Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Christian Symbolism, Heaven, Earth, Femininity, & Satan | Matthieu Pageau

Episode Date: August 28, 2025

As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe In this episode, I speak with Matthieu Pageau, author of The Language of Creation. This is a rare (and almost unbelievable) interview. With a high degree of likelihood, I can say that this interview, if watched all the way until the end, will change your life. Pageau argues that Satan is first a function—the tester and accuser—before a villain. Think Job’s auditor or a hired penetration tester. When will-to-power takes over, the function falls. He lays out a symbolic grammar: heaven as plan, earth as materials. Water renews. The feminine crowns and renovates forms. Abraham and Moses act as faithful adversaries. Adam and Eve show what secrecy breaks. Borderline stories like Tamar and Ruth trace exile and redemption. Pageau speaks from his own exile, leaning Orthodox/Catholic, critiquing without grasping for power, and letting reality correct him. Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: - 00:00 - Who Are You? (Identity as Relational vs. Self-Defined) - 04:54 - How Matthieu’s Project Differs From His Brother’s (Jonathan Pageau) - 10:25 - The God-Created Function of Satan vs. The Fallen Entity - 18:34 - Are Internal Critics “Functional Satanists”? - 23:02 - Satan in the Book of Job: The Divine Hacker - 27:50 - The Axioms of Reality: A Computer Scientist’s Worldview - 32:08 - Heaven as “The Plan,” Earth as “The Materials” - 36:50 - The Dual Nature of Chaos (Symbolism of Water) - 44:08 - Why Are Women Central to the Resurrection Story? - 49:14 - The Simple Act That Could Have Prevented “The Fall” - 52:18 - Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem as the ‘Feminine’ Crown - 59:31 - Redeeming the Exiled: The Pattern of Ruth - 1:05:00 - A Christian in Exile: Matthieu’s Spiritual Homelessness - 1:16:15 - How to Escape Metaphysical Exile - 1:21:44 - The Will to Power: When Criticism Becomes Corrupt - 1:26:53 - The Paradox: Why You MUST Believe Yours is ‘The Real Church’ - 1:34:25 - What ‘Nature’ Truly Means - 1:47:44 - Why Renewal, Updating, and Competition Are ‘Feminine’ - 1:55:10 - The Story of Tamar: Deception as Righteous Renewal - 2:01:00 - How to Read the Bible Symbolically - 2:09:51 - Why Symbolism Applies to Stories, Not Raw Data - 2:21:34 - The ‘Dangerous’ Vision That Birthed The Book - 2:31:31 - Mind vs. Spirit vs. Outlook (And The Final Paradox) Links Mentioned: - The Language Of Creation [Book]: https://www.amazon.com/Language-Creation-Symbolism-Genesis-Commentary/dp/1981549331/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0 - Jonathan Pageau [TOE]: https://youtu.be/X3co_AA6yec - Wolfgang Smith [TOE]: https://youtu.be/vp18_L_y_30 - Claudia de Rham [TOE]: https://youtu.be/Ve_Mpd6dGv8 - Leo Gura [TOE]: https://youtu.be/YspFR9JAq3w - The Story Of The Fall: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203&version=NIV - The Most Abused Theorem In Math [TOE]: https://youtu.be/OH-ybecvuEo SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Reading, playing, learning. Stellist lenses do more than just correct your child's vision. They slow down the progression of myopia. So your child can continue to discover all the world has to offer through their own eyes. Light the path to a brighter future with stellus lenses for myopia control. Learn more at SLOR.com. And ask your family eye care professional for SLR Stellist lenses at your child's next visit. Matthew, how do you interpret a question?

question like, who are you? Are you defined relationally? Do you define yourself? Do others define you? Or is it some combination? Yeah, it's some combination for sure. Yeah. It's a combination of other people telling you what you are and you agreeing to it or and also sometimes you defining yourself. It's all of those things. I wouldn't want to live in a world where I'm just defined by others and I wouldn't want to live in a world where it's just me that decides because when you're refined by others it comes with added stuff that you don't necessarily wouldn't be able to give yourself you know so if you have a function in society it doesn't come from you and that the fact that it doesn't come from you is what gives gives it more than you you know so if you're if you're a

police officer it's somebody else that said that to you it's not you if it's you then you're a criminal i mean if you decide on your own that you're going to do the duty of a police officer, but you're actually not, have not been appointed in that way, then basically you're a criminal, you know, you're just using force to impose your own personal will on others. So that's just an example, but everything is like that. You receive an identity from others, from society or from above, let's say, and, but you have to agree, obviously, you have to agree. If you don't agree, you know, then you struggle with it. I mean, you're going to receive an identity that you don't agree with, you just have to deal with it. I guess

you figure out what you do with that. You don't have to accept it either. So who are you, Matthew? Who am I? Well, I'm a human being for starters. And hopefully, I mean, I could define myself in many ways. I'm part of a country called Canada and part of a province called Quebec. And what I do is I think a lot and I write. So I try to write, at least I would like to write more. So, yeah, if I would define myself in terms of what I do, I would say I think a lot. And I try as much as I can to have it be useful to others and also to have it correspond to reality and to not just be some ideas that I personally have.

kind of related to the question you just ask. I mean, I'm not trying to understand things just for myself. I'm trying to understand things for everyone. And obviously, that includes myself. So I'm interested in, let's say, nature, I want to understand reality. That's really what I'm, and I do most of the time, trying to understand how things, not necessarily how things work, but what they mean mostly. I used to be more interested in how things worked, kind of like physics and chemistry, things like that. I still am to some degree interested in that stuff, but I kind of switched a little bit. At one point, I realized that what I really wanted to know was what it's all about, like what it means, what's the significance of events and just nature, reality, what's

the significance of it? Why? Why are we here and things like that? More than how things are constructed and how the how the things work with energy and although that's interesting i'm not i'm not downplaying that at all it's just that at one point you got to kind of choose a path you know you got specialize a little bit in your knowledge or else you kind of go nowhere so that's what i did at one point i also think that's what characterizes me i think all the time and i'm trying to understand reality that's what motivates me where does that come from for you um i guess where it comes from is probably just my basic personality. I mean, I'm not, if I compare it to other things I could be doing, let's say. I mean, I could, I wouldn't be a, I wouldn't be a fireman or a

police officer or anything like that. You see, I have to compare it to make sense of it. I'm not a, I do things, I do things, but usually when I do things, it's for myself, you see. So that's why I'm comparing it to people who do things for others, like what I mentioned is a good example, you know, people who have service, who work in service things. It's not that I don't care about other people, it's that my actions, it usually reserved for things that are for me and my thoughts are usually reserved for other people. You know, I'm trying to understand things as a way that it includes as many people as it can

whereas when I do things I'm doing them for me usually or for people who are close to me as a favor of things like that but yeah people who are watching this podcast will be familiar with your brother as I've spoken to him a few times

how does your project defer from Jonathan's well I think it's actually quite different really although we say similar things, but that probably just comes from the fact that a lot of what we say was developed kind of in conversation with each other, but now what I'm working on is kind of very different from him. I kind of took a different path at one point, and basically, if I could explain it in a way, he's kind of, because I don't want to speak for him, you know, I don't

I like it when people speak from me, but he's more interested, I think, in things like debating and things like expressing what he understands to others, you know. This includes debates, but it also includes just speaking and things like that. Whereas, honestly, I'm a lot more concerned with trying to understand things that I don't, instead of teaching what I do know. which is quite different actually. So it's like I'm doing kind of a self-criticism, you know, whereas he's more, I don't want to say preaching, but it's speaking out to others, you know, which is completely different because what I do

is a kind of internal, let's say, an internal criticism. So when I think about, let's say, the Bible, I don't, I think of it in a way where I, where I'm doubting, I'm doubting the interpretation that I already have. So this is not what you do in public. You know, you don't do this in public. This part of doubting your own knowledge is the part that you do in private, basically, right? You're trying to improve your own understanding.

So my work is more concerned with that than it is to, yeah, to transmit something that I already know. So that's a big difference. And it gives very different results too. It was like, I don't understand the same things as my brother. I have a very different understanding. And it's not necessarily that it contradicts. It's more like I'm not concerned with the same questions than he is, you see? Most of my concern is about understanding things that we don't, you see.

So this is why I don't think of myself as a public speaker or anything like that, because you don't do these actions in public. When you question yourself, you don't do that publicly. unless you're trying to embarrass yourself. If you're a clown, you can do whatever you want. But yeah, so I'm concerned with things like exceptions. You know, exceptions are interesting to me, where things are at the border of making sense. So the subjects I'm usually concerned with are kind of controversial in a way,

which is why sometimes I don't talk about. about what I'm doing because I'm still working it out, you know, so you don't want to cause scandals and things like that for no reason. If you don't know what you're talking about, you don't talk about it. But now I'm starting, I've been doing this for a while, many years now where I'm trying to understand certain questions. And I'm getting some definite answers. So eventually I'm going to talk about, like I could give you an example. Most of the, I'm interested in things like, for example, this has been doing, this for many years, I would say since I was 20 or something, I started thinking about this.

The story, for example, of the fall, it's always been interesting to me. What are the implications of that? And the story that really got me was the story of Tamar. I talk often about that. It's a very strange story in the Bible. That's really iffy. It's really, if you look at the character of this woman and what she does is almost like what satan would do in a system like she does something very uh let's say subversive in a way but she's doing it in the in the correct way according to the story so see this like a borderline story really it's not the usual thing that's supposed to happen it's something that happened in a strange way but they gave something good and this is the kind of thing that interests me

So basically, one of the subjects that does interest me, for example, is the question of Satan, let's say. This is a subject most people kind of don't want to talk about. But I'm interested in this. I've been thinking about what is the nature of this pattern of Satan and what is it, what is its use? Like, what is its meaning in the Bible? And what is that all about? Why is there such a thing, you know? And I've come up with some pretty good answers, I think.

And it's not what usually people say, I would say. But obviously, I think I have the right answer, obviously, or else I would change my own answer. So it's something to do with internal criticism. That's the reason for this being. It's about internal criticism. But then we have to differentiate between Satan in his function, which is the function that God created, and Satan as a fallen entity, you see.

So when people talk about Satan, usually they talk about only the fallen entity called that week, sometimes called Satan. It's not necessarily that there's just one, but it's like a function. It's like if it'd say you're a cop, you know, you could be a fallen cop, you could be a fallen, you know, it could be corrupt, but you could also not be corrupt. what's the difference there between a fallen cop and a non-fallen cop and a good cop versus bad cop okay well i mean you can be a good cop in the sense that you're doing your job well okay and you could be a bad cop in the sense that you're not very good at what you're doing that that could be a way to see it whereas a fallen would be someone who's corrupt it's not that he's not good at his job it's that he's purposely corrupt you know he's doing some things

that are outside of his bounds, using the powers that are given to him. So basically, like, what's a fallen entity? We think of it like this. We say, you receive certain powers, okay, certain powers from, let's say, let's use the example of a police officer to make it concrete here.

You receive some powers from the government, right? You receive some abilities. You get training, too. That's part of it. You have abilities and you have powers that are given to you. Now, if you use those, with these powers, you get laws that you specifically have to follow. It's not necessarily the same laws as everyone else.

You have some laws that are specific to your function of police officer. Now, within this function, you have different powers than other citizens, too. So you have different powers and you have different laws. So if you're doing your function correctly, you're using your powers that were given to you, only in the function that was given to. And if you go outside of that, then you're corrupt. If you, I mean, a simple example, if you're an investigator,

you can use your powers and your skills of investigation and your tools that were given to you also to investigate a crime. But if you start using these powers to investigate, let's say, your neighbor, just because you don't like them or because you want to mess with him or something like that. You know, you have a personal reason why you're doing this to your neighbor

or to someone you don't like. You could use also your skills of a police officer to mess with somebody else or to harm him. Well, obviously, that's an example of a corrupt official, right? So this would be an example of a fallen police officer who's using his powers not in correspondence to his function. So it's like the idea is you get powers and you get, get laws for those powers that tell you how to use them. Sometimes people get the powers but they

don't follow the laws and this is in every sphere you can get certain abilities and if you don't use them like you're supposed to, well then you're fallen. So what I'm saying basically is that what's called Satan in the Bible, what we usually people talk about is the fallen version of Satan. you see so it's kind of important to understand the difference because the first function the original function is a is a legitimate is god created so um if it's not fallen then it's not fallen you know when i hear fallen i think of evil so i can think of a guitar let's not think of a cop just for this example a guitar can be a good guitar or a bad guitar we could hear that at a guitar shop and a bad guitar is one that sounds horrible but we wouldn't think of a car but we wouldn't think

the guitar as a fallen guitar, like, unless the guitar autonomously is bashing people over the head and knows that it's doing that and wants to do that. So am I correct or incorrect in thinking of fallen as a synonym for evil? It can be both. I mean, like you give an example of an entity that doesn't have a will of its own like a guitar, let's say. But if it's broken, it's still bad. It's not evil in the sense that there's no intent behind it, but it's still fallen in the sense that it's not working anymore as it should.

So you could see it both ways. I mean, obviously, an evil cop is an example of a bad cop, right? But a bad cop might not be evil. He might just need a little help honing his skills or something, but it's not necessarily like an irredeemable phenomenon. Like a guitar, you could be fixed, but there's different levels of it, obviously. So you could be completely off or you could be just a little off. It's a question of degrees.

I mean, if you're at a point where you're at a point where you're, You've convinced yourself that you're, like, let's say you're an official and you've convinced yourself that all the bad things you're doing are legitimate. For some reason, you've convinced yourself that some people do, by the way. I mean, some people say things like, there's no way to make it if you're not corrupt, you know? So that's like a rationalization of your corruption. If I'm not corrupt, if I'm not, let's say, politician, if I'm not a corrupt politician,

if I don't lie, if I don't take bribes, then I'm not going to. make it. I'm not going to be a politician because somebody else is going to do the bribes and get the bribes and somebody else is going to be corrupt. And so, therefore, I can never be a politician if I'm not corrupt. That would be an example of someone who completely justifies his corruption. And that's pretty irredeemable. I mean, that's pretty, you're pretty far down the road when you start talking like that. It's like, if you're an athlete, if I don't cheat, the other guy will cheat. So I got to cheat. See, that's an example. So, of, to me, a really fall in state, because now how are you going to get out of this state?

