The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 441. TBD | Tor Nørretranders

Episode Date: April 18, 2024

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with author and speaker Tor Nørretranders. They discuss the entropy of emotion, the nature of pointlessness, the over-civilization of societal structures, how relationships shape perception, and why play might be the antithesis to tyranny. Tor Nørretranders is an independent author, thinker and speaker based in Denmark, serving an international audience. He has published over 30 books on topics ranging from society to human consciousness.  - Links - 2024 tour details can be found here https://jordanbpeterson.com/events   Peterson Academy https://petersonacademy.com/    For Tor Nørretranders: The User Illusion:https://www.amazon.com/User-Illusion-Cutting-Consciousness-Penguin/dp/0140230122 The Generous Man:https://www.amazon.com/Generous-Man-Helping-Others-Sexiest/dp/B005SNMU4I Wild food and agriculture:https://madfeed.co/video/from-wild-to-tame-and-back-again/https://madfeed.co/video/we-are-here-because-we-have-appetite/https://madfeed.co/video/whos-got-the-guts/ Website https://www.tor.dk/ Article “We Are Waking Up” : https://www.tor.dk/2019/05/06/we-are-waking-up/ 

Hello everybody. I'm speaking today with Tor Norhtranders, who's a Danish author. I'm primarily interested in his work. He's written about 30 books. The book I know best is probably his most famous book called The User Illusion. I've been thinking a lot about consciousness lately. It's what would you say, a preoccupation of mine. And I, a few decades ago, I spent a lot of time reading books on consciousness. The User Illusion, Tor Norr-Trener's book

was the best one of the lot, as far as I was concerned. And it taught me a lot. And so I figured the other day that I'd reach out to him. We haven't talked before. And so that was what happened. And I got a chance to investigate his thought more elaborately. We talked a lot about consciousness as a reducing function, which is a very interesting way of conceptualizing it.

It's something akin to Eldis Huxley's speculations, although he elaborated it in much more detail and very usefully, and also associated that with our ability to communicate verbally in a way that I think was in keeping with the relevant neuropsychological literature and what we know about perception. So Nordtranders hit the target very specifically and I thought it'd be fun to talk to him about that and to share that with all of you.

And so that's exactly what's going to happen. So Mr. Nordtranders, I really became interested in your work because of the user illusion which I read quite a long time ago, probably about 10 years after you published it. I believe it was published in 1991. And in Danish, yes. I was actually saying in 98.

Oh, okay. Okay. So I see. All right. So it probably would have been around 98 when I read it. I was quite interested in the psychology of consciousness. But I had a hard time finding any books that I thought were really credible. You know, I read Dan Dennett's book and I also read Jeffrey Gray's book, and Gray is a real genius. He wrote a book called The Neuropsychology of Anxiety, which I think is one of the best neuroscience books

ever written, maybe the best. But I didn't think his work on consciousness hit the mark the same way. Your book, however, I thought it was unbelievably helpful. And I want to focus on one element of it. Maybe you can tell me how your thinking has developed. I really liked your idea of, and let me make sure that I actually get this right.

You talked about linguistic communication as a form of unpacking, right? It was like a sequence of compressions. Okay, so I want to walk through that because I don't know how much of this now is my idea and how much of it is yours because it's been so long since I read your book. But so this is how it seems to me

and then I'll have you comment on it. So I've been trying to understand what it means to understand something. We use that word understand, it's an interesting metaphor. So I'm thinking about consciousness as a multi-tiered phenomenon. So I'll start with a description of the world. So we're in, you could imagine the material realm

as a place of patterns and complex patterns, some of them last for a long time, some of them are short term, they differ in scale, but the material world is a place of patterns. And then on top of that, living creatures have a behavioral realm and they interact with one another, but their behavior also codes the material world because we have to, just like if you're walking across a field, your pathway is going to map the terrain. The behavior of living creatures maps the physical patterns and it maps the interactions between, mostly between them and members of their own species. Okay. And then now in the human case you have two additional layers of what's real.

You have an imaginative realm and the imaginative realm seems to me to be where we capture the patterns, we primarily capture the patterns of behavior in the imaginal realm. That's what a dream does because dreams have characters and the characters act out a drama of sorts, more or less coherent. We make that more coherent in literature and in drama, in fiction. And so that's the imaginal realm. And then on top of that, we have the linguistic realm. And it seems to me, and I think this is in keeping with your ideas, that the linguistic maps the imaginal,

and it can be unpacked into the imaginal, and the imaginal can transform the behavioral, but all of that, there's a harmony between all of that that constitutes something like understanding. And so the first thing I'd like to know is like, does that bear any resemblance to your ideas? And then what do you think of that conceptualization? I think it's very complicated in a sense.

I would like to start with a more basic sort of observation, which is the observation that if you look at our sense, if you look at the sensory system of a human being, our eyes, our skin, our hearing and smell and taste and all that, there's an enormous amount of information that goes into us in every second. And you can measure that. And in fact, that has been measured since mid last century and people didn't really know what to do with that information because it's a pretty high number nowadays people are acquainted with the concept of bit, the bit of information and it turns out that it's something of the order of 11 million bits per second enter our century apparatus.

On the other hand, you can ask yourself, how much can we be consciously aware of? And again, you can measure this. There's been measurements of this since the 60s of last century. And the interesting thing about this number for how much you could be aware of is that it's so much smaller than what we actually take in from our the world around us like we take on the order of 16 bits per second from the outside world

into our awareness But we take 11 million bits from the outside world into our system. Whatever that is so so so the problem or the difficult thing to understand is that there's a reduction of a factor of one million from the sensory intake to what we are actually aware of. And that seems immediately very surprising. So somehow consciousness, conscious awareness is very different from sensing the world. When you talk about patterns and recognizing patterns, that will be the sensing of the world that every animal would have to do. And we do, of course, also to

survive. But what is that which we are conscious about? And it's a tiny little part of what we take in. And of course, most of what the information we take in at any second is not really worth contemplating in that second. Like I see behind you windows, and it's obvious that these windows are not falling down on you. And you don't have to reassure yourself every second, they're not falling down on you and you don't have to reassure yourself every second they're not falling down, they're not falling down, they're not falling down, that wouldn't be very helpful. So you have to select what you are aware of. And the point about consciousness then is, and this is where the linguistic part enters the equation, the point about consciousness is that if you take the origin of the word

consciousness, it's from Latin, it's conscura, it's knowing together. So when I take in a lot of information from the outside world, and I'm aware of a little of it, it's very much so that what I'm aware of is what I share with other people. I point to something and say, it's red. And you have a concept of red, I have a concept of red. And somehow we sort of calibrate our way of seeing stuff. But there's more to the quality of red that I actually see. So consciousness is about sharing awareness of the outer world

or the inner world in a very, very compact fashion compared to what we actually take in. And therefore the language is very important. The social relationships are very important. The co awareness is very important. And you could say that the whole show starts with pointing. When you have infants, you point. And when they're old enough, they actually understand that the interesting thing about pointing is not the finger, but what it is pointing at. Some animals understand that also. But to sort of direct and share that attention is very much sort of the stuff of consciousness. So it's in a way it's a social thing. It's something you share with other people. But of course

you can have consciousness on your own and most of us have a lot of conscious awareness without other people being involved. But that's sort of the collective mind that we have internalized so that we can share our experience with other people without actually talking to them or being present together with them. And so that was a major theme of this book was trying to sort out this thing that we are doing an enormous selection in what we are aware of in conscious awareness. Okay, so I've got three or four things to elaborate on from that. Okay, so I want to lay out another schema. So here's what I'm going to dig into. You talked about pointing, you talked about the consciousness we have when other people aren't around, about the consciousness we have when other people aren't around.

