Speaker 1: I see somethings are going to happen.
Speaker 2: What's going to happen?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Occult Rejects. It's an episode. I'm very excited.
Speaker 3: I have another author on, uh and it's about you know,
Speaker 3: religion and reality, one of the books that we'll touch
Speaker 3: on and some other things that he has written. And
Speaker 3: I definitely think it will fit the show and I'll
Speaker 3: have a great chat. But before we introduce him, let
Speaker 3: me introduce the other rejects. And we got Lisa the
Speaker 3: Occult reject, bad scientist. How are you?
Speaker 4: I'm good, I'm very good. Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 4: I'm very much looking forward to this conversation. I first
Speaker 4: came across Darren, remember we had we were talking throughing
Speaker 4: on whiteheads theories and process philosophy and stuff like that,
Speaker 4: and I stumbled upon there and when you told me
Speaker 4: you were having him on, I was like, Oh, this
Speaker 4: is gonna be great to me, A great discussion. So
Speaker 4: looking forward to and thank y'all fellow rechecks for also
Speaker 4: having me on.
Speaker 3: So of course, thank you, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 3: And we got Tyrone. What is going on, sir? How
Speaker 3: are you.
Speaker 5: Here?
Speaker 2: What's going on?
Speaker 4: Hey?
Speaker 3: Nice?
Speaker 2: To meet you, Darren. This is going to be an
Speaker 2: interesting show.
Speaker 6: That's actually my first time hearing about you, so I'm
Speaker 6: gonna definitely be paying attention. I'm ready to take notes
Speaker 6: just like always, and uh yeah, I'm just ready to
Speaker 6: get it on.
Speaker 2: So yeah, thanks Nick, appreciate it, of.
Speaker 3: Course I appreciate it. And uh for people listening by
Speaker 3: the time this comes out, I would assume maybe, uh
Speaker 3: Tyrone's work is already out by then, definitely go check
Speaker 3: out on the Universe Unveiled. My man killed it today
Speaker 3: with the show on the the Adunaki and on zachar
Speaker 3: Ryers Sischen's work. I definitely suggest to please go check
Speaker 3: that out. And then we got Ethan Indigo. What is
Speaker 3: going on?
Speaker 2: So very cool.
Speaker 7: I'm looking forward to checking that out, Tyrone. Uh yeah,
Speaker 7: I've been checking out Tyrone's book, and I'm also a
Speaker 7: writer and uh recent article on a research institute dot
Speaker 7: org and more to come, and excited to hear about
Speaker 7: Darren's stream of study.
Speaker 2: Very very intriguing.
Speaker 3: Hell yeah, right, definitely, thank you, Ethan. I appreciate you.
Speaker 3: Want to promote any of your books, h yeah.
Speaker 7: The Fourth Initiation is is my most recent one. And
Speaker 7: and I've been checking out uh Tyrone's book, and Ricardo
Speaker 7: wrote a book too, and yeah.
Speaker 2: A bunch of a bunch of writers. So this is
Speaker 2: this is gonna be fun.
Speaker 3: Yes, definitely, definitely. And finally to the man himself, Darren, Unfortunately,
Speaker 3: I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce your last name.
Speaker 3: I'm meant to ask you before we recorded, and I
Speaker 3: was like I was introducing everybody. I'm like, damn it,
Speaker 3: I never hasked how today his last name.
Speaker 1: It's brutal.
Speaker 3: I was like, Iam Mareno, maybe that's how I was
Speaker 3: gonna say, but I was like, I don't know. So Darren,
Speaker 3: introduce yourself. Please let everybody know what you deal is.
Speaker 3: Let let any any receipts you want to bring and
Speaker 3: tell people about your past, what you studied this and that,
Speaker 3: or any books. Please let everybody know.
Speaker 1: Now, all right, I mean, I'll keep that short. It's
Speaker 1: not that interesting my last name. I just go off.
Speaker 1: I'm Marino. That's not really how you pronounce it, but
Speaker 1: it's easiest, so simple that way. I went to I
Speaker 1: got my PhD at Claremont Graduate University up in LA
Speaker 1: in philosophy of religion, and I did focus on specifically
Speaker 1: process theology. I heard that mentioned Whitehead. I didn't know.
Speaker 1: We even't really go into that. I don't We'll see
Speaker 1: if you want to. I'm happy to go down that.
Speaker 1: But that's a that's a challenging Yeah, can of worms.
Speaker 1: So I went there, and then I taught at San
Speaker 1: Diego State for like four or five years and over
Speaker 1: you now University of San Diego, taught at Claremont School
Speaker 1: Theology and two books that maybe we'll get into today.
Speaker 1: One is Religion Reality and that does have a lot
Speaker 1: of actually processed philosophy and Whitehead material in there. And
Speaker 1: then totally different type of book maybe we'll touch on it.
Speaker 1: Lessons from the Afterlife for a Happy Life goes into
Speaker 1: like near death experiences, but instead of exploring whether they're
Speaker 1: true or not, it's basically just accepting that people are
Speaker 1: having an amazing transformed experience from these indies. So maybe
Speaker 1: we can like utilize aspects of the indie experience to
Speaker 1: sort of recreate that without having to actually go through
Speaker 1: the brutality of the near death part.
Speaker 2: So vertit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, when I had saw that you did work on
Speaker 3: that too, I was like, that could be a whole
Speaker 3: of the topic or the show itself, because we've had
Speaker 3: people on Fendes as well. I'm very very interested in
Speaker 3: those I've said it multiple times myself on the show.
Speaker 3: I even think with even if you want to take
Speaker 3: out like magic or ritual magic or occultism, I would
Speaker 3: even say the Shamans are pretty much putting themselves close
Speaker 3: to an end or or death experience to have the
Speaker 3: experience that enlightened them. So I'm very interested in that stuff.
Speaker 3: I guess, Darren, what got you? What interested you to
Speaker 3: start getting into these studies? I mean, were you were
Speaker 3: you kind of like open to the occult or esoteric
Speaker 3: maybe putting you know, I know, cult sounds worse, you
Speaker 3: maybe open to esoteric stuff like an earlier age, And
Speaker 3: that's why you went into like kind of studying this
Speaker 3: stuff for school.
Speaker 1: So I actually came at sort of the occult esoteric
Speaker 1: stuff a little bit later. Okay, So I started. I
Speaker 1: started off more because I was doing philosophy and religious
Speaker 1: studies because of the overlap on the big questions, the
Speaker 1: nature of bolts in reality, meaning of life, the big
Speaker 1: the big sort of topics. Right. I was into metaphysics
Speaker 1: pretty specifically in theology and then I have an eclectic interest,
Speaker 1: so I'm like, hey, I want to start I want
Speaker 1: to start reading all these occult esoteric books. And I
Speaker 1: actually have an antiquities collection as well, separate famith, so
Speaker 1: I have like some I have some really rare old
Speaker 1: cult books.
Speaker 3: Something I just I just want to ask real quick.
Speaker 3: I know how we were talking about like Platinis and
Speaker 3: Plato earlier with those people that you were studying, when
Speaker 3: you mentioned that you were into philosophy, were you already
Speaker 3: looking into those people then? Yeah, absolutely, Mean that's really
Speaker 3: interesting because I mean I had heard of them when
Speaker 3: I was a kid, of course, you know, growing up
Speaker 3: in school, and then like I guess, you know, whatever
Speaker 3: his life went on, I just didn't think philosophy was
Speaker 3: important and other things were. And when I came back
Speaker 3: around getting into the occult, their names are huge and
Speaker 3: pop up again. So it's interesting how like when you
Speaker 3: find them or when like or when I was younger
Speaker 3: and came across them, the occult was nothing to it
Speaker 3: or was just falling as if he deep thinking. But
Speaker 3: then when you get into for me, into occultism or
Speaker 3: I was in the Oto, their names were big, you know,
Speaker 3: Like I said, some of them are on the Saints List,
Speaker 3: So I find that just like very interesting. I think
Speaker 3: that's probably why I assumed you must have been involved
Speaker 3: in the occult. They're interested in the esotericism prior to
Speaker 3: this because of the you know how I look at
Speaker 3: it now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting with Plato, right, especially because he's foundational.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's pretty much like a one oh one class.
Speaker 1: They're gonna hit you with a lot of Plato and
Speaker 1: Aristotle as well, right, but Maine with Plato, I would say,
Speaker 1: and a few people are aware. I imagine that all
Speaker 1: of you probably are. But Platonic thought influences everything, everything.
Speaker 3: I even think it might have had an influence with Kabbala.
Speaker 1: Everything.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was like, yo, when I started looking at them,
Speaker 3: I was like, this sounds just like the supernal triad.
Speaker 3: This is unreal.
Speaker 1: Look why led just to bring since what Whitehead was
Speaker 1: mentioned or whatever? Process philosophy? He specifically states that, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm paraphrase. I don't remember the exact quote. The effectively,
Speaker 1: history is nothing but a series of footnotes to Plato,
Speaker 1: which is at least a half truth, I would say.
Speaker 1: I mean, he pretty much lays out Plato does a
Speaker 1: lot of the core issues and arguments that are still
Speaker 1: talked about today even in the twenty percentury and philosophy courses.
Speaker 1: So and Christianity, right, most people when they think Christianity,
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, it's it's it's against paganism. It's nothing
Speaker 1: but littered with neo platonic Since you mentioned platonis right,
Speaker 1: specifically neo Platonic thought everywhere.
Speaker 3: And then if you go by what Platonist is saying,
Speaker 3: he's like, I'm not even creating anything new here, I'm
Speaker 3: just expanding on Plato and trying to make that more understandable.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean if he says that you're right, yeah, he
Speaker 1: doesn't true.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 1: So I that was definitely where you need to start there.
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of going chronologically right. I've never understood, like,
Speaker 1: I have no problem throwing one of my former colleagues
Speaker 1: under the bus. Won't name names, but they were They
Speaker 1: weren't too happy about the fact that I, like, I
Speaker 1: was teaching that intro to philosophy class and I had
Speaker 1: all this ancient material and then I had medieval philosophy
Speaker 1: as well, and they were basically like, why are you
Speaker 1: teaching this jump straight into Renada card just start there
Speaker 1: and move forward. And I was like, all right, let's
Speaker 1: just throw out I guess thousands of years why not?