And it's not just the fault necessarily of the athlete. It could be the whole system that's in trouble. I heard someone say recently that money corrupts. And then the person who they were speaking to said, no, money won't corrupt me. And then the initial person who said that money corrupt said, well, it's just a matter of how much. You can say money doesn't corrupt you, but if I gave you a billion dollars, that would corrupt you. And even if you say no, then, then maybe your number is 5 million. We all have that number. Okay, that's what the person said.

Do you think even that mind frame is a fallen mind frame, or do you think that's correct? It's a little fallen, I would say. It's because he's already justified the corruption in a rational way. But really, it's not true. I mean, it can be poor.

You can accept you're going to be poor. There you go. That's the answer to that. I mean, it's not true. Some people are poor. Many people are poor. So, see, what do you do about that? I mean, you could say it's because he was never offered the opportunity,

but that's just speculation. You don't know. Nobody knows that. So it's not an argument. Okay, let me say it from the other person's point of you. I'll pretend to be that person. I'm saying to you, money corrupts. You're saying, Kurt, money won't corrupt me.

And I say, well, it's just a matter of degree. So maybe $10 won't corrupt you, but $1 million will. You say, I still won't be corrupt. And you could be correct. Then I say, no. then your number is $2 billion, something like that. Like there is some number. Now, is that mind frame, my mind frame in this hypothetical,

is that a corrupted mind frame itself? Yeah, yeah. I say yes, already, yeah, yes. That is corrupt, I think. That's a little bit of corruption because you're justifying corruption. You're like almost saying there's no other way for it to happen than to be corrupt. So, I mean, that's a rationalization of it. I mean, speak for, I would say, speak for yourself to the person who would say that.

Why are you speaking for others? Speak for yourself, you know, you say, you just admit it to me that there's a price for you. Don't say that it's everyone else. It's you. Okay. Thanks for your confession, you know, that's what I would say. So I imagine this functional criticism, internal criticism, there's a functional and there's a fallen version of it. The functional one is the positive side to Satan.

I think you were going to get something like that. But so I imagine that would be blasphemous to most people to even think of a non-fallen Satan. Probably. Furthermore, since you, much like myself, we focus on internal criticism and we think and we think and we think, do you then see yourself as a Satanist in a sense, but the functional Satanist? Yeah, no, you see, for the reason you said, I would never say that, because it's because everyone thinks of Satan has fallen. And so I would not use that term because I'm not trying to be subversive

like just for the heck of it, you know. I would rather say something less provocative. Provocative, you know, there's no reason. Because it's part of the satanic thing to want to be provocative. And you see, so I don't have that satanic spirit. I'm not trying to be provocative, actually. I'm just trying to understand that there's a function that is fallen. And God create, you see, it's a problem to see.

it's a problem to say that Satan is corrupt per se too, because God created Satan. Just a moment. Don't go anywhere. Hey, I see you inching away. Don't be like the economy. Instead, read The Economist. I thought all the Economist was was something that CEOs read to stay up to date on world trends. And that's true, but that's not only true. What I found more than useful for myself, personally, is their coverage of math, physics, philosophy, and AI, especially how something is perceived by other countries and how it may impact markets. For instance, the economist had an interview with some of the people behind DeepSeek the week DeepSeek was launched. No one else had that. Another example is the economist has this fantastic article on the recent dark energy data,

which surpasses even Scientific Americans coverage, in my opinion. I also noticed the economist has a new dedicated section on AI. I'm glad because artificial intelligence is one of the most impactful technologies that directly influences theories of everything. Everything. Something else I love, since I have ADHD, is that they allow you to listen to articles and 2x-speed it, and it's from an actual person, not a dubbed voice. The British accents are a bonus. Yesterday, I listened to this article on Standing Desks, for instance. Links to all of these will be in the description, of course. Now, the economist's commitment to rigorous journalism means that you get a clear picture of the world's most significant developments. I am personally

interested in the more scientific ones, like this one, on extending life, via. mitochondrial transplants, which creates actually a new field of medicine, something that would make Michael Levin proud. The economist also covers culture, finance and economics, business, international affairs, Britain, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, China, Asia, the Americas, and of course, the USA. Whether it's the latest in scientific innovation or the shifting landscape of global politics, the economist provides comprehensive coverage, and it goes far beyond just headlines. Look, if you're passionate about expanding your knowledge and gaining a new understanding, a deeper one of the forces that shape our world, then I highly recommend subscribing to The Economist. I subscribe to them, and it's an investment into your intellectual growth. It's one that you won't regret. As a listener of this podcast, you'll get a special 20% off discount. Now you can enjoy The Economist and all it has to offer for less. Head over to their website, www.comonomist.com.com. dot com slash toe t oe to get started thanks for tuning in and now let's get back to the exploration of the

mysteries of our universe again that's economist dot com slash toe the god create you see it's a problem to say that satan is corrupt per se too because god created satan okay so if you say that he's corrupt you're kind of attributing it to god then you know you're kind of attributing a mistake to god but it's better to think and more concordant with let's say the Bible and tradition that the function was created was perfect and there's an element of free will to the universe you know things can can go wrong and then if you don't follow follow the what you're supposed to then yeah you're corrupt but the function itself is not corrupt that's what I think um I mean look I'll give you even an example there's Bible, there's not many paces it talks about Satan in the Bible, but one place that it clearly

does is the book of Job. And in the book of Job, it doesn't, it's not a fallen Satan. He's just doing his job of, in the book of Job is not fallen. He's doing his job. His job is to question things, right? Because God is basically saying, look at Job, he's righteous, okay? And that's, His job is to, like, show, it's to test. He's the tester. He's like the, actually, it's more than that. It's the tempter and the accuser. That's, if you want to know, the definition of Satan, a really good one.

A tempter and accuser. So he tempts you. It's test. Tempt means to test, really. It's a tester. He's testing things. You need that function in the universe. I mean, if I make a system, I need to test it to know if it works, right? I mean, so if you want to understand this function, you could say, for example, if I make a system, a program, okay, and I want to know if it's secure, what I do, I hire a, let's say, a hacker, someone who knows how to hack things, and I tell him, try to hack my system, and then he, that's his job now. He's testing the system. He's trying to find flaws. He's trying to find loopholes. He's trying to find blind spots, right, in order to infiltrate this system. So he's, he's trying to find flaws. So he's trying to find flaws. He's trying to find loopholes. He's trying to find blind spots, right? In order to infiltrate this system. So he's

He's doing his job. Now, see, if he would, to be fallen or corrupt, this is what it would look like. Maybe he would, instead of doing it to help me, who hired him, let's say, the hacker, well, he would start to steal information and then use that to gain power. So for himself, you see. So he could do that. He could, let's say it's an important system. Let's say it's a government system where there's a lot of critical information.

the hacker that I hire could obviously steal information and then use that to his advantage you know blackmail. Blackmail is a good example of what Satan does when he's fallen. It's a very good example because Satan is supposed to

find what's wrong and then call it out. But privately, you see? You see like if I hire a hacker and he finds some flaws in my system, how do I know he's good or not? If he just tells me secretly, he tells me privately,

these are the flaws of your system. and he's doing his job. But if he starts telling other people, right, if he's tell other people what the flaws are, then he's not, then he's fallen. So there's a bunch of criteria that you can use to know if this function has fallen or not, okay? So, and one of the reasons why we see this function as just fallen

is because it is probably one of the most difficult jobs, you could say, to have. Because you're like against the system. but you're with the system. So you've got to be both. You've got to have both of these things. So it's like the hacker. He's got to be really,

he's got the spirit of being against. See, that's what he's doing. He's finding flaws. He's finding problems. But then ultimately he's got to be with you. He's got to be for you. And like I said, you can see this. There's many signs to see if he's not or if he is.

So if he finds critical information, and then he tries to, let's say, take your system hostage, which is what hackers often do. Let's say, he says, oh, okay, I infiltrated your system like you asked me to, but I'm sorry to inform you, but I put a virus in there or a bug in there, and if you don't do, if you don't give me money or something, I'm going to break your system. Obviously, that's a fallen example.

So what's the difference between the two? One of them has a will to power, and the other one does it. Basically, it's really simple. So the fallen one has a will to power. He wants to have power, and the other one doesn't care about power. So that's just an example. There's many signs. Like I said before, blackmail is a good example.

When you see blackmail going on in the systems that are there in the government, you're in trouble. It means, basically, we could say if I use biblical language, Satan has taken over, like Satan is ruling your country, let's say. If there's blackmail going on and you see signs of it, this is what it means. it means that some element that uses covert finding of flaws has been using these flaws

to blackmail and to control what's supposed to actually be in power so that's like a satanic takeover by definition that's what it is so obviously that's not supposed to happen you see that's an example of a fallen of a fallen function of Satan

now most people aren't algorithmic or consciously algorithmic in their thinking. They tend to think in terms of conclusions, but not know how they got to those conclusions. So most of the time when I interview people, or much of the time, not most of the time. They'll have to speak, and many of the audience members will have to listen to them on this podcast and maybe other podcasts and maybe multiple times to understand their, what I say, they're Velton showing, this German word for the framework through which they interpret the world. However, you, much like myself, we have a back, background in math, and you also have computer science under your belt. So I'm curious if you

have formulated your Veltan Shown to something like, rather than stating, well, here's what I think, here's the conclusion. You say, okay, I have the axiom of step one, then step two. Because of step one and step two, you deduce this and so on. Like, are you able to lay out the way that you view the world in some simple manner to walk someone who's unfamiliar through? Well, yeah, basically that's what my my book is basically the book that I wrote the language of creation that's what it is I tried to as much as I could lay it out in simple terms and also in relatively logical terms so yeah I'd say I am and the parts that I'm not able to that's what I'm working on you see so there's some parts that I because it's not just from my mind I use the Bible you know I use tradition as a guideline to

understand I'm not just making stuff up you know so like now For example, I just give an example of the book of Job. So if people are upset by the idea that Satan is not always fallen, well, there's an example right there in the book of Job. You know, do what you want with it. I mean, it's right there. And you can see that the Satan that's in that book is not fallen because he keeps asking God for permission to do everything.

So he's asking God, can I do this? Can I try to test Job? And God is like, yeah, okay, he's giving permission. Do this, but don't do that. Like, don't harm him. Or don't kill him. You can test him, but don't do this. He's like giving basically the law that he's supposed to follow in his function of tester.

It won't take long to tell you neutrals ingredients. Vodka, soda, natural flavors. So, what should we talk about? No sugar added. Neutral. Refreshingly simple. Testing Joe, he's telling him what to do. He's giving him a law, a specific law for him.

So in that book, he's just doing his job, basically. So if anyone doubts what I'm saying, there it is right there. It's an example. And there's very few places in the Bible where it talks about Satan, in the Old Testament, at least. And that's like the one place. Well, there's a few others, but, um, Yeah, and there's, it's a function. You see, it's a role.

That's the thing. Other characters do this role, too. Abraham does it, and who else does it? Moses does it. Sometimes God says something, and Moses is kind of trying to argue with him, you know? Are you sure? This is what you want. And same thing with Abraham.

Abraham does it. He does the function, because God wants to judge the city of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham is trying to convince him not to do it. What is he doing? It's weird, right? I mean, who do you think you are? You're trying to tell God, like, try to show him that he's wrong or something? Yeah, that is what he's doing.

He's doing a function, and God doesn't mind because God created this function. So it's like, go ahead, Abraham, convince me that I shouldn't destroy this city. And Abraham does his best to act as the adversary, you know, because he's being an, it's like a debate, almost. He's being an adversary to God in that case. But not a bad adversary, not a fallen adversary. one, a good one. An adversary that is there to, kind of like the hacker that I said, that you're hired to fortify your system. You're not hiring him to subvert it. You're hiring him to fortify, but the job that he's doing sounds and looks like a subverter because he has to find all

the flaws. It's like a criticism that he's given. Let's say you make the system, you hand it over to a hacker and he's like, yeah, no, there's a hole here, loophole here, somebody can infiltrate here. This is problematic. You got this lock system here that's not strong enough. But, blah, blah, blah, blah. So it's all criticism, right? Criticism, criticism, but for the good of the system. And if he did his job right, the system will be better than it was before. It will be more advanced or whatever, more secure. So what are your axioms? My axioms? About how, okay, how things are? Okay, well, basically, yeah, okay. Sorry, this is hard to explain because, as you know, you could stay at axioms. It doesn't mean much unless you find a little bit of a implications of it, right? So, well, this is, the structure I use is the one that's in the Bible.

It's, it's heaven and earth. That's the basic pattern. So God created heaven and earth, right? It starts, the Bible starts like that. So heaven is the plan, something like that, the plan of what you want. And earth is the materials, the powers or the, yeah, the skills, the powers, the materials, all of that, things that are there to serve a function, they don't have a function on their own. So the function and the plan is this heaven, and the rest is earth. So in earth is included powers and skills and things like that. So you combine these together and then you build things, you create. This is why it starts like that in the Bible, because it's about God creating the world. So you start with a plan and materials, you build a house. There you go. So God, this is why

It says, God created heaven and earth because this is how you build things. So I made a plan for my house and I bought the materials. Then I built my house basically, right? That's the structure. And then inside of that, there's obviously all kinds of other functions that you could do. You see, what I'm saying? You could go really far and thinking about all the different functions. Yeah.

So that's the joining of heaven and earth. Let's say you have the plan to create your house? The plan of the house. The plan of the house would be an example. Yeah. Well, it starts with the plan. You're right. It starts with the plan to create in the first place. That's like the highest, we could say the highest level of it because you'd say, I want to build a house. You don't have a plan yet, right? You just have an idea, a very general, vague idea. I want to build a house. Then you see, there's steps to do because then you have to actually make a plan for the house, not just a vague idea, you know. That's part of that. We could say, the process of heaven. Is heaven then prior to earth? It's not important, I would say, honestly. Because it doesn't mean anything before there's that plan. You see, it's like, oh, let's say, I say the plan and the materials to build a house.

Were the materials there before? Sure, whatever. Doesn't mean anything. They weren't materials for the house before I had the plan for the house. They were just stuff. nature it's just nature before you have a plan you don't they don't have a purpose so it's like it's not like well they might have their own purpose let's say like before i build the house the trees existed you know before i i cut the lumber there were trees okay but why are you telling me about the trees

i want to know about the house like tell me the story of your house you know well before there were trees in the forest and then we cut them down and made lumber with it yeah i I don't care about that step. You see, it's not really building. That's not the part of building the house. That's, like, not important. It's kind of the same thing, you see? It's like, was it there before?