You talked about sharing and trade. So let's dig into each of those. So I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what a story is and how stories shape what we point our attention to. Okay, so I understand that relationship between pointing and verbalization, but also pointing and specification of attention. Okay, so I'm

going to bring in some other ideas and I'll get you to comment on them. So I was quite taken by my studies of J.J. Gibson. So Gibson wrote a great book called The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. And I think there's some brilliant things in it. And I've been elaborating on Gibson's ideas in the context of narrative. And I guess narrative is relevant to the idea of sharing because a lot of what we share are stories. And I think stories are pointers to value.

That's a way of thinking about it. So let me lay out a phenomenological world for you and tell me what you think about it. So let me lay out a phenomenological world for you and tell me what you think about this. So imagine you specify a point with your aim. Okay, so now you're determining a destination. This is what bees do when they communicate about where the pollen and the nectar is in flowers. They specify a treasure house of value. Okay, so that's the point, that's the destination. Okay, so from Gibson's perspective, once you establish a point,

then the world lays itself out as perceptible objects. And some of those are tools, they're all what he called affordances. They're all the phenomena that are now relevant to that goal and you can break them. He broke them into roughly into two classes, tools. And so a tool is something you can use to move yourself along your pathway and obstacles.

And I've been thinking about elaborating that. So I think what happens when you specify a point with your aim, let's say, your perceptual system produces a pathway forward, right? That's your route. And then the route is accompanied by the things that are relevant. You talked about the fact that, no, we are taking in 11 million bits per second, but

compressing that to 16. Almost all that we perceive is obscured as irrelevant. It's not even part of our conscious experience. So what stands out? Well, pathways, then tools and obstacles. So those would be like material entities. But then I think there's a parallel in the social domain, friends and foes.

So friends share your aim and accompany you along the way and they can be helpful and foes are human obstacles, but also can obscure or interfere with your aim. So tools, friends, obstacles, foes, and then there's one other element, which I think is very cool. I just figured this out. I think the other thing that we perceive

are agents of transformation. And those would be like magical creatures in a fairy tale. And an agent of transformation changes your aim. And the reason they're magic is because the world of the aim that they specify doesn't play by the same rules as the rule of the aim that you inhabit, right? So, okay, so now the reason I'm telling you this

that's relevant to, it's relevant to the pointing idea, because that's kind of the landscape that emerges as a consequence of pointing, but it also is relevant to the sharing idea. I've been thinking that, you know, when we speak with each other, we're offering the fruits of our imagination. That's a way of thinking about it.

Each word is actually a storehouse, a value or a pointer to value. And so you could say the reason consciousness evolved and this seems to be very much in keeping with your thinking is that we can offer people pointers to a destination or specify a destination. And again, that's not much different than bees do when they're doing a dance to specify where the honey is.

And so it's the fruits of our imagination that we can encapsulate in words. And maybe we have that private consciousness, our ability to think on our own so that we can build up a storehouse of value so that we actually have something to trade with other people. Okay, so well, so that we actually have something to trade with other people. Okay, so well, so that's a take on the things that you just described. So I'd like to know what you think about that. I come to think of the paradigm of predictive processing, which has been

very influential in past 10 years in understanding how we perceive the world. Carl Friston, a British guy, is one of the leaders of the field. And the basic idea, there was a philosopher involved very much in explaining Jacob Hobe, explaining this paradigm of predictive processing, who was kind enough to say that the deep idea behind it actually was in this book, The User Illusion. Oh, that's cool. That's cool. It's nice of him to say so.

Yeah. But the point is that what User Illusion tries to say is that first we take in information and then we create a sort of a simulation of what that information is. And then only then do we experience. We don't experience the take-in. We experience our own retelling of what we take in. And predictive processing paradigm is basically saying that all we experience when we go about our stuff in the world is our predictions of what will happen next. What will this guy do? What will this monkey do? Will there be a fault in the terrain when I walk there?

So it's all about predicting. So in that sense, it's all about storytelling. Everything we know about the world is storytelling. And then of course, it turns out very often that our stories are wrong, we are corrected. We understand that there was something wrong. And so we correct our storytelling. We make it more and more qualified. And when we get to know people, we have a better ability to know what to expect from them and so on. But it's all a question of creating a story not inconsistent with the information we check in. And that's one thing here that I think is very deep, and that is if you take children, they're afraid of the dark. You go into the forest in the evening as a kid and you are scared because of what could

be in the dark. If you go there in the daytime, you're not scared at all. Why is that? That's because there's nothing to contradict the inner fantasies of the kid when it's dark. There's no information that runs counter to the idea of many, many weird trolls and demons out there. But in the daylight, there's so much information that contradicts your ideas. So in a way, all of our perception of the world is a hallucination we create under the

condition that it does not contradict the sensory data we take in. So we are constantly telling stories. So telling stories is what perception is all about. And of course, human beings have taken this to a higher level than we expect a mouse to take it to. But it's basically the same phenomenon that we try to create the consistent idea of what the world is like, but it's what we experience is our own dream, if you like, or our own fantasy, or better word is our own hallucination. So this will explain all the things we see when the light falls and you enter into a twilight zone, and then suddenly there's not enough information

to contradict all the weird ideas you have in your head. Yeah, yeah. So you talked about Friston. So, okay, so I'm gonna go down that rabbit hole for a while. First of all, I interviewed him for this podcast. Second of all, with two students of mine, Jacob Hirsch and Raymond Marr, we wrote a paper about the same time that Friston was working on his entropy theories on anxiety as an index of entropy. And so this is part of what I talked to Friston about. Yeah, yeah. Well, and it ties in with this idea of route specification to a treasure.

So Friston pointed out that, and this was in keeping with the work that we were doing, that if you're, imagine you've specified a route to a given valuable destination, you're proceeding along it and all of a sudden there's an obstacle arises that makes the path more complicated and maybe indefinitely more complicated. So you're driving to work and your car quits. Well, you're not going to get to work and that means the complexity of your day has radically increased, especially maybe if you're on the outs

with your boss. Plus, all the other routes that are dependent on the functionality of your car have all been thrown into disarray. That's an entropy problem and it's marked by anxiety. So a lot of negative emotion is an entropy increase marker. But Friston pointed out something fascinating. See, I hadn't figured this out, which was that if you move forward to a specified destination, so let's say a specified treasure house, each step you take that works decreases entropy because the

path to the treasure house is now shorter and requires less energy expenditure. So he could actually relate both positive and negative emotion to the concept of entropy. And this maps really nicely on this Gibsonian view because if you have, let's say, obstacles and foes, well, they elicit negative emotion and they tell you that your path is in danger, your pathway or the aim is in danger. And on the positive emotion side, you have tools and friends and they indicate that the pathway to your destination is clear

and maybe even more efficient than you'd hoped. And so, okay, so there's that. So that's cool because it ties emotion all the way down to entropy, which is a very fundamental grounding of the, and it also includes emotion now inside the narrative frame. And so then you mentioned prediction. And so, you know, I mentioned Jeffrey Gray

and Gray's work on anxiety is based on a prediction model. But I found that that was inadequate. And I'll tell you why, and you tell me what you think about this. See, the prediction model, the expectation model has kind of a cold cognitive element to it. It's like you're a calculating machine and what you're trying to do is minimize discrepancy

between what you expect and what plays out in the world. But you can tweak that slightly and substitute desire for expectation, and that way you can pull in all the motivational systems. So one good way of conceptualizing motivation, as opposed to emotion, it's a rough split, is that a motivation system sets a goal. So obviously lust does that, thirst does that, hunger does that, anger does that.

And so it specifies an aim. And then the emotions, the negative and positive emotions calibrate in relationship to that aim. And so what you're contrasting is actually desire specified by motivation rather than like a rationalistic expectation and I like that because otherwise you're in the expectation models or the prediction models Motivation doesn't have a place and that's a big problem because obviously there are

multiple instinctual motivational systems and a Lot of the stories we tell are predicated on those, jealousy stories or quest stories or rage stories. They're predicated on the operation these fundamental motivational systems. Okay, so there was there, I tossed at you, the entropy issue from Friston, and then also the issue of motivation.

