because that just doesn't work, because there are real errors. And there are real consequences. Yes, for you and other people. And yeah, and there's the real,

which we're all wondering about now. This is one of the things that I think is quite comical. And I talked to Dawkins about this, is the rationalist, the scientist, the atheists, and the postmodernist, as well, really took the idea of the divine to pieces. And even in the dismissive way that you see with someone say, like Harris, although, like I said, he has his meditation and his, he dwells in the realm of the sacred, he just leaves it ineffable, right? And doesn't ritualize it, doesn't turn it into any kind

of intellectual creed. And I think he does that because if he turned it into an intellectual creed, his rationality would just tear it to pieces. And so then he would have nothing. You know, in any case, we've dispensed with the idea of the sacred transcendent, let's say, and that's the hard-headed way of thinking about the world, but what the reductive atheists didn't quite figure out was the Dostoevsky problem.

It's like, well, if there's no God, everything is permitted. Well, how about we don't believe in objects anymore? Well, that won't happen. It's like, yeah, really, that won't happen, eh? What makes you think that, like, do the Buddhists believe in objects? Not really. You know, the world't happen, eh? What makes you think that, like, do the Buddhists believe in objects? Not really. You know, the world's Maya, it's illusion.

There's no transcendent material world. That's a Western idea. And I really think it came out of, well, partly Greece, but certainly came out of ideas that are associated with the logos on the logic side and on the, on the religious side. It's like, there's a transcendent world. It's like there's a transcendent world, it's material, it's transcendent world. You can't just do any old thing. You will be the object of

world, will object to what you're doing. And so then it's an inexhaustible source of corrective wisdom. And it's the realization of that in some sense, that's the precondition for science. You have to believe that before you can be a scientist. There's a reality out there that transcends your knowledge and the postmodern types. I mean, technically, they just rejected that completely. They collapsed ontology, which is the study of being, let's say, into epistemology. It's all words. It's like, oh, I see.

So we start believing in God. Now we stop believing in the object. And if you're wondering why the DEI types are taken on the STEM people, if you haven't noticed that and are going to win by the way, it's because they don't believe in the object of world. What the hell do you need scientists for? You know, there's no objective reality.

It's just whim. People can't believe that. It's like, that's what people have believed for most of time. And what do you. People can't believe that. That's what people have believed for most of time. What do you mean they can't believe that? You mean till the bridge is start falling down? They'll just blame that on insufficient diversity. Yeah, it'd be funny if it wasn't true. I mean, I think we're in a kind of, we're in a moment. There's this zeitgeist, there's this change that's happened. You've been part of it, definitely, where suddenly people are starting to realize this.

And I think it's also going together with the extremity of the madness of the ideologues. And that's exactly it. We are at a point where objective reality itself, or mathematics themselves, are being questioned by ideologues, where 2 plus 2 equals 5, where objective reality itself for mathematics themselves are being questioned by ideologues where two plus two equals five, where people are arguing for these types of things. And how do we exactly, how do we come back to that without, let's say, bringing about this notion

of this incarnational principle, we could say, right? That even things that we encounter in the world, they are embodiments of embedded in higher truth, you can say, that they kind of scale up, and that there is a flexibility to it, right? It's not hard, but that flexibility is part of how we engage with it. Yeah. Well, as far as I can tell, and I mean, I think this is happening to some degree in the culture, is that, I mean, Jung believed, Carl Jung believed, and he was the wisest psychologist I've ever read

by a large margin. He certainly believed that we had to delve. So Jung was a student of Nietzsche. I don't mean he, you know, formally, but he was very well versed in Nietzsche and thinking as much or more so than in Freudian thinking. And he really devoted his life to addressing a proposition that Nietzsche put forward.

