The Taproot Podcast - Dreams of Psychotherapy's Past, And It's Future

Episode Date: January 28, 2026

More @ https://gettherapybirmingham.com/   Why does modern mental health care often feel like a bureaucratic ritual rather than a healing encounter? In Part 5 of The Absence of Idols, we explore how psychiatry emptied the temple of meaning and replaced it with a checklist. We begin with the ancient dream of Addudûri and the terror of an empty temple, using it as a map to understand our current crisis. Drawing on the work of historian Theodore Porter and physicist Richard Feynman, we dismantle the "Cargo Cult Science" of the mental health system—a system that builds perfect wooden control towers but cannot land the plane. From the rigid authoritarianism of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family to the "mechanical objectivity" of the DSM, we examine how weak institutions use metrics to hide their lack of authority. We also look at the "lacuna"—the institutional blind spot that prevents experts from seeing the harm they cause—and why deconstructing religion without reconstructing meaning has left us vulnerable to the return of monsters. In this episode, we cover: The Cargo Cult of Psychiatry: Why "evidence-based" protocols often function like coconut headphones—mimicking science without the substance. Mechanical vs. Disciplinary Objectivity: How the mental health system traded trained wisdom for insurance-friendly checklists. The Lacuna Effect: Why institutions are literally blinded to their own biases (and how the brain fills in the gaps). Deconstruction Dangers: Why stripping away context without offering new metaphors creates a vacuum filled by conspiracy theories and extremism. Mentions & References: Richard Feynman’s "Cargo Cult Science" address (Caltech, 1974) Theodore Porter, Trust in Numbers The Dream of Addudûri (Mesopotamian texts) James Dobson & Focus on the Family critiques The Rosenhan Experiment Wilhelm Reich, Fritz Perls, and Somatic Experiencing Mental Health, Psychiatry Critique, Cargo Cult Science, Psychology, Trauma, James Dobson, Philosophy of Science, Theodore Porter, Somatic Therapy, Institutional Trust.

The first dream that we have on record was dreamed by a woman, and her name was Aduduri, and she was the overseer of the palace of Mari in Mesopotamia. More than 3,000 years ago, she etched a letter onto clay tablets describing what she saw. In my dream I had gone into the temple of the goddess Belit al-Aquim, and the statue of Belit Akhalim wasn't there, nor were the statues of the other divinities that normally stand beside her. Faced with this sight, I wept and wept. George Steiner observed something profound about this dream.

The first of all dreams speaks of an empty temple. Loss precedes presence, and every image must abide by this rule. Think about what Aaduduri was experiencing. She walks into a space that should be full of meaning, full of the containers that holds her culture's understanding of itself, and they are gone. The gods have been dragged away, and all that she can do is weep. This is the thesis of this entire,

series. What happens when you strip context from consciousness? What happens when you take away the metaphors that allow us to function, to project ourselves onto something larger than ourselves, to make sense of existence? What Adu Duri experiences in that empty temple is something very close to madness. A retreat entirely into this objective is insane. And this person who believes that their feelings are reality, who can't distinguish between what they imagine, in what is, this is psychosis in its clinical sense. Someone who is so lost in the inner world that they've lost contact with a shared world that could encounter another person. They are alone.

But a retreat entirely into the objective is also insane. And this is the person who believes only what can be counted is real, who can't access their own felt experience, who is trying to be what everyone needs them to be and forgot who they were. someone's so lost in measurement and abstraction that they've lost contact with lived reality, and they are also isolated, alone, and stripped of context. Both are forms of the same dissolution, and both are failures to maintain the bridge between the inner and the outer world. Sanity is the capacity to move between the subjective and the objective, to hold them in tension and to use each to check the other.

Sanity is a metaphor. Sanity is a symbol. sanity is the ability to stand in the temple and know that the statue is not the god but also know that the statue matters that it points to one and we built a temple you know a mental health system that pushes people towards the objectivity that is driving us insane while claiming to cure them of this objective and we've emptied the temple and called it treatment welcome to the taproot therapy podcast and discover he'll grow this is true Joel Blackstock, and this concludes our series on the DSM and the quantification of consciousness. The historian that I talk about a lot, Theodore Porter, wrote a book called Trust in Numbers, and that explains exactly how this happened.