Sure. God created heaven and earth. And the earth was, see, the earth was there. But, and it was, see, all the answers to what you ask is in the Bible. It was void and empty and dark. So I don't care about that dark, void, empty stuff, really. I will later, I will later care about it, but not now, I mean, and then you have a plan and then it's like, here's the plan, let there be like, boom, there's the plan, now things

can order themselves according to or be ordered according to this plan. Now all of a sudden things have meaning. So this piece of lumber has a purpose now. It didn't before, you know, that's the kind of thing. When you later start to care about it, does it then change its status from before. So look, there's a void, and then one creates heaven and earth. And then let's take the trees as an example. The house, you don't care about the trees prior to you having a plan to do something with the trees to create the house.

Now, you said you may later do something with the trees here, whether it's to study them scientifically or to do some historical analysis. I don't know, whatever. You may later care about these trees. you later caring about these trees, does that change the status of them from a void to something else? Yeah, well, I'll give you a better example than trees.

I'll give you the example that's in the Bible already, okay? So there's like, as many people know, there's like two narratives basically of creation. We don't have to see them as contradiction, but there's the first narrative where God creates everything, right? And then there's what looks to be another narrative where God creates Adam and Eve, okay? And then it's like sometimes it looks like

they're not in the same order, but it's not that important really. So I'll give you the example I said. In the first narrative, water kind of looks like it's just there to get rid of. So it's like, oh, there was water and darkness, okay? And then what does God do to create things? He separates the water.

Then he moves it to the periphery. He creates the ocean. It's like this thing is, just to get rid, we're just getting rid of the water, basically. Move out of the way, water, we're building something here, right? So that's kind of like when we get rid of nature in order to build, you know, a house, we get rid of the nature. At first, it's, you know, let's get rid of this wild stuff because we want to build.

But then, so it's mostly about getting rid of water. Water can almost be seen as bad. Like, why is this water there? Let's get rid of it, you know? It's not serving our purpose. But later, in the second narrative, water has suddenly, is important. important. And you see, it starts the narrative with, there was not had been rain yet. Like, it talks about water positively for once. There was not a plant in the earth because it had

not rain yet. And then it talks about a river. Oh, now there's water again, but now it's good, right? It's water that's there to water the garden. All of a sudden, all of a sudden, it's a river. So it starts like it's an ocean that you got to get rid of, get rid of this water. And then, after you built a basic thing, you bring back the water, but now the water is there for a purpose. See, now it's positive water. At first it was like, see negatively or define negatively, now it's defined positively.

And what is it for? You want to know what chaos is for. That's the answer right there. This is like water. What do we need water for to water the garden? That's what it says in the Bible. So the water is there to renew. That's what the function is of water,

the symbolism, renew, something make it new make it fresh clean it um that's what it's for so it has a purpose to see the water in that is actually the purpose of the function that i was telling you before one of the purpose is that um the the feminine purpose um it's to renew is to clean cleaning is a kind of criticism right i mean you clean something you're saying you're not okay it's a criticism it could be it could look like it's a bad thing right i mean i'm telling you you're not okay. You need to be cleaned, and then you clean it.

But it's not negative because it's not an attack. It's if it's done by someone who cares about you, you know, it's not an attack. But if it's not, then it can be an attack. Someone could flood you with water. Well, this is what happens in the story of the deluge, by the way, of the flood narrative. Water is used as a weapon, you see, by God. God uses water as a weapon to destroy the world. So water has a positive and negative function.

you got to see it as both. So it's kind of what I'm saying too about the Satan function. It has a function of renewal. It has a function of testing things to make sure they're working. And two, there's another function too. It's improving, improving.

It's not just about cleaning. Because cleaning just means you bring it back to its original state, right? But there's a bigger function here which is improving something. So like if I hire a hacker for my system, to try to make it fail, my purpose is to improve the system, right?

It's not about cleaning necessarily. It can be, but the goal is to improve it. So this is why they say, in the Bible, this is important verse. It says, a woman is a crown to her husband. So the woman is a crown to her husband. It means, because it's related to what I'm saying here, it's about making a system improve it,

improve it, make it even better. So that's what it means to have a crown. It means the system was there and now I'm trying to improve it. You see, a symbol of improving something could be represented by a crown because it's like, we're pointing towards something better, higher, you see? So if you hire a hacker to test your system, you're looking at your system and you're trying to give it a crown, you're trying to make it go higher, you see. So the function, these functions are related. The symbolism, I mean, of the woman is related. to the idea of a crown. So a central premise for your work is that we use, or we tend to read ancient text with our modern eyes, and we don't see them in the same way that the ancients saw

them necessarily. So here would be an instance where someone could read, women are the crown of man or wife is the crown of a husband and think, oh, crown, trophy, oh, you just want a trophy wife. But you're outlining a different case. But a trophy, a trophy, a trophy is related to what I'm saying here. A trophy, a real trophy. The real deep symbolism of the trophy is related to exactly the symbolism I'm talking here, you see? Why do we represent trophies as a cup? Usually we do that, right? Like the archetypal image of a trophy is a cup, right?

Why is it a cup? Because whoever made those understood these things that I'm talking about, because it's about renewal. It's like the grail, okay? A trophy is like the grail. It's renewal. It looks arbitrary, but it's not because, look, I'll give you, again, example.

Let's say I want to improve something. What do I do? Well, you do a competition. You could do a competition to know what's the best alternative. See? And then who wins the competition is the one who wins the cup. Cup is the grill. It's about renewal.

It's like, you are the one who wins the battle of different competitors, right? So you want the best one. You let them compete. And then the winner gets the cup. And the cup is, you have the power. to renew the system. The one who wins the competition is the one who's got it.

Who's the one who's going to make it better? You see, he's the best option. So it's something like that. Because when you have a status quo and you never do a competition, this is when the system gets old and not up to date and corrupt, all these things, right?

If nothing changes. But so then what would you do if you would want to renew? You need a competition. You do a competition. So now may the best, one win. And so that's a way to get rid of the corruption is to do a competition. I mean, that's why we do democracy, right? You have a king. If it's always the same king, we don't

like that idea because we have the idea that it could be corrupt. So what do we do? We do a competition. Democracy is a competition. And the winner wins a cup. We don't do that ritual, but it could be. The winner of the competition gets the cup. The cup is the thing that represents the renewal of the system. So democracy is about renewing this system. And actually, I'm, personally, I'm a monarchist, so I'm not even defending anything here. But I understand why it exists. I understand what's the symbolic role of democracy. So it's, it's the idea of a competition. But the competition can also get corrupt too. So that's, that's the problem. That can be also a problem. The king can be corrupt, but so can the competition to find a renewal of

the system. That can also get corrupted. Newell. Is this related to why women are associated with the resurrection of Christ? Yeah, for sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Women are all about that. The women are, I mean, it's for a reason that in the Bible, the Eve is kind of connected to Satan, right? It doesn't say in the garden narrative that the snake is Satan, but it's like in tradition, we understand this. But it clearly is anyway. If you understand what Satan is, you can see that the snake is doing that function. He's questioning things. He's saying, he's trying to see if they're, he's actually testing, the snake is testing Adam and he, that's what he's doing. He's testing their loyalty to God,

you see. So you might even think that God sent the snake in the first place. We don't know that, so I'm not going to claim that. I mean, it would make sense to think that Adam is, is doing his job and everything. And then God wants to see if he's worthy, if he's worthy of this function, or maybe you can get an even bigger function. Well, I'm going to test this guy. Just like when we do tests for anything, we test to see if you're adequate. And then you fail the test, then you're not.

You pass the test, then you are. So you could see the snake as that. It's just a test for Adam. And you failed. So he failed that test. But he could have passed. Let's linger on this. So Adam is there, and then Eve takes a bite,

and then offers the apple to Adam. At that point, prior to Adam, Adam also taking a bite? Should Adam have chosen not to take a bite? Because you could see this as yes, if he doesn't take a bite, he's obeying God, but simultaneously he's allowing Eve to be exiled alone. Yeah, yeah, I understand. I don't know the answer. But these are questions that are worth thinking about. I'm not going to say that I know. I mean, you see, I told you before that, let's say, I was talking about democracy, and I said, the king can be corrupt, but so can democracy, so can the process that's supposed to renew the system, which is

democracy, an example of it. And I said it can be corrupt. Well, that's what it's basically saying in this story of Adam and Eve. So Adam is more like represents the status quo of authority, let's say something like a king or something, an emperor or something like that. And then Eve does represent that which is supposed to renew him and that which is supposed to find his blind spots and maybe lovingly criticize him like if he starts to get corrupt and she's there to help him not you know she's there to improve him okay but you see even she got corrupt and that's why she was tricked by the snake so she got corrupt and we know how we know how she got corrupt the snake told her that God, God was, had bad intentions, basically.

It's like, God is, the reason he's telling you is not the real one. It would have been easy for them to resist this. You know, all they had to do was ask God, period. People are like, oh, this is a complicated, no, it's not. Say, this guy's telling you that God is lying to you and he has bad intentions and that what he's telling you is not good for you. Okay, I'm going to go ask God. What do you think the snake would have said?

If you would have said that, he would have been like, no, no, no, don't ask him. You would have started to panic, you know, which is what Crooks do when you do this move. It's like, I'm talking against my neighbor. Don't tell him what I said. Oh, yeah, I will tell him what you said. Let's see what happens, you know.

So this guy is trying to keep a secret of subversion, right? And then all they had to do was ask God and tell him, is it true that you don't want? want it to eat from the fruit because you don't want us to be like you, you see? And he would have, you would have given an answer, but they didn't. So that's, I mean, it's not that complicated. This is a real phenomenon in real life, too, you know, if someone tries to say, don't tell this person, you know, this guy said you, he said you were, he said you were dumb.

Don't tell him I said so, you see. Oh, I will tell him you said so. And then we'll see. It's like you got to ask the other side of it. and then the other side will might say no, I never said you were done. What are you talking about? This is how Satan works.

This is how subversion works. You keep a secret. You got to have secrets. And then you make sure this person doesn't talk to this person, right? That's how you cause division. And then you say, this person said this about you. Don't tell him. I said so.

So if you fall for that. So it sounds like that's an answer in this act symbolic or what have you. When Eve offered the apple to Adam, Adam should have asked God and said, hey, God, by the way, Eve is offering me this. This is what she told me, what's cool? What should I do? Yes, very simple, exactly.

And why should he ask? Because it contradicts. If it didn't contradict, you know, if she was giving something that didn't contradict what God said, he wouldn't have to ask God, you know, if you have free will, you could do. But it's something that directly contradicts what God said. So in that case, yes, you should inquire.

It seems obvious, actually, when you say no, but this is a real social phenomenon. I mean, this is how things get subverted. People say things about other people, and then they don't, they make sure you don't connect. See, it's all about connecting things, right? It's all about communication and connecting things to God. And he kind of broke that communication, the snake broke it. He's like, I'm telling you a secret about God. And he's like, you're not going to ask him.

you because I'm saying he has bad intentions. So if he has bad intentions, why would you ask him? You know, I already convinced you that God was lying to you. So why would you then go ask God if he is lying to you? No, you won't. See, that's how Satan tricks people. He makes sure that there's no communication, see? And this is why, by the way, this is why the most powerful thing in the world is

secret stuff, like secret, like secret agencies and things. that let's say we're talking about governmental function intelligence agencies are more powerful than governments that's why they can be they're not necessarily but they can be more power there's also why the occult appeals to many

people occult is something that's hidden yeah people like the idea of secret power yeah absolutely yeah and secret in the sense that the conjuring left rights

on September 5th. I come down here when you're out. Array! Array! Array! Array! The Conjuring last rites. Only in theater September 5th.

Yeah. Secret from. everyone else. That's one thing, too. But you see, the thing is, too, there's nothing wrong with secrets, but they can be used to subvert. And so you've got to be careful. It's like it doesn't mean secrets are bad, but you've got to be real careful when you're dealing with anything that tells you not to say something. So what does it mean to be real careful at this point? So are you suggesting that when we acquire a secret that we should, should talk to God. In other words, prayer, when we have a secret, or is it only when that secret

contradicts something morally or contradicts at all, even like a logical contradiction? I was confused because I'm thinking, okay, let me follow this. God is, some people say God is reality. There are logical contradictions, which seem to be some contradiction in reality. Does that mean that when I encounter the liar's paradox, I should go and pray? Help me. No. no it doesn't mean that um that's an example actually that's good since you're you study you're mathematician right you study mathematics right okay so yeah that's that proof of incompleteness is is is very interesting you know with what i'm saying it's basically the function of of the of the female role the the incompleteness theorem because it's like mathematics is like the

male side, you know, I got some ideas and I deduce. I deduce everything from my principles. Boom, that's the masculine side, you know. It's like Adam naming the animals, you know, the usual mathematics where you have axioms, you approve all your theorems with your axioms. This is like Adam naming the animals. It's like I name the animals. I'm giving a name, okay? That's kind of what it is because you're using your abscums to justify these theorems, okay? It's all connected together like a trick, okay? But then there's like a pride to that when you do that, you know, it's like you get prideful. And then the female role comes along and says, okay, I got a riddle for you, Adam. It's like Eve that brings a riddle to Adam. And the riddle is the liar's paradox, right? Like

you said, this sentence or this statement is false, right? And then Adam has no choice but to admit that he can't prove it or disprove it. He can't. It's undecidable. So it's like a way to say there's things outside your system. Your system doesn't include everything, so don't be too prideful. And this actually is, this lies paradox is something that improved mathematics. You see, it didn't just subvert it.

You see what I'm saying? At first it sounded like to some mathematicians like, this is breaking mathematics, right? The incompleteness theory. But really, what it did is improve it. It generated all these fields in computer science, mostly, where it's like, this can't be done. This can't be done.

Stop wasting your time with this, you know? It's all based on this idea of incompleteness. Many fields developed from that. So it's like if you're doing computer science, it's like you'll want to do. this, you want to create this system, and it's like you want to create it in a way that it will be efficient enough to be useful. Then you hire some computer scientists or mathematician who uses proofs that are very similar to the incompleteness theorem. I don't know if you've looked

into that, but very much related. And then the conclusion is don't waste your time. Don't waste your time making this system. You can't. So it's like a boundary. It's like a negative boundary to what you can do, what you can't do. So this boundary, you could say, ah, this kind of hurt mathematics. No, it didn't. It improved it.

