Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - [Auxiliary] Atlas from "Simulation" and Matthew Widen from "Adopt Responsibility" interview Curt Jaimungal on Podcasting, Consciousness, and Nondualism

Episode Date: August 3, 2021

Simulation with Atlas podcast: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6JhS4GvWf3AJfOTfkrse2w  Adopt Responsibility with Matthew Widen podcast: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzwP_qFSXmDs-79VMFmcQQw/ Fakery’s brutally honest commentary on the Simulation podcast with Curt and Atlas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehnK6ynHxMg

Alright, hello to all listeners, Kurt here. That silence is missed sales. Now, why? It's because you haven't met Shopify, at least until now. Now that's success. As sweet as a solved equation. Join me in trading that silence for success with Shopify. It's like some unified field theory of business.

Whether you're a bedroom inventor or a global game changer, Shopify smooths your path. From a garage-based hobby to a bustling e-store, Shopify navigates all sales channels for you. With Shopify powering 10% of all US e-commerce and fueling your ventures in over 170 countries, your business has global potential. And their stellar support is as dependable as a law of physics. So don't wait. Launch your business with Shopify. Shopify has award-winning service and has the internet's best converting checkout. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash theories.

This is a special podcast for those primarily interested in consciousness and non-dualism. It's one that you can skip if you're interested in me interviewing someone, because this is from the Simulation Podcast, hosted by Atlas, links in the description, where he invited me on his program. Thus, I'm the interviewee. The conversation generated quite a bit of buzz. In fact, one YouTuber named Fakery did a livestream commentary, a brutal livestream commentary on it,

saying that it's an example of the analytic clashing with the experiential. Links to Fakery's commentary are in the description as well. There are no sponsors for today's podcast. My only request is that you review the Theories of Everything podcast on iTunes or whichever platform you're listening to it from with a written review. Each one helps a significant amount, so thank you for that. After this conversation with Atlas from the Simulation Podcast ends, I've appended an interview from an up-and-coming channel called Adopt Responsibility with Matthew Wyden, as he interviewed me on his channel as well. Thank you so much. Please pause right now and leave a written review for the Theories of

Everything podcast on whichever platform you're on. I'll give you a few seconds to do so. Thank you, and enjoy. Thank you, and enjoy. So used to being the host. I love it. How are you doing, man? So good. Did you just come from meditating? Life is a meditation, my brother. Did you just explicitly meditate, like close your eyes and stay still for a couple minutes or no? A couple minutes or no?

That is what usually is what leads up to meditation being what you are. go and practice meditation in order for you to end up having like a contemplative fitness AI that's perpetually running, in a sense. So you no longer need to go and separately meditate, it's just becomes what you are perpetually. And so I feel like I've just recently sort of made that transition as well, where the amount of sovereignty that you end up having the supreme authority over what used to be like this big web of conditioning and triggers and sensory perception, you gain so much sovereignty because you're able to watch the arising and passing of phenomena. And it's just regaining that awareness. And it's so beautiful. So, yeah. I don't agree with these spiritual teachers who have been meditating for years and continue to do so.

You think that they should be moved past that? Well, one of the ways that Buddha talked about this is as an undistracted non-meditation. So undistracted, so you're not fixating, and it's a non-meditation because you're not fixating. And it's a non meditation, because you're not meditating. It's just an undistracted, perpetual, thought free wakefulness. Does that make sense? I understand. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So I feel like when, when you're not going straight to the end goal of thought-free wakefulness, then you're almost perpetuating yourself to need to sit on the cushion more and more. So work your way into a place

where you can experience a contemplative fitness AI that's basically running in the background where just nothing can trigger you. Nothing can, but we're always working on basically deconditioning ourselves. That's what the art is in many ways. Yeah. Okay. Forgive my petty fogging nature, but what do you mean by contemplative fitness AI? What's meant by the word fitness in there? contemplative fitness AI? What's meant by the word fitness in there? He's already taken the interview over. I love you. Oh, well, just for the audience. Yes. I don't know how many people are watching, but for the people who are watching, I'm much more comfortable as an interviewer than an interviewee. I feel like my predominant position on most topics is just,

I don't know. I'm discerabate in most places, and that includes math and physics, which is my background. So I don't know. I imagine that much of what you'll get is extreme uncertainty and dubiousness for myself. You know what's fascinating? And we can put a little flag in this, in the fitness, in Contemplative Fitness AI and potentially circle back to that. Because, cool. Because I feel like where Kurt and I have so much overlap, because this will probably end up being more of a conversation, is that since 2017, I had this list of all of these insanely thought-provoking questions about the nature of reality. And then the number one thing that came up was how do I go and ask the smartest people that I have access to all of these thought-provoking questions about what the nature of reality is? And in a sense, would you say that that's what you're doing? What I'm trying to do is understand the landscape of theories of everything, which involves speaking to some experts.

In some sense, the idea behind the theory of everything is synonymous with what is the nature of reality. So in that respect, yes. Although I'm not particularly focused on speaking to people like these Kanyascentis. I'm mainly interested in the theories. And they're an avenue to not only an income source of mine. So there's obviously a monetary element to it, though in the beginning there's nothing. And even still, it's not like it's paying all the bills but there's obviously that there's obviously some making a name for myself but there's also there's i don't there's so many questions i have and i wanted to title the youtube

channel office hours because i come from an academic background and in academia what you have are office hours. A professor sets, let's say, Wednesdays from 4 to 8, and you can go talk to them about your homework, about whatever questions come to mind. So for me, I treat it more like office hours. Office hours that I film. And that's the predominant quality.

So there's both this theories of everything that end up being a a landscape of how self-awareness perceives the nature of its reality and then creating some sort of a map about what is in that landscape across the planet of what people think the point of all of this is. And then another part of it is, it's like office hours regarding getting these brilliant people on, and then having them answer these questions that are not only about adding them to this theories of everything landscape map,

but also about. Poking and prodding and getting new insights, one of the most important things that I've noticed from the guests that come on the show is and you've actually filmed this and included them in your intro several times is when your guests have said, you know, Kurt, this has been one of my best interviews. And that's because of your poking and prodding and enabling. It's like tennis, where you're enabling them to further increase their insights around their own ideas. Yeah. Yes. Well, that's a huge compliment. I do my best to prepare. I prepare like mad, like you wouldn't believe. It drains me how much I prepare. So when they say that it shows, which I'm always insecure about if any of it shows, not that I'm trying to have it show, but it would be great if even a modicum of it showed. It's great that some of that's exuded and that they acknowledge it. Your essence reminds me a little bit of Jordan Peterson.

Yeah, I get that. I used to get that more. One of the reasons seems to be that I'm extremely careful with what else without my conscious effort trying to make it my own and then another reason is obvious is that i've watched plenty of him and i don't know how to stop someone that i've seen from influencing my life on a micro level for example there's also Tony Robbins in me because I used to watch plenty of Tony Robbins when I did stand-up it was like Seinfeld and Colin Quinn because those are my favorite ones and it's not like I'm trying to copy them it's just that there's no way for me to export them completely. And this might be quite specific to today's interaction. I've noticed it a little bit across your other interviews, but I've also noticed different emanations of what your unique expression is. But there seems to be, and correct

me if I'm wrong, or just expand on this for us, but have you felt sort of your own sense of identity burst outside of your skin? Yeah. Yeah. And walk us through that. Yeah. It usually happens around the one hour mark in an interview. It's mainly when I get comfortable with myself. So right now I'm somewhat habitudinous because I haven't slept for, well, I have slept, but I have slept poorly for the past five days or so. And usually once I'm in the flow, that's when it comes out. Not that I'm not in the flow, man, like I respect and love you. It just takes a while. And I just came off from a previous podcast. So that one somewhat exhausted me. And I have another one right after this and then i got

to like sleep in a in a river of opium not this is a joke but like just like completely bathe myself in in in silk and satin and just go to sleep for like 12 hours yeah that was one of the things that we were talking about before we went on was just respectfully rejuvenating yourself for being able to actually actualize this channel at its fullest potential. Because sometimes what we think is doing all of the sessions, and this was my case also, especially in 2018 and 2019, was doing even at these conferences like 10 shows in a day, like 10 one- to two-hour shows in a day. And that was fucking crazy.

And that type of energy is cool and it has its place, but there's also the energy for the rejuvenation. But just to play on this question a little bit more, you've had people like Rupert Spira on the show and you've had these more mystically literate via direct experience when people like Rupert tell you that you are God, you've just forgotten that you are God. Does that resonate with you? It does in some sense, and it doesn't in another. So I think if I had that realization, it would rock me to my core. In some sense, I can intellectually understand it, but that's the issue.

That's another reason why. Okay, let's play on this a little bit. So you have awareness, is that right? Mm-hmm. Okay. So would you say that the mind is kind of like magic? I don't know what you mean by that. Like, are you blown away by the fact that you have the power to know?

Yes. But just stay with that feeling a little bit more, right? Okay. Okay. Where's this going? We'll see. So this power to know a quality that's A quality that's enabling your perception right now. Would you say that it's possible that we're habitually overlooking the profundity of consciousness? You know, there's something Wittgenstein said, like i know i quote him perhaps a bit too much but he had something called clarificatory remarks which is which are those aspects of reality that are most important but hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity familiarity. Exactly. Wittgenstein gets taken as the

paragon of a rational atheist, but actually he was profoundly deeply religious, and many people don't realize that. The reason why he didn't speak much about religion was because he had a quote which said, of what one cannot speak of precisely,

one must be silent. And he had extreme religious veneration as he got older to the point where I think his close friend Norman Malcolm said that the religiosity that characterized Wittgenstein was greater than that of people who consider themselves to be religious. people who consider themselves to be religious. Beautiful. So you resonate with the notion that we might be perpetually, habitually overlooking what is so profound, which is the fact that we have the quality of the power to know, consciousness. Well, I don't know if that's what's the most profound. The quality of the power to know.

Consciousness. Well, I don't know if that's what's the most profound. I know it's somewhat profound. I don't know if it's the most. Somewhat profound. There's a great idea that the kingdom of God lays before men, but men do not see it. Yes. Yes. Yes.