Porter makes this distinction that's crucial. He separates disciplinary objectivity from mechanical objectivity. Disciplinary objectivity is what works in high trust communities. It relies on trained judgment, experts who share a task. understanding of what constitutes valid knowledge and they don't need a checklist to agree on what they see their shared training and socialization provides the standard and this is how psychoanalysis used to work the authority of the analyst was personal it came from training lineage clinical experience reputation

within the guild mechanical objectivity is different rigid adherence to explicit rules algorithms standardized protocols it tries to eliminate what Porter calls the personal equation The idiosyncrasies of the individual observer so that any two people following the same rules arrive at the same result. Here's Porter's crucial insight. Mechanical objectivity is not pursued by the strongest scientists. Sciences. It's pursued by the weakest and most insecure forms of science.

Soft science. When a discipline is vulnerable to external criticism, political pressure, or internal fragmentation, it retreats to mechanical objectivity. to defend itself against charges of arbitrariness. And Porter writes, objectivity lends authority to officials who have very little of their own. And this is not a story about science getting better. It's a story about institutions getting scared. In the 1970s, psychiatry faced a legitimate crisis. The Rosenhan study sent sane people into hospitals that they couldn't tell, you know,

whether or not the people were sane. And the anti-psychiatry movement called psychiatry movement called psychiatry. a tool of social control. Insurance companies demanded accountability, the same that they would have for pills or surgery. And the response was the DSM-3. They purged the etiology of the theory, you know, and all of the contentious stuff

about what causes mental illness. And they replaced it with symptom checklists. Must have five of the following nine for at least two weeks. And the goal was reliability. If two psychiatrists saw the same patient, they should arrive at the same diagnosis. but this was not discovering disease entities. It was a bureaucratic fortification.

By creating a rigid manual, psychiatry insulated itself from the charge of subjectivity. It allowed the profession to interfere or interface with the insurance companies and not be interfered with at a judgment-based level by insurance and the FDA. The manual became a technology of trust, not a trust in a doctor, but a trust in a code. And here's the strategy that Porter would say illuminates the trade-off between reality. He would say that there's a trade-off between reliability and validity. Reliability is consistency. We all agree that this is major depressive disorder. Validity is truth.

And this label actually corresponds to something real. You can have one without the other. But in pursuing reliability, psychiatry sacrifice to validity. and the categories became socially valid. Insurance insurers accepted them, but biologically invalid. They don't carve nature at its joints. In 2013, the National Institute of Mental Health declared that the DSM was scientifically invalid, but nothing changed clinically because the DSM's purpose was never scientific validity.

It was bureaucratic legitimacy. And they emptied the temple to survive. Now, here's a big point to understand. You know, it's easy to hear all this and think that I'm describing a conspiracy, but I'm not. Most people in the system aren't villains. They're not consciously hiding biases for profit. The insurance executives, the academics, the researchers, the clinicians following protocols. Most of them genuinely believe that they're being rigorous.

The genuine belief, they genuinely believe that they are being scientific. And that's what makes this tragic instead of merely corrupt. They've lost faith in what they can't see. think about what it means to trust trained judgment. It means believing that a person through years of formation and experience can perceive truths that can't be reduced to a checklist. It means believing in something invisible, the cultivation of wisdom, the development of clinical intuition, the ineffable quality of the therapeutic presence. That requires faith, faith in human capacity, faith in the intangible, and somewhere along the way that faith broke. When you lose faith in the invisible, you lose faith in the invisible, you,

You don't stop believing in it. You transfer your faith to whatever is visible. And so the PHQ9 score becomes more real than the patient's suffering. Or the story that the patient is telling and the diagnostic code becomes more real than the person. The randomized controlled trial becomes more real than what happens in the room. And the system becomes more than reality itself. And this isn't corruption. It's a civilizational loss of faith in the invisible.

And the people inside the system can't see their own assumptions anymore because they've dressed them in the costume of objectivity. And the blind spots fill up. We can't see them. So we think that we can see everything, because we can't see what we can't see. And this pattern shows up throughout history when civilizations lose faith in the invisible.