It made us not waste time on certain issues. It made us not turn in circles, which is interesting because the liar's paradox is a circle, right? It's something that contradicts itself and then it becomes true, becomes false, become true, becomes false, right? So the shape of it is a circle. This sentence is false is a circle, right?

If you look at the shape of it, it becomes true, false, true false, true false, true false. So this circle was used to not waste our time on other kinds of circles that are wastes of times where you're trying to prove something but you can't. But if you don't know that you can't, you're going around in circles. You see, if you're trying to prove something that you can't but you don't know that you can't, you could waste a thousand years trying to prove this thing. so it's good to have a way to say no you can't so it gives a little bit of humility you see it's related to humility like it gives you humility to realize some things are outside my system and

never will be in my system so it's like you're saying hmm i thought i was going to explain the whole universe with my science or my in this case it's mathematics but it's the same kind of spirit you know i'm going to explain absolutely everything and prove every theorem with my my system. And then the female side is like, I call it the female side symbolically, obviously, but it's like, no, here's a, here's a paradox that you can't solve. This is like Eve giving something to Adam. And then he admits, oh, I'm not God, you know. There's some things that I can't prove. My system is not, is not complete. But now it's more complete than it was before, because now I know the limits of it.

I know there's some things outside my system, but I can still know things about it because of this new addition to it. It's like a crown. The Incompleton serum is a crown to mathematics, really. You could see it like that if you understand it symbolically. Okay, quick question. So first, clarification, I'm not a mathematician.

My background's in math and physics, but... Yeah, I'm not a mathematician either. Just to be clear, because many people would be like, well, mathematicians research, and this podcast is a different form. a research than what's traditionally called research. Okay, so just that. Number two, symbolically, is it even possible for Adam to have lived in the Garden of Eden while Eve was exiled? Is that even possible? Would it have been possible for Adam to convene with God? Is it possible? Well,

we don't know. We don't know that if Adam would have not eaten, then Eve would have been exiled. We don't know that. It's not that I don't want to answer your question. It's just that it doesn't say that anywhere. It doesn't say that Eve would have been exiled if Adam, let's say Adam would have asked God, hey God, what do you think of this idea? You know, the snake just told my wife this. She fell for it. Now I'm asking you. What do you think? And God is like, no, and he would have given some great mystery probably where he would have understood that. It's not about God, like not wanting you to grow or anything like that. It's not about that. We're not in competition, Adam. This is God speaking, Adam. Let's say, we're not in competition.

Okay, calm down. You're in my image. We're not in competition. You're not my enemy. I'm not lying to you, you see. And then Adam might have said to Eve, no, this is a mistake. We're not going to eat that it maybe she would have she already ate it but maybe if adam would have done that then eve would have been saved from this problem oh interesting we don't know we just don't know the reason i'm asking you i understand that you don't know and no one knows these are hypotheticals but the reason i was asking is i was wondering if there's something about adam staying and eve going or vice versa that would have contradicted the axioms that build your worldview okay yeah I'd have to think about that I haven't I've never thought about that question

because I'm still trying to understand all this this function of renewal you see so if there's no renewer what happens I don't know because it says in the Bible creates Adam, he names the animals, and then it says it's not good that he's alone. So there's a reason why Eve is there. And it's related to sin, too. She's supposed to be there to do the function of, that I was saying before, the function of kind of testing the limits of things. And if Adam is making a mistake, trying to help him to do.

improved and things like that. That's what I understand anyway, to renew himself, things like that. Is it possible that there's no Eve? If there's no Eve, what happens? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, it's not part of the story.

I think Eve has to be there because it says so in this story, but what would happen if Eve ate the fruit and Adam didn't and then Eve was gone? I don't know. Maybe Adam redeems her from exile. Maybe if he's in the garden, he has the power to redeem her, maybe.

I'm just making stuff up here. But if it makes sense, actually, what I'm saying. In the sense that there are stories about this, it's not explicitly about Adam and Eve, but the story, the idea of redeeming something from exile and death, is a pattern in the Bible. But he needs, that's the thing. It's there.

The story of Ruth, you know, I don't know if you know that story, the story of Ruth. It's one of the deepest stories that exist in the Bible. I would say Tamar, the story of Tamar and Ruth are like the keys to a lot. So it's about redeeming. Yeah. So you can redeem things that are outside. So that's, I guess it does answer your question. I mean, Ruth kind of represents the,

fallen feminine aspect and then she's redeemed by boaz but she she she renews her too it's it's a two-sided deal you know it's like she washes his feet in a way and he redeems her from exile and she represents she kind of represents what you're saying the eve if fallen it if adam is in the homeland if adam is in the garden he can't redeem her out of exile So I guess that does kind of answer your question. Maybe Eve stays in exile for a while and then eventually she gets saved. But the reason she can be saved is because there's someone that can save her that's not in the water. It's like if you're in the water, you need someone on a boat to take you out of the water.

If everyone's in the water, you can't get out of it, you see? But if there's a boat and then someone helps you out of the water, then you can get out. It's kind of that kind of deal. If you're in exile and there's someone, someone can save you who's not an exile, can take you out. but if everyone's in exile it's like if everyone's drowning in the water you can't you can't get out of it you see what I'm saying so to the Christian is that the role Jesus served or serves oh the role to us to humanity it's more than that I would say it's maybe part of it yeah yeah but it's more because

he goes into death you see so he's he does go into death so it's so it's more than that It's more than the person who stays in the garden and then pick someone out because he actually goes down and comes out. So it's more, but it's part of it, I would say. It's an aspect of it. So it's always hard when talking about Jesus, because Jesus is like all the symbols in one. You see, so it's kind of like anything you ask about Jesus,

it's always hard to. It's always hard to answer. It can be answered, but it's always going to be yes, yes, that's Jesus too, that's Jesus too, you know. So sometimes it's more useful to use, more specific stories that are not the whole incarnation of the whole truth. You see what I'm saying? As weird as that sounds,

sometimes it's useful to use more specific stories that are just about one truth or just one aspect of it. And then you can kind of focus on that. But when it's Jesus, it's like he has all of the patterns in him. So it would be easy for me to say, yes, yes, Jesus is everything, you know. What is that? It's not that helpful for people who try to understand it from the outside, you know. So it's better to you. It's better for me to say something like root is an example than to say Jesus is an example in a way because it's more specific. And someone could go read that story and see what I'm talking about. It's it's about a specific case of the female part being in exile coming back to the land and then being redeemed by someone who was who has remained in the land.

Yeah. When we started this conversation, I asked you who you are, and at that point you said that there was some aspect of yourself that's defined internally and then some that's external. I'm curious if the internal part of you, if the part that defines you from within, would call yourself a universalist or a perennialist or an Orthodox Christian, what do you identify with there? And what do you disagree with? I'm not a perennialist, if that means what I think. I'm a Christian

I'm partial to Orthodox religion I'm partial to Catholicism too It's hard for me This is part of my I'm kind of in I am in exile myself right now And I'm going to get out of it

I will get out of it But it's not that easy for me It's like I can't get into it But I'm going to get out of it And yeah I'm definitely a Christian That's for sure Um, yeah, I'm in the process that it would, that would be difficult to explain.

Matthew, you and I are extremely similar. So I am similarly philosophically homeless, metaphysically homeless, religiously homeless. You seem to have found more of your land than myself, at least religiously. So do you think the way to get out of it is to join an existing tradition, is it going to be that you're going to plant your flag in Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxism or what have you? I'm sorry, Eastern Orthodoxy? Yeah. That's what it is, yeah.

But, yes, the answer is yes. That's what I think. You have to choose. I don't, I'm not going to say you have to choose a tradition because I think some traditions are wrong. but you have to choose a tradition that is true, you know. If you choose a wrong tradition, you'll be in there, you'll get errors and stuff like that.

If you're in a right tradition, you could get errors too, obviously. That's some of what I encountered personally in my life. But I'm struggling for it, but that's what I am going to do, yeah. So what's preventing you from planting a flag? this is something I literally can't talk about because if I do I become subversive you see so I can't do that

there's some questions that I have to answer that I'm going to answer with help of many people but if I'm not going to talk about the problem that I can't solve you see and I'm not going to talk about these problems that can't be solved what's the point

there's none the only thing it does is cause divisions and subversions and things like that it's totally not useful so when I found when I'm able to express what I'm troubled with

then I'll talk about it I'm getting closer it's related to Satan that stuff and it's related to women like a women in the sense of Eve and the symbolism of these things I mean if you want to

know basically what happened to me is I asked some questions at one point. I've always been interested in the Bible. I come from a Christian background. My parents are Christian. So I've been reading the Bible for a long time. And at one point, I asked some questions, you know, and nobody could answer.

And then I started thinking about it. And then he caused me to fall into what we could describe as exile, which is a state of quest. You're on a quest, you know, quest, like you have a question that you can't answer. And then, you know, people could just say, oh, why don't you just forget about that and just join my gang, you know, join my group.

It's like, yeah, I could pretend, you see. Would you want that? You want me to pretend that I'm agreeing with things that I don't agree, just so I can be correct, you know, just so I could be righteous. No, I can do that, but I don't want to. I think it's not wrong that I don't join something that I am in conflict with internally.

I have to resolve these conflicts before I join something. And I know that the things are correct, you see? I know that they are correct. But I also know that my questions that I, have are not answered you see i'm not going to say what that is but those questions are not have been i think lost and i don't use that to criticize anyone it's nobody's fault you know i think it's part of the like mystery of the universe basically like mystery of christianity that there's a question that's not answered and then this question will be answered eventually

but right now it's not so someone could tell me why you focus on that then why don't you focus on what we do know well that's too late it's like eight from true knowledge of good and bad basically at one point

and now I can pretend I didn't but that's not how it works you know you eat something it's in you it's part of you you can't just say I'm going to forget it it's inside you

you see like if you If you eat something that you can't handle and you immediately vomit, that's a way to save yourself. But if it's been in you for a long time, you can't just vomit anymore as part of you now. So you have to deal with it, which is what I'm doing. I'm going to, I'm close.

And when I do, then I'll do it. what's the right thing to do, which is to join a church, a specific church. I already know what it is for me, what I, but I have to resolve these issues first. So that's, I'm asking, I mean, I have help from different people, you know. But it's because you see how it's dangerous. It's easy. I don't want to be subversive. That's it.

I don't. There's no reason for me to attack. I don't want to attack. Because when you have a question that's not answered, you can use it to attack. right you can use if i have if you have a theory of science and i have a question that you can't answer with your science it's like i'm attacking your science right i'm attacking your knowledge what's the point of that it's there's no reason for me to do that there's none so i'm just going to do figure out what i'm figuring out and then once i do that then i'm going to

probably talk about what I found, which is related, like I said, it's related to the story of Tamar and it's related to certain stories in the Bible that gave me an insight a long time ago when I was about 20, 25, maybe around there. I'm not that good with time, but I got, I have received like knowledge

and I, and it was more a question than answer, you see. So, and now I, yeah, I can't pretend that I'm not, I'm not concerned with these things, so I have to deal with it. So, yeah, I mean, I'm in, basically I'm in exile right now. That's what I am. So I'm not, I don't want anyone to do the mistake that I like to fall into the same trap as me. So I can't talk about these certain issues. Just can't talk about it until I have a good answer.

So the answer might come from someone I talk to or could come from an authority in the church. So far, it hasn't. So it's nobody's fault. I think it's my problem. It's like I, yeah, ate from Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bed. There's some questions that are meant to be answered later, not now, and then I delved into that too much. So, no, it's like I'm stuck in the certain kind of mud. I know how that feels.

Materialism is that. I mean, the science, all this. sciences based on materialism is an example of what I'm saying. So we ask questions, okay? And these questions brought us away from the traditions of, let's say, the church into a whole other realm of things that are not talked about by the church. So the church doesn't talk about atoms and electrons and things like that. You see what I'm saying? So if you delve too much into these questions, you end up separating yourself from, you see, from, let's say, example, the church.

Because it's not a priest's job to answer these questions. It's not the job of a priest to answer questions about electrons, you see. So you could say, oh, I'm going to ask a priest to tell me my answers about what I'm trying to understand, but he doesn't know. And that's not, it's not an insult to these authorities because it's not their job. But see, this is, when you ask questions, you... You end up. Yeah, if you ask questions that there's no answer to,

you end up any kind of exile. So that's kind of what happened to me. And I'm not promoting it. I'm not telling people should do like me. Actually, no, don't. You see. So it'll get resolved when it gets results, hopefully soon. So many people who watch this podcast do so

because they're similarly wrestling with the contradictory or the unanswered. maybe even the, in principle, unanswerable, but we don't know what's unanswerable versus just unanswered. And they take this seriously instead of a signal of nonsense. You'll know many people take the opposite view and they say, well, if something's contradictory, then it's meaningless and just don't care about it. But some people also don't take that view.

Now, I don't care about being galvanic and inflammatory for no reason. But I've similarly tasted something that I probably shouldn't have. and it nearly destroyed me. In some ways it strengthened me more than anything else, but in many ways it's left me adrift and broke me deeper than anything else. I'm being vague for similar reasons to you. You mentioned that you're managing to find your way out of it.

How? You don't have to talk about what brought you there, but what does that process look like? Well, there's different parts of it. One of one of it is to obviously try to answer the question that you have, okay, but how do you do that? Well, I do it in a certain way, which is, it's not something that I necessarily recommend anyone else to, but it's like, I call it, I call it rumination, which is hard to explain, but it's, it's something where you have a question and you gradually work it down with experience of nature, I would say, it's about nature. kind of like in science how you get answers it's look at nature right it's not through deduction it's not through it's by contact with nature

with reality that's how you find it answers that are new you want new things you look at nature you don't you don't look at a book right you don't look at what other people have already said you look at reality nature which is what science does you see science is in the same dilemma as me

but not for the same reasons. Me, it's questions that are biblical. You know, whereas science is like just completely separate, which one might say is better because you can be a scientist and still then say I'm going to be a Christian. And all of this knowledge about science has nothing to do with religion.

So I can just forget, I don't have to see them as conflicted. So in a way, me, it's in a way it's worse. But, well, it's not that true about science because the conclusions of science seem to differ greatly from the conclusions of the Bible, see, so it's not true what I'm saying. It does kind of put you in a dilemma or in exile. But, yeah, it's like a slow process.