See, you remind me, and I mentioned this to you, but you remind me so much of me, especially like right before like six months ago where like this realization. Rupert was one of the most important people in catalyzing this realization. Basically, what I see you doing, which is what I was doing, which is the eyeballs are faced outward. And they're they're scraping the landscape of the nature of reality, looking for who are the people that know the most physics and that know the most math and that know the most about these different fields, neuroscience, philosophy, how can I take in, how can I sponge in what the peaks of these landscapes know and, you know, take in all this information and refract it uniquely into a theory of everything. Well, you may not be doing that, that last part necessarily, but it does feel like you are to an extent, but then what the key switch

is, is when, rather than the eyeballs being protruded outward, trying to find the nature of reality, the eyeball turns on itself. And it bloodborne wait what what is this have you played bloodborne it's a hide hit a takumi azaki game dark souls have you heard of dark souls yes yes they had a game called bloodborne and in it the characters who had true insight where they would turn their eyes inside out and put many eyes pointed toward the end. Kurt, you have the answer. It's right under your nose. You're pointing to it in different ways from Wittgenstein to this Dark Souls. You're pointing at it in so many different ways. Truly, you are. You know that this is it. Yeah. Well, what's the answer? truly you are you know that this is it yeah well what's the answer you are it you are it okay i don't understand what that means alan like you are the nature of reality

like you you are the highest okay now how does now what does that mean because i imagine if one is saying you referring to me then one can say that you referring to anyone and thus there thus it's all the highest which also means it's all the lowest which means it's all the same which is the same as non-dualism which to me i don't see how i have quite is the same as non-dualism, which to me, I don't see how I go. I have quite a few problems with non-dualism, though I skirt with it. One of them is I don't see it as anything. I don't see it. I don't see how it's not veiled nihilism. Let's play with direct experience a little bit more. So you have your conscious and that would you say that consciousness is formless would you say that the quality of the power to know you know how water is wet

and like wet wetness is like a quality wetness is like a formless quality okay okay and then like kind of like sweetness right sweetness is like a property one can say it's property or no let's play with quality for now equality and so now you have the power to know which is also like a formless quality. So rather than the fixation externally on form, name, and shape, the eyeball has turned inward on itself and is now recognizing that this consciousness, awareness, the power to know is something so profound and so indescribable, so formless that it's been overlooking. And now what you see is, Kurt, might it be possible that if you look at consciousness without any attributes, so what does it look like to at consciousness without any attributes,

so what does it look like to be consciousness without the costume of Kurt or consciousness without the costume of Rupert or without the costume of Atlas? I understand. Oh, that does make sense, yes? Okay, so now you see that consciousness without its costumes. So when you look at it most upstream as just the formless power to know, that is what people are pointing at for the last millennia when they talk about the kingdom of God is within you.

of God is within you, that this is the highest, the absolute appearing for an exploration of infinite possibility. I understand. Okay. And so what holds you back? Is it like logic and reasoning? Or what is the thing that kind of like holds you back from recognizing that this is the highest coming to explore a possibility of infinity? Well, like I said, if it's the highest, it's also the lowest. And so does one want to say that, that this is the lowest? And if one is not going to say it's the lowest, then why is it high and not low? No, it's beautiful. So we see that today when we look at people not having their basic needs being met and where we have war and where we have famine and where we have all of the worst catastrophic issues, they're happening here on the same planet that the absolute most ecstatic God realization is happening.

So it's all happening here. This is all it. Yeah. So we're not necessarily even trying to create a juxtaposition. Hold on. You're cutting off, and I want to make sure I'm hearing every single word. Do you mind repeating it? Yeah, of course.

every single word. Do you mind repeating it? Yeah, of course. So we see this manifestation of play, like what we're talking about, is both... Hold on, hold on. We see a manifestation of play, okay? Yes, yes. And then it's both exploring the archetypal hell at the same time as there's the exploration of the archetypal heaven hold on alan please i want to make sure can people can you double check if the chat can hear you or if it's just me that's cutting that's hearing you cut in and out people who are watching can you hear alan completely and clearly without break oh we love you brando thanks for your love oh ah okay so it's just myself all right well sorry continue okay well let's see if can you hear me now kirk that's think that's my headphones. I apologize, man. Let me just... No worries. No worries. We're going through all of the lovely... We love you guys. We love... Thank you for your love.

It also may be that I have OBS running in the background. Sometimes that messes it up. Okay. Do you mind speaking? Speaking. Hello. Yes. We are testing. Testing for Kurt.

You guys are so kind. Look at all these lovely comments. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right.

Let's get back to this. So you were saying. Okay. Cool. Do you see all these lovely comments, Kurt? Yeah, man, they're only positive. It's just plaudits and I appreciate it. Well, because people love your channel

and they love what we've been doing on ours as well. And so it's a beautiful colliding. And cool. So did you hear that last sentence pretty clearly? No. Oh, you still didn't? No, no, repeat it, please. Oh, I mean the last,

the very recent one that I just said. Yes, yes, yes, all of this is clear. Okay, great, great. Okay, so that if we play from the perspective of an infinite amount of possibility, an infinite amount of possibility. And we are that which explores that infinite possibility. And so then we use these realities and consciousness as the mechanism to explore infinite potential, are you still following? And that these realities have the archetype that you just described, which is the absolute hellishness as well as the absolute heaven simultaneously. So you have tanks and murder and hanging people and famine at the same time that you have ecstasy and yachts and jet packs and Thanksgiving dinners.

What privilege is one over the other? What privilege is one over the other? What privilege is one over the other? Meaning like, why would you get to do one of those and somebody else does another one? Like why would- Or should one be pursued and the other not? So why should one not go around raping and pillaging and murdering and tormenting

and causing anguish on a local or global level? Yeah, that's a great question. So you intrinsically, you know, the answer to that question. Like every one of us intrinsically knows the answer to that question. Because if you go back to what we've started with, which was that we share the power to know, we share consciousness, we share that same, if you get there, what happens is, and you can also see that externally, you're like, yeah, all the species share the same planet. So you can also see it externally at the same time, DC shared the same planet. So you can also see it externally at the same time that you recognize that you actually create harm to yourself, to your own home when you rape and pillage and do any of those horrible negative activities. But that's part of the exploration. It's part of the play.

But so the more that you get the most metaphysical level, like you just had Chris Langen on the show, we were talking about that a little bit before we started. But when you take it from the most metaphysical level, which is out of an infinite amount of possibility, because when you truly grok infinity, you begin recognizing that an infinite amount of possibility, you can never come to the end of exploring. And this is basically what Kurt Gödel and Douglas Hofstadter and Donald Hoffman are talking about as well, is that you can't actually come to the truth that you are a PlayStation 5 playing infinite games, but you can't come to that truth from within Grand Theft Auto.

So you're trying to find the truth that you're in PlayStation 5 playing infinite games, but you're trying to find it from within GTA. Okay. So when people bring up Kurt Gertl, I want to know what's the relationship between a first order language and our physical reality or this reality? Because what Kurt Gertl was saying was extremely specific. It was with any axiomatic system strong enough to produce some qualities like arithmetic and so on. So what's the relationship between that? What's to say that reality has anything to do with that?

It also is an extremely computational view of reality, and I don't think reality is necessarily computational. That's Penrose's entire argument, is that. Okay, let's substitute the word computational with comprehensive. Are you comprehending reality right now if what you mean is do i comprehend some aspects of reality like in my understanding well i would say i think i understand some things though is the fundamental nature of consciousness to comprehend? No. Why? You think it is?

I would say the fundamental quality of consciousness is awareness, but that also is just a tautology because it seems like you're substituting one word for a synonym. So then would the fundamental nature of awareness be to comprehend? Okay, you have to explain to me what you mean by comprehend. You see, this is where I'm saying there's a bit of that, You see, this is where I'm saying there's like a bit of that, like, when you sort of like relax. I know. I'm not being antagonistic in the least, Alan. I know.

I know. I love you. I sense this, though. I sense it in your essence. Like, there's like this, like, give me the, you know, this definition of comprehend. But you know, I know you know intrinsically, just like you said earlier. Well, why wouldn't somebody just go and create violence and havoc? And you know the answer.

Okay, I'll object to that. Because there are obviously people who are driven by that, who think that that is the highest good. And the example that I give frequently is 1206 with gangaskhan whereas he said where he said that the highest good is to put my enemy's heads on a stick and rape their women and that was the good to him so it's not exactly obvious and see this is what i see the new age community being driven by this polyanic view of what humans are but plenty plenty of people are motivated by pointing down. They have a god, and it's down. And I don't see the recognition of that in some of these non-dualist circles. So how old is Genghis Khan again? A thousand years old?

Almost. 1200, approximately, is when he had his reign in Asia. Okay. So 1,000 years ago, where was our level of self-awareness compared to now? That's another way to view that question. Because if you look at the level of self-awareness 1,000 years ago, that was more of the essence where you could sort of say that I want to put my enemies' heads on sticks and I want to rape the women. And today in modernity with 8 billion people and the internet and computers, then we see these conscious agents, aka humans, as this shared computational or comprehensive unit that then is what is exploring. So in a sense, you can't get away with that anymore. Self-awareness has increased to the point where you can no longer get away with having this drastic level of malevolence and violence.

man. It's so embedded in assumptions upon assumptions that, so here's one, it's a highly contested issue whether or not we've progressed in any moral respect from 1,000 or 2,000 years ago. And many, and some people, some people would say we've lost our way, especially since, Vervaeke would say, since the invention of vowels, which sounds like it has absolutely nothing to do with this, but that was around the year 1200 as well or at least the invention of literacy which was around sorry written word which is 3000 i believe minus kurt kurt if if you can get to the understanding that this is the same intelligence talking to itself. Can you get to that understanding? The same intelligence. Look, you mentioned that you don't particularly like my persnickety adherence to,

but the reason is that you mentioned girdle. Well, why do you mention girdle? See, this is what I see. I don't mean this as any demeaning quality to the spiritual or new age community. I just have no other word for that community. And I have the utmost respect, otherwise I wouldn't have interviewed people like Bernardo Kastrup and Spira and so on and so on. those people because they think contrary to me. I see people, I see them as being motivated and not knowing that they're motivated. So for example, they'll mention girdle or they'll mention that the universe looks at a certain scale to have the same connections as neuronal connections. Okay. Well, how did girdle get get to isn't it just trying to share with you

what is right under your nose isn't that just trying to share with you what's right under its nose when i'm asking for specificity it's the same process that girdle did in order to show that set theory as we had it well it's actually even more profound than set theory but whatever that a formal system that has certain qualities has truths when it's within it that one can't prove within okay whatever whatever that was from a deep investigation into the details and the reason why i i pin you down or i'm carping, it's not because I'm trying to prove you wrong in any way, shape, or form. It's because I'm trying to understand and I know as someone who's studied some topics like mathematics and physics and philosophy extremely deeply that much of what

we think makes sense on the surface upon closer investigation falls apart. It's like you're fighting a ghost and you don't realize it until you investigate it at its extremes, until you want to know, well what do you precisely mean by so and so and so and so. And thus I'm not being unfairly captious, I'm trying to get to the essence. I also know that what can seem like it makes sense on the surface is misleading when tackled from a different angle. So arguments are enthamemic, meaning that they have embedded in them unstated assumptions and that they take an inordinate amount of time to decompress or to uncompress, sorry. And thus, if you ask me, well, does your awareness,

is your awareness, like you asked me a simple question, is awareness aware of awareness? Okay, it seems like it is. Yes. Okay, Kurt, why don't you just say it is? Because I don't know if it is. I see it. I see it seeming like it is in this moment. But give me enough time and an encounter conversation may emerge or a counter feeling.

Give me enough time and an encounter conversation may emerge or a counter feeling. I'm not going to just sit here and accept what I don't feel is irrefragable. I'm going to attack it, or at least I don't have to attack it. It just comes up and I'm presenting what appears in my mind. So please don't think of me as being – I don't want you to think I'm being unfair to you. I respect and I love you, but that's what's going through my mind. Thank you. Yeah. It's so beautiful. It's a dialectic. It's really, truly just a dialectic. And when I feel into where you're coming from right now, I very much sense a lot of scientific, a lot of logic and a lot of proof. I want proof, proof, proof. But the proof, the most, in a sense, truest proof is your direct experience above all else. As in when you become aware that this is one intelligence talking to itself. So it becomes more transpersonal. You've heard that word, right, thrown around before on the shows and in conversation does this make does this make

sense like it becomes more transpersonal like the whole game of the universe becomes more transpersonal like the the curt boundary the boundary becomes perforated does that make sense okay yeah cool okay and so then it becomes your direct experience that the boundary has become perforated. So you went from what is more of like a centralized connectome neuroscientifically to what is more of like a decentralized connectome or a universalized connectome, where you now see that this is one intelligence talking to itself in an explorative way, exploring one of endless possibility through this Earth orbiting the star. And there's many other Earth's orbiting stars, and that there's many other potential universes where there are other Earth's orbiting stars with other there's many other potential universes where there are other Earth's orbiting stars with other conscious agents that are exploring possibility, right? He's sort of following that train a little bit. Razor blades are like diving boards. The longer

the board, the more the wobble, the more the wobble, the more nicks, cuts, scrapes. A bad shave isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem. Henson is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that's made parts for the International Space Station and the Mars rover. Now they're bringing that precision engineering to your shaving experience. By using aerospace-grade CNC machines, Henson makes razors that extend less than the thickness of a human hair. The razor also has built-in channels that evacuates hair and cream, which make clogging virtually impossible. Henson Shaving wants to produce the best razors, not the best razor business. So that means no plastics, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades, and no planned obsolescence. It's also extremely affordable. The Henson razor

works with the standard dual edge blades that give you that old school shave with the benefits of this new school tech. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime. Visit hensonshaving.com slash everything. If you use that code, you'll get two years worth of blades for free. Just make sure to add them to the cart plus 100 free blades when you head to h-e-n-s-o-n-s-h-a-v-i-n-g.com slash everything and use the code everything okay would you consider them to be let's let's get down into the details of this particular statement do you consider there to be other universes or is the fact that it exists and the criteria for it to be in the universe meaning it exists imply that there's only one universe so that is why don't you just call

the collection of the universe so if there are two universes the collection is the universe it's just let's say subset of the universe, two subsets. So I'm curious, in the definition of universe, does yours include all that there is to reality? Because if that's what it means, then there can't be multiple universes. Well, just remember that universe means one song. song. And so the universes, or the multiverse or the metaverse would mean many songs, potentially up to infinite songs. And so when you begin viewing creation, this universe as one song, you begin seeing that the amount of possible songs is

endless, you'll never come to the amount of possible songs is endless. You'll never come to the end of different ways that you can arrange musical notes into songs. And if we also stay with the perforation a little bit more. Let's get back to that. Yeah. Okay, cool. The solution of the boundaries. Beautiful. So I know that you know.