You know, late in Rome, they maintained elaborate bureaucratic forms long after the substance was gone. The offices still had titles, the procedures still had steps, the forms got filled out, but the meaning behind them evaporated. They kept the forms because the forms were visible

and the substance required faith that they no longer had in an empire that had fallen. You know, the Soviet Union knew the five-year plan had these quotas and there were lies. Everyone knew that. The factory managers knew, the party officials knew, the workers knew, but they maintained the quotas, falsified the reports, performed the rituals of productivity because the alternative was admitting that there was nothing underneath. The numbers had become more real than reality, and dismantling them would expose the void. And then there's cargo cults. You know, during the World War II, American troops landed on islands in the South Pacific.

Melanesia, Vanuatu, I'm not sure how to say that one. I think it's Vanuatu. Places that had never seen, you know, industrial civilization, they built air strips. They set up radio towers. And when the planes landed, they brought cargo. Food, medicine, chocolate, Coca-Cola. And these islanders had never seen any of the stuff. And the soldiers were generous that shared what they had when the plane landed with the supplies.

and the islanders watched everything and they watched the men sit in the huts with little pieces on their head and they watched them talk into boxes, you know, headphones and radios. And they watched them spin cranks and wave flags. And then the planes would come. And then the war ended and the soldiers left, so the cargo stopped coming. When the anthropologists went back years later, they found the islanders had built their own airstrip.

They'd cleared the jungle and made runways. And they'd built wooden control towers and they'd carved headphones out of coconut shells and then made antennas out of bamboo. and they sat in their huts and they talked to rocks, and they waved landing signals at the empty sky. And Richard Feynman, the physicist, gave a commencement speech at Caltech in 1974. He said, in the South Seas, there is a cargo cult of people, and during the war they saw airplanes land with lots of goods and materials,

and they wanted the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in with two wooden pieces on his, had like a headphone and bars of bamboo sticks sticking out like antennas. He's the controller. And they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way that it should, the way that it looked before. But it doesn't work because no airplanes land. And a fine man called this the cargo cult science, following all the

apparent forms of scientific investigation while missing something essential. He was talking about psychology. He said that the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Never underestimate how a little group of people who think that they're smart and take themselves very seriously can actually know. When I was a kid, there was this guy who has this, he was huge in evangelical circles, James Dobson, focus on the family. And he did all these books and seminars about raising children to be Christian and accountable. And the motto of the movement was break the will of the child. You know, the child was bad,

and if you made it subservient, you know, it was, how could the child serve the God if they can't even serve the father? So you teach them obedience through discipline. And Dobson advocated for spanking children as young as 15 months old,

and he wrote about escalating punishment until there was crying, genuine tears, is what he would call it, not pretend tears. They have to actually be completely disregulated. And, you know, there was a thing

that he also would say, was that if the baby was crying, but it wasn't meal time, an infant, you should give it water to show that you heard it. But you shouldn't give it milk because it wasn't meal time. And you were trying to teach it that it was crying at the wrong time, you know. We know infants, they need food. They don't even know that they're separate from the mother. They just want warmth and love and food. You know, and Dobson says, when your baby cries, just give it water. to show it that it's not controlling you.

You know, it's an ego battle with a creature that doesn't have an ego. Like a dog knows how to nurse its babies. And we get a whole bunch of people in a room who sat down completely objectively, through logic and ego, came up with a way to break that inborn nature and to be cut off from it. There's a metaphor from visual science, neuroscience,

that explains why people inside the systems generally can't see what they're doing. The lacuna is the spot in your eye where the optic nerve enters the eye to carry the message back to the subcortical brain, 90% of it, and then 10% goes directly, and the rest of it goes to occipital, where an image gets resolved.

And the eye is literally blind there. It can't see anything. There's a hole in your vision right now, but your brain confabulates vision in that spot. It takes everything around the blind spot, and it fills it in like a Photoshop filter. And you can't see that, even if you try. The confabulation is seamless.

You can look at the center of your vision and you have no idea where it is. And this is what institutions do. They fill in their blind spots with assumptions, assumptions dressed as facts. The pharmaceutical researcher doesn't see their funding source as bias because they've defined methodology in a way that excludes that excludes that consideration. The blind spot fills itself in. The academic doesn't see their career investment as bias because they've defined evidence in a way that only includes certain evidence and excludes others. So it's not evidence.