How do I reconcile myself? It's a slow process of trying to find answers, but not forcefully finding them, you see? It's also about just changing my attitude about. things is not being arrogant like this is something before I would there was some arrogance in my questioning you know some subversiveness and some forcefulness and now there's not I would say not much trying to get rid of that that's probably what I have to do maybe at one point I'll just accept that there's no answer to what I'm I don't think I don't think that's the correct path though I think I have to find the answer

but yeah part of it is an attitude change like um yeah an attitude change and also a patient learn patience and then it's like i used to be aggressive in my questioning of the bible let's say in religion and christianity i was aggressive you see what i mean yes using it as a weapon against against uh this the system let's say although the church is not really the system anymore let's be honest, it's on the margins now, so it wasn't really that useful, in fact, because everyone's attacking the church anyway, so from all around. So the church doesn't need one more attack from me, who sees myself as a Christian, and that loves the church.

Did you ever go through a militant atheist phase? No. No, no, no, no, because I know, like, I know God is real because I have experiences, you know, I don't care what anyone says if when you have a spiritual experience nobody can convince you that there's no such thing all I say in my mind if someone says there's no such thing

I just say in my mind well you don't you have never experienced it don't know what to tell you you know it's like if you have no nose you can't smell but if you don't have a nose and you tell me that there's no such thing as odor I'm going to say okay sorry you don't have a nose I'm sorry for your condition of not having a nose but

I do have a nose and I do smell odors and you can tell me that it's not real but I'm sorry but it's not convincing to me it's kind of the same thing if you have a spiritual insights and things like that then nobody can tell you that it's not real it's just not going to happen

so I never had that phase of my life where I was like not believing in God or anything of that but I did have a phase where I was critical, very critical of the church, Ches, I should say, because I came from a Protestant background,

so I was critical of that, and then I was critical of Catholicism, and then I was critical of orthodoxy, you see, I went through the whole, I went through the whole thing. So I think that's gone. I don't have that anymore. I'm not critical anymore.

I just know that I'm the one who needs to struggle with these things. It's not anyone else's responsibility, you know. I used to put it on everyone else, now I'm putting it out on myself. I'm seeing myself as the problem instead of everything else, which I think is what you have to do.

I'll get some help from different people. You know, I'm not on my own. But yeah, it's, you have to, I think, have the right attitude. This is why I'm interested, like I said, I'm interested in the subject of Satan and things like that. It's for personal reasons. It's like I have to find out what is the proper way to, criticize something

without attacking it. It's like I have to know that it's the only way I can kind of get out of my situation is to understand the distinction. And this is why it's like important to me personally that the function of Satan was created by God, you see? Because that's how I could get out

of some of the dilemmas that I'm in. It's like I have to know that there's a holy version of this function which is the criticism, you see? there's a holy it can be done in holiness this criticism because if it can't then then yeah then there's no way out of it if you fall you can't come back unless you just completely abandon what you've discovered you see

because you don't want to abandon you sometimes you discover beautiful things outside of the system and then they become part of you and then you don't want to abandon these things. And if you find a way to do it correctly, I think that's what you've got to do. You bring criticism, you bring questions in a good way. There's plenty of examples of this in the Bible. You see, I mean, there's so many examples.

We're supposed to understand this stuff. There's an example of criticism that's good. There's an example of criticism that's bad. I mean, the story of Moses is a beautiful story where his sister of Moses, Miriam, she criticizes Moses, and she criticizes him. And it says she called him out because he had an Ethiopian, like a foreign wife. I think it's an Ethiopian wife.

And then this is an example you see of criticism from his sister. And then it turns out that she was very. wrong. She wasn't doing it right. And then God punished her basically gave her plagues. And she was exiled from the camp because she was plagued all of a sudden. So how do you know if you're doing it right? I think I'm starting to figure it out. Like in the case of Miriam, she criticizes Moses and then she says, I'm a prophet too. She like wants to be recognized as a prophet legitimately on her own. So she says, I'm a prophet. And then she brings that along with the criticism of Moses, you see? So she had a will to power in what she was doing. She wanted to be a leader. She wanted

to be recognized for her role as a prophet, like almost as a competition to Moses, you see. So that's why her criticism was wrong, because she had a will to power. She wanted to be a leader. She wanted to lead. And that's why she was attacking Moses. That's the real reason. reason. So you see, that's, you can have, you can know if it's correct or not. If you have a will to power, then you're, you are an enemy, like a bad Satan, a fallen state, you're, you're, you're a true enemy. If you're trying to get power over something, so you criticize it to get power. So that's what I'm trying not to do. I'm trying, I don't have a will to power. I actually literally don't. So I think it's possible for me to do it the right way, do the criticism correctly,

Because I'm not intending to attack, or I'm not intending to start my own church, you see, start my own movement, and then claim to be the real church, you know, or something like that, claimed to be, which is what many do, by the way. They have criticism, and then they start their own movement, and then they declare themselves the authentic real church, and then that's what you got to not do, you see, in my opinion. So that's part of what I had to understand at one point. You've got to get rid of all these will to power type of desires that we all have. I mean, it's not like we don't have this. It's very human to want to be, to want to have power over something, you know. So I kind of try to get rid of that. I think I am actually.

So I think this is part of my, you're asking how do I do it, you know, my process. This is part of it. getting rid of that will to power. You have to know what's your intentions when you criticize something. Am I trying to put myself above or am I just trying to help by asking you a question that they don't have

any answer to yet? And then maybe my question, they will have an answer and then maybe this answer will be very useful and very helpful for others, others who are not in the church, actually. Maybe it will be useful for them.

to help them to understand certain truths that are difficult, you know. So, yeah, that's what I'm doing. So unless you're a universalist, which I don't imagine you are, wouldn't you, whatever church you end up adopting, wouldn't you think in your mind this is the real church? Otherwise, why would you join it? Yeah, you have to think it's the real church. Yeah.

That's part of the problem, isn't it? You have to. join what you think is the real church. It is a problem. I don't know how to answer. It's part of my problem, too. So, you see, I don't know what to tell you. Yes.

So that's part of my problem. I can't do it. I can't do it. I agree. I love the Catholic Church. I love the Orthodox Church. I love Protestants, too. Sorry, you know.

See? So you said you love the Catholic Church? and you like the Orthodox Church as well, but you love Protestants, not Protestantism. Well, because there's so many branches. You know, I don't know what to call it, Protestant churches. I see.

There's a lot, there's different branches, so I don't love all of them because I don't know all of them, but the ones I do know, you know, it's not, maybe there's some errors in there somewhere, but I still think they're Christians. Would you say that,

when you are attacking Christianity internally, that the attacks can come from a place of arrogance, but you would like it to come from a more functional place of humility. Maybe humility is not the right word, but a more functional place. Okay, firstly, is that what you would say? Yeah, a functional place in this sense that if I do this, if it's not if, I'm doing it, I'm just not really my choice, but yeah functional in the sense that it serves a purpose it serves a higher purpose

to question things can serve a higher purpose okay to criticize things can serve a higher purpose so in that sense functional if that's what you mean so yeah you need humility to make your criticism functional instead of and it's not just humility it's also like yeah it is humility but i mean it's it's something to do with will to power something to do with that. It's like if you have any kind of will to power, then you're dangerous. What do you mean?

You keep saying will to power. What do you mean by that? I mean, you want to have power. You want to be in a position of power. So let's say, let's say I have a criticism of the Catholic Church. And then I say, you guys are wrong about this issue. And then, and I say, change your doctrine, let's say. I'm saying, change your doctrine.

about this issue. And then the Catholic Church is like, nope, sorry. We're not going to change our doctrine because we're right, okay? And then I say, I'm going to start my own church. I would say that's a will to power.

I would say. Because I want to be in charge. I want to be a leader. And I want my ideas to win. I want to win. I think if you don't want to win, you have more chance of winning, especially within the church.

If you're not trying to win, you can win. I think that's the story of St. Francis is all about that. I think this is an example of someone who did it correctly, St. Francis of Assisi. He did the right thing. He had criticisms of the church in his time, and he wanted to renew it. So he didn't attack the church. He didn't make demands.

There you go. That's the way to not do it. Make demands. He just did his. thing and he went closer to nature this is what he did you see I was I was talking about that before he found nature again because usually when we lose certain things it's because we'll lose our connection with reality and with nature so we start thinking things that are kind of crazy and we're too

strict about certain ideas that are actually not really important and then one way to fix that is to go back to reality go back to nature and then you you see what's real, what's important, what's real. The ideas that are actually important come out. They win. You see, it's a competition of ideas. If you go back to nature, the real ideas will win, the ideas that are real. Because nature will force you to have the right ideas, you see.

Because in living closer to nature or being closer to nature, the problems that you'll face are the real ones. And so your solutions and your ideas will have to match or correspond to these problems. And so nature is telling you, this idea that you have is bogus. Forget it. This idea that you have is important. And this other idea that you had, but you thought was not important, is actually the most important. Because now you're faced with reality. And nature is telling you what's important and not. I'm not saying everything, all the answers come from nature. I'm saying the impetus of renewal comes from nature because you're faced with it. You're faced with real

things and then some issues become less important others become more and then that's a way to make it come back to reality so i think this is what st francis did actually with it's related to the idea of the poor poor to dealing with poor people because that's one way to go back to reality you mingle with poor poor people and then suddenly you're faced with real issues because they're facing real issues you know they're struggling and they have real problems you see what i'm saying It's like they don't have champagne problems, you know, they have real problems. So if something becomes overly rich or overly status quoish, you know, encounter poor people and you'll start to see what's real and what's not, you know.

I'm not saying all the answers come from there, but that renewal does. Renewal comes from dealing and seeing nature, but also like, When I say poor people, it's because it's related to the idea of nature. It's because when you're poor, you're kind of in a state of... Ontario, the wait is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget online casino is live. Bringing Vegas-style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your fingertips.

Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting, signing up is fast and simple. And in just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots and top-tier table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn any mundane moment into a golden opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the slots, challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time action, all from the comfort of your own devices.

Why settle for less when you can go for the gold at Golden Nugget Online Casino? Gambling Problem Call Connects Ontario, 1866-531. 1-2-600-0-19 and over physically present in Ontario eligibility restrictions apply see golden nuggett casino dot com for details please play responsibly dealing with real problems that's the i don't know how else to say you're you're in you're you're not have champagne problems you have real problems so the those are real the others are not real yes so if your whole life is based around fake problems then you start making laws that don't make sense and if your life is based around real problems then you're the laws that you make are real, you know.

So, I think St. Francis did that. He went back to nature. He started, you know, talking to the animals, as he himself says. And then this, he didn't make any demands. He didn't say, you're wrong and stuff like that. Or maybe he did, but he didn't make any demands. And like, he won. You could say, it worked.

He did a renewal of the church. It was a big one, too, St. Francis. So he found it in order, and that totally changed. the face of the church, you know, not completely, not into contradictions, but it renewed it. So I think this is an example to follow for someone like me. There's others, but yeah. People who are listening may not be able to detect this,

but if they're watching, they'll see that you're in nature, literally. I think you're the only guest that I've spoken to in nature. Now, you also have a symbolic view. So is nature, when we think of nature, with our modern eyes, we think of nature as trees and deer and dirt. Is that what nature is to you? And is that why you are currently in nature? The reason I'm currently in nature is not on purpose.

So you can't even ask me why I'm here. It's not by my own desire. It's not like I choose. It's like my weird condition that I'm in. So, okay. But what do I mean by? nature symbolically it's it means more than then let's say trees and things like that it means that which is without um without a human uh will impose upon it that's what it means that which is

there if there's no plan impose on it that's my definition of nature so nature can mean different things like in the in the bible the biggest strongest example of nature is water water represents the most pure idea of nature because water doesn't have a will of its own it just descends low it doesn't stand you know standing means you're going towards a purpose right you're standing it's like you're building something towards a purpose when something goes down it falls to the bottom it means that it has no will of its own. It just flows into whatever happens, happens, you know, that's nature. It doesn't mean there's no laws governing it,

but it means there's no artificial law. There's no artificial law that governs this region. That's called nature, I would say. That's how I define it. So in the Bible, the primordial nature, let's say, is the waters at the beginning, because that's how it started. God created heaven and earth, and then the earth was in this way. And the way it was is, like it says in the Bible, darkness and water, covered with water.

So that's nature. And you can understand the symbolism, by the way, when I say nature is about renewal. Well, you can understand how water is about renewal. That's easy to understand. We use water to clean ourselves, and it's definitely about renewal. So it connects these two things. When I say nature, that's what I mean, because you're faced with reality. You're faced with unartificial reality.

Reality that's there before you impose your will opponent. So that's what I mean by nature. I don't know if that helps. So a competition is an example of something that's trying to get close to nature. See, maybe that can help you understand what I mean by nature. Like if you do a competition, a real competition, let's say you do a martial arts competition. Different martial arts fight amongst each other. say you do that kind of

competition. Well, that's an example of trying to renew yourself. See? Because you're doing a competition, it means you're not imposing, you're not deciding arbitrarily who's the best. And you're not also using any standard that you're imposing on it to

say that this martial art is the best. You're letting them compete. Whoever wins, in some sense, it's nature. It's nature that decide. Like when you do a competition, it's like you're asking nature to tell you what's the best, right? Yes.

See, so that's an example of what I mean by nature. It's happening now. This is a process happening. In martial arts, it is happening. This process of returning to nature. And it's interesting, actually, this idea of like MMA is an example, you know, but what's interesting, you have to understand all the symbolism of it, because when you do that, when you go into nature like,

that you end up expressing certain patterns okay and one of the patterns that's being expressed in this mMA is it becomes a show right it becomes a show like a performance almost theatrical it's becoming more and more like w e i'm not saying the fights are fake but the atmosphere and uh it's becoming like a show more it's more becoming a show and less becoming a real competition Let's just say it like that, okay? And that's part of it. It's part of returning to nature is encountering this

dance or this show. It becomes more like a show. Oh, I thought you're going to say you would like to remove the pomp and circumstance. No, I'm just saying it's, no, I'm just saying that's what happens. Because if you don't have a guiding principle and you're just pure competition, okay?

what is the reason to do that okay so one of the reasons is for renewal of your martial arts let's say you're doing martial arts renewal of your martial arts let's say you have an ancient system of martial arts okay and then you're like you're proud of your your system which is a good thing i'm not i'm not criticizing any of that um uh everyone thinks that martial arts is the best you know that's how you got it which is a good thing it's not a bad it's not a bad thing to do that it's like the church yes you have to think yours is the best Otherwise, what the heck are you doing there? You know, it's just logical.