Speaker 1: So it's interesting And in the world of philosophy, there's
Speaker 1: definitely like camps people that like Whitehead. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think the people like white Head are pretty open minded
Speaker 1: to but like a lot of people don't like Whitehead.
Speaker 8: Let me put it that way, and what do you
Speaker 8: think the inclination for that perspective is that they don't
Speaker 8: that they want to start at the cart and not.
Speaker 2: Look at the Greek.
Speaker 1: To answer that. Partially, I think it's because the medieval period,
Speaker 1: at least specifically is so has so much of the theology, right,
Speaker 1: and so they don't want to talk about arguments for
Speaker 1: against existence of God. And a lot of these people
Speaker 1: are more atheists, right, so maybe think it's a waste
Speaker 1: of time. This person did tell me that it would
Speaker 1: be okay to have one week on ancient Greek thought.
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, wow, one week, all right, I guess
Speaker 1: that covers it is jam everything and that, right. I
Speaker 1: don't know beyond that, it's a good question. I'd love
Speaker 1: to get inside their head to know why, but I.
Speaker 4: Wonder how much of it is because it's so contested,
Speaker 4: and that there isn't It's not just two camps of thought,
Speaker 4: you know, pro or four. It's like all these little
Speaker 4: SubCamps of thought. And I think it also has roots
Speaker 4: in who influenced Plato. And there's so many contested theories
Speaker 4: about Pythagoras, there's so many contested thoughts of empedicallys and
Speaker 4: you're having these ancient philosophers also feed into some of
Speaker 4: Plato's theories and thoughts. And if you already have camps
Speaker 4: from those two, great now you have Plato. And it's
Speaker 4: just it's too complicated. It's like a girl's brain. It's
Speaker 4: like too many things going on at the same time.
Speaker 1: You're definitely right pythagorists. I mean, there's no denying that
Speaker 1: he's a massive influence on Plato. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: I don't even think too many people would hopefully dispute that.
Speaker 1: But that brings your esoteric also kind of into the
Speaker 1: into the picture. I don't think they had as big
Speaker 1: of a thing back in the ancient world. Of like
Speaker 1: a problem with this is more on the esoteric side. Therefore,
Speaker 1: we can't touch it or whatever. I think they were
Speaker 1: more open and philosophy was about catharsis.
Speaker 3: You see.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just like this, arn't you know, sitting in
Speaker 1: our ivory tower at a university arguing in someone else
Speaker 1: in another university. It was meant to actually be therapeutic.
Speaker 1: So if you're doing it's wonderful.
Speaker 7: How some of the ancient lessons come in layers that
Speaker 7: manifest differently depending on where you're at, and years later
Speaker 7: obviously you might get different you know, lesson from it, right,
Speaker 7: And all these esoteric lessons they're in there, and there's
Speaker 7: also the very you know, the basic one too often,
Speaker 7: the mathematical one for instance.
Speaker 1: Definitely didn't they worship like you got. I don't know, Ethan,
Speaker 1: do you know the Bagerians or Lisa.
Speaker 4: Yes, they celebrated, but they were all about the ten.
Speaker 4: So yeah, sorry, Ethan.
Speaker 7: No, I was going to say that that kind of
Speaker 7: has the four layers of the tech tractus being one
Speaker 7: point two points three and four. It kind of has
Speaker 7: the four and the ten, and it depicts the four
Speaker 7: dimensions of geometry. I know that they I think they
Speaker 7: really love nine and the Textractors kind of encompassed everything.
Speaker 7: But I have heard variously that the Pythagoreans despised two
Speaker 7: as they saw it as being divisive, almost like we
Speaker 7: would understand the polarization idea, and the trinity was perfect.
Speaker 7: The three was perfect because of the fact that it
Speaker 7: had the two sides of equilibrium and the middle part.
Speaker 1: That makes sense.
Speaker 3: To me. Oh, I was gonna ask you, Darren, so
Speaker 3: what was it that made you get into doing religion
Speaker 3: and reality book? That book?
Speaker 1: So, to be honest, that was sort of an outgrowth
Speaker 1: of my dissertation in large part that particular work. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty shocked they even allowed me to do it because
Speaker 1: typically with a dissertation, as you know, it's like narrow, narrow,
Speaker 1: and narrow right down to something ridiculously specific. Whereas I
Speaker 1: went the opposite direction. I'm like, hey, I want to
Speaker 1: try and make some massively comprehensive thing, and for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: they let me do it. So that's what got me
Speaker 1: started on that project, and because I wanted to look
Speaker 1: this might bring up another interesting point for us to discuss.
Speaker 1: So a lot of people that say they're spiritual but
Speaker 1: not religious, common phrase right to do. I mean, we've
Speaker 1: all heard it right, So typically what people mean by that.
Speaker 1: Obviously this doesn't cover everyone, but I think in large
Speaker 1: part they tend to believe when they say that deep down,
Speaker 1: all the religions are the same, They're aimed at the
Speaker 1: same object and have the same form of salvation. So
Speaker 1: this might be known as the perennial philosophy. Perhaps you've
Speaker 1: all heard of that. That's in the last least one
Speaker 1: hundred years or so, how you might hear it referenced,
Speaker 1: And it's a common belief even still, and so religion reality,
Speaker 1: that book is actually going against that whole set of claims.
Speaker 1: So it's a different framework for dealing with interreligious dialogue.
Speaker 1: You see. The real problem with the idea of like
Speaker 1: deep down they're all the same is that if I'm
Speaker 1: a Christian, you're a Buddhist, we can have a conversation
Speaker 1: and it can be cordial or whatever. Maybe I'll learn
Speaker 1: something about like your temple or you know, wherever you
Speaker 1: some ritual you do. But I'm not going to be
Speaker 1: able to learn anything of ultimate importance that I couldn't
Speaker 1: learn from my own tradition. See, because it's like they
Speaker 1: all lead to the same summer on that view, So
Speaker 1: I don't really need to have a dialogue. You you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, Like I can, but I'm not
Speaker 1: going to get anything of the deepest, most profound importance
Speaker 1: from a dialogue.
Speaker 3: If it all gets you to the same area, what's
Speaker 3: the difference exactly?
Speaker 1: Its purpose was to generate dialogue, see this perennial philosophy.
Speaker 1: But in the end it almost makes it unnecessary.
Speaker 4: So that's almost such I've always thought religion is just
Speaker 4: merely a language to have a dialogue with God. That No,
Speaker 4: this may offend a lot of people, but no language
Speaker 4: is perfect or no language is the ultimate, no language
Speaker 4: is the right one.
Speaker 7: It just is like religion, it just is.
Speaker 4: It is the way to actually have a tool to
Speaker 4: communicate with the divine. But and so what you're saying
Speaker 4: is if it all gets us to the summit, that's
Speaker 4: a pretty aligned with kind of what I was thinking.
Speaker 1: Well, so what I'm saying in the book is that
Speaker 1: there are different paths, different summits, not that they're all
Speaker 1: going into the same right like the same you know, apex,
Speaker 1: like you have in entpreneur philosophy. If it's if it's
Speaker 1: true that there are different components, that comprise ultimate reality,
Speaker 1: and ultimate reality is more like a complex adaptive system
Speaker 1: requiring these multiple parts. Now we can propose that Buddhism
Speaker 1: is focused on one or more of these parts. Christianity,
Speaker 1: Judaism as long are focused on a different component. If
Speaker 1: you can accept something like that, now there's actually a
Speaker 1: necessity for dialogue because if I'm talking now a Christian
Speaker 1: of a Buddhist, I'm able to enrich my personal you know,
Speaker 1: spiritual life or religious life through dialogue and through practicing
Speaker 1: in your faith essentially and.
Speaker 2: The diversity of belief.
Speaker 1: Yes. And the thing is like, okay, so if I
Speaker 1: make that claim, what's my supporting evidence? And supporting evidence
Speaker 1: is easy to find, which is actually read all the
Speaker 1: sacred texts. A lot of people don't.
Speaker 6: So that's what I always say too. I always tell
Speaker 6: people read the sacred text. I was just talking about
Speaker 6: that earlier today. That's the most important thing, and that's
Speaker 6: just learning the basics. That's just that's the basic fundamental
Speaker 6: foundational thing to understanding anything is just read the basic
Speaker 6: text first. I mean, you're gonna have different translations and
Speaker 6: so on and so forth, but they're going you'll get
Speaker 6: a better idea if you just read the text for yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you got, you have to do that. I mean,
Speaker 1: so the text is one piece of this to build
Speaker 1: a case. A second piece is the commentary tradition. That's
Speaker 1: where you get a lot of the stuff really is
Speaker 1: coming out of like the most famous person who's given
Speaker 1: commentary right on this religion. Right, So that's the second thing.
Speaker 1: Then the third piece is read the accounts of religious
Speaker 1: experience from those traditions. So if you do all three
Speaker 1: of those things and then you look at the evidence,
Speaker 1: you'll find that it's very difficult to uphold the claim
Speaker 1: that they're all the same. In fact, even in the
Speaker 1: same religious family using similar religious language. To your point,
Speaker 1: so right, like say Jews like versus Christians versus Muslims
Speaker 1: or something, there's radical differences, right, like tranitarian Christianity versus
Speaker 1: strict Monotheism within Judaism and Islam dietary laws for is
Speaker 1: Law and Judaism, no dietary specific laws really, I mean
Speaker 1: for Christianity. Right, So even within a similar clustered like
Speaker 1: family of religions, let's say like Abrahamic, there's still wildly
Speaker 1: different in terms of their claims about ultimate reality. And
Speaker 1: even salvation, what's required. It all comes apart to my point.
Speaker 1: Once you start to read look.
Speaker 7: At I find I find the idea compelling, and it's
Speaker 7: almost as if we're here different people are here for
Speaker 7: different lessons, And I find what you're saying to be
Speaker 7: very parallel with what Buddhists would say. I'm sure you've
Speaker 7: you've found that yourself right now. You know they would
Speaker 7: agree with you, that people might be more suitable for
Speaker 7: a different religion or a different path, if you will.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that Buddhists are pretty generally open minded, right,
Speaker 1: even a dialogue with the sciences, or not even just
Speaker 1: other religions. So with like consciousness studies.