So I'd like your thoughts on those ideas. I think you are very right in saying that it easily becomes too technical if you think about prediction and testing your predictions. But emotions are basically all about testing your predictions. So the emotional language is another way of expressing the same mechanism. That you feel fondness for someone because you expect good stuff to come out of your interaction or you fear someone because you fear that bad things will come out. These are emotions. So basically what you see when you perceive something is already packed with emotions there's an example of of

if you go into a Forest and there's a small tree trunk there the lowest part of a tree It's fallen over in the storm, but there's only a small part of the tree trunk left in in the storm, but there's a small part of the tree trunk left in the forest. And you come there in bad lighting and you see that thing and it looks to you like a troll, like some alien weird creature. Now what would be the rational thing to do here for a perception system? Would that be to analyze closely the thing and then decide, no, it's the tree, it's the bottom of a tree, it's not a troll?

Or would it be to say, oops, it's a troll, I better react on that? Of course, the meaningful thing is to start with the worst hypothesis in that situation. It's a troll. Right. And then because if it is in fact the remnants of a tree, well, it'll stay that way. So you have time to find out. So the way we perceive things is, you're of course familiar with the Gestalt psychology, the idea that it's the whole sort of creature, it's the whole body of the creature you see rather than the details. We don't sort of analyze the image of a person

from one end to the other. We immediately see something and we immediately have an emotional response to that. And we all know that we meet people in life that in the split second, we know, I like this guy, I don't second we know, I like this guy, I don't like this guy, I like this woman, I don't like this woman. We are very fast in our emotional response to what we take in. So yes, it certainly is a very emotional process. And I think when you try to, part of the reason that when people analyze

this prediction processing model, as very intellectual is that it was inspired very much by the training of robots, because to train robots, you had to use the same idea of sort of, of moving towards something that you liked, rather than something that you didn't like. AI systems. All the AI systems do that, right?

They're all goal-trained, all of them. And that's why they can now mimic human cognition, even linguistically. Right, it's very interesting. That's right, it's all reinforcement learning towards a goal. Exactly, yes. And we need to do that.

But I want you to say on the pointing, what you were saying about pointing reminded me of something I read in a book many years ago by Lyle Watson, a British biologist, who's most famous for his book Supernature that he wrote in the late seventies, I think. He's very interested in supernatural phenomena, not that it's what I find personally most interesting, but he's very interested in that. And he has one fantastic example in that book. And that is if you have the egg of a frog and the egg to become a new frog needs the sperm from the male frog.

And it turns out it doesn't really need the DNA from the sperm. What it needs is the asymmetry introduced by the sperm moving towards the egg. So it's more like the moment that you introduce the asymmetry into the spherical egg, this is the point. Then the egg will reorganize and become a very small embryo for a frog. I'm not trying to say that sperm is not relevant to frogs or to humans. It's not that at all. But it's more that the symmetry breaking. You have a sphere and you introduce,

this is the difference, this is a point. And all of a sudden- So that's like a reduction. Well, that's like the reduction that consciousness consists of. So, and that's a point. So, okay, so a couple of things. I want to talk about your idea

that children hallucinate terror in the face of lack sensory information. Well, that's a good definition of the negativity bias, right? And the idea would be, well, if you can't tell what's going on, the worst case outcome is you die painfully and immediately. And since that ends the whole game, you should be very attuned to that.

And so, as you pointed out, misapprehending a tree stump as a troll is almost a zero cost mistake. Misapprehending a troll as a tree stump, that means is a zero, almost a zero cost mistake. Misapprehending a troll as a tree stump, that means you're dead. Right. And so, and that's really relevant because people have this pronounced negativity bias. And you can imagine too, that in a landscape that, where the sensory information is poorly specified, the mapping, the mapping faculty of the imagination has free rein. And the fact of that free rein,

that's a high entropy state in and of itself, right? Because if you don't know where you are or what's going on, anything could be happening. And anything isn't emotionally neutral, it's terrifying. A story that's pertinent to that, and also to your interest in anxiety, is a concept from Danish doctors in the 1700s and 1800s in Greenland. You know, Greenland is part of the Danish kingdom.

And we had doctors going up there to help people there. They observed a weird phenomenon they call kayak angst. That's Danish for kayak anxiety. The Greenlandish people went out in kayaks to hunt seal and other stuff, and they were very skilled and able and other stuff. And they were very skilled and able and skill and clever people. But sometimes they suddenly had a very strong anxiety episode and they refused to go ever again out in the kayak, which is pretty bad if that's your living going out in the kayak, hunting for seals and other stuff.

And Danish doctors said, oh, that's just because they drink too much or they have too much coffee or whatever. But it turned out that it's a true phenomenon in the sense it has no simple explanation other than the fact that if you sit on a kayak and the sky is blue and the ocean is blue and everything is blue, you suddenly lose sort of the orientation and you see weird things happening. Pilots report the same thing when they fly into clouds. They lose orientation and they suddenly see weird stuff. You have John Lilly putting people in the 60s in these isolation tanks with body warm water and no sound, no vision, no anything. And after a few hours, they start hallucinating. Weird

stuff. You don't have to use LSD, that will hallucinate just if you take away that sensory experience. And so- Yeah, well, you're pointing to something very important there, which is that pointlessness is chaotic and anxiety provoking a priori. Well, this is a really useful thing to know ethically

and psychologically, because part of what it means is that the point constrains terror. Like it's better than that, if Friston's model is right, not only does the point constrain existential terror, but it also elicits hope. And so that would mean to some degree that the sharper the point, and this is sort of analogous to the sperm idea,

the sharper the point, the more, what would you say? The more promising and the less threatening the terrain. Right, so I don't know if you know this, you probably do, but you know the word sin is derived from an archery term. And yeah, the archery term is Greek. Actually, the derivation is the same in three languages. Three separate languages came to the same conclusion. Aramaic, if I remember correctly, Hebrew and Greek.

The Greek term is hamartia. And hamartia means to miss the target. And so, right, to sin is to miss specify your aim. Right, and the worst sin, of course, would be to aim in the opposite direction or perhaps not to aim at all. Right, there's some ambiguity there. Both of those are very bad.

But I think we actually understand this neurophysiologically. It's much in keeping with what you just said. That kayak anxiety, my wife experienced that once when she was swimming. She had the sense that she became suddenly aware of the cavernous volume of the lake that she was in. And it didn't scare her so much she never swam again, but it scared her enough so that she talked about it for a couple of years when she went swimming.

But it sounds, it's so interesting. It's that sudden realization of the expansiveness of everything. You know, here's a weird side note from that. In the story of Exodus, when the Israelites are lost and aimless in the desert, they get all fractious and bitchy continually and they rebel and they behave very, very badly. They miss aim constantly. And at one point Moses, their leader is very upset with them and he retreats away from them along with God but keeps his faith and his point, his direction.

And as a reward, God decides to show himself a little bit more to Moses. But he does something odd. When he does that, he puts Moses in the cleft of a rock so he can hardly see anything. And when he walks by, he just lets Moses see his back. And part of that, the reason I'm bringing that up, because that's protection.

That's protection against kayak anxiety, right? You can imagine what would happen if we all of a sudden became aware of the 11 million bits per second instead of the 16. And even that 11 million is a compressed version of actually what's there, right? Because even that itself is highly screened. So have you looked at the psychedelic research

pertaining to perception? Okay, tell me what, because it sounds similar, right? It sounds like what's happening with psychedelic experiences that the domain of the narrowed consciousness expands and you get a massive increase in positive emotion because of that, but also a potential massive increase in negative emotion. The whole emotional landscape multiplies.