I'm not going to look at it, except it's evidence that you're wrong. You're just not looking at it. And they look at certain evidence very correctly, and the blind spot fills up. And the insurance company doesn't see the profit motive as biased because they've defined responsible care in a way that aligns with their bottom line. And the ultimate purpose of their organization is to make money. So how could they examine that? The blind spot fills up. They genuinely can't see it.

The lacuna is invisible to the eye that has it, and all eyes have it. And this is why the system can't reform itself. from within. The people inside are looking through eyes that have blind spots in exactly the same places that they'd need to see to make change. And they're performing the rituals of science with genuine sincerity. And they never notice that the substance has been replaced by procedure. And the only way to see a blind spot is through another perspective. Multiple eyes can map the visual field completely, even though no single eye can see everything. Which is why this conversation has to happen outside of that system.

You know, here's what actually works in therapy, what's always worked. What keeps getting discovered over and over across cultures and centuries by people who never met each other. These are perennial philosophies. They recur because they're pointing at something true about consciousness itself.

If this weren't a story that the deep brain is telling us from behind the scenes, then we wouldn't keep rediscovering it. That is a recurrent form of evidence, objective evidence, but it requires your subjectivity to see what these people are saying.

And it's evidence that can't be seen from the distance of pure objectivity. The problem is that different traditions aren't using the same language. And they're not all saying, here's the Sudskore I invented in ancient Babylon and then Carl Jung invented in his study. They're describing subjective spaces

phenomenologically through metaphor. But when they do that, if you can't read metaphor, if you can't see it, which I'm arguing, we are losing the capacity to do rapidly, then you can see, you can't see that they're talking about the same phenomena.

Plato was already saying these things. Competing drives, multiplicity, the need for integration, the importance of knowing myself, the allegory of the cave, which is basically just a description of how unconscious assumptions shape our perception. And we act like every new therapeutic modality in this system is completely separate. And in this invention that came out of nowhere, they came out of a lab stripped of context or any history. But the parts that work have always been doing these things.

therapy did not invent therapy it's always been with us you know first metacognition getting outside your head developing the capacity to observe your own mental processes rather than identifying with one single part of what you were feeling learning that it is just part of a part of you and this is meditation this is mindfulness this is freuds where it was their ego shall be this is jung's individuation this is cbt's cognitive restructuring which it works, all pointing at the same thing. But in a purely cognitive behavioral vacuum, it's hard to do metacognition if you don't understand multiplicity of parts because you're thinking, I'm one thing, thinking this thing, now, how do I change that? And you can't back up from yourself

when you are yourself completely. The brain has competing networks of consciousness. And it's not one monad that are different systems with different agendas, and you need a framework to discover that. Second, somatics, the way the body stores energy and emotion and pre-budgets it in anticipation of what you need to feel to solve a problem later based on subtle clues. You've got to bring in the fact that the body feels emotion before the mind knows it's there. Even Wilhelm Reich was right about this. As crazy as he got by the end, you know, he didn't get that wrong. And this is Pearls' body awareness. And this is Levine's, you know, somatic experiencing. This is polyvagal theory, porges. The body keeps the score, Vandercolt.

You know, third, shortcuts and biohacks, EMDR, brain spotting, polyvagal resets, ice baths, tricks that separate you from this stuff quickly as like a little trick to get some buy-in so that you can start to feel how your brain works. But, you know, even the shortcuts that I talk about, brain spotting, ETT, all that stuff, they're not going to help you if you've completely deconstructed who you are. They're not going to help you accept the truth that you've uncovered. that's always going to be the role of a trained therapist. It's always going to be the subjective storyteller function

that's helping you understand what's going on in your mind and making you a collaborator in that project because there is no formula for meaning. And that's the point. You know, my wife's a teacher and one of the things that drives me nuts is how we'll spend, as a contrary, millions of dollars on studies proving that some new educational platform made by a private contractor needs to go into schools because it's more effective.

All the data in education, going back to the beginning of time, says that if a class is smaller, because you hired more teachers, the students do better. No matter what you teach, no matter how you teach it, no matter what technology you have, even if the teacher is incompetent, smaller classes mean better outcomes. But we put millions into the system that let classes have 50 students, 60 students, and exhaust the good teachers until they leave because the science says that that works. When we know what the science says, we just don't want to do it because we'd rather pay Pearson Hall. Same thing in psychotherapy.