Speaker 7: And as you put it to the the experiences of
Speaker 7: past students and the writings of past practitioners is a
Speaker 7: real important aspect of the study of Buddhism.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're in a world of comparison, so everyone
Speaker 1: wants to like, Okay, let's just compare all these. If
Speaker 1: I want to play the comparison game, I can cherry pick,
Speaker 1: you know, and make it seem like all the religions
Speaker 1: are the same. It's not hard, but you read the
Speaker 1: whole text like we're saying and all these other things,
Speaker 1: and then you realize, Okay, if we do our full
Speaker 1: due diligence, we can see that you can contrast these
Speaker 1: things very easily. And that's a good thing because it
Speaker 1: shows the way to dialogue to actually enrich your spiritual life.
Speaker 1: Is what I'm claiming in the book in Religion Reality
Speaker 1: and to bring in the white Head piece if Lisa
Speaker 1: is that in process theology, there is this notion of
Speaker 1: a sort of multiple philosophical ultimates or religious ultimates, so
Speaker 1: it's not like it's just God or something that creates
Speaker 1: ex mihilo everything else. So Whitehead's philosophy is like pluralistic
Speaker 1: enough that it provided an initial framework to how you
Speaker 1: can like match up the different religions to some of
Speaker 1: the aspects of reality the white Head's talking about. And
Speaker 1: what I did in the book is I expanded upon
Speaker 1: Whitehead and added, like he has like maybe two or
Speaker 1: three you could say three, and I added a couple more.
Speaker 1: I basically made the claim that there's like five distinct
Speaker 1: components to ultimate reality according to the religions if you
Speaker 1: look at all of them, and that you need all
Speaker 1: five because if you don't have all five, what ends
Speaker 1: up happening. You have to collapse the function of one
Speaker 1: of those five back into the remaining three or two
Speaker 1: or one. So like a lot of people that collapse
Speaker 1: everything into God. Right. God's all powerful, all knowing, necessary
Speaker 1: for you, all this stuff right, And when you do that,
Speaker 1: you end up with a ton of other philosophical problems
Speaker 1: like the problem of evil just for one example, or
Speaker 1: free will or whatever else.
Speaker 3: So did you want to You're gonna say something, Lisa, though.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was.
Speaker 4: I was going to ask how that kind of LinkedIn
Speaker 4: in you with your paper with Penrose and the CCC
Speaker 4: theory of cosmogony. I think it was pronounced.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, that the article that you're read that makes
Speaker 1: more sense because that one is available open access. That's
Speaker 1: not actually the one that's on like the sort of
Speaker 1: like Satanism material. It's a different article, okay, But I
Speaker 1: mean happy to touch on a second, which is that
Speaker 1: so I also do work in religion and science. Even
Speaker 1: to tying what I was just saying, I said, there's
Speaker 1: five components that make up altern reality is the claim
Speaker 1: in this book, physics, chemistry, biology. It's not just about religion.
Speaker 1: They are focused on one or more over, sea of
Speaker 1: these five as well. So it's a book that encompasses
Speaker 1: both religion and science, right and religious pluralism. Now, to
Speaker 1: tie it into the article you're talking about. One thing
Speaker 1: that's been frustrating for me when you go to conferences
Speaker 1: is that when you're talking about religion and science, it's
Speaker 1: religion versus science, right, it's just basically Christians versus atheists
Speaker 1: or something like that. It couldn't be more born to
Speaker 1: show up at these things and here are the same
Speaker 1: arguments for decades.
Speaker 7: That's so static. I'm surprised that it's still that it's
Speaker 7: still the main emphasis.
Speaker 1: I'm surprised too, and I can't hand. So that's what
Speaker 1: this article is about, where I it was definitely a
Speaker 1: weird presentation. I'll tell you that people were like they
Speaker 1: liked it for sure, but it was not expected because
Speaker 1: essentially what I tried to do in this article is
Speaker 1: I said, look, I'm going to assume that scientists are
Speaker 1: right one hundred percent. I don't. I don't believe that personally,
Speaker 1: but I'm like, I'm going to grant you all of
Speaker 1: your assumptions as a physicalist or materialist scientists that all
Speaker 1: there are atoms in like fields, right and void type
Speaker 1: of thing. So I grant the assumptions of mainstream science,
Speaker 1: and what I try to do is show that if
Speaker 1: you extrapolate way, way, way into the future. I mean
Speaker 1: we're not talking like thousands of years, we're talking about
Speaker 1: the Earth might be gone like way into the future,
Speaker 1: that there are statistical anomalies that all of a sudden
Speaker 1: become very relevant. So, for example, when you think of entropy,
Speaker 1: entropy is viewed as this law, right that essentially that
Speaker 1: a system's going to tend towards disorder from a more
Speaker 1: ordered state, right. But it's not really an absolute law.
Speaker 1: It's a statistical law. I mean, if we had all
Speaker 1: the molecules in the room that I'm in right now
Speaker 1: and it was a closed box, eventually a configuration we
Speaker 1: already have before is going to come up. A bunch
Speaker 1: of different configurations will come up. Right. So the idea
Speaker 1: is that you can actually have a god like being
Speaker 1: spontaneously developed. I mean, I don't want to get into
Speaker 1: the complexities of really like how that happens, but that's
Speaker 1: what I try to get at was showing how like
Speaker 1: even mainstream science can have implications that sound religious. Mainstream
Speaker 1: like physics, not only just wild theoretical stuff. That's kind
Speaker 1: of what that was. It's based on Boltzmann brains. If
Speaker 1: you ever heard of that, a Boltzmann brain, No, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's kind of yeah, it's an outgrowth
Speaker 1: of what Again, mainstream science would suggest that eventually you're
Speaker 1: going to get to a situation where you have all
Speaker 1: these particles moving around, bouncing around, creating configurations, and that
Speaker 1: you'll have them combined and have a brain spun like
Speaker 1: a human brain, spontaneously formed like out in the vacuum space.
Speaker 1: It obviously wouldn't last for more than a second or two,
Speaker 1: but on a physicalist point of view, if it had
Speaker 1: the exact configurations of like of atoms and neurons that's
Speaker 1: in Nick's head right now, then Nick wouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to distinguish whether he's you know Nick right now on
Speaker 1: this podcast or it's all just like essentially fake low
Speaker 1: memories that are in this this spontaneously formed brain. It's
Speaker 1: it's somewhat based off of like a twist on that thing.
Speaker 1: M hmm, that's probably too deep of a rabbit hole.
Speaker 2: Does it does it speculate?
Speaker 7: Does that theory speculate beyond like the forming of a mind,
Speaker 7: like a car could form too.
Speaker 2: Is that.
Speaker 7: So? So anything is possible. If it's possible, it's going
Speaker 7: to happen, is basically yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there's a tesla to whatever, right as well? So,
Speaker 1: but even the whole universe could spontaneously collapse that down
Speaker 1: into a much lower state of you know, of entropy spontaneously.
Speaker 1: It's just people don't only talk about this stuff because
Speaker 1: they want to talk about it again as they're like
Speaker 1: absolute laws rather than statistical, but they're not a lot
Speaker 1: of them, and then that changes things. Who cares really
Speaker 1: about it? It was just that it was a way to
Speaker 1: try to at least spark discussion, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: something different at these conferences where we're not just talking
Speaker 1: about like a Christian God versus an atheistic scenario. I
Speaker 1: couldn't handle being there.
Speaker 6: Well, even atheists they all have a different belief you know,
Speaker 6: I mean, they the common ground is that they don't
Speaker 6: believe in a god. But some of them actually say
Speaker 6: they just don't have proof enough proof for God, you
Speaker 6: know what I mean?
Speaker 1: That's true, Mike. Okay, let's actually if you don't mind
Speaker 1: brieford on atheism I had some interesting professors at Claremont.
Speaker 1: One of them was the guy who owned Skeptic magazine,
Speaker 1: so he's one of the more well known neo atheists,
Speaker 1: Richard Dawkins in that group, Okay, And what I found
Speaker 1: was that when you talk to these people privately, they're
Speaker 1: a lot more open to alternatives, but when the camera's on,
Speaker 1: when the camera's on, it's like you're all fing idiots,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of thing. So it's and most atheists
Speaker 1: when I talk to them in my classes. And I'm
Speaker 1: not against atheism, by the way, I could care less
Speaker 1: of what you are, it doesn't matter to me. But
Speaker 1: I don't think many atheists have earned the title of atheists.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying. They've earned the title of a
Speaker 1: Judeo Christians.
Speaker 3: That's what they are, or an agnostic, not even an atheist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very wise observation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because they think me I refuted the primary arguments
Speaker 1: given by you know, Christians for the existence of a God,
Speaker 1: when really they haven't even done that. They've only shown
Speaker 1: that there's a discrepancy where you can't hold omnipotence with
Speaker 1: omnib benevolence. At the same time, it's so they haven't
Speaker 1: even fully destroyed it. But anyhow, they go ahead.
Speaker 7: If you were, if you were finished, I wonder, Daran,
Speaker 7: that's excellent observation. I've noticed that too. It's almost like
Speaker 7: the atheists are even more closed minded than the monotheists
Speaker 7: at times. I wonder to that point, maybe, and maybe
Speaker 7: aside from that, what is the essence of the Abrahamic
Speaker 7: religions or monotheistic approach in this?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 7: You know, what is their summit if you will, in
Speaker 7: comparison to the other summits that one might study.
Speaker 1: Good question, So their summit is a creator God, right,
Speaker 1: They're going to focus on like a supreme being that
Speaker 1: can instill order in value into the world, into the
Speaker 1: system basically, I mean to make it as short, I
Speaker 1: guess as possible, Whereas, say, you know, a Buddhist might
Speaker 1: be focused on a totally different component, say something like
Speaker 1: the aliavishnana or storehouse consciousness, where they're talking about how
Speaker 1: all information or memory might be like woven into some
Speaker 1: aspect of the fabric space time or some or outside
Speaker 1: of space time even and that might be a different thing,
Speaker 1: see than just talking about this being that's trying to
Speaker 1: provide order in the system, or I mean another way
Speaker 1: to look at is there's a disordering element. Might it's
Speaker 1: sort of like a chaotic randomizing element in the world
Speaker 1: we think about more quantum mechanics, and there's certain religions
Speaker 1: that might focus more on that, or certainly science various
Speaker 1: sciences thatocus on that. So those are maybe I don't know,
Speaker 1: a couple of examples come to mind, but yeah, the
Speaker 1: Christians are definitely focused on the the God peace right
Speaker 1: as a supreme necessary being type of thing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, what what was some of the reasons why? Uh,
Speaker 6: you got those that that feeling that that that they
Speaker 6: that that's what they feel is that one supreme being.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's all they talk about. I
Speaker 1: feel like that's all they really are writing about. And
Speaker 1: I and I can tell you this much too. If
Speaker 1: you try to modify that theology, they get real pissed,
Speaker 1: real quickly. So, for example, process theology again let's bring
Speaker 1: that in. Process theology does modify the more traditional like
Speaker 1: Christian theology. For example, process theology states that God is
Speaker 1: not onnipotent, God is maxi potent, basically the maximumly powerful.