And does it seem to you logical that that is a movement that's neurologically induced towards, like away from the 16 bits per second, more to the 11 million? Yes, and I think Aldous Huxley in his book, Dose of Perception from the 50s, 60s, that I quote in the user illusion book, he used masculine, I think it was. Yeah, it was masculine. And talked about this opening of the mind. And by many, of course, he's seen as sort of a very early bird in what's happening now these years with the psychedelics and the studies of how psychedelics will change

the outlook of human beings on the world and allow them to take in a different kind of information and perhaps very much, and Karl Friston, by the way, is involved in some of that. And people talk about this psychedelic revolution going on right now, which will have a huge impact on many of the problems people have with anxiety and with depression and so on, because it will open the mind and it gives sort of a direct attention. And I think the problem with modern civilization in many ways is that we are so obsessed with predicting everything and making everything straight line and and dependable and not being irritated by anything no rain no wind no

interruptions that our mind sort of falls asleep in a sense and and Everything is like the prediction we come with and we need some somehow to sort of refresh our sensory input from time to time. And I think there are many ways to do that. Psychedelics is certainly one, physical exercise is another, meditation is another. There are many ways to sort of get around your everyday reduction of the world. So some of Friston's coworkers have been making the psychophysiological claim that what the psychedelics

are doing is akin to a stress response, like it's a highly magnified stress response. And the logic there is something, this is relevant to the issue of point. So imagine that you're reducing the 11 million bits to 16. Okay, now then imagine all the ways that that reduction could conceivably occur, like all the different ways 11 million bits could be reduced to 16. There's a lot of them. Okay, now the advantage to the reduction is you only have to deal with 16,

but the disadvantage is, well, what if you're pointing in the wrong direction? Okay, so let me tell you a story and you tell me what you think about this. So I think that's what the Tower of Babel story is about. Okay, so because, so let me outline it. So the Babylonian towers that that story refers to were generally ziggurats.

And a ziggurat is a structure that has a point at the top. It's essentially a pyramid, it's a stepped pyramid. And at the time that story emerged, the Babylonian kings, there were many of them, were engaged in the same kind of competition you see in modern cities. Right, they were going to build the highest tower and that would announce the builder of the tower as something akin to God, like a God emperor.

And so these were God emperors of the technological enterprise. The people who build the towers of Babel in the biblical story are the descendants of Cain. Okay, so they're resentful and miserable and genocidal. They're a bad lot. And they're the first builders of cities. And it's those people that build the towers of Babel.

And so these are points in the wrong direction, right? Because what the, as far as I can tell, what the biblical corpus is attempting to do is to specify a point. It's the point of the cross actually, but it's trying to specify a point as an antidote to the pathological points that might otherwise emerge. What happens in the Tower of Babel story is that

as the tower increases in presumptuousness, that's a good way of thinking about it. And sort of a bitter and,, what would you call it? A bitter and prideful rigidity. Even the ability of the people who inhabit the tower to communicate becomes impaired. Right, and this ties into our discussion because we've already made the case

that words themselves are something like pointers of value, right? They're compressed pointers of value. And if the value hierarchy itself is pathologized, if the point is wrong, well then the words are going to become not only meaningless but in some ways counter to meaning itself. And that seems to me also relevant to the point of, now let me see, there was another element

that you brought in that was, but, oh yes, I know what it is. When the psychedelics hit, let's say, if that's a magnified stress response, imagine if your point is very misaligned. Well, what you could do is reduce the intensity of the point and broaden the attentional horizon. And the danger there is now you're in the desert,

but there's many possible directions now that you could go. Right? So it could snap you out of a false point. And I think that's why people find these experiences or can find them transforming and illuminating, right? It's because they, they allow people to replace that pathologically narrowed point that has depressed them or left them nihilistic with a reintroduction into the richer sensory realm with the possibility of a reorientation.

I think that's very true in the sense that what we basically did when we moved from being hunter-gatherers to surrealists who were cultivating the land and taming the wild animals into our animals and so on, which is the story that the Bible is about. Most monolithic, monotheistic religions are about this transformation from hunter-gatherers to farmers. And the farmer believes that everything comes from his work, from his little piece of land and from what he puts into it. The hunter-gatherer thinks that everything around him brings him something, evil or good stuff, nice or not nice stuff, edible or not edible stuff, but the world is open and you go into it and you find something you would like to eat. The farmer believes that he controls and creates everything. So I think it's a very much and also it's about sort of contracting

yourself to the city and building up in the city rather than going out into the open land and finding something to eat. And I think much of the way we have evolved in social terms in the past, actually 10,000 years since we introduced agriculture, has been more and more contracting ourselves to a small space, controlling everything, and forgetting about the wide open space out there. And even if you look at what you see

when you're going to a landscape controlled by agriculture, you see concepts. You see wheat or you see rice or you see maize or you see very basic stuff, but it's all the same. So it's like a concept that has been transformed into a field rather than if you go into the wilderness. There's so many different things at the same time. And so we have compressed enormously this information. And we live in a simplified world that we created ourselves. We found it efficient. That's why we did it. But it also

takes away from our mind the ability to see multitudes. And I think what happens then, or you could say we take out entropy from our life, and what happens with, I think, with people who experiment with the psychedelics, is that they experience suddenly this multitude coming back. They open up their minds to the multitudes. So that's interesting. So there's another biblical illusion there, possibly, you know, in the story of Cain and Abel.

So the builders of the Tower of Babel are Cain's descendants, but Cain is an agriculturalist, right? And so you could imagine, so tell me what you think of this hypothesis so that as the agricultural endeavor got underway, you pointed out that one of the consequences of that was that people started to believe that the world was a place where the fruits made themselves available as a consequence

of direct human labor and effort. And that could be contrasted with the hunter gatherer, maybe even with the herder, that would be able, with the herder mentality, maybe even with the herder, that would be able, with the herder mentality, which is more like, well, it's a more wandering and diverse way of looking at the world. Now, you can imagine that as agriculture got established, that did enable the aggregation of more and more people,

the building of larger and larger and more integrated civilizations. And you could imagine that as well, pointing to exactly the outcome you described, which would be the presumption of civilization, right? I mean, the prideful presumption in a sense. Now, you're talking about a very strange sort of complex compression, because your point is that

once we transform the world into a linguistic matrix and conceptualize it, we can then transform the world itself into an analog of that matrix. So is that partly what accounts for your interest in agriculture? Because I know you've written books that are relevant to that endeavor as well. I was wondering what the connection was, right? Because it's not obvious.

No, it's not obvious at all. And in many ways, it was an accidental event in my life that I became interested in nutrition and the way we produce food and how it influences our body. But then what really changed my attitude to all this and was a fantastic experience for many years was that it dawned on me suddenly that the real problem in the way we produce food these days is that it's so over-agriculturalized, it's over-abstract, it's over-civilized in a sense, and that we've forgotten all about what nature itself provides and offers us in the form of wild food. And you can measure generation after generation,

the people lose knowledge of the richness of the real world, of what's out there on its own, wild. And wild means of its own will. It's not our will, it's the nature's will. And then in studying that, I came across a trend in cooking, in gastronomy, in restaurants that happened also to have its leading force in my own country of Denmark. Maybe you've heard about the restaurant Noma, which was started like 20 years ago and became after 10 years the leading restaurant in the world, which was started like 20 years ago and became after 10 years, the leading restaurant in the world,

which was absurd because Denmark in terms of gastronomy has always been sort of a joke. Nobody would ever consider Denmark to be a country where you go for fine dining and people would write line and then worse than England. What? Yeah. Worse than England. Yes. Yeah. That's not good. Yeah, worse than England, yes. Yeah, that's not good. We sold the good bacon to the British and had the bad bacon ourselves. So yeah, Denmark was a moth pile of shitty gastronomy, but suddenly you had the best restaurant in the world. And why was that?