And it's so beautiful because I know you know, and that because you've been searching, you've been searching for, as Rumi says, you've been looking from room to room for the diamond that is already around your neck. And six months ago, boom, I went into a nervous system shock when I finally got what Rumi meant. Can you explain what you mean by nervous system shock? What happened to you? Well, just like 10 minutes of just curled over in the fetal position because I finally got it, which is I am it. We are it. Exploring. Okay, here's a counter proposition. Given that the mind is self-deceptive, how do you know that that's not a deception? Given that plenty of what we experience is said to be an illusion, well, how do you know what you just experienced is not just another illusion?

way, but free will is also said to be an illusion. So how do you know that this insight is a reflection of reality rather than the deceptive quality of one's own mind? Simply because you feel it extremely deeply to be true? Is that the criteria? Because if that is the criteria, well, there's plenty of contradictory, deeply felt theories and truths. I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you, man. Not at all. I love you. By the way, I also want to say that this conversation, I feel like is one of the best ways for the internet, for all of us to undergo a process of understanding what the nature of reality is. And so I'm feeling a really strong brotherhood between us, where we can potentially continue doing this maybe once a quarter or something, where we're just revisiting

where we're at in this process of podcast therapy. yeah like all inflorescence just on the blooming of a flower yes by time yes and look at how many people were in the comments saying that we love you both this is great like this is i do feel really strong about this because also kurt what you're doing in a sense is you're playing, like the question you just asked was so perfect, which is that how do you know that this mind that is so magical, how do you know that it's uniting with the nature of reality and that it's not deceiving you? That's a great question. And so many people want to hear these styles of this is basically, you know, science and spirituality, which we both represent both. We both represent both. This is them both coming to a union. It's us exploring the synthesis between science and spirituality, which are the two greatest driving forces behind our planet, period.

There's nothing that drives us more than those two forces. And so to unite them, to figure out how to unite them, I feel like is the 21st century. This is what we are doing this century because we're turned inward and we're analyzing more and more of the inner scape at the same time that we're meeting planetary basic needs and we're maximizing our external architectures that enable people to self-actualize and self-realize. And so I'm feeling a really strong resonance between us. And so let's explore what you asked. I can restate it if you like. I have the question.

Okay. There's so many thoughts. Okay. Here, here, here. Okay. It's uniting with the force that made you. It's a clear uniting with the force that made you. Okay, you're giving me an answer. Do you mind telling me the question that you're answering?

Because I want to make sure we're on the same page. Otherwise, it's simply a statement. Yeah. A fortune cookie. I don't need a fortune cookie. I don't need a fortune cookie. How does one know when their mystical experience, and again, mysticism just means becoming one with God, means becoming one with the divine. How does one know when they're mystical or yoga? Yoga means union.

How does one know when their union is true versus delusional? Okay, well. Was that the question? That's what it appeared like. No, because in the question, you're assuming an answer, which is the mysticism, which is the unity with God and the yoking. So I'm saying, how do you know that whatever you see is true? Not whether your insight about, sorry, not whether or not the union is true. I'm asking, how do you know your felt experience if what we're taking primary is experience?

All right, man, let's do it together i love it yeah we're both on the standing game now to relax the lower back yeah it's great yeah and also i i need to i'm gonna go for a long walk tomorrow as i mentioned that i i've been i've been cooped up and working and like looking forward to having a great rest tonight man i appreciate this conversation i'm having a joy talking to you. And if you want to talk for longer to another time, more than welcome to. Okay. So let me get back to what I was saying, which is that it sounds like you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is also echoed by people like Spira, which is that experience is primary. And from experience, you can derive some truths.

and from experience you can derive some truths, and one of these truths are that we're all one and that all there is is experience or all there is is awareness, sometimes awareness being aware of awareness, but awareness nonetheless. And I am asking, how does one know your experience of so-and-so? Uniting with the force that gave rise to you was my answer to that question. Okay. You're saying it's true because it's uniting. It's true because that's good. I like that. And then how about also it's true because

true because there's an experience of basically uniting with the energy that gave rise to you, the force that gave rise to you, the force that gives rise to all life. When people talk about oneness or unity, it's like uniting with that force itself that gave rise. If we play with the Big Bang theory, it would be like uniting with the force that gave rise to the Big Bang. That would be what. Okay. Now let me see if I can correct that and if this correction is apt. Is it more like realizing that you're uniting because one cannot help but unite? They can only realize that this uniting is occurring all the time.

Yeah, realizing. Yeah, that's why it's called self-realization or God-realization. It's a realization. What's actualization mean then? Sometimes people say self-actualization, is that a synonym? And if they're different, how are they different? I love this. Beautiful question. So when you view self-realization or God-realization, that is the turn inward and uniting with that

force that gave rise to you, like we were just discussing. And then self-actualization is more like the Tony Robbins style or like Gary Vaynerchuk style, like executing a dream, like actualizing your unique firework of life. So it's a little bit more around empowerment versus enlightenment, but those two are the same side of the coin, two different sides of the same coin. So self-actualization and self-realization are actually one. So most people, when they go outward to actualize something, that's like what I've noticed is that people from mainstream society, the first thing that they do is they go on a hero's journey,

which is self-actualization. They usually go into the unknown to try and go through some challenges and obstacles to gain some sort of profound insight, treasure, and then to bring that back to their community. And so it's usually people leaving the nine to five, pursuing entrepreneurship, stuff like that. And then what happens is they also undergo a process of the turn inward in understanding, well, what is the nature of of consciousness, what is the nature of my reality at a deeper level than

the material aims that I have. And so that's usually where those two end up meeting. Why do you ask, but I also would like to play with the perforation a little bit more of your essence, because I feel like that's where for a moment, like we had something so unique there, which was that, you know, you knew that becoming transpersonal was key. So maybe we play on like what have been your experiences with becoming more perforated or transpersonal. it's personal. Well, I've had experiences that where I've felt as if what I am is a tentacle in an octopus. And that going back to the source shares me with everyone though we're all connected it's we're temporarily differentiated but then again i say i've had that experience and in some ways i i think it's true but in some ways i don't take my experiences or what is said with agreement in the scientific or even spiritual community

is apodictic, like most people. I wonder what's the alternative, and I'm just not sold. I'm just not sold on it. It could be true, but then at the same time, then I wonder, even if it is true, is it saying anything that's not a tautology? So, for example, Rupert Spires seems to be saying something both non-trivially and trivial at the same time. Experience is experience seems to me to be at the bottom of what he's saying, which is a tautology. So I just, I don't know.

I love it. What a beautiful experience that you've had. What a beautiful realization that you've had. Because in essence, that's what science is even pointing to in the same way that spirituality has been pointing to for millennia. Which is that there is this unified differentiation, and then the differentiation wakes up to its unification. So here's a question I have for you. How does fractionation occur from unity?

It's beautiful. I know it's the most unbelievably profound thing um through what we hypothesize one of the ways we hypothesize this is um there's a veil of forgetting that's one of the components that's really important so you you know upon differentiation that there's a veil of forgetting that has to be pierced through to remember. So it's like hide and seek. You see the archetype in kids and you see the archetype in animals even. The hide and seek style archetype is sort of like the game that is being played. So there's some sort of a veil that has to be pierced through to remember this which is there yeah go ahead if there's a reason to forgetting just like kids playing hide and seek is there

that also seems to me like that's on purpose maybe it's dangerous to remember is there a danger to remembering like why should we remember even if it's true perfect exactly infinite being is far greater and far more elucidated than us. And it said, hey, man, you should differentiate. And then we're coming back and saying, no, we should unify. And in fact, that's the highest good. How do we know? It's perfect. I love this. This is the exact riddle to the universe. This is the exact riddle to infinity expressing itself is this, which is that you purposely refracted and differentiated to explore and play. Why would you pierce through this veil and become unified again when the whole

point was to differentiate? And it's a beautiful question. And it's the riddle because you do both simultaneously where you pierce through this veil and remember so you don't create unnecessary malevolence because you think that people are separate from the same unified life force. But then while you pierce through that veil and remember, you also express yourself differently. You don't forget that Kurt is uniquely, beautifully differentiated than Atlas, than Rupert, than Donald, than Chris. Can I call you Atlas or Alan? You can call me Atlas. Yeah. Yeah. It's sort of what I... Is this new? Yeah. It's since about two years ago, one of my friends came. Here are the top search results.

Google for those. About two years ago, one of my friends came through and was like, you know, Atlas is what I feel like is your name. And then only recently, about eight months ago or so, did I make the transition fully to just one word, Atlas, as my name, from Alan Sakian, which some people. Yeah, officially. Yeah, officially. It's been great, bro. Yeah, it's been great. And Atlas has a lot of profound, you know, cartography is one of the things that I'm most interested in, right?

Some sort of cartography around the nature of reality. That's why we're here together, bro. cartography around the nature of reality that's why we're here together bro you're literally mapping the landscape of the theories of everything and i have the same style of passion to this and so and we're both young you're like 30 right 32 32 and i'm 28 we're both right there bro that's our little average yep okay you just said that's the mystery of the universe is that well the point is to do both yes yes because everyone everyone promulgates oneness when they they're like people are awake they're like it's one planet so there's some people see it from a physicalism perspective and they see it like there's only one planet uh there's 10 million

species they're all there it's like the gaia thing everything evolved on the planet so there's the oneness mentality there and then there's the people that turn inward to consciousness and then they say oneness and they say unification and they say But meanwhile, the whole point of this process was to differentiate. And so then you have the people that are like hyper differentiation oriented. And so they're the ones that are like, everyone actualized their unique firework into the arena of reality. And so you have to merge the two. The reason why it's the riddle is because you have to merge unification and differentiation. Well, this to me, again, is why I see non-dualism as thinly veiled nihilism, because if the point of existence is to merge what's been differentiated,

that's predicated on the differentiation. And the differentiated people are considered to be evil, which means we need the evil, which sounds to me like an argument for not doing good nor evil, because either are okay. Yeah, just so I would take one step back from there. And I would say that so differentiation does not necessarily equate with ignorance or evil and whatnot. I would potentially say that if you can pierce through the veil and merge unification and differentiation simultaneously, you can have what is like the most holistic understanding of how infinity expresses itself as realities. So there's one unified force, but it purposely differentiates itself to undergo this play and to pierce through this veil to remember itself and then to express itself from the place of remembrance. Do you see that last key? So if you express yourself from the place of solely differentiation, you will not know that you come from the same unified force.