So, yeah, if you think you're martial arts are the best, but then at one point you're like, maybe you not. I have to look in the mirror now and see if this is really true. So how do you do that? You do a competition against other martial arts. Now you're in competition. Now, let's say you end up figuring out that you're not good, actually. Other martial arts completely destroyed you.

So now you're looking in the mirror. Now you're like, whoa, I thought I was this brilliant. grandmaster and now I look at reality the competition is a mirror you know now I see turns out I suck you know and actually this is just any fight

it doesn't have to be MMA you just do a fight is to do that it could be within a martial arts too you think you're a grandmaster okay fight with this guy here and then you get beaten and that's a mirror to your face you know you saw yourself as a grandmaster before and now you see that you're not you know

You just got beaten. That's reality. That's nature, you know, telling you what you think and what is real is not the same. So, yes. And then see what I've saying before. Oh, this is interesting. It's coming, bringing me back to what I was saying before, how this MMA thing is an example of the, what I was saying, the process of renewal, like the role of Eve is this, okay, something like this,

the competition, the tournament. She's in charge of the tournament. It's a feminine thing, actually. I know MMA guys won't like what I'm saying, but the principle of it is feminine. It's like democracy. It's like democracy. You do a competition.

I'm not going to say this guy's the king arbitrarily. I'm going to do a competition, and this will determine the king, and this will determine that which will renew. Okay, so if you have ancient martial arts and you're so sure that you're the best, you do a tournament competition against other martial arts, and then you either get defeated or not, whatever.

It depends on the situation. But now what's going to say is this, too, can be corrupted. This process can be corrupt. Just like democracy can be corrupted. The thing that's supposed to stop corruption and is supposed to renew can also be corrupt. So, for example, a fight can be fixed, right? That's an example of a corruption of this process.

A tournament can be fixed. It can be falsely arbitered. The person who's deciding a fight can be paid by one of the sides. I'm just giving examples of how this too can be corrupt, you see? So you've got to be careful on both sides because you can create a fake tournament as well. You can create a tournament that's actually geared towards preferential of certain martial arts, you see? you could do a tournament that's not neutral

because this is a simulation of nature it's not actual nature you know actual nature doesn't like have preference of certain groups but if you do a tournament you're trying to emulate what nature does you know but you might get it wrong

you might do the rules in a certain way that advantages some martial arts disadvantages others for sure that's what happens I mean even in MMA it's what happens there's certain things that are forbidden. I mean, you can't poke someone in the eye, at least I think. But what if my martial arts is all about poking in the eye, right? I mean, what if my, in my martial arts, I found out

the best way to defeat Napoleon is to poke him in the eye. And now I'm doing MMA and you're telling me you're not allowed to poke in the eye. Okay, so you do have rules. You do have rules. It's not a real competition to determine which martial arts is the best. But I understand why they have these rules. I mean, you can't have people dying now, you know, losing their eyes and die. I understand. But this, I'm just saying, this too can be corrupt and this too can lose its function, which is a function of renewal. And part of what happens, too, with this renewal stuff, is things get mixed up. See? So martial arts get mixed. Wait, sorry. What are the renewals here? Are you saying the fact that some things are off

limits and then the changing of the rules? That's an example I'm saying of this process of returning to nature, like a competition, okay? That too can be corrupt. That's all I'm saying. Like, this competition could have rules that are not neutral. Got it. That advantage some martial arts and not others. That's what I'm saying. Like, if you say you're not allowed to poke someone in the eye, well, what if my martial arts is all about poking people in the eye, you see? Yes, yes. Or bring whatever knife you want. Yeah, I can't win this tournament, but maybe in real life, I would poke you in the eye and you'd be finished, you see? So the competition has to be as neutral as it can be, which is almost impossible because

this is what I was saying. It's actually interesting because part of this is things happen when you do renewal that you don't necessarily want to happen, but it's part of the process, like mixing of things. So it's called mixed martial arts because it mixed the styles. Is that good? maybe maybe not maybe that's bad too it couldn't be bad it can be bad it's not necessarily good it can lead to be a worse type of martial arts if you mix certain things into it who knows I mean it's not maybe the future will know but it could lead to losing some things that are

actually very meaningful because you try to just be the best of fighting you know there's other aspects of martial arts it's not just about winning you know there's a transmission of certain knowledge through forums and things. And that is not just about winning a competition. But still, I'm not even criticizing the idea of doing a competition of different martial. I think you have to do this at one point. Otherwise, all the different kinds of martial arts get big heads and they think they're just better than everyone else.

And then it's like, you've got to have this confrontation. But it becomes, okay, so what happens is this is part of what happens. just naturally. It becomes a show because you can do it to find out what's the best martial arts, but you can also lose that impetus, lose the reason why you were doing the competition in the first place. And then what happens is it becomes a show. It becomes a, the purpose for it has changed. Let's say, it becomes about making money. Let's say, for example, then it doesn't serve its purpose anymore. It's not about determining the best martial arts. It's about making money. So all of a sudden, this is when maybe you start changing the rules in a way that's not

the best because you can't make money and you can't do a show if people get their eyes poked out on every fight or if people break their legs on every fight or if some people die literally in a fight, which could actually probably happen often if they did let them loose. Some people would die. I'm bad. I mean, you can get kick in the head in the wrong way. You die. Okay. So They have to put in rules to not have this happen, but why? Because it's a show. It is a show. It's show business.

It's not just a competition to determine the best martial. You're saying what I'm saying. It's like, I'm giving examples of how things can become corrupt of what their original function was. If the original function of this tournament was to determine the best martial art, then you've got to be careful what you do. You've got to be careful not to have this original impetus replaced by another one. Like, for example, to make a show, because making a show is not the same.

And then you said symbolically, this is related to the feminine, how? It's related to the feminine in the sense that the role of the feminine is to renew forms of things, to renew them. Okay? Renew them in the sense that you've got a system. The system doesn't, it just performs what it does, okay? It's like it has blind spots because it has some rules that it follows. Is renewing the same as updating? Yes.

Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. Updating, improving, is hopefully improving. Updating is definitely a way to see it. Like renovation. Renovation is a way to say. Actually, I would imagine updating to be a subset of renewal. And the reason I say that is, let's just take an analogy with Windows or some specific program in Windows.

You then update it to the version 2.0, then you update it to 3.0. But then at some point, that whole application may become obsolete, and you have to transition to a new application. And I imagine that transitioning to a new app would still be a renewal, but it's not technically an update. Yeah, it's still a renewal because it's basically the same system. Let's be honest. I mean, when they do new windows, it's still the same basic ideas, still the same basic patterns. I mean, they could call it an update if they want, and let's be honest. I mean, it might be, the coding might be changed, but the idea and the structures of Windows hasn't changed that much.

since the since a while you know so yeah it's so yeah updating is a part of renewal another part is just cleaning cleaning the the errors that have accumulate because systems accumulate errors you know um it's like cleaning that from from the system making sure that the system has not hardened into things that are not important or false that's like more like washing with water it's more like washing yourself, you know. And then the updating is the improvement. You've got to also try to improve systems, you know, otherwise what's the point?

So the improvement is what I call the crown. When I said it's a crown, I meant that, exactly that, improvement. Because improvement means going higher than I was before. So it's like you're giving a crown to something when you try to improve it. Now, what about optimization? Yeah.

It's part of it. Would that be more symbolically in your view, masculine feminine neither I'd say that's a little bit more masculine actually because you're trying to be efficient you're trying to do the best

that the system can do I'd call that more masculine actually and the renewal is more about when a system doesn't look at itself anymore and then it kind of doesn't

yeah it hardens itself into a position and if the position is wrong that's that's the worst possible outcome right but even if it's just a hardening that never improves that one point you got to start improving or otherwise I mean you don't want to stay the same forever you want to improve that's it should be obvious but it's the thing is it's always a dangerous process when you do that when you try to there's there's a dangerous element to all this you know like mMA is an example because who knows if if that's going to be beneficial in the long term to all the different martial arts.

I don't know. We'll know in the future. Maybe it will destroy all the martial arts through its mixing, you know, through its hybridization of martial arts. Maybe it will end up destroying them because I don't know. I'm just saying it's a possibility.

Because maybe in each one of these branches of martial arts, there are some part of it that is meant to preserve the branch, the form of it. Okay, and then if you get rid of that, then you think you've improved it, but maybe in the long run it'll just disappear. It'll just go away because you remove something important of it that was meant to preserve things, okay?

And then the impetus of preservation is now gone, and now it just becomes almost like fashion, you know. Now there's this new technique that we're bringing into our fighting style, and then it turns out that this new technique was just to get a gimmick. and it turns out that if you just know about it, you can defeat it immediately. It wasn't a deep addition to our martial arts. It was a superficial one that for a moment it looked like a really powerful way to defeat an opponent, but it was only because it was new because when you fight, you know,

you encounter new techniques, you can get defeated by a new technique. But that doesn't mean it's better, it's necessarily superior to you because if you just learned that technique, it could take you a couple of weeks. and then next time I fight you, you better be careful because now I know that move that you did, you see? So in the long run, sometimes you can get defeated by something new, but that doesn't mean it's a permanent. It doesn't mean permanently that you lost to this opponent.

You have to have a few competitions before you could decide that because new things can surprise you, but as soon as you know them, it's like you're not going to fool me twice, you know. So the next time we fight, maybe you'll get completely crushed because now I know you're a little trick, you know, your little move that. Not everything new is good. Sometimes new things are just temporarily going to win.

That's how you can see it. They're good for a moment. They win this moment, but then they're not going to win in the long term. Other conditions will occur where your new addition will be like a weakness for you. And then maybe you'll just lose completely and you'll be finished. So you've got to be careful when you do this. updating stuff you can't just always see i'm trying to give the i was saying how the renewal thing

is not perfect either you got to be careful it's like there's many things to be careful about it's not just because something is new and better for now that it will be useful for a lot in the long term sometimes you can add something that looks better now but in the long term we'll call it all kinds of problems in ways that you don't even know because you haven't tested it yet it hasn't been tested by time let's say so this is why tradition you can't just always transform things you got there's a wisdom to the ancient knowledge why is it like this why do our ancestors do this for so many hundreds and thousands of years and then you come up with a new way of thinking you don't just replace this ancient thing with this new idea even though now in this moment it seems better you just

got to be careful with that stuff you know because you end up you can end up destroying yourself with things like that, you know. Hi, everyone. Hope you're enjoying today's episode. If you're hungry for deeper dives into physics, AI, consciousness, philosophy, along with my personal reflections, you'll find it all on my substack.

Subscribers get first access to new episodes, new posts as well, behind the scenes insights, and the chance to be a part of a thriving community of like-minded pilgrimers. By joining, you'll directly be supporting my work and helping keep these conversations at the cutting edge. So click the link on,

screen here. Hit subscribe and let's keep pushing the boundaries of knowledge together. Thank you and enjoy the show. Just so you know, if you're listening, it's C-U-R-T-J-I-M-U-N-G-A-L.org. Kurtjimungle.org. Early in this conversation, you mentioned Tamar, and that plenty of your project is to make sense of Tamar as an adambration of Satan, a connection to Satan. What was it? Yeah, well, really it's at first it was about differentiating that the way, what she does, which is a good, fruitful and useful criticism, right, of, in that case, it's Judah, okay? It's like Judah did something wrong, and then she's like there to renew his lineage, basically. Because his lineage is dying off, so she's there to renew him, but she does it in a really way.

weird way where she like tricks him you know she disguised herself as a prostitute and she kind of tricks them but in that story so if i had let's say we don't want to get into too many details because I could talk about this story for hours so it's not a good idea so um let's say she does a renewal process of judah in a very deceptive way but it's presented as good so it tells you that there is an aspect of this, which can be done correctly, which is a tricking someone or something like that in a way where it's done correctly. And it's not just tomorrow. Later I, it's the first story that hit me, but later I realize that there's many stories like that in the Bible. They're just a little bit more subtle. Rebecca is an example. There's many stories where there's a trick

by the woman, basically, and the trick is there to renew something that was dying or dead, or it's about resurrection, really. So is the story of Ruth, okay? So the story of Ruth is really about resurrecting a fallen lineage, and the story of Tamar is also about that.

So the idea is, when you read the story, it looks, what she does, looks almost evil. It looks like almost, like I was saying, kind of satanic, you know? But this is the first story that hit me. I saw how similar this was to my idea of what Satan is, you know. So I had to distinguish between Satan and Tamar. Let's say, why is it okay what she's doing and why is it not okay

when we see this type of subversion and other systems? So there's many answers. I obviously not going to get into it here, but that was the premise of my problem in the first place. But then later I found many, many answers in the Bible. It's so many places where it's about that problem. of criticism, constructive criticism, and updating, the idea of updating, the dangers of doing so, the dangers of updating, but also the characteristics of this whole process.

I mean, there's, interestingly, there's many stories that most, these are stories that people don't get, by the way. This is what I noticed. So, look, I'll give you just an example, let's say quickly, of a story that's really relevant to what we've been talking about recently, and it's a story that I don't see anyone understanding. It's the story of, it's Jacob that takes

three branches from three species of trees, and then he strips the bark, and then he puts them in water, and then the sheep multiply when they drink that water, okay, the water that was put the three sticks in,

and then the idea is that he's making a flock for himself. He's making a new flock out of an old flock. but the symbolism that's there is very similar to the symbolism that we're talking about when I'm talking about MMA and such he's taking three branches this means in the case of MMA

that would be three styles of fighting let's say three schools that are completely separate really and then he's removing the bark making them like naked you know going back to the essentials of it and then putting that in water mixing all that these essences of these different martial arts in water

and then making the sheep drink that water and that renews it creates a new flock for him okay so it's just an example of a story in the bible that not many people understand but actually if you if you understand certain patterns it's really easy to understand it's quite it's quite literally a description of what i was talking about with the mma different styles that are mixed together in a way to create something new so it is about renewal this is why it's about drinking water because drinking waters relate to the you know the grill and renewal. Drinking is about renewal. And it's just an example of a story

that pretty much knows what he understands, but it's actually quite obvious when you understand certain ideas. And actually, that story, if you know the story of Tamar, you can know that those two stories are almost the same because what Tamar does is she takes three sons of Judah. These are like three branches in a tree of descendants, you know, offspring.