Speaker 1: But that shift opens up a whole new option and
Speaker 1: they'll state that God is not omniscient, but is knowing
Speaker 1: only of all things that are possible to know, but
Speaker 1: not knowing the free decisions you might make in the future. Say, Okay,
Speaker 1: that makes sense, so that's why that's okay. So to
Speaker 1: your point though, sorry, So for Christians, if you were
Speaker 1: to propose what I just said to a Christian, they're
Speaker 1: gonna literally tell you that's not a God worthy of worship.
Speaker 1: So therefore I reject it. Why the only God worthy
Speaker 1: of worship has to be omnipotent, right, OMNITIONI I don't know,
Speaker 1: but seems to be the case because that's what they
Speaker 1: all seem to push for. But whatever, No.
Speaker 6: No, yeah, And the reason why I asked that is
Speaker 6: because when I when I read the Bible, I've read
Speaker 6: many different versions of the Bible. I actually have an
Speaker 6: eighteen seventy three version that I'm going through right now,
Speaker 6: And the personalities within the Bible of these gods are
Speaker 6: all different. Neither one of these guys have the same personality,
Speaker 6: and one as quick to anger one of his own
Speaker 6: is a jealous god. One of them will be a
Speaker 6: loving God. And unless that individual has a split personality exactly,
Speaker 6: then you know that these guys that are represented in
Speaker 6: our Bible have the same traits as us humans.
Speaker 2: It's literally the same traits as us.
Speaker 6: We see ourselves as gods and they see us, you know,
Speaker 6: as whatever they see us as. But I don't think.
Speaker 6: I think when I talked to some Christians, I back
Speaker 6: some you know, why do they always talk about the
Speaker 6: One God? Because that's something you mentioned. When I think
Speaker 6: of Christianity, the only thing I can think of is
Speaker 6: how good that guy, or how Jesus wanted everybody to be.
Speaker 6: Even if he was, you know, somebody who didn't just
Speaker 6: certainly deserve.
Speaker 2: Empathy or care or something.
Speaker 6: He made sure to forgive people and say, you know,
Speaker 6: try to be a better person and look within yourself
Speaker 6: and you can do all good things, do you? And
Speaker 6: all this that and the third and even at the
Speaker 6: end when he was suffering, he even questioned God.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: So it makes me understand that, you.
Speaker 6: Know, every individual that's looked as a deified individual in
Speaker 6: the Bible, they have the same traits as every human
Speaker 6: that I've ran into personally in my lifetime.
Speaker 2: And I'm pretty sure you guys probably have too.
Speaker 1: I mean that how many Christians do you know that
Speaker 1: followed Jesus. I don't know too many.
Speaker 6: No, I still don't know any that still sacrifices animals
Speaker 6: to this day.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, how many Jewish people? Yeah, following what's in
Speaker 1: the you know, the Hebrew BVLE and the Torah. None,
Speaker 1: hardly some but very few, I'm sure. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean I agree with you Jesus's message versus what Christianity
Speaker 1: became as an institutionalized religion or hard to reconcile. And
Speaker 1: why is that Let's go back to Platinis for nick
Speaker 1: Rie or back to all you know why because they
Speaker 1: end up putting all the Platonic or Greek philosophy with
Speaker 1: their ideas of perfection. See like these omnis, that's all
Speaker 1: like Platonic form sort of perfection.
Speaker 3: Stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna say crap. So it's and then yet
Speaker 1: and yet they're against Pagans. But it is, you know,
Speaker 1: it's just it's dumb if you look into the history enough,
Speaker 1: I think Jesus. I love Jesus's message because I think
Speaker 1: even from an we could talk about even from like
Speaker 1: an Olkholt point of view, which is like he's trying
Speaker 1: to put you in a lifestyle that if you were
Speaker 1: to live that lifestyle, it's a lifestyle. It's extremely difficult
Speaker 1: and intense. And how do you create a phase transition
Speaker 1: in physics? Right? How are you going to move something
Speaker 1: from like ice to water to steam, temperature and pressure.
Speaker 1: If you don't have that, then you've got nothing. So
Speaker 1: he's not talking about faith right in the way of
Speaker 1: like how the Jewish people are talking about the time,
Speaker 1: which is like a contract, like a legal contract. I
Speaker 1: follow what you said, you give me the land and
Speaker 1: the descendants. Right, He's not talking about that. He's like
Speaker 1: talking about a much much harder form of faith and
Speaker 1: poverty and all these things, and if you were to
Speaker 1: live it, it would presumably create a soul transformation. Alchemizers.
Speaker 7: His his internalized esoteric lessons are profound. Right when you
Speaker 7: when you take the religiosity out of it, it's it's
Speaker 7: very individual meditative empowerment.
Speaker 1: M absolutely so. I mean I have nothing, I've never
Speaker 1: had anything against it. I do have something against the
Speaker 1: prosperity gospel and these American media churches.
Speaker 7: I was gonna say, it's often with the monotheism, it's
Speaker 7: like one way to perceive God, as you mentioned, with
Speaker 7: the financial pursuits. It's like that's their perception, that's their lane.
Speaker 7: And then and they all, you know, all the different monotheism,
Speaker 7: they're all doing worshiping the same God, just in their way.
Speaker 4: Sorry, Lisa, no no, I always agree with the megachurch comment.
Speaker 2: That's all.
Speaker 1: I mean, how many times you need to say and
Speaker 1: worship God or money? It doesn't really suggest that God
Speaker 1: is money. But then again for Makature it kind of
Speaker 1: is so.
Speaker 6: Well, well, I was just saying this earlier Robert Alter
Speaker 6: that reminded me of the Hebrew Bible that he translated
Speaker 6: the Hebrew Bible, and I remember reading, like in the
Speaker 6: in the notes little section that he has in there,
Speaker 6: he says, the first time that gold is actually mentioned
Speaker 6: or even thought of, is when it has an association
Speaker 6: with the number six sixty six, six sixty six, and
Speaker 6: gold had had had a relationship. And what's interesting about
Speaker 6: that is that you can see that our whole types
Speaker 6: of civilization was to look like, look, what was looking
Speaker 6: for some type of gold or some type of metal,
Speaker 6: and that became a monetary gain.
Speaker 2: And that's what it is still to this day. You know,
Speaker 2: the templars in the who was that? Uh, Jesus.
Speaker 6: I can't even think of their name right now. They
Speaker 6: come to me for a second. But but yeah, basically
Speaker 6: just that that the monetary gain within that is the
Speaker 6: idea of you know, the monotheistic rule, because somebody wanted
Speaker 6: more than somebody else and they had to push that
Speaker 6: other person out.
Speaker 1: I mean, it gives you power, no doubt, to have money,
Speaker 1: but it's a really shitty low form of power. I mean,
Speaker 1: even if you're a billionaire, it's not that amazing compared
Speaker 1: to other forms.
Speaker 7: So it's not the best you can make a true scholar.
Speaker 7: What was that I tried to compliment you, I said,
Speaker 7: spoken like a true scholar, okay, a wise man. I
Speaker 7: wanted to ask in it with your the combination of
Speaker 7: your different studies, of course them being similar, But have
Speaker 7: you looked into this psychic phenomenon relative to the experiences
Speaker 7: and in you know, the realm of the dead that
Speaker 7: the Egyptians would call it or whatever it might be called, uh,
Speaker 7: and in relative to the telepathy tapes and the experiences
Speaker 7: reference there. I'm assuming you're familiar, but if you're not,
Speaker 7: just I've.
Speaker 1: Heard about I've heard about these telepathy tapes saying recent
Speaker 1: it's more of a recent it's.
Speaker 5: A pretty recent podcast series, and it starts off with
Speaker 5: exploring the psychic nature of nonverbal autistic children, and it
Speaker 5: leads into this really strange phenomena of.
Speaker 7: These people kind of sensing the presence of spirit, if
Speaker 7: you will, and and one it just made me want
Speaker 7: to inquire of you some of the experiences that you
Speaker 7: might have studied relative to people having experiences with heaven
Speaker 7: or God or spirits.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, I mean, I'm certainly I'm certainly open minded
Speaker 1: to it, right, and I do think.
Speaker 7: Sure, I don't mean to I don't mean to say
Speaker 7: one way or another. Is sorry, sorry to interject Sirry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know. So I can even tie a little
Speaker 1: process piece onto this year. There's a guy named David
Speaker 1: Ray Griffin passed away a little while back, who was
Speaker 1: one of the bigger sort of process theologians in the
Speaker 1: latter half of the twentieth century, and he did a
Speaker 1: lot of work on parapsychology and showing, like you know,
Speaker 1: all the different studies and just how impressive and right,
Speaker 1: what are the odds to be able to achieve a
Speaker 1: lot of these results from things that have been done
Speaker 1: going back to like Duke University, right, and and then
Speaker 1: up to a more recent ones with Cornell University and
Speaker 1: stuff that had been done by this guy that was
Speaker 1: like Darryl Themes. I can't I can't remember all all
Speaker 1: the names, but yeah, so, I mean I think there's
Speaker 1: something to it. I just think that it's so it's
Speaker 1: a it's a little too like fickle for us too.
Speaker 1: With science, it's hard because you want repeatability, right, So
Speaker 1: I think it's real, but it's to be able to
Speaker 1: achieve it with certainty or something, right, Like every time
Speaker 1: that's where I think you're just it's just not happening.
Speaker 1: Sure it is someone, but it had not happening for me.
Speaker 7: It's tangible in the sense that it's mental and thought experiences,
Speaker 7: but that's not tangible really, right, Like, I mean they
Speaker 7: can be measured to a point, but or it's not repeatable.