But if you first unite with the unified force and then express yourself like a firework. You'll come from a place of unity as you differentially express yourselves. And so that's why the phrase, you got to go inward first to go outward right, it's the sure cause of delight. You got to go inward first to go outward right. It's the sure cause of delight. Yeah. But you can go outward from a place of not going inward first, and that's still just as beautiful at the same time. So because it's the way that infinity is expressing itself as somebody that chooses to not go inward first and they choose to pursue material. to not go inward first, and they choose to pursue material. They choose to pursue clout or money or fame or seeking worthiness or seeking validation from other people. And so that's also a unique exploration at the same time. But eventually, you're probably familiar with things like the parable of the prodigal son. You'll get a nice little sledgehammer. The drill sergeant of awakening suffering comes with a sledgehammer

and whaps you on the forehead. And it forces you to turn inward because you don't actually get any long-term peace and happiness from acquiring material possessions or acquiring clout or fame or trying to extract worthiness or validation from people. And so the turn inward is almost inevitable, which is part of, it's like an attractor. This is where you might resonate with this. It's like an attractor, Kurt. It's like, you have this complex mathematics that the universe is evolving towards, which is in a sense, life waking up and then turning inwards to understand itself as the unified force that differentiated.

But you got this. You're right there with me. I know, but most people, I'm sure you would say, are right there anyway. Because it's just, it's always with us. At least that's what the claim is yeah you can't not be it's you're telling me i still don't see how or why an undifferentiated entity even conceivably can differentiate because let's say it picks a point to do so that point would have to be. But we already said there's no distinguishing feature. So how do you distinguish without distinguishing? Your question is, again, I feel like it is literally

the most important question in the nature of reality. And I feel like one of the only ways to artistically be able to express this to kids is by looking at how white light refracts prismatically into the rainbow gradient. Because that is sort of how this looks like, where you have this unified, undifferentiated light that then refracts into the prismatic differentiation, which sort of looks like, in a sense, the evolution of awareness or consciousness waking up to, yeah, itself. That's an argument for pluralism to begin with, though, because if we investigate that analogy a bit further, the white light was never white. The white light was multitudinous to begin with. So if you can give me a different analogy, that would help. So inherent in the white, well, isn't this the case that inherent in the white light is the potentiality for the differentiation? No, inherent, sorry, don't mean to say no like so arrogantly, but white light comprises different colors from the get-go.

There's no such photon as a white photon. So if you were to stop any individual one, you could detect its frequency, which is the same as its color. Yes, the prism doesn't take white light and then create multiple different strands. That's already there in the white light. so that so again i'll ask my question which is how is it from a place of non-duality where there is no you said it's inherent in the the source light right isn't that the kind of the point is that inherent in the infinity expressing itself is the ability to differentiate and then undergo this creative process. Okay, what I want to know is how do you differentiate? Where do you differentiate

if there is no difference? So how do you differentiate here over here? Is it random? Well, then is there a random number generator that's outside the universe? Is the random generator a part of the universe? Then there's the universe plus random generator? Well, then is there a random number generator that's outside the universe? Is the random generator a part of the universe? Then there's the universe plus a random generator? Well, is that not a distinguishing? Is that not a distinct entity? So is so the universe is a random number generator at the same? That's what I'm saying. And then if you have a random number generator, well, then you have obviously differences in digits Which is not non dual. So this non that this isal. So this is what I'm wondering. What allows for this differentiation from undifferentiated material when that's all that there is?

All there is is undifferentiation. Yeah, that's beautiful. Beautiful. Yeah, I'm asking i'm like genuinely curious i don't know how how to it's like wearing a circle i don't understand it i don't know how to do it and the same thing is true on my end which is that i can't speak to how the unbounded mystery that we are is truly being played. We can only create maps that get close to the territory. And so that's what we're doing right now is we're talking about maps that try their best to get as close to the territory as possible. It's almost like the

best thing that the intelligence can do with itself is undergo the territory as possible. It's almost like the best thing that the intelligence can do with itself is undergo the process of forgetting. And as it remembers, it tries to make maps of itself. And so one of my hypotheses is that Benoit Mandelbrot, that the infinite fractal zoom is as close of a approximation as we can get to how the infinite intelligence works. Because you said in your last couple of sentences that there's a random number generator. So there's something that's absolutely chaotic about it. But at the same time, there's something that's self similar and purposeful about it. And so that's what it seems like, is that you have both merged together, where you have the it's like a chef. If you viewed God or the supreme intelligence that we are as a chef, we know both what tastes good in our food, which is basically this, you know, this two-eyed, you know, four-limbed DNA encoded vehicle.

But also we want to taste new qualities in our food. And so we also are randomly adding things into our expressions, creative expressions that we then see how they unfold. How does that play with you? From what you've said, it doesn't sound like non-duality to me. It sounds like there's dualities all over the place. And what I'm, so, I get, I, have you ever heard of how the, um, non-duality and duality and individuation are all simultaneously true? Have you ever heard that from a guest? No. Okay. So this is what we call, um, true simultaneity. So there's the reason why you have people like Rupert and many other people

that basically, and you've heard Bernardo even say this on the show before as well, but the only reason why he comes in with the position of metaphysical idealism is to shift people towards that, but not to say that then physicalism is untrue because what you want to do is you want to hold that both are true simultaneously. Consciousness is dependent on physicalism, just like physicalism is dependent on consciousness. They're both dependent on one another. And so that's where you get the simultaneity where you have both non-duality and duality and individuation that all happen simultaneously. Are they both equal to one another or are they just dependent on one another? it feels like they co-dependently are part of the architecture.

Everything is co-dependently part of the architecture. Non-duality, duality, individuation is all co-dependently part of the architecture. You'll never be able to get away with having only one of them. You have to always be able to refer to all of them at the same time. That's what a Jedi is. A Jedi is somebody that can navigate into the space of non-duality, have a conversation. Go to the space of duality, have a conversation. Go to the space of individuation and self-actualization and have a conversation. And that's what I feel like you're doing. That's what I feel like I've been doing, is we've been training like Jedis to become polymaths, to be able to navigate the space like a Jedi. And then that's what sort of gives you

the most holistic understanding of what the nature is okay let me get technical here is that okay of course and then let's wrap because I know you have to go soon right okay okay but I eminently am enjoying this conversation and would like to continue. Me too, bro. Okay. Again, like I'm... So is the architecture more fundamental than the entities that are dependent on it? So you're saying there's duality, non-duality, individuation, and then there's the architecture that unites them in some way, shape, or form.

So is this architecture the birthplace? unites them in some way, shape, or form. So is this architecture the birthplace? Potentially, yes. And also what makes the environment the birthplace and also what sustains the substrate of what this is. Yeah. Okay, so it's the soil. So it's like soil. What?

Yeah, or ground is another way to potentially put it. It's like a groundless ground. Is the architecture possible without the flower that it sprouts? I feel like those have to codependently arise. Okay, so then let me get technical. To say, so architecture, if architecture, then duality, if duality, then architecture? Say that one more time. If architecture, then duality. If duality, then architecture. Say that another way, I'm not sure okay okay okay so if there is the architecture then it's necessary

that there's duality as well as non-duality let's just say non-duality for the sickness so if there's the architecture then there's non-duality if non-duality exists then the architecture exists is that a correct statement or no if you hold dependent so you're mentioning a codependent codependency yes yes architecture great architecture is my little lip balm here so if this guy exists doesn't necessarily non-dual ISM exists so if this does this necessarily exist non dual non dual ISism is blue. Architecture is green. Oh, I see what you're, I think I see what you're saying. Yeah. Well, doesn't that also kind of play into what we were saying a moment ago with how consciousness and physicalism are ultimately one?

Well, you were saying that. Yes. Yes, I understand. Because you can't have, in a sense, you can't have consciousness without physicalism, and you can't have physicalism without consciousness. You can't have a reality without observation, but you also can't have observation without reality. So the two are one. Okay. Because then if that's true, then mathematically, one would say they're equivalent. Okay, because then if that's true, then mathematically one would say they're equivalent. And then because if you have an if-then statement in both directions, you have what's called an if-and-only-if.

Okay, so then that means they're isomorphic. Okay, now if they're isomorphic, that means you can replace one with the other. And so why is the prevailing place given to non-dualism over dualism or over the architecture and i feel like this is this is exactly what i was referencing with why bernardo castrop and why he and others have said that they're not they're not trying to um they're just trying to help people shift to become aware of the unity because they feel like by becoming aware of what he calls metaphysical idealism, by shifting into that position, it creates more of a sense of unity and oneness, which then when you build from that position, you can actually actualize the planet's potential at a higher degree than if you were building from the place of separation and from the place of differentiation only without having tasted the unity. And so it's almost like a temporary prioritization for the turn inward in order to maximize the exterior architectural potential. Okay, you're saying in order to so is that goal higher than the truth that apparently is used to

derive the potential to execute on that goal. So for example, if non dualism led to a place of destruction for the earth, would you still advocate for non-dualism? Hypothetically. You may say logically that's impossible, but I'm saying hypothetically, and I'm sure people can entertain what's logically impossible. So what would you do? If somehow the turn into one,

if somehow the turn into oneness created more uh planetary catastrophe than separation yeah well here's one way it's not so it's not so out of left field because in some sense narcissism is self-love and exaggerated self-love you someone may say that that's not love at all but then you're just quibbling over what love is and no that's not quibbling like that's a serious serious issue but it's not love at all, but then you're just quibbling over what love is. And no, that's not quibbling. That's a serious, serious issue. But it's not as if what love is is trivial. So let's say narcissism, for the sake of this argument, is self-love, and overly so. Well, if we're all connected, why is self-love not the same as loving everyone else if we're all the same? So if one has narcissism, why is that not a net increment to society

rather than a decrement? Okay, so one can see how oneness can lead to a destruction of the earth, potentially in a hypothetical universe. Now I'm asking if that is the case, would you still follow oneness or do you serve life higher than that? Like what's your God?

Is your God oneness or is your God humanity? that? Like, what's your God? Is your God oneness or is your God humanity? Well, it's the simultaneity. That's which is what we were talking about a moment ago, where you can hold both oneness and differentiation at the same time. And if you can do that, then you can have the most holistic picture on how infinity expresses itself, which is what you are. You're not separate from infinity expressing itself. You are the same force that gave rise to you. have the most holistic perspective and have the most, as you actualize yourself, as you firework yourself, you can have it be in the most prosperous way for yourself in the collective because you come from the place of being truly Gnostic. Gnosis means that you have full knowledge of the nature in your being.

And so when you come from a Gnostic place, you express yourself in the most coherent, most benevolent way. It's actually what Lao Tzu called Wu Wei. It's called effortless action. It's effortless because you are a Gnostic being, because you know the Tao. You are the Tao. You are it. And when you're it, you don't commit malevolence. You purify your beingness to not commit malevolence. Let me restate the question because I'm not seeing the answer. I'm not hearing how what you say connects to the question.