That was because Rene Ratsébi, the chief chef of Noma, a good friend, he became a friend. Rene said, we only want to serve stuff that grows where we are and grows at the time we serve it, the seasons in which we serve it. So we will forget about all imported foods, we'll forget about all the agricultural foods, and we'll serve the wild foods for people on the plate. And that was a radical idea that turned out to be fantastic in terms of taste and smell and all that stuff. But it was also a fantastic idea because when he then gathered chefs from all over the world who were interested in his way of thinking in

a number of big events. We called MAD, which is the Danish word for food, where you had all these people. And I was so lucky that he asked me to give the opening lecture for these events. And my basic point was that we've moved from wild to tame, and now we'll be moving back again. In that we moved away from wild food, all that nature offers, we want to control everything. And we ended up as a species eating almost only four crops. It's really surprising if you count the number of calories that the human beings eat, more than 50% of these calories come from just four crops like wheat and rice and potato and maize and so on, corn, I think you call it. And no monkey would accept that. Monkeys eat 300 different kinds of vegetables,

but we eat only four. And all the brain power of the chefs is used to make four very boring things to eat, edible all year round. So you have chefs that come in and can take a potato or a steak or whatever and make that interesting in 500 different ways. So gastronomy and fine dining has sort of collapsed into taking a few very poor raw materials and making them interesting even though they're poor. And the new trend is to use the skills and the intelligence of the chef to go out into

the wild nature and say, what is edible here? It takes a lot of skill and a lot of knowledge and a lot of care to bring it to the plate and to make it taste good, but then it's much, much richer than anything you get out of controlled civilized agriculture. So the revolution or the renaissance in fine dining was to understand that chefs should go out and study the edibility of planet Earth rather than to create fantastic recipes with their gastronomy skills. Right, right.

So that's a return. Oh, that's so interesting, because that's a return to the garden with multiple, to what would you say, to the abundant garden. It seems to me that there's a powerful analogy there that if we think of what the chefs are doing as a form of art, that your sense, tell me if I've got this right,

it's in keeping with what we've been discussing, that that civilizational hyper focus on four crops has abstracted us away from the underlying entropy. That civilizational hyper focus on four crops has abstracted us away from the underlying entropy. So that's good because we don't die, but also from the immense quality that's associated with that richness. And so a fine dining experience like the one you're describing

is a reintroduction back into that plenitude. I'm wondering if beauty itself can be conceptualized that way, you know, because the modern architects built these buildings that are extremely pointed, right? They called them machines for living. That was the Germans contribution to the blight that constitutes our cities, right? Machines for living, hyper efficient pointers

in a single direction. And they got rid of all excess ornamentation. But we could say that the excess ornamentation is actually a pointer to the plenitude beyond that merely efficient point. Like here's something I figured out about the difference between Japan and the United States back in the 1980s. So I did a lot of different reports

on the Japanese economic miracle back in the 1980s. And one of the things I learned about the Japanese is that if they get the point right, they're unbeatably efficient. But sometimes they get the point wrong, in which case they're moving like mad in the wrong direction, which is an engineering problem, right?

You can imagine hyper-efficient engineers pointed in the wrong direction, like they are in China with the surveillance state. Well, in the United States, which is a way more diverse society, which also has a much higher tolerance for eccentricity and criminality. The Americans are incredibly robust because there's always something crazy going on somewhere

in the United States where the new point might be established. You know, when you get that homogeneous society that's pointed to a single pinpoint, if that becomes the wrong direction, which it tends to across time anyways, then it's pathological efficiency in precisely the wrong direction. So there's this, you know, in the Tao Te Ching, the Tao itself, which is the proper pathway through life,

the proper journey, is a balance between chaotic plenitude and pointed order, right? It's not order itself. It's not the narrowing of chaotic plenitude and pointed order. Right, it's not order itself. It's not the narrowing of the plenitude to a single point. It's the dynamic balance between them. And okay, so one of the things I've been thinking about is that the sense of meaning, the instinct of meaning, you can think about that as a kind of meta motivation.

It's like an amalgam of motivations that have become unified. And that's what lends your life the sense of meaning, right? The sense of meaningful pursuit. That seems to be a marker. To me, it's a biological marker for the optimized balance of plenitude and focus, right? So it retains the focus that enables you to be efficient

enough to get to where you need to go. Cause that's obviously relevant. If everyone was walking around on LSD all the time, nothing would ever get done because you can't focus. There's just, everything is amazing. And of course that's amazing, but you know, what are you going to do if you have to eat? So, but then if you narrow too much,

you get the problem that you're describing and you're seeing that reflected in the agricultural enterprise, right? It's this hyper, so it's a focus on four crops but it's also a reduction of the plenitude of the material world itself in accordance with that mapping, with that initial mapping. See, I think we do this to each other too, you know,

is that something very dangerous in relationship is that you build a model of the person you're with because you wanna predict them and control them. That would be the cognitive, you know, the cognitive explanation. And then what people do is they punish each other for deviating from that expectancy set. And that keeps them, you know, narrowed and boxed in,

but over time it turns your relationship into well people get bored because they've People get bored with their spouse often because they've turned them into a simulacrum of their imagination They interact with the idea of the other person rather than with the person an analogy I think for this kind of discussion is it's a raindrop running down the hillside or the mountain side. If you had an engineer to solve this problem, we have this raindrop at the top of the mountain and we want it to the bottom. He would take his ruler and he would draw

a straight line and say, that's the way to go dear raindrop. And the raindrop will say, no, I can't do that and he'll come with some kind of machine and get a channel for it to run down. And now what the rain real raindrop does of course is to go a little this way a little that way around obstacles and don'ts if you need a six sack motion all the way down. And what it does all the time is to move downwards. But downwards is not the same all the way along. So it becomes a very rich thing rather than a straight line. I think William Blake, the British poet and painter some hundred years ago.

He said that the straight road is the road of the intellectual. The crooked road is the road of genius. Yeah, well, the straight road can become the road of the Luciferian intellect, right? That's really attempting. Well, so, and also in the Tao Te Ching, you know, that raindrop analogy is used quite frequently

in the Tao Te Ching to refer to the Tao, because the Tao is exactly the course that water takes when it finds its way downhill. And you might say, well, why not make it hyper efficient? And the answer is, well, what richness do you sacrifice in that single-minded efficient pursuit, right? And it's a tricky business, because you can imagine, you know, in a relationship,

you're trying to negotiate two things. You obviously have to come to terms with one another so that there's some mutual understanding and some prediction and some control. But then at the same time, you want to have the person develop and transform if you have any sense and you want to have enough variability in their behavior so that they're still, well, interesting,

which is a good indication of the relationship between meaning and that balance between order and chaos. that they're still, well, interesting, which is a good indication of the relationship between meaning and that balance between order and chaos. It's like, if you sterilize your relationship with an excess of predictability, your fantasy will start taking you into other relationships. That's what'll happen, right? Everything that you've sacrificed

to that single-minded aim will make itself manifest in the imagination that's pulling you to a richer experience. So now one of the things that I did when I was doing marital counseling for my clients was if they were dissatisfied with their spouse, let's say, said, well, what do you fantasize about in relationship to a new relationship, right? What fantasies spontaneously enter the theater of your imagination? And they would tell me, you know,

in as much detail as was necessary. And I would say, well, why is it impossible for you to seek that within the confines of this relationship, you know? And might be, well, she's not like that, or he's not like that, or she would not like that, or she would never do that, or he would never act that way. It's like, well, people are pretty damn strange,

and there's a lot of mystery in them. And if you're a dancer, you can get a lot of interesting possibility out of people where you thought there was only a stultified actuality. One of the things I noticed as a therapist and as an interviewer, you know, if my clinical session got boring,

it was because I wasn't paying enough attention. I was substituting my presumption for the person. And so if I attended more deeply, they would start revealing more of themselves and then they'd become like, and this was even true for so-called, there's no simple people, but I had lots of clients who were,

they weren't intellectually gifted, put it that way. They were people who would have been struggling, often they didn't have a high school education. Some of them weren't even literate. But if you got them out of the box that maybe you wanted to put them in, they were just as unbearably interesting as anyone else. And that's, there's a Norwegian writer, fiction writer called Axel Sandemo, who wrote in one of his books that that man which does not, who does not understand that any woman contains

every woman in the universe is an idiot. I mean the way you approach your spouse is understanding she is every woman in this universe and that could be someone you don't like or someone you like. All aspects of being a human being is present in that other human being. And the same of course goes for me as a man in that same relationship that I'm the best of men and I'm the worst of men. And one of the reasons that it's a good thing to stick to your relationship, to be faithful to your relationship is then you allow this multitude of possible persons to be there. The moment you start thinking, oh, I would like rather to go over here or there, or like to change things in that way and have another object of my love, then you reduce that person.