And Nietzsche said, well, God is dead, and we have killed him and we'll never find the water to wash away the blood. The holiest that we have created is now died at our own hands. And he thought that was an absolute catastrophe because Nietzsche was a very smart man and a very wise man. But he made a real error, I believe,

and he posited that because of this collapse of values, this precipitous collapse of the value that unifies all values, or that is the precondition for all values, that we would be lost. He certainly felt that we would be lost. He certainly felt that we would fall into nihilism or that we would fall prey to communist idolatry in particular, which he predicted dead on, just like Dostoevsky did. But then he also said the solution to that will be that the Superman will have to appear, the ubermensch,

and he will be the man who can create his own values. And so both Freud and Jung were interested in that idea, Freud more peripherally, but Jung more consciously. And part of what Jung was trying to find out is, well, could we create our own values? And the answer he came up with was, no, that's not possible. And why, so the question is why? Well, you know, for the psychoanalysts, we were beset by fantasies and these are sort of autonomous personalities that dwell in our subconscious, let's say, in our imagination, in our dreams. And the possesses from time to time, the spirit of rage, the spirit of lust, the spirit of envy,

of rage, the spirit of lust, the spirit of envy, these ancient gods that possess us, and these values that and temptations and impulses that come upon us that we cannot control. They're part of our autonomous nature. And because they have this autonomy, and so that would be the autonomy of emotions and the autonomy of motivations. And then even the autonomy of the spirit that unites motivations, because we don't know, for example, in the spirit of play, for example, play as an instinct, play integrates base motivations into a higher unity, but it's an instinct. And so Jung realized very rapidly that it wasn't technically possible for us to create our

own values. And that's partly his stumbling upon the problem of complexity. So the world is just too complex for us to generate our values in this span of a single life, out of whole cloth, autonomously, no matter how much of a Superman we were. Yeah. And partly the reason that's impossible is, well, okay, so generate your own values. What the hell are you gonna do with your wife or your husband or your friend?

They're what are they gonna do? They're just gonna live by your values all of a sudden? Well, that's what the postmodernist are demanding now. The radical type is like, my game, right? My identity, I'm whatever I say, I am, moment to moment. And there's no negotiation. And that's because they're two years old. And I mean that.

I mean that. I mean that. I mean that. I mean that. I mean that technically. I mean, one of the things I learned, partly from reading Freud, Freud had this idea of developmental fixation.

And he noticed in his clients, in his patients, that people would get stuck at a developmental level. And so you'd be talking to an adult and all of a sudden they were four years old. And I learned to see that in my clients. And people I talk to all do that with if they're annoying me. You know, like, okay, who the hell are you? Oh, I see, you're a 13 year old mean girl. Okay, away we go. I know who I'm talking to now. And these, these, these solipsistic identity,

totalitarians are two years old. And two year olds are very governed by emotion. They're completely incapable of negotiation. They're egotistical in that their worldview dominates they have no notion whatsoever of Negotiated play and their belief is their identity is 100% Generated by them dependent on what they feel moment to moment which is exactly How a two-year-old operates and most of them get socialized out of that by the age of four. And those that don't have a very dismal time of it after that.

So, and I think we have a lot of people like that now because screens have interfered with pretend play and negotiation and because Edible parents and social systems have produced, have enabled a kind of immature narcissism that makes itself manifest in these absurd claims about identity. And that's all part of creating your own values. I can be whatever sex I want to be moment to moment. It's like, we're fine, but how are other people supposed to deal with that? Because they don't know what to do.

Well, it doesn't matter. They have to do exactly what I want them to. It's like, hey, to deal with that? Because they don't know what to do. Well, it doesn't matter. They have to do exactly what I want them to. It's like, hey, good luck with that. You and you superman, you ubermensch with your own values. And this is also partly why the small L liberal types are wrong in a fundamental sense. And this would include most therapists. It's like, you might think of identity

and the end of sanity itself as sort of an internal psychological arrangement, you know, so you have your act together, sort of in your brain or in your psyche and you're sane and there's insane people around you, but you're sane. It's like, that isn't really right. It's sort of right, but you know, you're saying if you're a, what a reciprocal partner in your marriage, you're saying if you have three or four friendships that you've been able to maintain, because you connect reciprocally, and the sanity is actually the balance between you and you and your wife or husband, and then you and your wife or husband and your friends or you and your wife and your husband or your husband and your children and your friends and your larger family. It's this nested thing that we already talked about. You can't be sane in the absence of that because that's actually the definition of sanity

and it's collective as well as that's why the kingdom of God is within you and without you. It's exactly that. It's like, yeah, you have a harmonious psyche, but are you dancing with yourself to music that no one else can hear? That's not helpful. There's a communal element of it that has to be in place. So, if you're saying, you're married to saying, and you have sane relationships with

your children, you have sane relationships with your friends, and you're a good employee or a boss, and you're a participant in the civic world, and all of that is embedded in this hierarchy that has the spirit at the top that enables that reciprocity to operate, and you're a devotee of that, or you're not. Right, and so that's the religious domain. And you have to actively celebrate at the different levels that you participate in that.