The question is, if the choice was, if, sorry, if what came with oneness was the destruction of the planet, would you still advocate for oneness? Hypothetically, I know you may say that's impossible. Well, even if you say that's impossible, then you're putting a limit on an infinite potential. So you're saying some of what is within this non-dual immaterial architecture. Oh, that's a great point right there, is that you can't put a limit on the infinite potential, which means that there are civilizations that potentially emerge

that get so turned into oneness that somehow that turns into a disastrous scenario. That's cool. Yes. Okay. So would you still advocate for oneness if oneness would lead to planetary destruction, let's say. Hypothetically. Yeah, the beauty of the question is we just went through one of those explorations where, as infinity expresses itself, are there potentialities where a civilization becomes overly, excessively oneness and unity oriented to where it somehow blows itself up based on that. And is that a possibility? In infinite potential, we're playing with infinite possibility. So that could be in fact happening right now. And actually to a certain extent, isn't that what we saw with with the 20th century. We saw that when you go overly collectivist and you don't

have an equal amount of individuation and sovereignty with the individual, that's where you have the disastrous tens of millions of deaths across the overly collectivist style of, yeah. Yes. Okay. But now what sounds like an argument for pragmatism rather than truth in the objective sense of truth or the correspondent sense, because you're saying what we need is a balance. Well, how's that balance? We need a balance between non-dualism and separation or dualism or plurality. Why don't we keep calling it non-dualism and separation or dualism or plurality why don't why don't we keep calling it non-duality and individuation seems to be a good way to to put it sure yeah non-duality and individuation oneness and individuation yes yes okay well then what will

you say you use the word extreme now to use the word extreme already implies a value. Now you've already valued the wholeness of the oneness of the planet or the thriving of people or the lessening of suffering and so on. But that to me sounds pragmatic and not with respect to the the what's true like i understand that in pragmatism they have a different definition of truth but if you're using that definition of truth and that's great we need to know that but if you're using if you're saying it's objectively true like like there's the correspondence theory of truth there's something that's outside me that these words are somehow isomorphic to. Then. Right. Do you remember the story that you gave about your transpersonal experience where you felt like a tentacle of the cosmic octopus?

So that is individuation in non-duality. So it's an absolute centerlessness, which is the big cosmic storm that we are, simultaneously as it is that you are a unique individuation. You're the unique tentacle in that cosmic storm. But in order to understand that you are the cosmic storm, you have to, in a sense, you have to perforate your skin so that you can burst outside of the contracted identity

of solely being an individual to also being the universe expressing itself as also Kurt simultaneously. Right. And that's, I would say that's the one thing that oneness goes really far to the extreme on and individuation goes really far to the extreme on. And if we can synthesize them into a unity, that's where the mwah is. When you say that's something I'm getting at that I wasn't able to express before, and forgive me if I'm loose with my words. It's difficult for me to hold on to right now. You're using the word extreme. What makes you say extreme? There's a value embedded in that.

Then how do you get that value? Where are you getting this value from to say that something is extreme versus not? Good. Well, we have at least our end of one, our own civilization, where we saw in the 20th century, we saw that shift into hyper-collectivism that turned very disastrous. And we've also seen in the West, we've seen an overly excessive focus on individualism as well. And that from at least our end of one, we see that there are extremes. Actually, in Better Left Unsaid, your documentary, you explored one of those extremes, right? And so now you see where you have, where the extreme on the political right in the US and the extreme on the political left in the US have their own disastrous codes. And then if you can gain a higher level awareness where you can hold both of those political sides and sort of archive the codes that are malevolent

and uplift the codes that are good and merge them. That's the same thing with individualism and collectivism, non-duality and individuation, the political left and political right in the US, the US and China. you can keep going with these dichotomies because what you want to do is you want to take the best from the two and merge them into one rather than keep playing with the polar negatives on each one of them. And that's called what I call the sorting algorithm. That's from chapter seven of high level perception, the first visual synthesis that I did. And actually, I got the words sorting algorithm from Brett Weinstein when he was moderating the debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris in Vancouver. Harris in Vancouver. He said, when they were talking about science and spirituality and how to merge the two, Brett said, so Jordan, you have a sorting algorithm of sorts. And so that's where it was. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. That's what we're looking for. How do you sort the good stuff

of non-duality? How do you sort the good stuff of individualism or science and spirituality or the US and China or the left and the right? And how do you merge them? That's what I'm wondering. Alan, what I'm wondering, I know we got to get going. What I'm wondering is you use the word good there. There's much language that's value laden. And I'm wondering where are you getting the value from? That's what I'm wondering. So when you say extreme, when you say good, why is this good and this not? And why is this extreme and this not? That's basically what I'm wondering. So the one force that we are undergoes a process of figuring out what is most good to bring up. So we have to go through our process of sense-making, right? Did you have Daniel Schmachtenberger on yet? Okay. So his thing is,

you know, communal sensemaking. And so we have to go through a process of figuring out how to make sense of what is good from these supposedly dual sides, and then to merge them into one. So it's not that Atlas or Kurt or Rupert or Bernardo or whoever has the answer to what is good and everybody should follow that leader, but it's more like a decentralized swarm intelligence that is the life force that we are, figures out what is good and then ends up fireworking that. We're going to have to cut this conversation short, man. We'll continue later. Yeah, that's so good. Wow. Thank you so much, man. Wow. Yeah. So by the way, what made you,

how did you find out about the channel and what made you reach out to me? Or I may have reached out to you. Actually remember in i think it was in the middle of 2020 that's when you started the channel right yep okay it's about a year ago i was so happy that you existed and i still am i'm so happy because there was there was basically there was nobody that was doing it yet. And then you filled the spot because nobody was doing it. Nobody was interviewing these greatest minds and then trying to figure out a landscape of the theories of everything. And as soon as I saw your channel go up, I was just so pumped and so jacked. And, and, and then. And then you did what most people can't do, which is not only did you come up with the idea, it came through you to do this, but then furthermore is you did it for a year and you've grown such a tremendous catalog of content and a tremendous free educational library around this. And then, so you've provided

this great resource for people and you've created somewhat of a monetization stability for yourself to ensure that you can independently continue doing what you're passionate about. And so I'm so jacked, but of course, take the two weeks of time just to rejuvenate yourself, my brother, course, take the two weeks of time just to rejuvenate yourself, my brother, give your heart and your mind and your gut and your wife and your just give yourself the space to just relax into the profundity of who you are and what you've achieved, you know, congratulate yourself for that period of a couple weeks, and then you know, get back to it. How do you? How long have you been doing this for? I know that yours is also extremely personal. Sorry, in person started out as events. As far as I know. Yeah. How long has that been

going on? How long has the podcast been going on? What's your goal with it? In 2015, I initially started asking people on the streets, thought provoking questions. So about six years ago. And then I, and then I, and then I transitioned to hosting a science comedy show in San Francisco. And then I transitioned to hosting simulation in 2017, which is where I was just asking these greatest minds, these thought provoking questions. You're quite young to do that. Congrats, man. You're like 24. provoking questions to do that congrats man you're like thanks bro at that time exactly 24 yep yep bro yep and and that but that's i feel like that's 14 year olds and 18 year olds to begin asking these big questions at those teenage years and um in doing so they can rocket themselves

forward at unprecedented rates yeah yeah you know i've know, I've been, I had got to get going. I've been surprised that most of my audience is actually not young. I mean, there are quite a few young people, but most of them are, they're far older than you would think. There's some, some are 60, 70, some are professors. Oh man. Yes, bro. Yes. I receive an email from a professor and or multiple. It's like a huge, huge compliment because those are the most, those are the toughest crowds. And they're like, I used to do standup and there are some crowds that are tough. Well, in this space, a professor is a tough crowd. Okay. Okay. Well, we have a lot of love from our audience and we love you guys. Thank you so much. We're so grateful.

You guys are coming from both of our channels and we're so grateful that you love this and that. We're going to come back. I feel like Kurt and I, hopefully once every quarter or something, we'll come back. We'll check in with one another, yeah. Exactly. And thank you, everyone. And infinite love for you. Let us know how you feel about the episode in the comments below. We would love to hear from you. That simultaneity

around non-duality and individuation and dualism, all this type of stuff. And also like the video and help that YouTube algorithm. Also check out the links in the bio to subscribing to Kurt's channel. Also, you can find his recent documentary bio to subscribing to Kurt's channel. Also, you can find his recent documentary, Better Left Unsaid, down there as well. And subscribe to our channel, Simulation, if you haven't yet. Share this video on theories of everything where we have this conversation with other people that you feel like this would profoundly resonate with. And that is all. We love you, fam.

Anything else, Kurt? Yeah, what I'm trying to build with theories of everything is both, I don't want to use the word 2.0, it's so old now, but something like science 2.0 or science 3.0. Think about this. Science progressed, it wasn't science before, and then it became this now, which means that you can wonder,

just a thought experiment, what will it be? And what's the criteria for what makes something science science? And partly what I'm doing with theories of everything is not only advancing the state of theories of everything by explicating Tull's, but also what does the next science look like? I have a couple of names for it. One is, I can't

pronounce it, but abgenosis. And the reason why is because abgena means knowledge to the eastern end. It's a specific kind of knowledge. And then gnosis obviously means knowledge to the west. And I imagine that there's going to be an integration of the two. I also imagine that there's going to be a third. I don't see why there's just a dichotomy. Maybe there's one that we haven't come up with. We think experience is primary now, but maybe 100 years from now, it's beyond its transcended experience and rationality. It's something else. I don't know. It sounds... I don't know. But either way, I'm trying to build that with the channel. I also have a Discord on the channel. I mean, for the channel, for this. build that with the channel. I also have a Discord on the channel. I mean, for the channel, for this.

So join the, go to theories of every, search theories of everything on YouTube. You'll see it. It looks like a, apparently it looks like a Reese's peanut butter cup logo. The link is in the bio below and also join the- Are you vegan? Am I? Vegan. Am I vegan? Oh, no, no. But I'm not especially carnivorous either.

But I don't, yeah, I don't have a food. I'm just rapacious. No, I eat whatever most of the time. I don't like fish. I don't like seafood, but I accept salmon. I like salmon. By the way, we had another. Remember, I messaged you.

This Brando from our channel said, hope we have an episode with Frank Yang. I think Kurt can make amazing interview with him. Remember, I messaged you and said that it could be good for you to have Frank Yang and Bentinho Massaro on the show for theories of everything. So that's something to also consider. I will message you about it. We'll talk about it again right after this. Okay. Love you guys. I'm going to end the broadcast. We'll stay in the studio for just a minute. We'll talk to you guys soon. We'll see you on again soon. Thank you so much. Thank you. Hello and welcome. This is a conversation with Kurt Jaimungal. I've been familiar with Kurt because of his online exploration into theories of everything, where he is pursuing truth in a very interesting and deep way. He has a YouTube channel and podcast called Theories of

Everything, T-O-E, where he speaks with the likes of Chomsky, Pinker, Weinstein, McGilchrist, Kastrup, and Verbeke, some of the most brilliant minds of our time. He also has a documentary called Better Left Unsaid, which has just been released. There's a link to his documentary in the description. This was the first conversation that we have ever had. My only plan for the conversation was to start by asking him what he is doing with theories of everything,

and then ask him to articulate why he is doing that and go from there. Prior to recording, the main things that I communicated to him were that I was much less concerned with how our conversation sounds to the audience and much more concerned with just digging in and digging out something useful together. And that I wanted it to be a simple, free conversation, just a conversation between two guys rather than a formal type of interview where I was just asking him

question after question. I will add a brief note at the end of the conversation where I'll again mention the documentary. I hope that this conversation is meaningful to you in your pursuit of truth. I do believe it was in mine. And now my conversation with Kurt Jamongol. My conversation with Kurt Jamongul. I guess a good place to start is, could you just explain what you're doing with Theories of Everything? Theories of Everything is a podcast. Although I don't like to think of it as a podcast, I think of it more as a, there's a goal, there's an end goal, there's a mission associated with it, which the mission is to explicate toes

and potentially advance our own. When I say our, I mean the community, because I don't want this to be about myself. In fact, right now it's called theories of everything with kurt j mungle and i noticed this trend in some podcasts to go from their divergent name and then their actual name to their actual name so for example artificial intelligence with lex friedman became lex friedman and then modern wisdom with chris williamson became ch Williamson. And I imagine, I'm not saying that I'm, well, I imagine that I'll, I'll try to do the opposite because I don't, it may just become theories of everything rather than theories of everything with Kurt J. Mungo, because I want this to be more about theories of everything than about myself. I'm more a vessel for these

conversations and for the audience who have brilliant, brilliant questions far surpassing what I can come up with on my own often. Yeah. And then their discussions in the discord are great. Okay. So the whole point is to come up with, is to survey the entire field of theories of everything of which there are approximately 200 that I've seen. And I'm including theories of consciousness on that.