We know the therapeutic relationship predicts outcomes better than technique, better than the competence of the therapist. And we know smaller caseloads produce better results. We know what works is presence, attunement, the quality of the encounter between two humans. But that can't be manualized. It can't travel across bureaucratic distance and it can't be awesome. audited by people with no clinical understanding who are some reason this middleman involved in paying bills. So we build wooden control towers and we wait for planes that never come. And here's what we forgot about why objectivity exists when we talk about it.

The purpose of objectivity is empiricism. The scientific method is to test our own biases. It exists to check us when we're wrong. When the data contradicts our assumptions, we're supposed to update the assumption. That's science. But what we use it for now is just gatekeeping. If something hasn't been researched, it doesn't exist. If something hasn't been quantified, it's not real.

If a discovery doesn't fit the existing paradigm, the discovery must be wrong. If you did something that worked and the patient agreed, it worked, and they got better, you must be crazy because that thing hasn't been researched yet. And this is the inverse of science. Using the tools of objectivity to entrench subjectivity, using the method designed to expose blind spots to create new blinds. blind spots and not see them. Porter's work reveals that this is what mechanical objectivity always does when pursued for defensive reasons. Every time across history, since someone scratched

the first bits of writing on a clay tablet in mesotamia for trade. Objectivity, objective measurements. They do not always achieve objectivity. They achieve the appearance of objectivity. They create rituals that look like science but function as bureaucratic protection for insecurity. And the exclusion criteria look like rigor, but they're biases in lab codes. And the diagnostic checklist looks like precision, but they're the sacrifice of validity at the altar of reliability. The manualized protocols look like accountability, but they are the elimination of the therapeutic relationship. The only thing that Research consistently shows produces change. CBT does not deconstruct without reconstruction.

It strips away false belief, cognitive distortions, maladaptive patterns, but it doesn't add context back. It doesn't provide new containing metaphors. It doesn't help you understand who you are and what you're suffering means. I know the psychoeducation in that book is not the context that I'm talking about. That's the therapeutic equivalent of emptying the temple and walking away. Healing requires a different sequence. Strip the false context, see yourself honestly, and then reconstruct,

build new meaning, find new containers, but you have to give them up first. Absence precedes presence every time. We're doing deconstruction and skipping the reconstruction. We're doing them in the wrong order. A person without context living entirely in the subjective, we're entirely in the objective, stripped of the ability to make meaning through metaphor. That's not health.

That's madness. That's aduduri in the temple. when she weeps. And here's what happens when you empty the temple. The symbol don't disappear. They go underground. They go behind you. They go into your blind spot. And when they come back, they come back as monsters because they're parts of yourself or parts of your system that you're no longer in control of. And those monsters are particularly dangerous when there are things that you can't see that also benefit your insecurity because they make you not face reality in a way that flatters your ego. That's the problem in therapy and that is the problem in research.

During COVID, I kept reading the same article over and over written by evangelical megachurch pastors who'd seen their congregations start hearing the call of the internet algorithms and they were getting fed, you know, conspiracy theories and different things. And they weren't coming to church because they'd been on Facebook during lockdown. And the church had abandoned, you know, metaphorical content a long time ago in favor of literalism. And no longer was a containing metaphor. It was just a list of cultural grievances. You know, I saw this on TV and this person lives like this, we know that's not okay. Yeah, it's not okay. That's not a containing metaphor. It's not a transcendent function. And many pastors were just talking about,

you know, TV and politics and like whatever, making connections about, you know, grand plans to destroy society and it was literal. And so the good and the true containing metaphors that religion used to offer had been dragged out of the temple while no one noticed a long time before COVID happened. COVID simply made people realize that they'd been gone for a while. And so, those symbols rushed back and these pastors all wrote articles being like, you know, I like Trump, I'm a Republican, I'm right wing, but, you know, I'm getting called woke and they're saying that, you know, QAnon is, you know, doing laylines through New Age 5G and Jesus is working with against these aliens for those ones. And I just think the church did a bad job reaching out, you know,

to their congregation during COVID. And we need to have a conversation about how you keep the church contained. You know, this is why. happens when you strip context, eliminate meaning, you know, force a retreat into pure objectivity. The subjectivity doesn't disappear. It returns in an unconscious form. You get possessed by archetypes and anything you feel must be true because my subjective intuition is just reflecting everything that I want to think is real back at me. Even my blind spots, even my insecurities. They become manageable because it's this, you know, um, live action RPG that I'm doing. with my life.