I think that's where I bring it back to helping people understand, why do people go to church? Because that's what's going on. Why should they? Because that's a discussion. So Jonathan took me to an orthodox ceremony in Seattle and I wasn't into it. I found it, it grated on me. You're like a ten-year-old boy that we're telling to stop moving. Yeah, that's right. So that was

my Freudian fixations. Like, you're a ten, Stan Wiggley. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so, Wiggley. No kidding. No kidding. But, you know, there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, man. And I went to an orthodox mass here a couple of weeks ago, and I found it unbi- and a Catholic one a week before that. I was down at Franciscan University, and I found it unbelievably soothing, which was very much unlike the reactions I've had before. And that was partly, well, for complicated reasons, because I actually find any place that isn't a bloody nightmarish catastrophe soothing now.

And so, I mean that, man. And but there was more to it than that too. It was because I also did develop, and partly as a consequence of our discussions, a deeper appreciation for what was happening in the ritual itself. And also more tolerance for whatever inadequacies I might proceed. And partly that's also realization. Lots of modern people say,

why don't go to church because I don't believe that. It's like, well, who cares what you believe? Who the hell are you anyways? And why do you even care what you believe? And how's that working for you? This belief set that you theoretically have is how sophisticated is that? Like, are you Plato or what? It's like, well, here's the church, and here's me, and I'm right.

It's like, well, no, you're not. And first, in second, you don't even want to be, because that's a great place to be. Like, pinnacle of brilliant wisdom. It's completely solipsistic. No tradition for me. Thank you very much. You know, I've got it all right in my head. And even if you are right that the bloody institution is chaotic and and and and decadent in some fundamental sense, it's like, well, good. There's something for you to do. Like there always has been throughout

the entire history of mankind, because that's so Cyrus, right? The once great king who's fallen into disrepair. It's like, well, if the church is broken and you're the genius to see it, why do you go fix it? Well, then you might say, well, we'll just abandon it. It's like, okay, well, fine. You're gonna get rid of that. Hey, you're gonna get rid of marriage. You're gonna get rid of funerals. You're gonna get rid of Christmas. You're gonna get rid of any sense of sacred time, you're going to dispense with the whole history of what Judeo-Christian thought, you're going to dispense with the idea of the sacred nature of the individual, like how far are you willing

to go with this? And believe me, that question is right in front of you, because there's a wave of radicals who are asking you at every moment. What makes you so sure that there's a difference between radicals who are asking you at every moment. What makes you so sure that there's a difference between a man and a woman? Like, no, there isn't. Or yes, there is when we want her to be, and no, there isn't. When we don't want her to be, you saw that with the Supreme Court appointment. It's like, we have to have a woman.

But there's no such thing as a woman. It's like... And so, yeah, you Frenchmen, you know, you've abandoned your Catholicism. You think the Catholics, they were crazy. It's like you ain't seen nothing yet. And so I believe, and you kind of convinced me of that, he more or less posited. And you could say the same thing about orthodox. He said, Catholic is as sane as people ever get. And that's partly because we have to have one foot in the dream and the mystery.

We have to, you know, when I heard Doug, this Murray speak recently about this, that was very interesting. His Murray is an atheist, essentially, and he has a variety of reasons for that, but he has swung around hard recently, and he said when he was talking to Dave Rubin, he said, I don't believe that either conservatism or classic liberalism can survive in the absence of the religious surround, which was really something for him to admit. And it's like taking him like five years of thinking to come to that conclusion. But then he said something even more remarkable, I thought, and he said, and it's actually the the mystery is part of it that has to be retained. The virgin birth, the resurrection, the crucifixion, all of that,

crazy mythology, let's say, because otherwise it just degenerates into another form of cheap social justice? And like, don't we have enough of that? And I think that's... Now, I don't know what to make of that because, well, and that's why we have discussion continually about the... What would you say? Well, the transcendent, I suppose, the miraculous, the transcendent, the idea of the resurrection, for example, and all of that. It's like, well, what do you do with that?