So explain them all, distill them, decock them, and then perhaps even come up with our own, a syncretistic approach. Interesting. I haven't heard you, maybe you have in other places, but I haven't heard you explicate the goal in that way before the mission, the long-term goal. Okay. Yeah, this is kind of new information. So it's what I'm first realizing is how much that is kind of community minded and how sure you feel or how sure you are now that you want it to be a community thing that it's certainly not um kurt and kurt's experiment and that it's it's what what were you gonna say well it's when i speak with people

there's an extremely selfish reason i'm speaking i'm extremely curious and i want to know the answers to these questions so i treat it like i mentioned office hours before where i'm just one on one with the professor and if there's questions that I have, I'm not particularly concerned with the audience when I'm in the moment. Same. Yeah. No, I'm, I'm the exact same. But when you talk about the long-term goal, it's like it sounds very community wise. And even to say that it's theories of everything with Kurt turning into theories of everything. That was, that was kind of went into the name of this podcast, this, you know, tiny, very, I certainly won't call it insignificant, significant to me, but small, small audience numbers wise podcast going into, I was trying to decide with my

best friend, Caleb, who's doing it with me, what are we going to call it? And yeah, we had this aversion to involving our names. Um, and we had to come up with, well, really like the actual podcast is basically just in inquisitive. And so we were like, well, the whole thing, like our, what we want to get out of this is it's, it's similar. I think it's similar to what you're doing. We just want to get some answers. We want to get to the bottom of things as efficiently and helpfully as possible. But I also didn't want to just call it, you know, questioning or, or, or some sort of inquiry. or some sort of inquiry. I wanted it to have a moral call to it that every time I think of it,

it's like it's hearkening back to the ultimate goal. So it's centered around value. But yeah, and so we just called it adopt responsibility because that could apply to just kind of whatever it turns into. It's like, well, whatever it becomes, just, you know, it's basically just saying like, do good or whatever, just very basic, you know, agape within logos. Um, that's something that, sorry. Oh yeah. We have, it's going slow. That's great. That's great. That's exciting. I was expecting for it to be half done at this point. Um, that's something we can talk about in a minute. Um Peterson-Verbeke conversation that just happened. But before we get there, I want to keep talking about theories of everything. Is this, when you say theories of everything and you mentioned theories of consciousness, and that's extremely interesting to me. And I'm so thankful. Honestly, I'm so thankful to you

and whatever's inside of you driving you to do this, because for me and so many people like me, um, who are just desperately thirsty for more and more answers. And, and I think probably very open people in general, like I'm guessing your audience is way on the open openness side. Would you agree with that? Do you think that's true? The majority of them? Yeah. Yeah. And, and there's this seeking and seeking and seeking. And so I'm so thankful to you. And just in the same way, I'm thankful to people like Vervakey or Jordan Peterson, where it's like something inside of them is pursuing the logos, pursuing the truth and the relationship

between truth and us. But also there's also a theme with the people I'm selecting when I select you, Vervaeke Peterson. It's people whose pursuit of logos is defined by agape. It's defined by love, truth in pursuit of love or truth in service of love. Anyway, so, but when you say theories of everything, are you, because I know this is, I know you have a background in physics and mathematics, or is it just physics?

Physics and math. Yeah. Is this, or at least has it started, or do you think it will always be? Like, isn't theories of everything really about trying to make sense of the laws of physics in a way and our observation of the physical world? And is that what you're after? Or is it, or is it something more like when I see your podcast,

when I listen to your podcast, it seems more like a religious quest. Initially. There's something in physics called grand unification, which usually has to do with the strong and the weak or electoral weak force, unifying them under a larger symmetry group. And then some people call grand unification of a unification of that with gravity. So initially the theory

of everything was that a grand unification project for me, because I'm trained classically as a materialist physicist. And then... Can you define materialist there? Sorry. Yeah, sure. It's the standard view in academia, at least the standard professed view. It's the standard public view that there exists an objective world and we're investigating this objective world as subjective creatures.

And this objective world consists of matter that doesn't have a spiritual or conscious element to it, but that, that is an emergent quality is strong emergent quality. So what strong emergence means is that there's a difference between weak and strong emergence, weak, strong emergence, that there's an entirely new phenomenon. know yep okay strong emergence yeah yeah strong emergence um i this is not my my criticism and i don't think i heard on your podcast um but strong emergence is there a difference between strong emergence and just the word magic that you can define?

Well, see, I wouldn't go there because I see the critiques that the materialists have against the spiritual types. And then there are snarky comments that the spiritual types would make about the materialists. And then there are snarky comments that the spiritual types would make about the materialists. And I understand it because both sides dislike one another, or at least seemingly so. I wouldn't engage in calling it magic because I don't want to participate in any dislogistic euphemisms, not euphemisms, sorry, epithets. Yeah. Which side would even be the epithet slinger in that case? Cause I can't tell whether that would be the spiritual side saying, Oh, you with your materialist theories, you're just engaging in, you know, you're just pulling out of nowhere. It's you're just trying to like, just admit it. You're just, when you get to strong emergence, you're just saying, oh, this just happens. And it's just like claiming magic. Or would it be the physical materialist saying to those who present strong emergence?

Oh, that's totally crazy and silly. Like, I don't even know which side would be the you know the insult slinger in that example um yeah that's for okay well magic has a connotation with it of the supernatural and so it whereas strong emergence is about there's a phenomenon that that you That you, that it's difficult to use a reductionist approach to predict the phenomenon from. Difficult or impossible. The end of reduction, would you say? Like you can reduce up to a certain point and then at a certain point. Yeah, yeah.

I don't think strong emergence is compatible with reductionism actually. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Interesting. Okay. Yeah. Interesting. Okay.

So it started in, it started really in physics. Yeah. And as I interviewed people like Bernardo, as you mentioned, Bernardo was a major, major turning point for me. Major turning point. This is extremely bright, articulate individual who puts forward idealism, which is a case as a physicist that you hear, and you just roll your eyes at, but puts forward a brilliant case. If you're a scientist, which scientists have to follow what's called parsimony, sorry, what's called Occam. Well,

Occam's right. Yep. Yep. Sorry. I don't want to like, I just, because I'm so familiar with your material, I don't want to just cut straight to, you know, cut through defining terms that would be helpful for anybody who's listening. Um, yeah, the parsimony that's, that's, I mean, that's pretty much what in his conversation with Vervaeke, that felt to me like where Vervaeke was like, kind of, you know, you kind of have to, like you say, as a scientist, it feels almost like a scientist listening to Castro, but at some point has to kind of grit their teeth and go, Oh, like that's really compelling because it is so parsimonious. Let me bring this back to something I mentioned, the conversation between Peterson and Vervaeke

at a certain point, which you have not listened to. I've listened to it maybe three or four times now. And that's just because you're really busy and your busyness doesn't involve, you know, hands-free headphones in time like mine does. Oh yeah. So Peterson Vervakey at one point in the conversation, this is something that's just been ringing in my ear since I heard it. It's actually Peterson who says it says for so long. Okay. I'm, I'm, I'm kind of taking many things he said over time, but mainly he said this in that podcast. Um, he said, basically he said for so long,

I've thought that the mystery was consciousness. I thought that I was looking at the objective world and imagining, um, that I was part of that objective world and looking at consciousness and consciousness was the mystery. No, this is like, this is my, you'll see when you listen to it. This is my like paraphrasing of multiple things. I'll tell you when I get to exactly what he said. Okay. What he actually said is, I don't think that, well, first he said,

hey, Vervakey, hey, John, isn't it interesting that you and I are so focused on the relationship between consciousness and reality? And I don't know exactly what he means by reality, but I imagine, you know, the objective, maybe the material world or so. But he says, isn't it interesting that you and I correspond so well and both of us are so focused on this mystery of the relationship between the two. So that's something he said. But the thing that's been ringing in my ears is he goes, the mystery, I don't think the mystery is consciousness. I think the mystery is reality. Consciousness.

And this is so much like this comes straight back to Castrop in my mind. Because it's like, no, no awareness conscious awareness is the given and that's the and it it even harkens back to Descartes Kogito ergo sum right and so um I think therefore I am which I've kind of heard um it analyzed or whatever it's a little bit better maybe I'm consciously aware therefore I am um do you have anything to say about that just about descartes what i have to say about that is that descartes also assumes what he's trying to prove within there because what he's saying is i therefore i right so yeah he's not he's not he's not right he's still gras at, he's assuming he's still grasping at kind of

an emergence even to make that sentence, isn't he? Well, what I'm saying is that he's not saying much. He thinks he's deriving the I, but he's also assuming the I. Right. Okay. Anyway, what I'm curious about with regard to Peterson, because I haven't listened to that, is he now an idealist? Does it sound like that? No, this is not a big part of the conversation. I don't, I certainly wouldn't say that he's an idealist. No. What I would say is he, he's always been very focused on the relationship between consciousness, between conscious awareness and the external world that we're conscious of. And I think he's just kind of pointing back to that mystery,

but it's just the thing, like I say, the thing that struck me in the conversation is he says, the mystery is not, is not consciousness. The mystery is, is reality. Yeah. And like, like I say, that takes to Kastrup because, and that's where we, that's why I brought this up because Kastrup is making a, like you say, Occam's razor analysis of reality and our awareness of reality and going like, hey, it's a easier theory to swallow that that's the most fundamental, you know? Mm-hmm. This is one of the reasons why I'm unsure if I believe in Occam's razor. I think Occam's razor and parsimony is a reductionist account. And I'm not sure if I'm, if I believe in reductionism also with regard to castrop. And I'm not sure if I'm, if I believe in reductionism

also with regard to castrop, something I'm wondering is why isn't he a solipsist? Can you explain distributed solipsist? So why doesn't he say that he's, why doesn't he say that with parsimony, I'm the only one that exists because to me, that's even more parsimonious, right? So it's as, it's as if his parsimony has stopped at one level. Now he'll say that, well, to some degree he is a solipsist except it's distributed solipsism. He hasn't used this word, but it's as if we're all branches on the same underlying tree. But I don't see why. Why it's not more parsimonious to just say, I am a leaf on that, or I am the tree. Yeah. Interesting. Do you think there's something, um, or can you think of something deeper from

his perspective other than like, it seems to me like he's no, let me not say that about him. If I was to say, if I was to believe, um, a distributed version, um, what do you call it? Solipsism. Can you explain that word? Solipsism means that you're the only one that exists. Right. So it seems to me like if I was to do that move that he's done, it would be because I seem to be an aware, a real thing that's aware of something. And when I talk to people, they believe the same thing or they seem to kind of be in the same place. And so I'm trying to make a theory of how we can both be there. And I don't want to, I don't want to have the ego to say that I'm the only thing, only real thing. Do you like, is there something that you've heard from him? That's more, um, maybe scientific than that?

No, I don't know. I haven't asked him this question. I think I may have, but I don't remember. That's, this is the only pressing question that I have. I think that, yeah, this, I don't know. Okay. Um, and what do you think about, is it, okay, first, is it accurate to say that his version of idealism is like, I think it's absolute idealism, isn't it? Analytic idealism.