And you don't see the depths, the richness inside that other person. And I think that's what a strong and good relationship is about. That is what love and openness is about, is to allow the other person to be fully rich, fully full wonder. My wife just about died a couple of years ago and so did I at about time. So don't. Like it was a narrow, it was a narrow pathway, you know?

And I had a pretty good relationship with her before that. Very good. I would say I've known her since she was like eight years old. So we've known each other mostly our whole life, you know? And she changed quite a bit after she was ill and really for the better once she started to recover. And I was much more, I would say grateful to have her around. I mean, not that that wasn't there to begin with. It was already there.

I loved my wife, but like the demonstrative, like a true demonstration of the possibility of her absence woke me up a bit more. And one of the things that's happened is that now when I see her, I can see her at every stage of her life at the same time. It's really something. And also what's happened is like she shed a lot

of her self-imposed constraints in the aftermath of her brush with mortality. It lasted like nine months. It was very torturous experience. So she changed a lot. It's taken multiple years for the full manifestation of that change and it still hasn't happened. But it's a wonderful thing to see her

and maybe it's also reflection of my change in attitude. Like she's taken off a lot of self-imposed constraints. I think we're afraid of our own entropy, our own possibility. And in doing that, I would say she's become more like a child again. And there's insistence in that in Wordsworth, for example, also biblical insistence,

that unless you become as a little child, you can't enter the kingdom of heaven. And it has something to do with that imaginative plurality that you described, right? Because one of the things that's magical about children is their capacity to magically transform and to enchant the world. And they do that because they're going in many directions.

They're not narrowed. And that makes them in need of discipline and civilization, but there's something wonderful about that. So I'd like you to comment on that, but I'd also like to ask you, what you just said about relationships. That's not something that everybody knows. So I'd like to know how you figured that out.

Hard work. How did I figure that out? Yeah, well, and you can say it, not only did you figure it out, but you can articulate it. And so- Yeah. That's a good question. Well, and you can say it not only did you figure it out, but you can articulate it and so yeah That's a good question, I don't know the answer to it actually

But I think that it's it's I've always had a Tendency to be very monogamous. Is that what the how you say the word in English? Yeah, yeah. And faithful to, but in the modern world, I mean, you are serially monochromous. You have more than one relationship, but one after the other. As a young person, you have several girlfriends, but you're faithful to each of them all the time. Is that understandable? Absolutely. Yeah. And so that was unusual in the circles I were living in in the 70s. People were sort of all over the place, all of them. And I was like sort of, I had this instinct for

monogamy and I was sort of wondering why is that so? And I realized that it was because it made me discover and explore the richness of the other person instead of just comparing to someone else and wanting to change someone else. And then of course I've been cultivating that emotion and that way of living for quite some decades now. And I think it's very obvious that the moment you start comparing people. Yeah, that's a commodification. Yeah. Yeah, that's a commodification. Yeah, and you see the label.

This guy I'm talking to has these opinions and this track record and so on. And you confuse the person for the label. And all you see is the labeling. And life becomes very boring. And of course, what I've been doing with food and agriculture, what I've been doing with how our cognition system works, what consciousness is all about, I've been doing a lot of work also with environmental issues and so on. It's the same basic story all the time that we confuse sort of the label for the real thing. We confuse the terrain for the map.

Yeah. The concept for the real stuff. And I think that what we do when we are not sort of faithful in our love relationship is that we do comparisons all the time instead of saying, okay, this is it. I'm not a perfect man in any sense, but all aspects of masculinity and many aspects of femininity is in me.

Yep. And that's every person is a universe. Right, right. Well, this is certainly something that I learned in, this is why I love doing psychotherapy. Because the art of psychotherapy is to have that realization making itself manifest constantly during the conversation, right?

Because that means the person is on the cusp of optimized transformation. So I've been thinking about this. Tell me what you think about this. I think this is extra cool. So I spent a lot of time looking at the misalignment of Abe. I spent a lot of time investigating evil. A lot. And evil is actually something you can point to quite simply in some ways. It's a rare person who wouldn't think that a sadistic Auschwitz guard who enjoyed his job was, that's evil.

And people will dispute that, but you don't have to talk to the people who will dispute that. It's not useful. It's fairly easy to point to, but the antithesis of that is not easy to specify. Like good as such is harder to specify as a point than evil is.

But I think, tell me what you think about this. So I spent a lot of time studying Jak Panksepp, who I think is absolutely brilliant. You know about Panksepp, yeah. Well, he spent a lot of- Yeah, emotion and motivation. who I think is absolutely brilliant. Do you know about Panksepp? Yeah. Well, he's been a lot of- Emotion. Yeah, yeah, emotion and motivation. But he spent a lot of time studying play,

especially in children. And he was the first person to identify the play circuit in mammals, that it was actually a specialized circuit, and to differentiate it from the exploratory circuit, because a lot of neurophysiologists had presumed that exploration and play were identical. They're aligned because they're both

in the positive emotion space, but there is a separate circuitry for play. And I think that play, I think play is the antithesis of tyranny. And I think that play is the place where that plenitude makes itself manifest in a manner that doesn't blow the frame badly enough to terrify, right?

So yeah, right, exactly. So you can see that, right? I mean, that's why children are driven to play, but that's also, so in your relationship, you said that you've been able to discover, let's say a multitude within yourself and within your partner and that you've also practiced that, which I would like to also ask you about.

Like my sense with my wife is that when we're doing things, when things are optimized, we're playing house. That's a good way of thinking about it. That sense is replicated in our adult life. And it's what children are aiming at when, of course, they do that kind of pretense play when they're young. So I wanna know what you think about that idea of play, because play also has to be voluntary, right?

It can't be compelled. No force in play, you know, unless you're playing force, which, you know, is a special case. You can do that, but it's still voluntary. So I'd like you to tell me what you think about the play idea. And then I'd also like you to, you said you've practiced this way of looking at things.

So I'd like to know about that because people don't understand what a practice like that is. We practice all sorts of things like basketball skills, but we don't practice perceiving other people as a multitude, let's say. That's not a standard practice. So play and then that practice.

I agree, it's beautiful and wonderful. And I think it's also, it's a wonderful example of the two concepts I would put up against each other would be evil and love, rather than evil and good. And that's because I see everything is relational in my worldview. I don't have sort of entities out there apart outside human interaction. There's some evil in itself.