And the answer is, we don't know, but we don't throw it out without, woohoo, having some sense of what's gonna come in to replace it. And we're seeing that now, you know, look at us. We're so confused, we're so confused, we don't bloody wonder, one of the Russians are at war with us is like, we're not having anything to do those people.

They simultaneously proclaim that a woman is absolutely necessary for the highest position in the land or one of them and that the same person says, well, I don't even know what a woman is. It's like, well, are those people insane? It's like clearly, clearly, that's just way too far, right? When I talk to my Democrat friends, I say, look, you can have one of those. You know, there's either no distinction between a man and a woman, or it's important that a woman's on the Supreme Court, but there is no bloody way I'm giving you both. So, because I don't even know how to do that. I have no idea how to do that.

Like, what am I supposed to do? Celebrate womanhood and simultaneously celebrate the fact that the differences between men and women are so trivial that they're irrelevant and they can be changed at will. That's easy and sane. It violates the law of non-contradiction. And so, there's no... That's... You think religious people are crazy. Jesus. Well, that's a funny place to stop. So I think we will stop there and we have some audience questions and so if you would like, then we'll switch to that. And so thanks Jonathan, that was just fine. things, so hopefully I'll do okay. And so people from the audience were bringing in questions. So Esteban asked, I'm raising three kids, one boy and two girls. As a young father,

are there differences in the kind of advice I should give my son and my daughters? Yes, definitely. You know, because boys and girls aren't the same. Yes, definitely, you know, because boys and girls aren't the same. So advice. Well, I can tell you about my discussion with Franz DeWal again, because I think that's germane. And we might as well keep this concrete. DeWal has just written a book called Different. And in that book, he assesses the clear and

marked differences in motivational preference between boys and girls, but also between male primates and female primates, especially chimpanzees, who are closest biological relative, and you can calculate that by looking at genetic similarity. those things are calculated with an incredible degree of accuracy. Female chimps, young ones for example, if you give them a block of wood, they will frequently put the block of wood on their back and carry it around and cuddle it and take care of it as if it's an infant. So they infantilize objects, which human females do at the drop of a hat. And the male chimps, if you give a female chimp a doll, or a teddy bear, something like that, they treat it like a human female, treats a doll, they'll take care of it,

and nurture it, and develop an attachment to it. And they respond very badly if, maybe they trust the keeper, say, and they'll give the keeper the doll. And if the keeper isn't good to the doll, they're not happy. And that's a bad idea because the pensies are very strong. So you don't want to make them angry. And so, but if you give the male juveniles a doll, they'll just tear it apart, see what's inside.

And so, you know, and that's basically what they do with monkeys because male chimps, juveniles will hunt colabous monkeys, they weigh about 40 pounds and they tear them into pieces and eat them. And chimps are ravenous when it comes to meat. And so, and in that manner, they're also like us because they are hunters and they also go to war. And it's the males who do that and The chimp males they if you give them Cars or dolls to play with they will pick the cars now. That's pretty weird, right because you know

Chimps and Hondas they They just have an invented Honda's you know, but there's something about the gadget quality of the car that appeals to the tool use interest of the male. And one of the most reliable differences between males and female humans is different in interest, not competence, not ability, but interest. And males are more reliably interested in things, and females are more reliably interested in people. And that's a big difference.

So you would have to be at the 85th percentile as a man for interested in people, to be as interested in people as the average 50th percentile woman. And you'd have to be at the in people as the average 50th percentile woman. And you'd have to be at the 85th percentile among females interested in things, to be as interested in things as the average male. And the reason why in the Scandinavian countries, there's a preponderance of male engineers and a preponderance of female nurses, and that that differential has increased

as the Scandinavian countries have become more egalitarian is because that intrinsic interest is fundamentally biological. And so if you make the society egalitarian, it maximizes rather than decreasing. And of course, social constructionist postmodernist Marxist types just hate that because it implies that there's some sort of limit necessary limit on their social engineering. It implies that human beings have an intrinsic nature that that nature is, that there's a female nature and a male nature, which is so weird because this is another sign of our insanity. It's like there's no difference between men and women at all. And if there is, and there isn't, it's only cultural,

unless you're a girl who's trapped in a boy's body, in which case the difference is all of a sudden so important that it has to be mediated biologically, and any objection to that is illegal. It's like, which is all the case at the moment. And so that's also insane,, sorry, you get one, you don't get both. There's either differences in their important or their aren't.