You know, I'm the one connecting the dots. I'm figuring out the clues. I'm figuring out what Q&N is meaning by decoding this, you know, static noise of the internet. And when people were stuck in their houses looking at the internet, they realized, I can just do this myself. I don't need the pastor. And the idols had already been gone. COVID just made it visible. You know, what's hurting psychotherapy is not CBT.

It's the incentive structure that makes the CBT the default mode. that incentive structure exists because of what Porter calls the technology of distance insurance companies can't sit in the room they can't evaluate train judgment and they can't only evaluate where they can quantify and they can't trust you they can only have what can travel across bureaucratic distance which is a number to be audited by people with no clinical understanding and so they reimburse what can be measured manualized protocols symptom checklist treatment plans with objective measurable goals You know, therapists who need to eat, learn to speak that language. And they document in ways that satisfy auditors. And then they provide evidence-based treatment that fit the billing codes. And then off the record, they'll tell you that they don't respect the system and that the system isn't really measuring anything that they do. I'm not saying that, but I hold that for many people.

You know, the system doesn't need to be this evil. It just needs to be distant. The technology of distance does the work automatically. No one's responsible. So no one really did anything wrong. everyone's just doing their job. It's just how it works. And the result is a lot of licensed practitioners who are not actually doing therapy if they're taking that system seriously. They don't understand what therapy is. They're following manuals instead of encountering persons. And I'm not saying this because they threaten me or I'm mad at them. I'm saying this out of anger for patients because this is the mainstream population's experience of my profession. I'm not criticizing the competition here. These people aren't my competition. We've got a wait list. I don't care what you're doing. I can't. I care. when you're not helping people. And this is what most people think therapy is.

This is why people get on TikTok or Jordan Peterson videos instead of a medical provider. And yeah, he was licensed one time. He's not a medical provider. He's not a therapist. And the answer to bad therapy is not no therapy. It's just better therapy. You know, I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that therapy is just self-expression or that TikTok and support groups could replace professional treatment because it's all just corrupted

systemic control anyway. And so we should just do whatever we want on the internet. I think that's QAnon. You know, I understand the appeal. After everything I've said about rigged research and hidden biases and hollowed out of professions and therapists that don't know how to do therapy, I understand wanting to burn it all down. But the corruption goes deeper than capitalism, deeper than Big Pharma, deeper than the DSM. It's invaded your assumptions. That's my point. Yours and mine. The way you think about health, the way you think about self, the way you imagine what healing, means that's been colonized. We all inhabit mythology and we all have a temple full of idle whether or not we admit that they're there. And here's what colonization does. It strips you of the

creativity to envision something better. It makes you think that the only options are a corrupt system or do it yourself. And it forecloses the possibility that care could be a right, that institutions could serve humanity again, that we're we could take control of them. The people who say, you know, just use crystals or find your tribe or Joe Rogan has a supplement. That's a spiritual bypass. It's not treatment. It's giving you this false empowerment.

It feels liberating, but it's not real. And because when these things get really bad, you know, you're going to want somebody who's a real licensed provider who can work within the objective metrics of the system, but also has somehow saved the subjectivity that the system wanted to drag out. You know, care is a right, not a privilege, and it's not a product, it's a right. And rights require institutions to guarantee them, even when those institutions have fallen very far from what they were supposed to be. And the idols are breaking, and the image comes rushing back. And we can only learn to hold the awareness of the absence together.

I had to do her he wept because she was alone in that temple and we don't have to be alone the people in the system aren't evil they're scared and they've lost faith in what they can't see and they built wooden airplanes and performed the rituals and wondered why the cargo doesn't come it's not the forms it's not the procedures it's not the checklist or the metrics or the manualized protocols it's the invisible stuff the relationship the meaning the presence, the trained judgment, the honed experience of someone who has sat with suffering and learned something that can't be written in a manual. And Feynman was right. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. We forgot because

we got scared of what couldn't be counted, and it's time to remember. Stop counting and start to remember the space between numbers. And notice the distance between you and another person. It's all we get. I do Duri wept because she was alone in the temple, but we don't have to be. Little one, where do you go to dream to a place we all know

the land of make believe?