And then she mixes them together in a way She confuses them using leverage. That's a complicated issue. But she mixes three branches together and then she makes a new offspring for him. So those two stories are actually very much related. So for people who know these stories, you'll see that what we've been talking about

is very much related to these stories. Okay, now you said most people don't understand this story. So how is it that you're able to understand? it. Like, what is it that makes you different that you're able to see these symbolic connections? Oh. And is it something that can be achieved by other people? Is this just a matter of orientation or openness or something else like gratitude? And once you have that, then more of the Bible or more of symbolism makes sense. Like, what is it about you that allows you to see this when most other people don't. Well, it starts by admitting that you don't know. That's the first, that's the first thing

that not many people are willing to do, admitting to yourself that I don't know what this means. Let's be honest, I don't know. Instead of wanting to look confident, let's say, and then talking about this thing that you don't know just so that you have some kind of authority over others, let's, for example, I'm not saying that's what everyone does, but some people do that, admitting that you don't know, and then just that is already a start. And then I would say what I said before, rumination is the idea is because these are simple things that the reason we can't see them

is because you don't have the right patterns in your mind to interpret reality. You're not using the right patterns. And one way to get those patterns is to think more concretely, I would say. And you think in terms of reality instead of abstractions. Because you see, when I give the example of MMA,

it's kind of obvious that that's the kind of what it's talking about, the story of Jacob with the three branches, bringing them together and putting the essence in the water and then creating a new flock for himself. It's easy to understand what that means once you have the right patterns of interpretation. I mean, a lot of it is in my book, a lot of these patterns,

but they need to be used to look at reality. You see, you can't just study these patterns for themselves. There's supposed to be lenses through which you, perceive reality. So me, in my mind, I have this idea of a tree. A tree represents specialization of species, something like that. I don't know in English, the word, when you specialize, you know, you create different branches. Speciation. You specialize into some direction. This is what we do. I mean, this is how things grow. And so to me, because I'm using these patterns. Now when I see

him taking different branches and mixing them in water, it's all immediately obvious what it means. It's like I have the right categories, basic is what I'm saying. I have the right categories to understand some of these stories. And in order to get the right categories,

this is what's difficult. You have to first know that you don't know and then gradually try to see what their patterns are. What are the important patterns? They're in the Bible. I mean, you just see what's it there. It tells you, like, if someone asked me,

how do you, why do you take heaven and earth as a pattern of interpretation for the Bible? Well, it starts with that in the Bible. God created heaven and earth, boom. That tells you right there, this is the most important pattern that you should use to interpret these stories. But there's others. There's the tree, see? So there's lots of trees in the Bible because it means something. If you have these correct patterns, then you can read the story and interpret them correctly.

but it takes time just to because it takes time to learn a language it's basically learning a language so so if you ask me what what's specific about me nothing really i just maybe patient a little bit maybe that's that's it i guess patience so would you then say that you don't actually start from the axiom of god created heaven and earth you start from the axiom of the bible is not wrong about itself for sure and then you get that axiom from your experience Because other people may just say, well, how do you know the Bible's not wrong? And then you mentioned that you had your own experience. Yeah, well, it's not about being right or wrong.

It's about, it's telling you what to use to understand it. It's like a primer telling you what's the, what, it's like a key, a cipher, you know? It's not about right or wrong. You want to understand this thing. You need this cipher. And then if you apply the cipher to this code, you understand it. It's like a code that you decode. There's no right or wrong.

It's about using the right lens to view something, and then when you look at it through that lens, it becomes obvious. It becomes meaningful. So is it right? Is it wrong? I mean, it's, you see what I'm saying? There's different...

This is interesting. Yes, it's yes. So how does one know when one's using an interpretation that's correct versus an arbitrary one? So in your cipher case, you could actually apply any deciphering mechanism to some zip file on the computer and it could look like gibberish

but then a human would have to look at it and then note, oh, that one is actually not gibberish, that one has meaning to it, but to the computer all of it's gibberish. There's no actual interpretation to the computer. So it's not so clear. So for you how do you know when you're interpreting something correctly

or when one, it's like someone else, is interpreting something correctly versus just falsely or arbitrarily? I could tell you my criteria. I don't know if I'm right about it or not, but I use two things. I use reality and I use the Bible. So I use mostly, let's say we're talking about how to understand the Bible.

I look at a story and then I use a certain lens to interpret it. Okay. If this same lens can be used to interpret many, many, many other stories, then it's decent that I'm using it. If I just interpret this one specific story and it doesn't help me to interpret anything else, it's probably not really that important. What I'm doing is probably not that significant.

But if I find a way to interpret one story and it applies to other stories, that's a good sign that by, it's like science, right? I mean, you find an equation that explains gravity. You see a lot of different phenomena in nature that's being explained by this formula. here that you discover this equation that, let's say, describes gravity, let's say, an example. So you see a lot of different phenomena, celestial phenomenon, phenomenon on Earth that is now

being described by this simple formula. That's how you know it's useful and it's valid. If it only explains one thing, who cares? It's about generalizing your knowledge towards simple things. These simple things can explain many, many, many things. So that's my criteria. you. So I kind of gave you an example here of, I said, I talk about trees, just the fact that I can interpret the story of Jacob and putting the branches in the water and creating a new flock and the story of Tamar with exactly the same pattern. So here it's branches of a tree and here it's branches of a, like a family tree, right? In the case of Judah, she mixes those branches in a way, she confuses them, and she creates a new flock. So just that is an example of using

the same pattern to interpret two stores and all of a sudden these two stories make sense but i mean i have many many such examples you know i'm giving two here but that's my criteria if it explains a lot so if you have a cipher and a text and he explained just part of the text the cipher is probably not good it may be a coincidence but if you have a cipher and explain the whole thing or almost the whole thing then you're on to something you see so okay so the counter argument would be threefold. One is that you have to have repeatability, falsifiability, and protect yourself against patterns being overfitted. So my understanding of what you're saying is, look, the overfittedness we can actually throw out because you've established your template

from a subset of the stories in the Bible, and then you notice that they start to apply to others. It's not that you've looked at every single one and thought what pattern fits all of these at once. you can't even hold that all in your head. So you can't technically overfit the Bible. Am I correct so far or no? Well, there's many, many, many implications to these patterns. That's the thing. So it actually does, can be used.

Simple, simple patterns can be used to explain a whole lot of stories, but just like a few axioms can produce all of the theorems of mathematics. It's not because something simple that it doesn't have a lot of implications. So some simple things have no implications. Some simple things have a lot of implications. And I'm trying to use pattern that have a lot of implications. And so because of that, it can be used to interpret many, many stories. But like you said, there is a problem of imposing a pattern onto a story and being wrong.

Obviously, yeah. You can always be wrong about when you try to understand something. That's never going to go away. But my criteria is what I said. I mean, I'm not purposely trying to force. You know, that's like I have the same concern as you. I want to make sure I'm not forcing, which is why it takes me a long time

because I'm trying to make sure that I'm not doing that, you see. Here's something that I imagine is false. So when you were speaking, you were saying that the void is what is lacking in plan. Perhaps that's a sufficient condition, but not necessary. It doesn't matter. Heaven has to do with a plan. and somehow standing upright has to do with a plan.

And then I was thinking, and I didn't say this out loud, but I thought, okay, perhaps if a plan is connected to us people and we are standing more upright, is that the symbolic reason we stand on two legs rather than an animal, which is close to the ground on fours? However, I then corrected myself in my head because I noticed trees behind you, and a tree stands taller than us, but I don't imagine you would say that a tree has more plans than us. So was my analysis of, well, was my symbolism of us walking on two legs versus four off? Or is there no symbolism to that?

Is it just a brute fact of nature? Yeah, no, there's symbolism. You mean, there's something to understand in it for sure. I mean, you always have to, well, you're doing it, but I was going to say you always have to compare things, you know, in order to have meaning. So, yeah, if you compare a dog to a human, you could say we're standing up, upright is kind of a sign of intelligent and it literally is. I mean, it's not just accidental. I think that humans are more intelligent. It does have something to do with the fact that we have this position. We're not looking at the ground all the time, you know. We're not

the face down in the grass, you know. It's hard to be smart when you're faced down in the grass, seriously. So it does relate, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to become like kind of absurd in your application of it like, oh, giraffes are therefore more intelligent than humans. No, I mean, you don't have to go into directions like that. You mean, you just use your brain. I mean, the people who wrote the stories, right, create a certain syntax for you to understand certain things. You can always create another narrative, and then in that narrative, things don't make sense. You see, the people who wrote these stories are intelligent. They know what they want to communicate so they they're not going to put a giraffe if they're trying to communicate to you like

for example in this story of um actually being really tall is not necessarily good uh in in terms of the bible the giants are taller than men but they're seen as not not superior to men they're seen as fallen so that kind of answers that question but um it's not necessarily just about being high or being low it's about being properly connected the high and the low some things are really high but they can be falsely connected to reality like you can have a really high interpretation of reality but it doesn't match with facts and so that falls apart it's not solid so it's not just about being high or low you can have a really high plan but not being able to implement it that's not good so sometimes it's better to be small is the symbolism something that can only be applied to stories or

narratives but not to say data such as what i just gave was an example of data at least i would call that humans walk on two legs animals walk on four roughly speaking i would consider that data not a story so is the reason for the failure of applying the the planning heaven upright connection to what i just said is it because what i said was data and not a story i would i would not interpret it on data honestly i would interpret it only with stories that are because stories have a syntax it's like whereas on their own don't have much meaning you You know, if I say a ball, what's a ball? Am I talking about a rubber brawl or a costume ball, you know?

Just a word without syntax, it has a lot of weird meanings to it. The word ball doesn't mean much if you don't have something next to it to make sure that we know what we're saying. It's kind of the same thing here. It has meaning, but it's not precise. If I say, you know, there's a ball. What does that mean? You don't know until I add another word next to it. You don't know until I put it in some kind of context.

So is it correct for me to, if you say there's a ball over there, is it correct for me to think that you're talking about a rubber ball? Maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusion so quickly. It's kind of the same thing, you know. The stories are meant to help you make sure that you have the proper interpretation with syntax and with other symbols next to them to fortify a meaning, kind of like a sentence in the English language. The words have vague meaning until you put them in a sentence.

Now, for the diagrams in your previous book, which I will place on screen, the language of creation, are there any rules or diagrams in that book that you now reject or have updated and will be in your next book, or at least as in your mind, is updated? There's not much updating. It's more like finding more implications. It's more like that. because the patterns that I talk about are extremely generalized, you know, they have a lot of implications.

Like, for example, look, I'll give you a clear example of what I'm saying. I want to write a book about dreams, okay? And what I understand about dreams is already in my first book. It's like, I think it's chapter 65 or something. It's called the symbolism of dreams in exile or something like that, sleeping in exile. I'm not sure exactly the title, but all the patterns, are there. So if someone wants to know what I'm going to talk about, let's say in a book,

if I write, if I manage to write it about dreams, you just read that chapter. It's all there. But many implications. See, because real knowledge is about having principles and many examples to make sense of it because our mind works with examples, right? I mean, if you don't have any implications of it, it's kind of meaning, it's kind of not real knowledge. You have to have example so if i write let's say a book about dreams which which is something i wanted to write even before i wrote my book actually this is something really i decided a long time ago i wanted to write a book about dreams but then i kind of gave up on the idea because i realized i would need hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of examples of dreams in order to have enough material to kind of prove what i'm

saying or to kind of have enough explanation of it um i think i actually say that in chapter that chapter After 65, I say it would take many, many examples to actually make sense of this pattern, which are dreams. So to answer your question, it's about going more to detail into the implications of the patterns that I talk about in my first book. So that's what I'm doing, basically. There's one thing I might change, but I'm not sure because I'm still working on. It's the true of knowledge of good and bad that I'm still working on.

and always I probably will be working on. I described it the way I understood it back then. I think I'm not wrong, but I need to work on the implications of it. I have to find many, many examples in the Bible of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. What does it mean? Because even though it doesn't say explicitly in the Bible, like this is about the tree of knowledge of good and bed, there's many examples of it.

So if I have many examples, then I can kind of prove myself, you know, what I'm saying about what that is, the tree of knowledge of good and bad. So I've found since then many examples. Eventually, I would like to talk about just that, the true of knowledge of good and bad, but that's way off right now in my mind. I have other things that I'm working on.

Is there a reason that in the Bible, God has a different relationship to heaven than he does to earth? Why does God have a different relationship to heaven than he does to earth? Well, in some way he has the same thing. same relationship because it's both below him, you know, in a sense, they don't have the same function, but for God, they have a similar relationship in the sense that they're both.

It's like if you say, you know, I have a hammer and a screwdriver, you know, I don't have the same relationship to these two things, but in a sense I do have the same relationship. You know, it's not exactly the same, but they're both tools for me to use. they're not the same tool I don't use them the same way but in another sense in a more general sense I have the same relationship

to these objects they're both tools to me I can explain what I mean from my layman understanding God is identified in heaven but God is not identified on earth at least if he is

it's in a finite time whereas heaven it's atemporal or infinite yeah okay so what's the question why so why because because god is when god is on earth is has to be small and a weak otherwise we die that's the answer because it's too big we can't handle it so god has to manifest in a way

that it's not forceful to us which god has to manifest in a way that it's not forceful to us which god has to to manifest in a meek way, in a small way. Like in the ark, let's say, God goes on top of the ark. It's all contained in a way so that it's not dangerous because otherwise this thing that created, or this being that created the universe is dangerous, obviously, right? It's like infinite power, infinite knowledge, let's say, infinite information, infinite power. I don't want to see that.

I don't want to see that. I don't want to, you see, I don't want to die. I'm going to die if I see that. So you don't want to see God and all is greatness. You want to see, you want to know essentially what God is. You don't want to see the full power and the full thing, you know. I don't know if that makes sense, but to me it seems obvious like, it's danger. God is dangerous.