There aren't both. And so, well, okay, so back to the kids. Well, you know, it's important to see that there are, okay, when I was talking to DeWall, he cited this female author who had forbidden her boy to have guns. And she was quite annoyed about this because the little rat made guns out of everything, out of soap, out of, he chased the cat around with the toothbrush, you know, going, bang, bang, bang, bang.

And she said, she like threw her hands up in dismay. And I thought, you evil witch. It's like, you've done, and she said, I did everything I could to dissuade my son's interest in guns. It's like, yeah, you did everything you could all right. And it still didn't work. And that wasn't good enough for you, because,

you know, despite the fact that that's your son. And that's what he's like. Your morality, your ideological morality is going to take precedence and you're going to crush that out of him and you're going to throw up your hands in moral despair because your boy isn't the figment of your bloody eadipole imagination. It's appalling. And so back to the girls, they're going to want to do girl things likely. And maybe you'll have some girls that are a little more masculine. They'll be a little bit more

tomboyish. And that's just fine. There's plenty of temperamental variation between boys and girls. But you know, it's important to know that they're going to have these difference in interests. And you want to, you want to foster that or at least allow it. So your girls are going to play with dolls. And they're going to have female toy preferences in all likelihood. And your boys the same way. And if you have any sense, you won't punish that. You might shape it molded. If you have a child boy who's aggressive, some boys, about 5% of two year old boys are kick-hit, bite, and steel. They're aggressive. Most of them are socialized

by the age of four. You can channel that aggressiveness, that competitiveness. You can socialize it. You can make it pro-social, which is what you should do. But, you know, your kid isn't nothing. People have a nature and intrinsic nature and it's up to you to foster that and to direct it and to have some respect for it, both on the feminine and the masculine side. So, and you. All right, this is a question that I've never heard you try to answer. And so let's see how this goes.

I would like to hear from French a little bit. Do you want to please us? Okay, I caught the first part of that. I would like to please. makes you happy or not. That's right. It would be lovely if you understood a little bit of friends. We would like to hear you speak. No, you can't. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, yeah, yeah, Henri Rechard and yeah, it was great. And I always dreamed of coming to Montreal. I always knew I was going to come to Montreal from the time I was

like 12. And I wanted to learn to speak French. And I took French in Alberta, but that was like impossible because our French DJs could speak French, you know, so that was impossible. And I came here with every intent to learn to speak French, but I wrote my book, Maps of Meaning, and I published a bunch of articles, and I really concentrated on what I was doing at McGill, and that went by the wayside. And I really regret it because, you know, I have that opportunity, and I can more or less understand it's spoken if the person who speaks very bright speaks slowly. And I can sort of read French, but my spoken French is a Vizmo,

and embarrassingly so. And I do regret that because I loved this city. It was a great place to live. I had a great time at McGill. My advisor, Robert Peel is here somewhere in the audience. And he was a wonderful advisor. And as I said, the co-author of the self-authoring program. I love this city.

And there's something about Montreal culture that's so cool to come here from Alberta because everyone moved to Alberta. It's a new place. It has no history. And there's some advantage in that. But people live in Montreal and it has a real culture. People live out on the streets. And there's a vibrancy to the culture here that's such fun. Although you have kind of a fascistic bureaucracy, it's... Yeah. But the city itself is so free and it's so peaceful.

There's no crime to speak of. The streets are safe. You can go anytime, anywhere you want, day or night. The comedy festival is great. The jazz festival is great. The salis-pontaneous celebrations in Montreal, if soccer team wins a victory. There's a spirit of joy.

There's none of that malevolence that you feel in the center of American cities often, for example. That's sort of lurking danger. This is an amazing place. And I really hope we don't muck it up. You've done a lovely job in the waterfront. So, you know, and I feel too that, you know, I have no obligation in some sense as a Canadian to become bilingual and to do that fluently, and that just didn't happen.