Speaker 1: Let's let's even go back to the Jesus thing. It's like,
Speaker 1: if I reach some very rare state, maybe I tap
Speaker 1: into psychic right phenomena. But unless I'm in that, unless
Speaker 1: I'm able to maintain such a like peak experience level state,
Speaker 1: maybe then we can't do it. And so I feel
Speaker 1: like that's the trouble. It's like you're trying to run
Speaker 1: an experiment and how many people are you going to
Speaker 1: test at that moment in time when they tap that
Speaker 1: level of right, like spirituality or something. It just seems
Speaker 1: hard to do, but sometimes it has happened, I think,
Speaker 1: and that's why you get results. That's my take on it,
Speaker 1: I guess.
Speaker 7: So what was one of the more powerful lessons that
Speaker 7: kind of causes a paradigm from that book of the
Speaker 7: bringing the lessons from the experiences they wrote?
Speaker 1: Oh, you mean like the for like the indies.
Speaker 7: Well, I'm sorry if I'm confused, but yeah, you mentioned
Speaker 7: accepting their experiences as being real and then you know,
Speaker 7: getting getting lessons out of that instead of debating.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so a couple of things that came out of that.
Speaker 1: I mean the big ones are of course, like the
Speaker 1: life review. And it's an obvious way how you can
Speaker 1: incorporate a life review into like a daily reflection. It's
Speaker 1: something really simple, right, like a daily life review type of.
Speaker 7: Scenarios in a neo platonic or platonic practice too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not like that's anything too new. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe tying it into the NDE thing but even Plato,
Speaker 1: by the way, records one of the first indies. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you guys know that in the Myth
Speaker 1: of Earth, there's a soldier who dies and it's on
Speaker 1: the funeral pire or something like that, and he goes
Speaker 1: into this very elaborate NDE experience. So I quote a
Speaker 1: lot of it in the book. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: remember the details the moment, but anyhow, life review would
Speaker 1: be one thing came up with a I came up
Speaker 1: with an exercise that I thought was pretty good that
Speaker 1: I called the heart or beat a truth that involve
Speaker 1: like a basic yoga pose that I thought was kind
Speaker 1: of cool that came out of some of the indie stuff.
Speaker 1: It's hard to explain without visuals because some of them require,
Speaker 1: like the exercises that came out of it, the tools,
Speaker 1: the spiritual tools that we made. I wrote. I wrote
Speaker 1: that book. So yeah, but a life review is like
Speaker 1: the easiest thing I guess the state.
Speaker 7: But not the daily review. You said, right, the daily review. Yeah,
Speaker 7: I like to do a morning intention and daily review,
Speaker 7: not obsessively. But I guess I might be accused of
Speaker 7: being obsessive, but that I find is a helpful kind
Speaker 7: of layout and practical out look at the day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I totally agree with you. It's a good it's
Speaker 1: a good simple practice. I mean, I think once, so
Speaker 1: I guess I could try to explain I haven't thought
Speaker 1: and so long, so I want to mess it up.
Speaker 1: But one exercise that was at least I'd never seen
Speaker 1: before anywhere else. I guess you probably never none of
Speaker 1: you would have ever heard, so I'd like to think
Speaker 1: I made it up. But then again, we were talking
Speaker 1: earlier about how everyone thinks they made something up and
Speaker 1: then they got it from somewhere else, right, So I
Speaker 1: don't know, but you can tell me if you've heard
Speaker 1: it before. So it would involve at the end of
Speaker 1: the day before like a life review type thing, lying
Speaker 1: down on a fairly hard floor and lying on your
Speaker 1: chest with your legs extended but your right leg in
Speaker 1: like a ninety degree angle. So the idea is that
Speaker 1: like you've got like like a half frog kind of
Speaker 1: stretch going on the floor, and it puts a little
Speaker 1: bit of pressure on your heart on the left side
Speaker 1: by doing that, and so you can feel your heartbeat.
Speaker 1: If you were on like a yoga matter, just straight
Speaker 1: on the floor, you can really feel your heart in
Speaker 1: that situation. And I call it the heartbeat of truth
Speaker 1: because the idea was that as you do your daily
Speaker 1: review right at the end of the night about like
Speaker 1: the good deeds you practice. Let's say, if you actually
Speaker 1: did enough good deeds and you slowed your heart right
Speaker 1: way down, so you kind of meditated before this, even
Speaker 1: at a slow heart rate like this pace or something, right,
Speaker 1: if you actually did a lot of good deeds, you
Speaker 1: would be able to recall them on each heartbeat. But
Speaker 1: the idea is like the heart even at its slowest,
Speaker 1: is like better than the mind at its fastest. So
Speaker 1: if you try to like make up things like that
Speaker 1: you didn't really do, you're going to miss the beat,
Speaker 1: see what I'm saying, because like you, your mind can't
Speaker 1: even make up some bullshit story fast enough to keep
Speaker 1: up with that pace. But if you actually did them,
Speaker 1: you can recall them on the beat. So it's a
Speaker 1: way to literally like a metric for spiritual progress. But
Speaker 1: like becoming a better person. I mean, how exactly I
Speaker 1: tied into the indie parts and that I have to
Speaker 1: go into the back and looking at it, that was
Speaker 1: like a tool spiritual.
Speaker 2: That's a really neat tool.
Speaker 7: And I love the sentiment of how the heart travels
Speaker 7: faster than the mind can hear the slowest sorry, can
Speaker 7: travel at the faster than the fastest mind. And it
Speaker 7: just reminds me it's way easier to heal the mind
Speaker 7: through the body than through the mind. Right, However, many
Speaker 7: different ways there are for that.
Speaker 1: So that's something I can give you to tap in
Speaker 1: my memory here.
Speaker 3: So the thing that you were describing the way that
Speaker 3: the legs would be done, is that kind of like
Speaker 3: the Hangman card?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Kind yeah, kind of, so like you'd be looking
Speaker 1: off to the right, you'd have your arms kind of flat,
Speaker 1: like in like a goalpost way, and you look off
Speaker 1: to the to the right, and then your left leg
Speaker 1: is straight and your right leg is in like a
Speaker 1: goal post like a ninety degree.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 2: That sounds like that one tarot card that we was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what he was saying, right, the Hangman or whatever?
Speaker 2: Yeah, hang man Yeah that one. Yeah, that that one
Speaker 2: from that show we did the day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like Odin or whatever, right, is kind of in
Speaker 1: that I think.
Speaker 6: Something Yeah there you go, yeah Odin Yeah, see yeah
Speaker 6: you remember that Nick right?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, Well, so I'm just thinking like that that
Speaker 3: symbol that he was saying. I don't know why, it
Speaker 3: just sounds like something else I've.
Speaker 1: Seen, and yoga it would be like half four frog.
Speaker 1: That might not be helpful for anyone, but if you know,
Speaker 1: like some of like contemporary yoga as like, that's what
Speaker 1: I guess it would be closest to.
Speaker 2: So the Hangman could be considered that too, though.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess that's the closest thing to the shape.
Speaker 6: But because that's so familiar from that coat, that was
Speaker 6: from that from that town.
Speaker 1: What cult are you talking about?
Speaker 2: I can't remember the name of it.
Speaker 1: Part of any random like Desert Colt.
Speaker 6: No, it was it was the two girls that were
Speaker 6: killed in the woods.
Speaker 7: Oh, the Delphi Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Delphi murders.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and the terror cards that the guy was explaining
Speaker 6: about the hangman.
Speaker 2: That's why I clicked in my head.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was no association because because.
Speaker 2: It was talking about Odin because they had it was yeah,
Speaker 2: there was like.
Speaker 3: Yeah Norse ruins and stuff too, and somebody. Yeah that's why.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I was at.
Speaker 1: Someone murdered people and put them in like Norse ruins.
Speaker 3: By the murder or something they were't wear positions and
Speaker 3: sticks were done kind of like ruins and stuff. It
Speaker 3: was there was a couple of things going on in
Speaker 3: the little room.
Speaker 1: That's got to be a questional thing too, because it
Speaker 1: was sticks looking ruins. It's like how many sticks were around.
Speaker 1: Not to be an a sayer, but it's like there's
Speaker 1: a lot of freaking.
Speaker 6: It's just when when you said, when you was talking
Speaker 6: about the description on how the legs would be and
Speaker 6: stuff like that, that that show immediately popped into my
Speaker 6: head because that was part of the description on how
Speaker 6: when I believe one or not both the girls were positioned.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the only the only reason why that position was
Speaker 1: chosen for me is because it's comfortable enough and it
Speaker 1: places the slight amount of pressure on like the left
Speaker 1: side of your chest, so like it compresses a little
Speaker 1: bit on the heart so you can like feel that heartbeat, right,
Speaker 1: you can really hear it, heel it, and it's easier
Speaker 1: to be the exercise. That's that was sort of the
Speaker 1: only reasoning behind it.
Speaker 7: I don't want to say that they've done it before,
Speaker 7: but just to point out to the validity of having
Speaker 7: a posture that's not the same on each side chi
Speaker 7: gung keelers will put you into postures that are not
Speaker 7: necessarily that one, but similar in construct depending on your
Speaker 7: youre around.
Speaker 1: Then Oh yeah, I mean I'm sure that the poses,
Speaker 1: it's not like you know, they're basic poses, right, so
Speaker 1: you're gonna probably get them in a bunch of different systems.
Speaker 1: And obviously a lot of these poses in yoga we
Speaker 1: don't need to go down this rabbital I don't think,
Speaker 1: but they have no basis in historical Like a lot
Speaker 1: of these standing poses that you do in a vinyasa
Speaker 1: flow class, those are one hundred and fifty maybe four
Speaker 1: hundred for some of them years old. You know, the
Speaker 1: Buddha is not out there doing the historical Buddha is
Speaker 1: not out there doing warrior one to Warrior two or
Speaker 1: whatever transitions. It's not they're doing seeded meditation, you know
Speaker 1: type of thing. So like modern yoga's its own little thing.
Speaker 1: I owned a yoga studio, an opened one, so I
Speaker 1: mean it was the way into that world up until recently.
Speaker 7: When you when you said he probably did a series
Speaker 7: of martial arts being a prince though right might not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean he did. He was a great archer
Speaker 1: as well, so I'm sure he did. I'm sure. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was supposedly the best. Literally, I mean, if you
Speaker 1: read it, it doesn't sound humble a lot of the things.