Analytic idealism? So he mentioned in the interview with me that if he was to do this arguing in front of Rupert Spira, which he did, which, sorry, which he showed Rupert Spira, his PhD defense, which is somewhat like a propositional attack from people. And then you have to defend your stance. Rupert Spira said, why do these people make it so hard? Why do these people make what's so obvious so hard? Okay. And the reason is because Bernardo's operating in the Western frame of analytic philosophy, which is argumentation. You can think of it like that versus it's not even European philosophy versus Eastern philosophy, which is more experiential.

European philosophy versus Eastern philosophy, which is more experiential. Right. Interesting. I know when you spoke with Vervaeke, he kind of stopped you at some point and he made a distinction between logic and rationality. I don't know if you remember this. It was a conversation from long ago. I think it was reason and rationality. Oh, it was logic and rationality. I don't recall that. Okay. It was logic and reason or logic and rationality, I think. Because I think it was logic and rationality. I don't recall that. Okay. It was logic and reason or logic and rationality, I think. Because I think it was at least when he spoke about it, you might not have used the word logic. Anyway, that's not important. But he says logic is about cohering the relationship between two propositions or multiple propositions.

Whereas rationality is about cohering me and the world or something like that. And that did like, do you see an East West distinction in that? Yeah. Yeah. I, I do. And do you see pretty much what you've outlined? Yeah. Okay. see because verveke has i'll i'll be very brief with this he has four different types of knowing um in his in his cognitive science um jonathan verveke is who i'm speaking of someone who i've come to just admire so much and just love the guy um yeah i oh here's another thing verveke admits sorry i know i'm going all over the place in his conversation with Peterson. He admits that admits, I don't know why I'm using that word.

He says to Peterson, for some reason, my fans keep or fans or viewers keep telling me that they see the spirit of Christ in me. And Peterson basically goes like, Oh, what a, what a thing for you to hear. Why do you think you're hearing that? Um, and, and I, as far as I perceive the conversation, they kind of work out that it's because of, um, because Vervaeke is embodying the logos in pursuit of Agape, or at least he is, those are his axioms. Those are his highest, not his axioms. Those are his highest values. Um, and so he's pursuing logos truth and he's pursuing agape love. And so that's just so

Christian. And so people keep seeing Christ in verbatim. And, and, and I believe that's what I see in you. Um, I believe that's what I see in you. That's what I see in Peterson. And this is why this is what makes these conversations really meaningful to me. It's not just the propositions. It's not just the pursuit of propositional knowledge. It's not just the pursuit of facts. It's no, it's facts in service to ultimate value um yeah though i wouldn't say christ is in me christ is in me to the degree christ is in all people but i would say the devil is in me and i don't know how much i'm driven by the devil than i am christ and how much of what i so maybe sorry i think is good is actually evil and selfish and narcissistic and malicious as defined by who

just as as defined in a way that you can't understand do you mean or no even as defined as well narcissism is is fairly well defined and then for selfish selfish is similar malicious i know you use the word evil though nice i use the word devil i i would say as the devil as in the adversary the adversary of of god right as in the christian terms right or the jewish terms or even somewhat the muslim terms as far as I can understand. Yeah. So maybe, maybe, um, uh, I don't know. I don't know about that. I don't, I don't feel like it's, I feel like you are saying, oh, it's kind of ambiguous how much I'm serving, um, the top of the hierarchy versus the bottom

of the hierarchy. Is that language that you are familiar with, or at least that you kind of see what I'm saying? No, no. I think you can only serve the top of the hierarchy. I'm just saying, I don't know what's at the top of mine. I hope that it's God, but I don't think it is. So maybe when I say I see the spirit of Christ in Verbeke, I see it in Peterson. I see it in you. Maybe does it help if I just, rather than saying that I say the you that you present in theories of everything and present to the world through your podcast and stuff like that. It's fine for you to see it. You can see whatever you like. And I'm glad that it, that that's what comes across. I just, I'm saying that I hope that's what comes across.

And I wouldn't make any claims that I'm doing a service to the world. I don't know if I am. I may be doing more harm than good. So, well. But don't you, here's where I take it back to. Don't you, in order to imagine that or propose that or even question that, aren't you assuming some sort of like good? Do you know what I mean? Aren't you assuming that there is morality?

Yes. But it doesn't mean I'm in service to the good. Right. But it doesn't mean I'm in service to the good. Right. This is like what Peterson brings up plenty about Dostoevsky, about people are aimed down, consciously aimed down, even if they know the good. So, okay. So I think I want to just take a step back. Do you have anything to say about what is that good? Do you have any inclination to what's up there at the top of the hierarchy?

It seems to have something to do with truth. It seems to have something to do with love. And then it also seems to have something to do with God. something to do with love. And then it also seems to have something to do with God. Right. I think that's about the level of sureness. I would probably answer the same question. It has something to do with. Yeah. And just so you know, I'm a horrible interviewee because my primary position on most issues is I don't know. I'm extremely asinine and know very little about almost every topic outside of math and physics and even in there. Hold on. But isn't this a form of knowing? Isn't like that is, Verveke calls you a little Socrates at some point. Isn't this a form of a higher type of knowing, just being aware of your lack of propositional knowledge?

It could be. It could be. I wouldn't make that claim. Verveke can call me whatever he likes, but I don't know. Look, I'll tell you one other reason. I could be motivated by cowardice and I'm simply afraid to state an opinion because I'll be criticized one way or the other and so I don't know how much of me saying I don't know is driven by that the reason like I'm so you you mentioned in our emails that I'm an

agnostic I don't think I claim to be agnostic I I would say that I just don't know. Can I quote you? You say I'm so agnostic, I'm not even agnostic. Right, right, right. Because obviously, by my actions at all, I'm implying a value hierarchy by my actions. And I'm on I'm in the lubricus ground when it comes to beliefs. I stand tentatively, I don't know. I, i'm what do you mean by beliefs when you say it in that sense by theories of everything i don't know what theory what philosophy i am i don't i find i see the good and the bad or i see the pros and the cons i see critiques critiques critiques in virtually every direction i haven't found something that I cannot critique in my own head. Right.

I think all people are in that place in relation to the world, like in relation to kind of everything. And anything that people say is like a fiction, I think. I think until someone has, no, there's no certainty. Ian McGilchrist says in a conversation once, and I, he said- With Peterson or with myself? No, with, I think, Modern Wisdom or one of those types of, no, it was in a conversation with Vervaeke on Modern Wisdom or so. Wait. He says.

Egan McGilchrist knows Vervaeke. I didn't know that they even spoke. Oh, it's a great conversation. You're more well, you're extremely first in this subject, man. Congrats. Thank you. Let me make a quick pause. You mentioned your bad interviewee.

This is exactly what I was hoping for, where we could. Yeah, I mean, you mentioned that like two minutes ago to me. And it's because you don't know any, you don't just go, you know, you said it's because I don't know anything. Let me rephrase that. It's because you don't pretend to, or you don't make some jumps. And I'm not saying that people like Vervaeke are just making jumps. Something Kastrup said to Vervaeke in your guys' second conversation was, he goes, this is totally a theory. It was when he was talking to you on a more personal level, maybe three and a half hours in or so. He's like, I'm going to present something to you. It's just popped in my mind. It's a total theory. And I have no idea if it's true, but I'm going to present it to you as if I just totally believe it as a fact

because that's the easiest way because I don't want to keep, you know, I don't want to keep just saying, I'm not sure about this, but boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And so he, do you remember that? No, it sounds familiar though. Yeah. Okay.

So Verveke said that you're saying, or Bernardo. No, Kastrup said that. Bernardo, you know him on a first name basis. But yeah, this is what I was hoping for, where we could just auger in pretty much. And I think that's what I'm always after for, after. It's funny, Rogan said to Peterson at one point,

he's like, man, that first conversation you had with Sam Harris, where you guys just augered in on what does it mean? What is truth? Rogan says to Peterson, like, oh, that was so hard to listen to. You guys just need to like, if you're not getting to an answer, just go to the next question. And I will, I'm the opposite. I'm the exact opposite. I listened to that whole conversation. I'm like, guys, like I want you to actually augur in like, why is this only one hour? And how come next conversation, you don't just pick up right where you left off? Cause I'm

actually, I'm, I'm after, I'm not after this fun, little fancy conversation. I'm after the answers. I think that's what so many of us, the people who are not drawn to your channel by UFO videos, and don't mean that as a criticism at all. Sorry. I said, I said, the people who are drawn to your channel, but not the ones who are drawn to

the UFO videos. I don't mean that as a criticism to you. Oh, no, no, I'm not. I don't take it as that at all. Not at all. Um, but those of us who are, who are drawn to your channel is because this is a resource where it's like office hours. Like you mentioned, it's like, you just get to the point and then you just dig in, dig in, dig in. And I'm looking all over. This is why I'm talking to you right now. This is why, this is what I'm after when I'm looking for resources.

It's like, I actually want to get a little bit better knowledge of the truth. And the reason I need that is because my kids and my grandkids, my grandkids, grandkids need the wisdom that I can my kids and my grandkids, my grandkids, grandkids need the wisdom that I can glean from just a little, just my direction towards the logos to be just fixed by just a tiny bit. And I don't get that by nice conversations. I don't get that by just niceties or let's talk about 12 different subjects in the next hour. I get that when things auger right into what's the most real.

And that's what draws me to your content. That's what I think probably draws a lot of us. Yeah, I have a similar view. So auger implies that you're digging. And I like to say that most of the podcasts, I don't like to say, sorry, I do say this, that most podcasts that I've seen are somewhat superficial. And there's a reason for that. It's because they're imitating the TV format, such as Neil deGrasse Tyson. Selecting for shallowness, right? Unconsciously, because it's an extension. YouTube's almost an extension of TV.

And you also wonder, well, would my audience be able to follow if I go into some abstruse mechanics that other people, the laity, the people outside the profession have no clue what it's about and why should I do that? Wouldn't I risk turning people off? Well, for me, that's why I say that it's a selfish endeavor. This theories of everything, one of mine, that's what allows me to go somewhat technically. That's what allows me to get into somewhat of a technical depth. So what is this self when you say it's selfishly motivated? I really want to get back. I actually, I wrote down the whole quote from Ian McGilchrist. So that's just to mention, I want to get back to that. But what is this self? What do I mean when I say selfish or what is self?

No, no, no, no. What do you mean when you say, like, what are you after? This is my first question. What is theory of everything and why are you doing it? You're sacrificing, you're doing something that almost nobody else is doing. Maybe, yeah, this is something that people don't generally do. We have so much evolutionary drive to so many other things. And here you are sacrificing so much. You're extremely smart. You could be at the top of a lot of human hierarchies if you so desired. Instead of what you're doing, you're sacrificing that ability in the pursuit of something with this project. In pursuit of selfishness. Don't trust me.