And it's a regret, that's for sure. So my apologies. Do you want to go do another one? Very good. Yeah, yeah. All right, let's do two more. Let's do two more. All right, and so, all right, I got one here. This is a tough one too. You often use, but I like you that way. You often use postmodern Marxism as a catch-all term for wokeness. Your news plane, what you mean, considering both schools of thoughts are diametrically opposed.

Like the postmodernists care about that. Like, I just hate this criticism. It's like, well, you know they were contradictory. It's like, yes, actually, I do know. Do they? No. And you say, well, they're diametrically opposed. Just like, yes, I know know. Do they? No. And you say, well, they're diametrically opposed. Just like, yes, I know that, because the postmodernists

are skeptical of grand narratives. And Marxism is a grand narrative. Let's point that out. OK, so then why were all the French postmodernist Marxists? Because they didn't care about coherence. How about that? Or how about maybe they were trying to justify their own narcissistic drive to power?

How about that? You explain it. Why were all the French intellectuals Marxists in the 1960s and 1970s until Solzhenitz and published the Goula Garcopalico, in which case they were still Marxists, they just went underground, because they were also embarrassed as they should have been.

You know, Sartre, Marxist, communist, Derrida, Foucault. Derrida wrote a book on the relationship between his philosophy and Marxism, right? It's not my imagination. And so people say, well, don't you know that there's a contradiction? It's like, you think deconstruction is care about contradictions. That's how much you understand about deconstructionism. It's like, they don't care about contradictions at that's how much you understand about deconstructionism. It's like they don't care about contradictions at all.

It's irrelevant. And why did they, what would you say sort of divert towards Marxism or default towards Marxism? I don't know, maybe because academics are jealous of rich people. I don't bloody well know. Well, I've seen that among academics. You know, they're hyper intelligent, generally speaking, and competent in their domain, but they don't make that much

money compared to rich people, and that irritates them a lot. And so what do they do? Well, they criticize capitalism. It's like, well, they're completely 100% protected by capitalism. They're the most protected people the world has ever generated, and unbelievably ungrateful. And they want to have the year, they're intellect, and the protection of the capitalist system, and simultaneously befriend to the poor. And I've watched what sort of friend to the poor

most left-wing academics are, and I can tell you, man, you have a friend like that, you don't need an enemy. So... can tell you man, you have a friend like that, you don't need an enemy. So. So it's like, it's like Foucault and DeraDead. It's like, well, we don't believe in grand narratives, except for Marxism. It's like that's real convenient, boys. And has anybody pointed out the contradiction? Well, you know, us French intellectuals,

we don't talk about that. It's like, yeah, no kidding, you don't talk about it. Because it's scandalous to say the least, to be a Marxist, to be a Marxist now. Really? After, what, 120 million deaths? How much bloody evidence do you need? And the answer is, I'm so arrogant

that all those corpses make no difference to me. need? And the answer is, I'm so arrogant that all those corpses make no difference to me. And that's the answer. So yes, I'm perfectly aware that the deconstructionist and the Marxists exist at odds with one another. So they do have something very similar in common, which is that they both see the notion that quantity devours quality, that the mass takes over the hierarchy

and that we destroy, invert, subvert any form of hierarchical. Yes, that's true. That's a good observation. Yes, so you see that in Derrida, right? Because Derrida's all for Derrida, Western culture was fell logo-centric, which is exactly the case you just made, right? That we have something at the center and that it's hierarchical and it's patriarchal. It's like he's right about that.

And we should bring the margins in. That's Derrida's idea, because he's a clown. A fundamental, I mean, he's a Joker, really. I mean that. He's a, he's a, he's a, a, a trickster. Derrida, right to the core, absolutely, 100%. And he's full of tricks. And that's one of the tricks is to bring the margins into the center

and he knew perfectly well that if you bring the margins to the center you just have a new margin which is why we have Christian satirists now like the Babylon B you know it's because everything's upside down and so the norm of tip head of the margin even you could predict the no I don't think so either I don't think so either it's like when did the Christians become funny? It's like when the world turned upside down. That's right. But so weird. It's like because I've watched the Babylon be guys and I've watched their interview with you which was like the weirdest interview I've ever seen in my life. He's crazy, frat boy. Christian fundamentalist, which is weird nothing itself.