There's evilness, a lot of it in human interaction and love in a lot of it. I see evil as closing the barrier to the other person, ignoring their pain, ignoring their problem, ignoring that you do bad stuff for them. I see love as the total openness. I exchange everything with you. I don't hold anything. I don't reject anything. I just take it because it comes from you and I love you. And in that sense, I think players is a wonderful example of exercising the ability to exchange fully with the other person. While the new ball is, I don't want to play with you, I don't want to have anything to do with you. I have done with many audiences a little game that I call the tickling game, which was inspired actually by a new psychological experiment done many years ago in England by a group of scientists who were

studying whether you could tickle yourself. Right, right. But you can if you're schizophrenic, apparently. Exactly. And Chris Riff, who made that discovery, was part of this group. Oh, okay, okay. So they made a tickling machine. So you could move, you know, sticks that in a complicated way would actually tickle your

skin. And then you could tickle yourself even if you're not a schizophrenic because you know when and how the tickling will be. But basically, when you tickle yourself, your brain already knows what your hand is doing so there's no tickling sensation. But if you tickle the person next to you, he or she will have a giggling and it will tickle. And sometimes I do with audiences, I ask people, experiment two rounds, first round tickle yourself, doesn't tickle, very basic. Second round, you tickle the person sitting next to you on the left. And you have these 800 people going from just sitting there to yelling and screaming in

two seconds. It's a dramatic effect. And then you say, oh, somebody didn't get any fun here, so now you're talking to your ride and people scream and yell again. And this is a beautiful example of, in my view, that the only thing that's interesting about other human beings is that they're surprising. They surprise us. They do things that we cannot control.

That's why they're so interesting and so nice to us. We like being surprised. Yeah. Yeah. But of course, if you went into the, what you call the subway, the metro train, the U-Bahn, the train in the city, and suddenly somebody would tickle you. That wouldn't be fun. That would be scary.

So you don't want no control like in the train, and you don't want full control like when you tickle yourself, what you like is sort of the in-between of, yeah, between control and predictability on the one hand, and lots of control on the other hand. That's the nice thing. That's the in-between. Do you suppose that, okay, so you contrasted evil with love. And so one of the things I was thinking about

when you were talking about this game was that, like it seems to me that love is manifest most clearly in a state of play. One of the things I've noticed with my wife, for example, is that if there's anything between us, you know, an obstacle, conceptual obstacle, a disagreement about something, it's much more difficult to enter into that state of play.

That has to be cleared away before that can really happen. And so that's in keeping with Panksepp's findings because Panksepp found that play was very easily suppressed by virtually any other motivational state, right? So things have to be optimized, okay? And then I wonder if that play, like is play a reflection of the love that puts someone on the border between the predictable

and the unpredictable in that optimized way? You know, cause you see people doing that. If you're playing one-on-one basketball with someone, you want a competitor who pushes you, right? You don't want to be exactly in your zone of comfort. You want to be a little bit outside that, right? You want to have that, it's a glimmer of what's being suppressed by your aim.

You want to have that still around. It's like a halo. That's another way of thinking of our penumbra, something like that, right? Something that's glowing, that reminds you of everything that you're not attending to at the moment. There's something very rich about that. And, you know, your thoughts about monoculture,

agriculture, for example, are an indication of the... You know, there's an insistence in the Old Testament. This is very relevant. This is something I've been discussing with some of my friends a lot. When the Old Testament people set out their fields, you know, there's always some uncertainty about borders. So there was an insistence in those societies

that the margins were for gleaners, right? That's where the poor could find their sustenance. And the idea under that was that your boundaries, although necessary, shouldn't be so tight that there's no room for experimentation and the marginal, right? Which I think, and also I found out in keeping with this, by the way, you know, there's a hierarchy of DNA repair as a consequence of mutation. So there's core DNA structures that if they mutate, they're repaired with 100% accuracy. Right, and then there's a hierarchy so that peripheral, there are peripheral genetic codes that are allowed to mutate

because experimentation can take place there on the fringe without demolishing the whole. So that echoes that idea of the center, you know, the focal center with the experimental fringe, that seems to echo everywhere. And that's something like the antidote to that narrow-minded technological efficiency that when did you start to become concerned with that specifically? Was that associated with your investigation into consciousness?

With the agriculture problem? Yeah, yeah, the idea of this pathological narrowing. Yeah, I think it's already in, it's very much in the consciousness thing. Not of course as fully developed as it became later, but this worry that if you exchange sort of the terrain with a map, the world with a concept, the person with the idea of a person, which is very much what consciousness does, then you are on the wrong way. There's a thing about our language, which I think was pointed out about a hundred years ago, which is a very basic thing about language. We say, this flower is red.

But no, this flower is many things. One of them having the color of red. This man is angry. Yes, but this man is also many other things than angry. This man, that's why I don't like sort of to make evil and objective thing in the world, because I think this man is evil, yes, but he's also other stuff. This man is good, he is caring. So we are not the mental states, the emotional

states, the trait states that we have. We are more than that. We are much richer. And we have a language that all the time we say he is happy. Yes, he also needs to go to the toilet in a moment. You know, you understand? So I think studying consciousness very much brought my attention to this very, very simple fact that we tend to reduce everything. And it's practical in the sense that I can point to the flower and say it's red, and you can nod and say it's red, and we are in correspondence here, and it's good. But we also lose, each of us, lose a lot of the experience and the sensing of the flower if we reduce it to being red. Have you talked to Ian McGilchrist?

No, I've heard his name, yes. Okay, well, so I just, I know Ian and we just did another podcast which will be released soon. So his sense, he's done a lot of investigation into hemispheric function, right? And his work is very much in keeping, I would say, with the main thrust of your work. And I think he's got the neuropsychological terrain mapped quite nicely, is that the right hemisphere seems to be, I would say more comfortable in the domain of plenitude and the left hemisphere is the reducer. And you know, it's possible,

tell me what you think about this on an ethical side because we talked about this with Ian, because people with right hemisphere damage get kind of tyrannical and authoritarian and they get very reductionistic and much more than someone who's neurologically intact. And I asked him, well, is that worse among people who were already that way before the brain damage, right?

Is there individual variation? So if you were a narrowing intellect with an authoritarian bent, were you more like that if you damaged your right hemisphere? Of course, there isn't enough case history to know that. But I'm wondering, there's an insistence in archaic literature. I've really seen this in the biblical corpus.

I just wrote a book about this, which is going to come out in November. And I'm lecturing about it now, so it's very much on my mind. That narrowing proclivity is a, it's like the sin of Adam's job in the Garden of Eden. His job is to name and subdue, right? To name and put in place.

But pride, it's the pride element that seems to warp that. It's like, it isn't even so much that we narrow, it's that we narrow and then we fall in love with our own narrowing. And that's the pride. And then we wanna substitute that narrowing for reality itself. This is what God warns about, by the way,

in the story of Adam and Eve, when he tells both of them that they can't eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. This idea is lurking at the bottom of that. It's like, you can do what you want, but you can't replace the moral order with your own set of preconceptualizations. And that's what you're pointing to, right?

I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but that's what's lurking underneath this. It's not merely, it's not the reduction per se, because that's necessary to have a point. It's something like, is it the totalitarian insistence that we got the reduction right and that's that? Yes, we confuse the world with our image or our concept of the world.

We confuse the person with the idea we have of the world, we confuse the person with the idea we have of the person. So you can see, it's my sense, that that's allied with the totalitarian proclivity, because I think that becomes pathologized when it's allied with force. Right, it's that, yeah, well, it's that not only do I want you to be in the box I put you in, plus everything else, but if you're not,

then look the hell out from me because I can impose that. So here's a cool thing. So in the story of Moses, Moses is leading the Israelites to the promised land, right? So it's a quest story. And that's the land of milk and honey, right? It's the land of eternal promise. And so that's always what we're doing.