I'm being honest. I'm curious. I've always wondered. But what is that thing curious in you? What is it telling you? I don't know okay since i've been a teenager or even since i've been since i was let's say eight or nine i've i've wondered about the large questions in life why are we here how did and also then what are the laws how does a particle even follow the laws and what why these laws you know what are so what are the laws why these laws and then how does

a particle follow the laws there's there seems to be an answer for that last one but yeah yeah but but it also seems to answer all all three at least according to chris langan which by the way if i seem tired at all the reason is that man man matthew i've been there's this guy named chris lang and he has the highest iq recorded i'm not just oh yeah right okay so they say in america it's true highest recorded in america but it also seems to be the highest recorded in the world they just say america because it was recorded in america regardless he has has such unexampled theory that I can't compare it to others. And I almost have to, let's say I'm interviewing a physicist, I can draw from my knowledge of physics. Okay, but when I'm interviewing, or philosophy, or whatever it may be, for virtually

each one of the guests, but when it comes to Chris Langan, he starts from such a ground level of such generality. And there's like 20 neologisms in each sentence. So I need to constantly go and look up what does he mean by so-and-so? It took so much out of me. I was just drinking caffeine. I don't like to drink caffeine. I, I even write in my calendar, the days that I drink caffeine because I like to limit my usage of it, but I was drinking

so much caffeine studying, studying, studying. Yes. Yes. Yes. Each day that I would then stay awake, irritable at night and miserable. And then I have to wake up early to do the same thing the next day, which then, which it was so unhealthy for me. But anyway, it took its toll physically on me. Not so much mentally. Bernardo, no, Ian McGillicrist, if anything, was mentally. Yeah. So much material or, or, or, oh, destabilizing you said? For Ian McGillicrist was mentally destabilizing for Chris. It was physically. So because I, I just was on basically stimulants the whole day with caffeine and it just, it, it wrecked me. So I'm still a bit recovering from that. Okay. What was the question?

from that. Okay. What was the question? I apologize. It's okay. Um, what, uh, okay. I don't remember exactly what the question was. It started with what is this self? What is this thing? Okay. So that's why I say I'm selfish. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just curious. I'm wondering, I, I'm a inquisitive person. I like to know. Hmm. I don't like when I don't know. I like to know. I don't like when I don't know. So, okay. So when I hear you say that, I am imagining, I'm imagining that what is inside of you, I'm going to, I'll use these words just because I can't say it any other way. What is inside of you asking when you say selfish, it sounds like it sounds like in service of ego or something when you just because we've, you know, messed up those words. Yes. But when you say in service, you know, you are serving

this thing. To me, it just seems like obviously you're serving the logos. And the logos is the thing inside of you that I'm not trying to compliment you, Kurt, I'm not trying to compliment you or like flatter you or whatever. What I'm saying is when I say I see Christ likeness in you or Vervaki, it's like what I mean is the embodiment, but also the spoken embodiment. So it's not just non-propositional, it's propositional as well. It's spoken embodiment of Christ, the logos. And so to me, when I hear you say that, I just, I see like, well, obviously when he says he's selfish and what he's serving is the self, it's,

it's the logos in you desiring that knowledge. And it's maybe future Kurt, or maybe not Kurt, maybe future 600 generations from you when we get to heaven or whatever. We don't have to go there. But it's future unity with God. It's God. It's the God,

the spirit of Christ within you. I can't say it any other way. It's the logos. It's the spirit of Christ within you. Okay,'t say it any other way. It's the logos. It's the spirit of Christ within you. Okay, great. Thank you, man. I just hope it is. I don't know if it is, but thank you. No, but like what I'm saying is kind of by definition, if we're going to use these words, it is, it's the logos. It's the pursuit of real truth as opposed to the pursuit of ego or the pursuit of, and so like so like yeah but that assumes what i'm saying is okay there's obviously an element of ego associated with it because my face is on it

and i'm getting paid now and so how much of this is because i'm narcissistic or because i want fame or because i want money and i would say that consciously that there's a modicum of that, but who knows about unconsciously? I don't know how much of it is it. Maybe that's 90% it. So I'm, I always found that the more that I, I say this out of humiliation, I've been humiliated many times in my life, not publicly, but privately mentally by an emotionally by being arrogant and thinking that I was good. Yeah. And whatever that had some quality that was associated with good. And I found that the more I investigate, the more I realized that there's malice underneath or rancor, or wrath, or to self loathe self loathing, or self protection or insecurity. And thus, I'm, I'm so hesitant to make any claim about

that despite whatever conscious appraisal I may have. I then just beat myself and say, don't think that you don't know, man, you don't know. And two months, six months from now, man, every year for sure. And definitely every two years and sometimes every six months. If I look back at my work, I can't, I cringe profusely because I just see the affectation and the flaws and the, and that's enough. So this is, this takes back to Milga, Milga, Chris quote, it's at precisely 30 minutes in to his conversation with Vervaeke exactly 30 minutes and zero seconds. Certainty doesn't exist. Okay. Let me just mention, this is off the top of his head. This is not deliberated and written and then expressed. I mean, obviously it has poetic. Yeah. This is what he says just quickly off the top of his head.

Actually, I don't know if it was quick. I might have been listening in like 1.5 speed. Certainty doesn't exist. Certainty is a fiction. It would depend on truth being a thing out there which we can grasp. Whereas truth is a matter of the coming together of things, which is always a matter of negotiation. So we negotiate with reality and we change the gestalt that we see. We don't add another thing to a line we're pursuing. I don't know exactly what he said or what he meant in that sentence. We don't add another thing to a line we're pursuing. We shift the gestalt, the is simply one that explains more than the previous one. So it's truer, which sounds very William Jamesian, pragmatist, kind of like truer, closer, but never claiming absolute. Yeah.

And that, like, yeah. There's something about the way that you, like, when I wrote on my thing um why does kurt claim agnosticism because this is something that you and i know we only have a few minutes which is don't worry keep going yeah this is something that um uh i remember with regard to agnosticism yeah okay let's go there um this is something that you and I differ on and in so many things, like even in, in what you're saying about, um, in your spoken word, you consistently claim to not know anything. Um, and you, you like to say that a lot. Um, and you have no idea what your real motivations are. And I would say on those regards, I'm so similar to you. And I think of my, what I'm doing very similarly, but whether I'm agnostic or not. Yeah. Like, I mean, you just

told me that you don't claim to be an agnostic. What you said was I'm so agnostic. I'm not even agnostic. I just don't know anything. And for me, I don't perceive knowledge as just what set of suppositions I subscribe to. Knowledge is more like embodiment or enactment. Maybe that's a more Eastern thing to say. And so when I think of myself, I think I say kind of in a Petersonian sense, I am a Christian, or at least I haven't said that to anybody in a long time because I've been afraid to because of the judge that that is upon me. But that's when I say about you or Vervaeke, I see the spirit of Christ in you. It's like that part of you that I seeaeke, I see the spirit of Christ in you. It's like that part of you that I see is pursuing the logos, and that's Christian. And if I am, whatever part of me is also doing that, that's Christian. It's not just totally agnostic.

So let me ask you this about that. Is it Christian if through my pursuit, I ultimately come to deny the resurrection of Christ? Absolutely. Absolutely. It has. Absolutely. Yes. And this is how atheists can be and are many times the Christians of our day, because they're in the pursuit of logos in a way that the. Those who I know the propositions. Yeah. Okay. There's something called virtuous pagans. Have you heard of that? No, it's like Christians before Christ. I don't recall the philosopher of the third, second, fourth century, coined that term, but he's basically said Socrates was a Christian.

Yeah. And I would say that I would say that exactly. I would just say Christ is the model of Logos in pursuit of Agape. And he did it, the theory or the belief of Christ. Like I have no idea whether he resurrected. I have no idea. People get so uncomfortable when they hear me say this kind of stuff on both sides. I have no idea if he resurrected. I have no idea if he was a real person. This is my Bible. My wife just gave this to me for father's day, like whatever,

a couple of weeks ago. I would say I'm a Christian because though I don't know if a single proposition in that book is, is, is accurate. It's accurate. It's true. Like an arrow is true. So I don't know if it's scientifically factual,

a single proposition in that book, but I'm a Christian because she handed me that book. It was a profound experience. I held it and I wept like a baby for 30 minutes. I just cried. I under, I, I, I don't want to use the word understand. It's despicable how the English language has become so Cartesian and so lacking of language that we used to have. So I don't have language for it, but I'll try my best. There is something inside of me that understands the value of this beyond proposition. And it's something like the participatory knowledge that Vervaeke talks about. That is what's crying. That's what, when I get handed that book for Father's Day, is just

weeping like a baby on the couch, foolishly in front of my wife, probably waking up my kids. Because there's a part of me that knows the truth of it. And it's a deeper kind of knowing. So that's why I say it's Christian. That's why I say I see the spirit of Christ in you or Vervaeke. It's not because of a proposition that you've, you know, mouthed. I understand. okay yeah that's pretty much what we have time for um you also would you call yourself a pragmatist

yeah william james like in the william james sense yeah i don't i don't think i haven't found any other um if pragmatism is to define truth or what's most real by its utility or how, how much it gets us closer to the top of the hierarchy, how adaptive it is, how much it's in the service of love or God. Right. Okay. Well, see, my problem with pragmatism is that I don't know how you get pragmatism without a previous, previously defined ethic, such as utility,

such as that's encapsulated within utility. Also, I think this is Sam and Jordan's. This is where the crux of the conversation kind of happens is they're both saying like, maybe it's kind of like an emergence. They're both saying, Sam saying to Jordan, like, Hey, you're just grabbing this utility out of nowhere. And then Jordan saying to Sam, yeah, but your definition of fact is, has already has my version of utility written into it. And I think that's true both ways.

So it's kind of like which one works better. It's a very pragmatist thing to say. Yeah. Also, so works better than... That's assuming the value. Yeah. And also it sounds like it's for adaptiveness, like evolutionarily defined and evolutionary theory. I mean, this is controversial, but evolutionary theory also seems to be gotten by correspondence theory of truth. So a more scientific approach. So one uses evolutionary theory to define adaptiveness slash usefulness, and then pulls pragmatism out of that when it was predicated in the correspondence theory of truth.

Right. And I, what I would say to that, when you say they pull pragmatism out of that, I would say exactly what Jordan said to Sam, which is any version of truth that you ever get is going to be assuming some sort of pragmatism. There's a reason that you select the fact that you do. There's a, there's a reason that you select the, the things, and we don a reason that you select the things. And we don't know that reason, but there is a reason to the universe. It's basically in my, this is not William James. This is me now. In my version of pragmatism, it's kind of like at the very root,

it's just saying like, there seems to be a purpose. It's like assuming that there's a purpose, a telos, I think, to everything. It's like, well, that's a given. So now let's go on. Because I think any version of defining truth, you have to, at the very root, you have to say, well, this is a given. Just like Descartes tries to say consciousness is a given. I don't think that's true. Because when you mentioned telos, so for example, Chris Langan bases his theory on something like telos.

It's a material called telesis. Unbounded telesis is what the universe came from. So excited for that. Right. And then from there, man, I've just been editing it. It is a great, great podcast, though. I'm happy about that. Okay.

So from there, then he has what I would call, but I don't know if he would call it. I call it a coherence theory of truth, which is distinct from pragmatism. There's three main ones. There's correspondence, pragmatism, coherence. And I'm wondering if there's an intersection between them that they're thought of generally as distinct, but I'm wondering if they can be interweaved. And there's perhaps a fourth theory. Well, there's many theories of truth, but a fourth, more than a tributary. Wondering if they can be weaved together or you see a way in which it might be probable that they get weaved together.

I just see the way that I just see glimmers that there's a confluence between them. So that's why I don't subscribe just to pragmatism, nor to correspondence, nor to coherence. I've been swayed to the coherence side a bit more because of Chris Langen, but not completely, nor have I abandoned pragmatism or correspondence. And I'm just if they ultimately are... Some sort of trinity almost. Yeah, if they consolidate. Yeah, and this is like Sam and Jordan get to, and you and I are just mentioning, it just seems like they rely on each other.

So I guess when you ask me, am I a pregnantist? It's like, well, yeah, but I'm not necessarily excluding that I'm not also something else. Um, but I, I, maybe I am. Um, I think, I don't know yet, but we'll see. We'll see over the course of my life where I kind of land, I guess. It seems to me like right now I, just assume value. I assume that the center of everything is love. It's so obvious to me that I can't think or operate in any way that's not in service of that. And that makes me a pragmatist. in service of that. And that makes me a pragmatist. These are words that are hard to nail down in some ways. Yeah. Okay. okay thanks Kurt

it was a great conversation it's a great conversation I'm glad to be here thank you yep