Christian fundamentalist, which is weird nothing itself. Interviewing you about sacred architecture and monstrous gargoyles in Renaissance architecture and the relationship between that and cognitive categorization and then making like weird frat boy jokes the whole bloody time. While you were keeping up with some producer laughing maniacally in the background. It's like, oh wow, so this is where our culture's at. So it was strange. But all right, one last Canadian question. So Gabriel V asked, do you believe that Pia Poydiav could be the next prime minister of Canada? I've been watching the conservative party federally since I was a kid.

It's a long time now, so I've been watching them with some degree of interest for 50 years. And they always do this, say, almost always do the same thing when it comes to leadership selection. They'll have a candidate who's got a bit of a spine, and this is independent of what you think of him or his policies. Poliov has a spine. And then so they have a candidate with a spine and he's got a little bit of spark. And then they have a leadership convention. And people are alienated by him because of his spine and also because he's a victor. And so, and he'll have an opponent and people are opposed to him.

And then there'll be a third candidate who doesn't annoy anyone like Joe Clark. And then that's who they'll elect. And so then we just have a sequence of these leaders for the conservatives who the liberals can just and the radicals can just chase around nonstop and who try not to offend anyone and who are embarrassed about being conservative and that's probably what the conservatives will do again. Because that's what they do and that's what Canada does.

And so, you know, we could easily, could we have Trudeau for eight more years? Yeah, well, we sure could we certainly going to have him for two or three years and less the implodes and that's some that is well which i doubt because you know in the last six months the true government has done i would say ten things so scandalous that when i was younger twenty to thirty to forty maybe even any single one of those things would have brought down a government and he's

just doing like one a week and so and and nothing happens and You know he doesn't Refer to parliament. Oh well parliament. What was that? It's just annoying You know the Chinese Communist they have it right? They're gonna impose those environmental policies with with no discussion And that's what we'd like, because that's what we admire. Who cares about Parliament? We can freeze bank accounts.

We can lie about the truckers. We can subsidize state media so that now we have a fascistic collusion between government and media. And if you don't think that's true, it's like, well, you do think that's true, because otherwise you wouldn't be here. Win years. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And so what would I say about Pierre Paulier? Well, he had enough guts to come on my YouTube channel. And, you know, I didn't give him any questions beforehand. Zero. There was no preparation. We didn't do any post-hoc editing, and he didn't ask for any, he answered all the questions I asked him with no pervertication. You know, there was a few kind of prepared political talking points. And, but I thought he handled himself extremely well who is a very good conversationalist. He could really take turns in a conversation.

He was thoughtful. I believe that his care for working class people is genuine i think his economic policy is unsophisticated to the point of uh... would you say danger insufficiency and i've talked to some very sophisticated economic players in the canadian market

and they believe that are basic legal framework and our economic framework is 40 years out of date. And these are people who've played, let's say, on the international market and got burned badly by hyper-qualified American legal experts who just tore them into shreds when they tried to compete on broad scale in international markets. We don't have good policies for data ownership in Canada, we're way out of sync with the digital age. We have no idea what we should be owning and what we shouldn't be owning in terms of our

personal information, our data. And it isn't obvious that Paulie has the sophistication to develop those policies. But I think he would and could learn and he's young, he's only in his early 40s, and I think he would be willing to repair our relationship with the United States too, and maybe do something quasi-intelligent on the energy front which would be, you know, kind of delightful. And maybe he'd defund the CBC and Christ Christ we should vote a form for just for that. Yeah, because of the faster they go the better. The better.

Wide point two billion dollars a year to generate zero audience and to lie and to lie to their funders so that he can continue to believe all the idiot things he believes. It's really quite something. I don't know if Paulie have could manage it. I mean, the legacy media hates it. Yeah, and maybe that's a good thing because lots of people hate the legacy media. I can't do that because we have a procedure and I'm a conservative, so I serve it. All right, all right.

All right. Thank you very much, everyone. Thanks, Jonathan. Thank you all. Pleasure to see you all here. Yeah. here. Yeah, hopefully it won't be five years before I show up again, so yeah, yeah. Thank you. All right. Yeah.

That's your good-looking proud. Good night. Thanks, man. I'm looking. That's a good looking proud. Good night. Thanks, man. That's a good one. I'm going to miss you. I'm going to miss you. you