It's dangerous. Anything big is dangerous. Anything powerful is dangerous. So there's, there you go. It's not just a case of God. You know, if I want to learn about a dinosaur, I don't want to see a giant. gigantic dinosaur in front of me. I'd rather see a replica of a dinosaur in a museum or maybe a film about a dinosaur. It's kind of that kind of thing, you know. But in the case of God,

it's the real presence of God still, but God is able to lower himself, you know, and make himself small, which says a lot about God in itself, that God is willing to do that to limit himself for our knowledge. It says a lot about what God is, really. God is dangerous. Do you think that that's related to some of what you've been going through? I know we're tiptoeing around it, but hopefully you understand what I mean. That's related? Yeah, I think I understand. You had an experience that kind of like destroyed your mind or something like that, right? Is that what you mean like it kind of destroyed your ability to just maybe have a normal a normal life or normal thinking process i don't know if that's what you mean but i can understand but i mean you can

have things through a direct experience but you can also have them through um deduction too i mean i would say me i did have an experience when i was around 20 i'm not sure anymore the date between 2020, I had it, I had an experience of having like a direct kind of experience of spiritual things. And yeah, yeah, my book literally comes from that experience. But it took me 20 some years to make sense of it. So it is related. I would say, yeah, it's related. Because I saw, I had like a, I was in a really bad state of mind where I was, I had some bad experiences, you know, and I was kind of black pill, you know, the ultimate, a really strong black pill there. And I was just not caring about anything, really just wanted to not do anything. And then I had this weird experience, yeah, where I saw, saw something. It's like, I think God saved me basically, you know, from that black pill, I guess. It saved me. So I saw. I saw something. And, yeah, my book comes from that.

It does. It comes from that kind of, let's say, vision that I had. But it didn't break me at all when it happened. It saved me, I would say. Because I was really blackpilled at that time. It couldn't break me more than I already was in my mind. It's not in my mind, but it's like more in my spirit or in my outlook, let's say, on reality. So, and then it kind of saved me, I would say, by showing me some truth, like really deep

truth about reality. And that's exactly where my book comes from, is that insight that I got. And then it, but it didn't make any sense back then. And it probably wouldn't make sense. If I would to, like, describe my kind of vision, I'm sure it would not make sense. Well, maybe now it would, because if somebody read my book, they would. will see, if I would to describe it, they would see, oh, that's your book, isn't it? Like, that's a really condensed version of everything you talk about in your book.

So, yeah, it is related. Yeah. Okay. I hadn't thought about it like that, but now that you kind of mentioned, I realize. It is because I had a weird experience. I kind of was too much. Because when you have a weird vision or an experience, I think it's not necessarily good. It means something like you need.

something that you can't handle but you need it and you're going to see it and it's like it's not good it means you're not ready to receive logically or consistently this truth and then you have to fix it after that you have to make sense of what you saw in a way that is not in dangerous or crazy or that's why it's not a good idea to talk about this thing with other people because if it doesn't make sense to you that you don't describe it because it's going to sound even more crazy to someone else, you know? So that's kind of what I did. I, instead of going crazy and talking about this experience, I just took 20 years to figure it out and then took about four or five years to write it down. And then I also anchored it in the Bible. That helped me, too. It helped

me to not go off into weird places to just use the Bible as a kind of frame to put that in. You see what I'm saying? Like I made it fit into the stories instead of just letting it go wherever, and that kind of helped me. It's kind of, yeah, what you were saying a little bit. You see something big, it's dangerous, but you put it in a box, you know, you put it in a containment so that it's not dangerous. So I guess my book is a containment for an experience that I had.

Yeah. It's funny that I never thought about it like that. Is it something, is it similar to something that you've experienced? I haven't told you what I saw, but I mean, I'm not going to. Well, in some ways, you shouldn't and you don't need to. Now, for me, much of what you say resonates outside of the last, part of holding it back or not speaking about it to other people. Actually, in part, what saved me is when I speak about it to some people privately.

I don't think I've ever said what it is publicly, and I don't want to. I don't know if I should, but anyhow, I had to speak about it privately. It took me maybe months before I could, and it's still been a few years and I'm not fully recovered but I know the more I speak about it the less I'm shattered yeah it makes sense it doesn't make sense that you in talking about it to certain people I mean you probably choose you see it's not you do you choose who you tell it's a way to contain it you know when you choose you choose who you tell you two people you trust, it is a way to contain it, I would say. It's a way to externalize it but still contain it

in a way you're telling people that you trust this thing that you experience. Does that make sense? It's a similar process. You're not externalizing it totally. You're externalizing it in something that makes sense in someone that you trust, probably. You're not telling a perfect stranger, I'm guessing. What is it that you disagree, physically with Jonathan about, if anything? I don't necessarily disagree with what he's saying. I just don't. I just specialize in a certain way, in a different way.

So it's not that I disagree, it's that I see certain things that he doesn't, and he probably sees things that I don't. But it's like, I know what I see that he doesn't. I don't know what he sees that I don't. Obviously, right? I mean, it's just logical. But, I mean, I know that when he talks about certain subjects,

I see that I see it, understand something different than him. And that I don't even disagree with what he's saying. It's just I see another aspect of it. I see like, sometimes he sees only a negative aspect of a certain thing, and I see some positive aspect to it. That's an example. I see. Has it ever been the opposite?

Probably, yeah. Probably. it's hard for me to know his side of it because if I see something only negatively and he sees it positively, I can't tell. It's hard to tell when it's not you, but I think he, obviously he's more an agreement with

the whole idea of authority and maybe a little bit more the rigidity of certain traditions, you know. But that's not like a metaphysical thing. It's just almost a practical application of things. So I would say, I think I don't disagree with them, actually, on the ideas. I could disagree with what he's doing, but it's not even my, it's not, it's not even a disagreement.

It's more like, I wouldn't do that, you see? It's not the same as a disagreement, because it's like, I don't want everyone to be like me. I don't expect others to be like me. So sometimes I see someone doing something, and my reaction is just, well, I wouldn't say it like that or I wouldn't do it like that, but you'd say it like that if you want. You see what I'm saying? It's not really a disagreement. It's more like a, a, and I know, noticing that I don't have the same character as him, you see, or the same goals even sometimes. Is there a question that you don't want to know the answer to?

I think there are some things that should remain secret that doesn't mean I don't want to know them. But I could be trusted to not repeat them publicly. I'm probably not answering your question, but to me it is an answer because some things are meant to be secret, I think. And some things are meant to be public.

And sometimes some people want to say the secret things publicly. and these things change over time too at one point in time depending on certain events or certain circumstances some secret things can become public but before that they remain secret that's how I see but so if you say

are there things you want you don't want to know if I'm not ready to understand something no I don't want to hear it that's my assessment of it but I can't know if I'm ready to hear something so I can't I can't know see that's part of the problem it's like if you you don't know what you can't handle you can figure it out at one point by experience but it's probably because you you had some contact with that thing and you already saw that you

can handle it so then it's like no more but on the outset you don't know what you can handle it which you can't handle but I would say I don't want to know things that I can't handle if that answers your question it's not anything specific. It's just in general. I don't want to see or know something that will that will not be helpful

for me. I'd rather not know. Now, before we end, you'd mentioned maybe 10, 20 minutes ago, you said, it's not in my mind. Maybe it's in my spirit, and then you corrected yourself

and said something about outlook. So what is the difference between your mind, your spirit, and your outlook? And is one most important of these three? Well, I mean, when I say my mind, I usually mean my ideas, what I used to see the world with my ideas. And the ideas, in the real sense of the word idea,

where it's like a principle that you used to understand reality. And my spirit, I guess, that's the reason I changed it because I don't like that word because it's been overused and it's kind of become meaningless. It's a little bit overused, you know. And then I said my outlook because it was more precise how I, the way I see things, but not necessarily just in terms of my ideas, but just in terms of my opinions and my, it's like there's things that I like and things that I don't like, but it's not based on my ideas.

It's just based on my preferences, you know. So I don't have the same outlook as other people. I can have the same ideas as someone else, but doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to view everything in the same way. So, it's like I have a different character. I'm more, let's say, introverted. So there's some things that, to me, seem like not a good idea, certain things that people do. It's not a good idea.

But I don't think that they should listen to me. It's just my opinion based on my preferences. You see what I'm saying is not everything is about, you know, I don't expect everyone to be the same. That's what I'm saying. It's like you can have preferences. of certain ideas and certain ways of being, you don't have to impose your will upon everyone,

you know, like a crazy person. You can let other people think differently than you without having to say that it's an error, but in some cases, it is. See, this is so tricky. Yeah, in some cases it is. This is so tricky. It depends what it is.

It depends what level of the idea or the act is, you know? The reason I say that is because, look, if we want to say or you want to say or one wants to say that there is a real church like a real tradition or a real religion, whatever it may be, there's one true one. Not that there's one true one for you or there's one true one subjectively. No, no, there's one true one objectively. But at the same time we want to say, well, people should be thinking differently or they're made differently or what have you. Then it sounds like one is saying there's one single path, but then another is saying there are multiple paths.

So is it possible for you to retain that, look, the church that you, Matthew will eventually join, is the right one. It is the correct one, not just a correct one. Yet, at the same time, it's not for other people. Can you hold both of those in your head, or do you think, no, one of those statements is correct only? it's i don't know like i don't know what other what's good for other people it's like not

my concern really i mean if i it's like when people talk about other religions like i don't want to talk about other religions i don't want to talk about the other religions because it doesn't concern me really but i understand if you're looking at it from completely out of these religions you might want to look at each one and be like why don't you guys just all get along or something like that. Or like, why don't you just admit that you're all saying something similar? I think eventually there'll be a resolution to these kinds of questions, but it's definitely not me who's going to do it, you know?

Maybe someday some wise person will have all the answers and maybe even reconcile different things like that. it's certainly not me so it's like you can ask me my opinion you know it's like there's there's degrees to things too it's like why does it have to be all or nothing i mean there's certain truths in certain places and there's certain other truths in other places sometimes they don't even contradict they're just talking about very different things sometimes one is not talking about this aspect and the other one is only talking about this aspect so are they both true are they both false well sometimes they're both true sometimes they're both true sometimes they

contradict each other. You know what I'm saying? It's not like an easy answer. It's a complicated subject because these are complex these are complex beings, you know, a religion is not a simple thing. So it's like there's some truth that are in common. There's some truth that are not. So which one has the full truth? I think it's

Christianity. I'm sure of that. But I mean, someone can argue with me if they want. I'm not, I don't know. I didn't study the other religions, too. You see, that's part of the problem, too. Sometimes we want to, like, act like we know other things. I mean, I could barely, I'm working all my life to understand, let's say, one book of the Bible, or just one story in the Bible. And I'm seeing all this implication, all the depth to it.

And then if you ask me, what do you think of this other religion? I don't know, honestly. You see what I'm saying? It's like, I could pretend. like I know. Or I could play team sports and just say, my team is good. Your team, because it's my team, it's my team. Could do that, but it's not useful. It's like, I don't know. It's like sometimes people ask me, what do you think of Buddhism or something? My answer actually is just, I don't know. I have some of the depth of the Bible, but this depth that I see in the Bible is enough to tell

me that I should be careful about what I say about other I don't know it's like I understand if I can extract so much knowledge from this one story or this one little thing in the Bible how can I think that I'm going to pronounce myself on these these other things these foreign things that I don't know I can't really but I mean if I played team sports I could say my team is right the other team is wrong this is what people do and I don't even think it's wrong really because like you said If you're in your team, you've got to think your team is the team, you know. Otherwise, you're kind of stuck. You're stuck in Nowhereland.

You see what I'm saying? It's like, if you're stuck in nowhere land, you're not better off than if you're in one place or in one branch of, let's say, Christianity. Like me, I'm not better off because I'm like stuck. I think I'm worse off. so it's not that it's not like i'm being more clever you know i'm more clever than the catholic because i'm not choosing this you see is i don't think that at all i think the opposite is i think there's something wrong with me it's not that i'm better it's that i'm worse you know but i understand

your question it's hard you know i read books like everyone i read books about buddhism i read books about Islam, I read books about Judaism and all that. So I don't know almost anything about any of those things as compared to the level that you can get from just studying something specific, you know. But I understand your dilemma. You're in the same dilemma as me, really. I could see.

It's like a dilemma of if I choose one path, then I miss all the other paths. I get it. It's not. I'm in the same mud as you, stuck in the same mud, I guess. Matthew. Thank you. Thank you for spending some three hours with me.

Yeah, it was fun. Hi there, Kurt here. If you'd like more content from theories of everything and the very best listening experience, then be sure to check out my substack at kurtjymongle.org. Some of the top perks are that every week you get brand new episodes ahead of time. You also get bonus written content exclusively for our members. That's C-U-R-T-J-A-I-M-U-N-G-A-L.org.

You can also just search my name and the word substack on Google. Since I started that substack, it somehow already became number two in the science category. Now, Substack for those who are unfamiliar is like a newsletter, one that's beautifully formatted, there's zero spam, this is the best place to follow the content of this channel that isn't anywhere else. It's not on YouTube, it's not on Patreon. It's exclusive to the Substack, it's free, there are ways for you to support me on Substack if you want, and you'll get special bonuses if you do. Several people ask me like, hey, Kurt, you've spoken to so many people, in the fields of theoretical physics, of philosophy, of consciousness. What are your thoughts, man? Well, while I remain impartial in interviews, this substack is a way to peer into my present deliberations on these topics. And it's the perfect way to support me directly.

Kurtjymongle.org or search Kurtjimungle substack on Google. Oh, and I've received several messages, emails, and comments. from professors and researchers saying that they recommend theories of everything to their students. That's fantastic. If you're a professor or a lecturer or what have you and there's a particular standout episode that students can benefit from or your friends,

please do share. And of course, a huge thank you to our advertising sponsor, The Economist. Visit Economist.com slash tow, T-O-E to get a massive discount on their annual subscription. I subscribe to The Economist, and you'll love it as well. To is actually the only podcast that they currently partner with, so it's a huge honor for me, and for you, you're getting an exclusive discount.

That's Economist.com slash Toe, T-O-E. And finally, you should know this podcast is on iTunes, it's on Spotify, it's on all the audio platforms. All you have to do is type in theories of everything, and you'll find it. I know my last name is Complicated, So maybe you don't want to type in Jymongle, but you can type in theories of everything, and you'll find it. Personally, I gain from re-watching lectures and podcasts.

I also read in the comment that Toll listeners also gain from replaying, so how about instead you re-listen on one of those platforms, like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts? Whatever podcast catcher you use, I'm there with you. Thank you for listening.