Speaker 1: Basically like he's the best at this, he's the best
Speaker 1: at that, and he tried all these and they Hey,
Speaker 1: speaking of your hangman thing, that was a thing from
Speaker 1: the stremanas in like five hundred DC hanging upside down
Speaker 1: from the tree. That's actually a classic yoga technique. It's
Speaker 1: called these or something, I remember what they called it
Speaker 1: back then, but yeah, that was a thing. It was
Speaker 1: done frequently, so standing on one leg or hanging upside
Speaker 1: down by one leg from a tree, or even two
Speaker 1: legs sometimes. So yeah, that's wild, weird. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you guys talk about Satanism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was just I was just gonna say, so,
Speaker 3: do you want to get into that? Uh yeah, because
Speaker 3: we're like an hour maybe keep us like an hour
Speaker 3: and a half, So I figured give you some time
Speaker 3: to talk about that if you wanted to.
Speaker 1: Sure. So this recent paper I worked on that's kind
Speaker 1: of called like dark sector gods. The simple idea is
Speaker 1: this that, like up until recently, most physicists do accept
Speaker 1: dark matter as being a thing. It's it's the mainstream.
Speaker 1: The debate is what is it made out of? Like, right,
Speaker 1: what does it actually consist of? And more recently the
Speaker 1: there have been good suggestions that you can actually have
Speaker 1: what's called atomic dark matter, meaning like dark matter that
Speaker 1: interacts with itself. And the idea is that if you
Speaker 1: can have something like this, maybe you could actually have
Speaker 1: an entire realm of consciousness or other sort of entities
Speaker 1: that are we don't have access to basically, And the
Speaker 1: tie in the Satanism, of course, is that like Setianism,
Speaker 1: Temple said, order of nine angles specifically talk about these
Speaker 1: isolated intelligences that are in some sort of wherever dark realm.
Speaker 1: And I was trying to propose that, like, perhaps it
Speaker 1: gives a little bit more credence to some of their
Speaker 1: claims that they've made, not much more but a little.
Speaker 1: I don't think you need to have criminal behavior necessarily
Speaker 1: to somehow communicate or tap into this power, but I
Speaker 1: think you'd have these gravitational ways to try and communicate
Speaker 1: with it. That's more like physicists answered, but maybe there's
Speaker 1: something about consciousness, right, If there's consciousness there and we
Speaker 1: are conscious, maybe that can be a bridge. That's not
Speaker 1: a problem. And so maybe you can through ritual or
Speaker 1: maybe who knows, maybe even through crime, I don't know,
Speaker 1: or a star game or whatever else things that the
Speaker 1: order of nine angles might be into. I definitely will
Speaker 1: say I did not advocate since we're recording, I do
Speaker 1: not advocate really that a lot of their methodology, but
Speaker 1: who knows. It just was an interesting thought to me,
Speaker 1: and that's what made me write the paper that I
Speaker 1: thought about, here's some new religious movements that kind of
Speaker 1: could benefit from some of these new insights and physics.
Speaker 1: That's sort of the short answer on it.
Speaker 4: Regarding regarding that paper that you're saying, because I posted
Speaker 4: the abstract for everyone to look at, why would it
Speaker 4: only be through gravitational waves or would it be only
Speaker 4: through gravitational waves that you could communicate with these entities
Speaker 4: in the dark matter realm.
Speaker 1: Well, in the physics perspective, it's just because gravity is
Speaker 1: the only force effectively shared at a non negligible level,
Speaker 1: like between our realm and the dark sector realm, and
Speaker 1: it is possible to have gravitational I mean, there are
Speaker 1: gravitational waves, but the idea of us being able to
Speaker 1: like generate them to have some sort of coded message,
Speaker 1: like some there is a way you could encode effectively
Speaker 1: a message, but we're not there yet anywhere near there.
Speaker 1: On like the power of physics to like make this
Speaker 1: sort of device to create gravitation ways in a certain
Speaker 1: pattern like that it could maybe be picked up. So
Speaker 1: but that's just like the physics side again. Maybe consciousness studies, right,
Speaker 1: maybe you you don't need that at all, and you
Speaker 1: can just tap into them through meditation. I don't know,
Speaker 1: well yeah, maybe, yeah, I don't know where.
Speaker 2: You guys stand on that.
Speaker 7: It makes me think that the power of consciousness is
Speaker 7: moving through gravity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 2: Theoretically, that's what I.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I kind of look at it as.
Speaker 3: I think magic is kind of defined gravity in a sense.
Speaker 1: That is, what is your take on magic all? Since
Speaker 1: this is your that's definitely your part.
Speaker 3: Of your channel, I guess in the sense that I
Speaker 3: was thinking of it that way, with against kind of
Speaker 3: going against gravity, I would be looking at it in
Speaker 3: I guess like an NDE or the fact that like
Speaker 3: you can exist into the air or not in your
Speaker 3: physical body, like your soul could actually leave your your
Speaker 3: body and that be constrained to being stuck here and grounded.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, word, So, how do you think how
Speaker 1: do you guys think that magic?
Speaker 3: If it were, that's just my opinion. I can't say
Speaker 3: that's roll up?
Speaker 1: Well, do you guys? I mean, do you guys think
Speaker 1: that there's a way to enhance the probability of it
Speaker 1: some sort of enchantments though or whatever taking effect?
Speaker 3: For me?
Speaker 2: Actually, words are powerful. I think words are powerful if
Speaker 2: you using wisely. Affirmations are definitely powerful.
Speaker 7: I think you linguistics right, So sorry, sorry, add you
Speaker 7: please finish?
Speaker 2: I was just gonna say, yeah, I think that. I
Speaker 2: think so because of the simple fact that you know
Speaker 2: you can you can tuck yourself into getting whatever you want.
Speaker 6: Now, that doesn't mean that you can say I'm gonna
Speaker 6: get a Lamborghini, but a Lamborghi is something that's materialistic
Speaker 6: that you don't really need.
Speaker 2: But if you, you know.
Speaker 6: Speak on, Hey, I'm gonna be a better person today.
Speaker 6: There's a conscious decision to be a better person. There's
Speaker 6: a conscious decision to make a better choice in some
Speaker 6: of your decisions that you may take a.
Speaker 2: Breath and one of them is good.
Speaker 6: For A good example is that as Ethan knows this
Speaker 6: very well, is meditations just breathing taking you know, if
Speaker 6: you're angry. I've heard that if you could just take
Speaker 6: the time to breathe, you know, take that breath for
Speaker 6: the ten seconds, twenty seconds or whatever, that helps you
Speaker 6: make a better decision than you would when you're in
Speaker 6: that fight or flight mode.
Speaker 7: Yeah, well said I was going to add on that
Speaker 7: that neural linguistics, whether as time one pointing out how
Speaker 7: we talk to ourselves and the others can almost be
Speaker 7: a magical approach. I was also thinking, Darren, you being
Speaker 7: a yogi I practice, okay, anti chiat, it's all about
Speaker 7: dealing with gravity. Tai Chi is all about dealing with gravity,
Speaker 7: staying balanced even in uh oppositional experience or situation. So then,
Speaker 7: and what you said made me think and dread the
Speaker 7: idea that we're going to be fighting gravity even after.
Speaker 2: This realm.
Speaker 3: I just.
Speaker 1: It's a fun thought. Where do you stand on it, Lisa?
Speaker 4: I think Nick, you were you saying something I wanted
Speaker 4: to hear your final thought on that.
Speaker 3: I don't remember. Sorry, I don't know, I said last.
Speaker 4: Okay, well maybe this will will help you jargon.
Speaker 7: So Nick and I have.
Speaker 4: Spent numerous discussions because I've always asked him like, what
Speaker 4: is this?
Speaker 7: What is that?
Speaker 4: I come from a more academic, scientific based, but you know,
Speaker 4: basic research type, So this whole realm is new to me,
Speaker 4: and I am trying to be a sponge and learn everything.
Speaker 4: But in a lot of the discussions with Nick and
Speaker 4: during his definitions, to me, it seems like magic or
Speaker 4: mysticism is the bridge between science and religion, science and spirituality,
Speaker 4: science and spirituality, and so magic is the bridge. Like
Speaker 4: if you watch the the what is it the Disney
Speaker 4: movie Coco, the rainbow bridge that connects the afterlife people
Speaker 4: and the people that are on this realm, I would
Speaker 4: think that's magic, and that it somehow allows whether it's
Speaker 4: good or bad, whether it's white black, it allows for
Speaker 4: that connection.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you all this. Do you think
Speaker 1: that the information that you would be manipulating one way
Speaker 1: or another to create a change in reality, that you
Speaker 1: think that information is woven in space time itself somewhere
Speaker 1: some way shape or form, and you're accessing it and
Speaker 1: altering it, putting in some code or whatever you might
Speaker 1: want to look at it using a sigual. I don't
Speaker 1: know whatever, right, But or is it spacetime itself not fundamental?
Speaker 1: If you will right, and that there's you and you're
Speaker 1: somehow accessing something outside of space time that then gets programmed.
Speaker 1: If you will somehow back into space time and some
Speaker 1: projection or something.
Speaker 7: Well, I don't know what I'm doing necessarily, but what
Speaker 7: I will sometimes envision is accessing the power of one
Speaker 7: particle to manifest a butterfly effect and keep it rolling
Speaker 7: towards the idea I'm trying to encompass. Other times, I
Speaker 7: will implore the universe that it's merely doing what it
Speaker 7: wants by doing X.
Speaker 1: So are you trying to say that you convince that
Speaker 1: it's already the case that it is that like basically
Speaker 1: to like alter the memory.
Speaker 7: If it is ever something that I, you know, put
Speaker 7: forth to be real, I make sure that it is
Speaker 7: in alignment with universal values, if you will, to be
Speaker 7: broad in general. And and I'll kind of you know,
Speaker 7: charm charm the universe.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you have so there's a limitation on what
Speaker 1: you would be willing to.
Speaker 7: Oh, I would never manifest anything negative. And I don't
Speaker 7: think that you know, that's a good idea. Just karmically energetically,
Speaker 7: and I don't think the universe really wants to help
Speaker 7: anyone do that. But I don't know magic in total.