And that's what a leader is always doing, if he's any sort of leader at all. Now, Moses' fundamental temptation is to use force, which is the temptation of a leader. And he uses force a number of times in the story. But when he's on the verge of leading the Israelites into the promised land, God tells him, the Israelites run out of water,

and God tells Moses to use his words to elicit water from the rocks. And Moses doesn't. He hits the rocks with his rod of authority. He strikes them twice. And God tells him that he won't enter the promised land as a consequence of that. And I think that's a story of the alliance

of narrowing and force, right? It's that while leader has to specify a direction and that does mean the sacrifice of all other potential directions, obviously. And then you might say, well, when does that go too far? And it's something like, well, when it's no longer invitational, when it's imposed, it crosses the line.

When you don't listen to the rock, the only way you will get water out of the rock is if you listen to the rock and they try to interact with the rock. If you just punish the rock or hit the rock, you're not having a fair interaction with the rock. And so what power is about not listening, doing stuff to people without listening for their cries and their sorrows. And of course, if you're the president

and you can hit that bottom and you can kill 100,000 people, there's no way you could know about the screaming you produce and that's power. So, okay, so that ties into your, now earlier you juxtaposed love against evil and you assimilated love to relation and you said everything in your world was relational.

So the insistence in the biblical corpus is that our fundamental mode of being in the world is relational, right? That's what the covenantal idea is attempting to express. It's relational. And so, but I'm curious about, see, you said something very specific there, right? Cause you associated love as the antithesis of evil

and you immediately also expanded that to describe relational. And you said that your interaction with the world is relational at every level. Okay, so what do you mean by that? And how did you come to that understanding? On several levels. One thing that I've been dealing a lot with by that? And how did you come to that understanding? On several levels. One thing that I've been dealing a lot with in the past year has been

quantum physics that seems very different from all of what we're talking about here. But in this quantum physics, there's a strong tradition of interpreting it as all relationships. And all the problems you get in interpreting quantum mechanics is when you say it's out there, it's an object, it's independent of me and when you start thinking that way you have all these dilemmas and paradoxes of quantum mechanics. If you think of it all as relationships you enter into and that it's not meaningful to ask, what is the world like when I don't interact with it? That is not simply not a meaningful question to ask,

because if I don't interact with the world, how could, I mean, doesn't make sense to ask how it would be if I don't do that. So in many walks of life, I find the same basic structure, it's relational, and that you have to accept that unperformed experiments have no outcomes. I mean, if you don't do things, nothing happens. And our social relations are of the same nature, that it's all about interacting. And what is this guy like, really, if I don't interact with him?

I don't know. What is this guy like, really, if you don't interact? I don't know. I'm a relational creature in that sense. And what's happening inside my head is relational. And I think that's, in many ways, the most fundamental aspect of this whole consciousness thing is to understand that my consciousness is the collective of human beings in my head. I sort of, I see and understand and put words to the world through some kind of eyes of everyone, the collective eye of everyone. That's my consciousness. And then

I have my private experience, my sort of mystical experience, my psychedelic experience, if you like. I'm not very much into that, but you could have that. And that's sort of very direct and very rude. But it's also very private. And then you can have this, I see the world through the eyes of my friends and their concepts. And that's what consciousness is about. And that's why it's so useful and also dangerous if we forget the rest. Okay, so is it fair to say that you've concluded that what's real is no different,

there's no difference between what's real and what emerges as a consequence of what's relational. And that's the pinpoint of consciousness. Right, it establishes that. See, and the reason, partly the reason I'm curious about this is it's because of the implications of what we've been describing.

It's like, well, if the phenomenal makes itself apparent as a consequence of your aim, then reality itself emerges in consequence of your aim. And I actually believe that's, I don't know how true that is, but it's pretty damn true. Like the way a person is going to reveal themselves to you is very radically dependent on your aim in the interaction. And this is true even for very bad people.

Like I've had some people in my clinical practice who were, they were terrifying people and you had to step very carefully around them. But it was possible to do that. Not always, I'm not gonna get like wildly over optimistic about that, but it was dependent to do that, not always. I'm not gonna get like wildly overoptimistic about that, but it was dependent to some degree on my skill in specifying my aim. Like I would say the more dangerous the person,

the better targeted your aim bloody well better be when you're dealing with them or look the hell out. They're very, a particularly dangerous person is likely to respond very violently, very violently to even minor moral errors on your part. That's for sure when you're dealing with them. But it is an unspecified question. The degree to which reality reveals itself in accordance with our aim

is a very much unspecified question. I think the relationship is far deeper than we dare to imagine. I come to think for some reason this may be a wild tankard to take. The first time I was in New York, the city of New York, many years ago, as a European, you know, as a naive European. I was worried, back in the 80s, I was worried that the crime and I would get into trouble at all times. And I met another Danish guy in New York and I asked him, what do I do? You live in this neighborhood that's known for high crime rate. When I come to visit you, how do I do that without getting

knocked over? And he says, it's very simple. Just look as if you just appear to other people as if you have a purpose with what you're doing. Right, right, right. Yeah. You want to go somewhere. And therefore you go through the street because you want to go down and visit me.

And they won't touch you. But the moment you come in in and you say I'm an interested tourist and I would like to see people live in in a poor life and New York is all crime and I want to see that yeah then you're a prey animal yeah and yeah but also you are intruding in their world. Yeah, right, right. Yeah, yeah. Absolutely. Well, when you have when you have your I want to go there. Go there because I have a friend to visit. And that's my aim. That's my target. That's what I'm doing. Then you're not annoying them. Because you're you're doing something. And I think that, yeah, in interaction with people who are in trouble, who have difficulties in life, it's important to that yourself,

you show that there's something I want to do with my life. I'm interested in stuff. I'm also interested in you, not of I want to sneeze on your life or something but I'm just I'm open to you but I'm going this way. And I think that's the it's it's it's an anecdote to illustrate this what you're saying actually. Yeah, yeah. Well look, sir, we're at our 93 minute mark. So that's pretty good. That's actually a pretty good place to end too. And so I just, I'll close this way. So I have a list of recommended books online.

It's a hundred of them and they're books that were, you know, had a market influence on me. And I picked the books very carefully and yours is one of them, that user illusion. I think that's the best book. That is the best book on consciousness I ever read. And I read a one of them, that user illusion. I think that's the best book, that is the best book on consciousness I ever read. And I read a lot of them. So I would recommend that book

to anybody who's watching and listening. It's quite the tour de force. I thought it was very well-grounded scientifically. It's very well-written, it's very accessible. And it really helped me think through the relationship between compression and focus and reduction and consciousness. And that was useful. I'd already been interested in Huxley's idea,

of the reducing valve, as a function of consciousness, trying to think that through. But you elaborated on that, made it clear in a way that I haven't actually seen anyone else do. Now, Friston's work and so forth is a nice elaboration of that. And I think the same about Gibson, but your book pulled in the linguistic in a way

that I thought was extremely original and useful. So for everybody who's watching and listening, The User Illusion, that's a book I'd highly recommend. It's got a lot to teach you. And it's deeper than you might think too, because it's an elegant book and it's clearly written and it's so its depth is somewhat hidden which is also the mark of a master author right so yeah and I had a blast talking to you today we went all sorts of interesting places so I'd like to thank you for that for everybody watching and listening I'd like to thank you for that. For everybody watching and listening, I'd like to thank you guys for your time and attention

and as always, and I'm going to continue to talk to Tor Nor-Trenders on the daily wire side of things. I'm going to walk through his life in a bit more detail. He's written a lot of books. We only focused on one really, and made reference to some of the others, but we'll flesh that out a little bit and see where else we can get.

And so if you want to join us on that venture, please feel free. To the film crew here in Toronto today, thank you very much for your time and your help and for how smoothly it went. And to the Daily Wire people who put this together and make it free for everyone, which is, you know, pretty good deal for everybody as far as I'm concerned. They deserve continual thanks for that. And to you, thank you very much for spending 90 minutes with us and letting us know, sharing the fruits of your thought. Thank you for having me. That was a great, great fun. All right, sir.