Speaker 7: There is obviously black magic, but you know with that
Speaker 7: is you know there are costs. So yeah, I like
Speaker 7: to if I'm going to use these ideas, change one
Speaker 7: particle and set off the domino effect or the butterfly
Speaker 7: effect and and go from there. Or again, just if
Speaker 7: it is something I'm trying to put forth, make sure
Speaker 7: that it's in alignment with with things, you know, and
Speaker 7: that that's how it could manifest.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: That was interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know where I stand on the on
Speaker 1: a lot of the dark are black versus white, you know,
Speaker 1: spectrum of magic or whether it's all just shades of gray?
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, I think harder to start defining that. I
Speaker 3: mean a lot of times the way I try to
Speaker 3: say it is the difference I guess would be like
Speaker 3: if I if I was to go into a meditation
Speaker 3: and some breathing techniques and try to have that I
Speaker 3: guess ND or if I was to do a ritual
Speaker 3: and create a talisman to try to get to raise
Speaker 3: up my job. The one where I had the NDE
Speaker 3: I would say was white magic, and the other one
Speaker 3: was black magic. I'm affecting the world outside of myself
Speaker 3: now and I'm trying to bend something to my will.
Speaker 3: I'm just affecting me when I have a conversation with
Speaker 3: God to leave the body.
Speaker 1: But how could we ever know any of our even
Speaker 1: good intention changes. Let's say they were right, So how
Speaker 1: could we ever really know? Playing off ethan your butterfly?
Speaker 1: So you know, a sensitivity to initial conditions is that
Speaker 1: of how can we ever know? Like some other ramifications, right,
Speaker 1: especially if everyone in a white heady and process thing
Speaker 1: is they use a certain called prehending. If somehow like
Speaker 1: we're basically internalizing what other people have experience and thought.
Speaker 2: It's a great it's a great question.
Speaker 7: I think that's kind of what I was saying, is
Speaker 7: that I try to make sure maybe that it's even
Speaker 7: not for me, right, Like if I'm going to change
Speaker 7: a particle and set it off, it's going to be
Speaker 7: in the defense of someone, right or maybe right. That's
Speaker 7: an example where it's like you're all right, there's always like, well,
Speaker 7: are you sure that person was worthy of defense or whatever?
Speaker 7: There are there are certain situations that it's there are
Speaker 7: you know, morally correct choices, But you're right, especially if
Speaker 7: it's selfish or not even selfish, but just self centered.
Speaker 7: It could definitely have some black or gray, even if
Speaker 7: you think it's it's white.
Speaker 1: I got a quick anecdote for you on this. You
Speaker 1: guys might like if you don't mind here, this was
Speaker 1: me versus seventy five witches at a conference. It's quite
Speaker 1: the experience. It was not the intention to be me
Speaker 1: versus anything. I was invited to speak on a very
Speaker 1: specific thing like how could process for loss? How can
Speaker 1: you how can it explain occult concepts and magic, like
Speaker 1: if you were to plug it into like the processed
Speaker 1: philosophy paradigm. That's what they just wanted me to present on.
Speaker 1: So that's what I did. And they didn't like it
Speaker 1: at all because this that lady who was the keynote speaker,
Speaker 1: who I will not name because you will know her
Speaker 1: probably this World of Witches. But she was basically like,
Speaker 1: that's just you basically just gave a recipe for black magic.
Speaker 1: That's all this was. This is like a presentation on
Speaker 1: a recipe for black magic. And I was like, correct
Speaker 1: me if I'm wrong. Your presentation had to do with
Speaker 1: like love spells, and I'm like, so, what are we talking?
Speaker 1: Like this person doesn't love me, but I'm going to
Speaker 1: do X, Y and Z to alter this situation, take
Speaker 1: away their will somehow, Like, how is that not falling
Speaker 1: under the definition.
Speaker 7: Of that's a great great example of how you know,
Speaker 7: if it's I it's selfful, it's kind of at least borderline,
Speaker 7: if not more so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So, I mean it's just a good example of
Speaker 1: how like it's easy for a lot of clothing to
Speaker 1: like frame it. It's certainly not you I have you're
Speaker 1: saying ethan, but like a lot of people might try
Speaker 1: and like carve out a fine line I think between
Speaker 1: the white and black side of stuff.
Speaker 3: I like that. I like how you put that. I
Speaker 3: should have said love spell instead of a raise before
Speaker 3: my job, because I would write back. That's a good
Speaker 3: example though. That is interesting, that's funny shit, that's like,
Speaker 3: I mean, that's I mean, like what I was saying
Speaker 3: before about that type of magic. I mean, I would
Speaker 3: tell you the truth. I mean, I guarantee you probably
Speaker 3: ninety nine percent of everything that those people there are doing,
Speaker 3: if especially if it's like probably like and based. It's
Speaker 3: probably like all technically, it's all just trying to get
Speaker 3: people to do what the fuck you want.
Speaker 7: That's the vibe I got, or obtain something a money
Speaker 7: spell or something, right.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well yeah, it's all like selfish shit. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Almost sacrificed his own son, remember that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it wasn't even God who told him to stop.
Speaker 2: It was an angel that came and told him to stop.
Speaker 6: So that angel would have tripped and failed somewhere I
Speaker 6: think wouldn't be here.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I do want to say, in case there's any
Speaker 3: Wickens listening, I do think there is value in that stuff.
Speaker 3: I just think it's just like every other thing with
Speaker 3: occultism and magic, it's misunderstood. Let's put it that way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's why I'm misinterested in I'm interested
Speaker 1: in it, but I'm interested in it on right on,
Speaker 1: like the mechanics of it and what what actually might work,
Speaker 1: and not trying to maybe sometimes like have some like
Speaker 1: moral wrapping around it, like a wick end thing, this
Speaker 1: threefold or turn or whatever they've got right, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that what it is.
Speaker 3: If you do something bad, it comes back to your threefold.
Speaker 1: Yeah, karma times three. I guess we can call it
Speaker 1: type of deal arbitrary, random thing they threw in.
Speaker 3: There was there anything specific that she said, like, what
Speaker 3: is your take on Why they deemed it black magic?
Speaker 1: I think because of the fact that I was trying
Speaker 1: to like just it was it was putting it in
Speaker 1: this new system, and the way I was talking about
Speaker 1: it as more just like this is how to make
Speaker 1: things work, as opposed to ever suggesting like you shouldn't
Speaker 1: do this part though, or you should do that, or
Speaker 1: I guess maybe they didn't like, you know, they didn't
Speaker 1: like that that I didn't have some you know, threefold
Speaker 1: law of karma type of thing wrapped into the speech.
Speaker 2: Basically, well, lavendary.
Speaker 1: There was probably a lot of crystal yeah, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: and some of the other speakers stuff going on. It
Speaker 1: is very new ag.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I was getting. Assume.
Speaker 1: I've dealt with a lot of that yoga world obviously
Speaker 1: too with like cold I've definitely had some cult experiences.
Speaker 7: The SoCal yoga world, right, that's oh yeah, yeah, I'm like.
Speaker 1: Ten miles away from a lot of them if I
Speaker 1: go south or north. In the yoga world is certainly
Speaker 1: a huge breeding ground for all that stuff right, and
Speaker 1: and for the occult, like say, like people kind of
Speaker 1: dabbling right their way in, but they don't think that,
Speaker 1: you know, they think they're doing whatever with crystals or
Speaker 1: oracle decks or whatever the hell they're doing.
Speaker 3: Just a way to sell art. Uh, some thing I
Speaker 3: wanted to ask you. I'm not putting you on the
Speaker 3: spot here because it's like, Oh, I wonder if this
Speaker 3: guy's into weird, creepy shit.
Speaker 1: Weird?
Speaker 3: Is there stuff that maybe that like when it comes
Speaker 3: to the occult or the esoteric or whatever that maybe
Speaker 3: you are into. You you kind of study on your own,
Speaker 3: but you haven't actually like put into books or done
Speaker 3: a paper on you know, is there like your own
Speaker 3: interests that you're kind of like delving into just for yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there is actually and this kind of will just
Speaker 1: tie in actually off of this whole yoga discussion, so
Speaker 1: contra without getting in too much detail on what that is,
Speaker 1: it's there's something called neo tntra, and neo tantra is
Speaker 1: definitely like this whole like contric sex how to improve
Speaker 1: your sex life sort of stuff that you've probably heard
Speaker 1: before in books or whatever that I have an issue
Speaker 1: with that because there's a lot of Charlatans in that
Speaker 1: particular space, like you know, like let's go to p
Speaker 1: So what I've been working on lately is I have
Speaker 1: a really really strong background in the texts and like
Speaker 1: the methods and the why of TNTRA and also like
Speaker 1: different yoga techniques, had a lot of good mentors and
Speaker 1: stuff too. It like STSU one of the main guys
Speaker 1: in the world, like contract studies. So what I've done,
Speaker 1: like currently my current book project is I've created this
Speaker 1: entire system that I'm looking forward to sharing with the
Speaker 1: world and book form and also through podcasts and things.
Speaker 1: But I want to do that when I share a
Speaker 1: lot of it, I want to do with my partner,
Speaker 1: my life partner, and also that I've worked the book
Speaker 1: with her. Her name is Summerlin Harrington. She has like
Speaker 1: an MA from SDSU and Anthropology of religion. But we
Speaker 1: put a lot of work into this so that people
Speaker 1: don't feel they need to like have a guru. Like
Speaker 1: we're in age now where think about it, the age
Speaker 1: of man was way too long, one hundred thousand years.
Speaker 1: I don't know however long it's been like Homo sapiens
Speaker 1: for longer. Right, the last twenty years, women have risen up,
Speaker 1: and it's great, but we're entering the age of AI machines,
Speaker 1: so we need to essentially, I feel like kind of
Speaker 1: more come together and have ways for human connection, the
Speaker 1: ways for human connection that aren't going to be like
Speaker 1: led by some spiritual nut job in Mexico or Costa
Speaker 1: Rica right on a retreat. So I'm trying to put
Speaker 1: together of this system that incorporates any and all elements
Speaker 1: to the degree that like there's nothing that this creepy
Speaker 1: guy could possibly teach you at one of these workshops
Speaker 1: that isn't going to be in this text and you
Speaker 1: don't need it.
Speaker 2: It's like great perspective.
Speaker 7: Contric sex and relationship ideas And.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I was just saying that's a great idea, but
Speaker 2: it's like.
Speaker 7: A relationship kind of counseling and contric sex kind of
Speaker 7: ideas or meditative sex coming together.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So it's essentially though it's going like a step
Speaker 1: by step. Like in the West, everything's linear, right, we
Speaker 1: think every we think in a linear way, so that Okay,
Speaker 1: I do A to get to Z. But once I've
Speaker 1: done A, it's done, you know, once I'm off to
Speaker 1: def I don't need to reincorporate that earlier step. And
Speaker 1: so the general principle, like the core principle behind all
Speaker 1: of this, is that there's like feedback loops more so
Speaker 1: so like things that might have been done earlier on
Speaker 1: in the process need to be repeated so that you
Speaker 1: broaden out the base as you're climbing up to the
Speaker 1: pyramid right to get higher. There's trouble with the way
Speaker 1: of the Western mind. It's like just like this like
Speaker 1: skyscraper straight line thing, and it's no wonder that we
Speaker 1: don't achieve more like spiritual satisfaction from sexual states, right,
Speaker 1: because it's all being done with the wrong intention and
Speaker 1: goal sort of. And so the whole thing is giving
Speaker 1: these interesting like step by step but also recurring sort
Speaker 1: of steps that get brought in to create a sense
Speaker 1: of connection. It isn't even about sex only. It's about
Speaker 1: like we are so disenchanted did in this world, but
Speaker 1: we're also now disconnected, so we need to have ways
Speaker 1: to reconnect and not feel like I have to go
Speaker 1: somewhere and learn from some weird guy and then it
Speaker 1: goes horribly and now I'm never going to trust anyone
Speaker 1: ever again you know type.
Speaker 3: Of thing traumatized too, Yeah.
Speaker 1: For sure. So that's kind of just the basics of it.
Speaker 1: Happy to talk about it in detail because it's a
Speaker 1: whole system and it's definitely novel, like kind of like
Speaker 1: that little heartbeat the true thing where I told you
Speaker 1: it's like a weird exercise. This is much more involved
Speaker 1: and it's not something that you would have heard.
Speaker 7: I don't want to I don't want to reveal any
Speaker 7: Freudian slip on my mind per se. But I love
Speaker 7: the idea of the circulation rather than the linear kind
Speaker 7: of goal acquisition.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 7: It's all about circulating the energy, doing it again, doing it,
Speaker 7: doing the different aspects of lessons and refining them as
Speaker 7: you repeat them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean like I mean as one simple sort
Speaker 1: of simple sort of exercise, and that it's just one
Speaker 1: of the little things in there. Some of the stuff
Speaker 1: is going to come off as weird to maybe the
Speaker 1: Western mind especially, but like, for example, like a breath
Speaker 1: exchange situation would be extremely binding. Like if if say
Speaker 1: you and your partner or something right, like if your
Speaker 1: partner exhales out completely right and holds empty and then
Speaker 1: you are holding a full there, right and then you
Speaker 1: effectively like kiss for lack of a better turn, right
Speaker 1: mouth to mouth, where you didn't do a breath exchange,
Speaker 1: Like that's something extremely intimate, you know, that builds a
Speaker 1: lot of connection. I mean, that's but only one, one
Speaker 1: little piece of it as an example. But that might
Speaker 1: be weird some people, but hey, weird is fun right
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 4: I wonder how much of it is that people are
Speaker 4: lacking true intimacy, and not sexual intimacy, but actual intimacy,
Speaker 4: where the connection is where one ends the other begins,
Speaker 4: and so forth. And when you talk about loops, I
Speaker 4: think of the toroidal field in that when both come together,
Speaker 4: the toroidal field has a completely different loop.
Speaker 2: So to speak.
Speaker 4: It's almost like when you talked about the breath, there's
Speaker 4: a dualism, there is lack of and full of there
Speaker 4: and then the exchange. And I don't know why, but
Speaker 4: I thought like the paper that I was referring to
Speaker 4: was talking about you had mentioned the consciousness of eventually
Speaker 4: forming God, and then your other paper that you just
Speaker 4: recently released, you're talking about how the dark matter, which
Speaker 4: is opposite of I guess the light matter forms a
Speaker 4: dark entity. And so it's like these reoccurring loops of
Speaker 4: give and take of dualism, and it reminds me of
Speaker 4: the universe creates things in pairs or dualistic pairs, and
Speaker 4: you see it all the time, whether it's you know,
Speaker 4: plant life, animal life, or anything like that. And it's
Speaker 4: almost like.
Speaker 2: The universal rule that you.
Speaker 4: Something happens the opposite and something else happens, like the
Speaker 4: butterfly the Ethan was talking about. And at least within
Speaker 4: the animal world, there is no right or wrong.
Speaker 2: It just is. It's just the way it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I love that. I mean, yeah, how to bring
Speaker 1: it to be a cult? How many times do they
Speaker 1: say make the two one right? You make the two
Speaker 1: to one and then the one can affect to dissolve
Speaker 1: into the infinite, you know what I mean type of thing.
Speaker 1: It's it's in all the text pretty much, whether it's
Speaker 1: in Western or Eastern stuff.
Speaker 4: You know that Nick has covered a couple of times
Speaker 4: with like the alchemical marriage, the joining of the opposite.
Speaker 1: I think, right, yes, we know O t O likes it.
Speaker 1: Probably had and there might be more appreciation for some
Speaker 1: of these things. I don't I don't know enough, but.
Speaker 3: Like, no, yeah, that would be a probably Yeah, I
Speaker 3: mean he was cruelly was into looking at that stuff supposedly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so, but but how many people know about the OTO.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well they'd be built off just reading your paper
Speaker 3: and I go into the OTEO at also because again
Speaker 3: you might be ending up in the weird situation.
Speaker 4: You said it.
Speaker 1: I didn't, but yeah, there's always there is when you're
Speaker 1: somewhere else that's true.
Speaker 3: Well, then that is like, you know, you don't want
Speaker 3: somebody else telling you what your experiences too. I think
Speaker 3: you need to figure that out on your own.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't have to be sexual. A lot of
Speaker 1: its preliminary stuff way before you'd even get to sex itself.
Speaker 1: And just those preliminary things if they were done with
Speaker 1: repetition with your partner and stuff would be I don't know,
Speaker 1: I would guess it's got to be better than a
Speaker 1: lot of talk therapy. It's very somatic based, right, rather
Speaker 1: than all this cognitive. So yeah, but that's all more
Speaker 1: to come. I mean, like I said, I'm you know,
Speaker 1: in the future, is certainly more than happy to do that.
Speaker 1: I know that summer end, my partner would be also
Speaker 1: an important resource. Like I don't even feel comfortable talking
Speaker 1: about it. Solely right as just the male perspective feels
Speaker 1: like it should be the two of us. But I
Speaker 1: mean I can speak to it in broad strokes and
Speaker 1: maybe a couple of specific examples, but it's important to here,
Speaker 1: I think the female side and perspective on it.
Speaker 3: Sure, Uh you got any other thing? Is that? Is
Speaker 3: that the only thing? Like, uh, well, anything else that
Speaker 3: you're writing or is that you know? That's it too?
Speaker 3: Is what you're saying.
Speaker 1: That's kind of at the moment, that's sort of the
Speaker 1: only thing. It's pretty big. I guess project as it is,
Speaker 1: I published a lot in the last year and a
Speaker 1: half or things that are coming out, so I got
Speaker 1: a little little burnout and the things were very as
Speaker 1: you've seen, bizarre and I don't know, cognitively demanding, I guess,
Speaker 1: I'll say so happy to have a little bit of
Speaker 1: a arrest period and knowledge focus on on the one
Speaker 1: project the moment. The other thing I am doing is
Speaker 1: I do have a I do have a YouTube channel
Speaker 1: called two Truths with an s two Truths channel, and
Speaker 1: I put out videos every you know, every week or
Speaker 1: so that look at scientology, satanism, you know, Egyptian rituals,
Speaker 1: to bring back people from the dead. That's all over
Speaker 1: the place, like stuff to do with religion and spirituality.
Speaker 1: So I'm still working on that.
Speaker 3: That's interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but those are the those are the two big
Speaker 1: projects the moment.
Speaker 3: So yeah, before we wrap it up, do you want
Speaker 3: to just go over the books that you have written
Speaker 3: and the stuff that you have out there that's available.
Speaker 1: Yes, sure, I mean the book we were talking about
Speaker 1: mainly today is called Religion in Reality, So that's out there,
Speaker 1: I mean available on Amazon. If you check it out,
Speaker 1: I'm sure, just put in Religion Reality or put my name,
Speaker 1: then you'll find it for you easily. Then Lessons from
Speaker 1: the Afterlife for a Happy Life is the other one
Speaker 1: that has the NB you know accounts, and that books
Speaker 1: good for people I think that want more of like
Speaker 1: an easier introduction. If people want more of like the
Speaker 1: academic or or hearing about a novel way to talk
Speaker 1: about religion and deal with religious pluralism, Religion Reality is
Speaker 1: the book for you know, of mine at least, or
Speaker 1: they want to learn about, like you know, metaphysics and
Speaker 1: all that. But if you want to have something that's
Speaker 1: more of like a self healthy, workable system, that's that
Speaker 1: incorporates a lot of religion but also in your death experiences.
Speaker 1: Then the Lessons from the Afterlife for Happy Life, that
Speaker 1: one's a good starting point. Those are the two main books, yeah,
Speaker 1: that I've got out.
Speaker 3: Welsome. Do you want to let anybody know where they
Speaker 3: can contact you at or is there anything else that
Speaker 3: you want to promote before we wrap it up?
Speaker 1: Sure, I mean you can anyone can reach out to
Speaker 1: me at. We're going to love this. Since we talked
Speaker 1: about Process Theology is at yahoo dot com. Is my
Speaker 1: is my email? So shows how long I guess been
Speaker 1: involved with that. Yeah. So, and if anyone ever had
Speaker 1: any questions on on what that is, I'd be happy
Speaker 1: to go into more details too on that. But it's
Speaker 1: it's a very interesting form of theology for people that
Speaker 1: are looking for an alternative, something that incorporates religion and
Speaker 1: science and can also even incorporate all the different religions
Speaker 1: under its framework. It's a really powerful philosophy. But yeah,
Speaker 1: my emails Process Theology at yahoo dot com awesome.
Speaker 3: Uh. And before we wrap it up now, let the
Speaker 3: other rejects let everybody know where they can find them
Speaker 3: themselves out too, Uh, Lisa, anything you want to say.
Speaker 4: Doctor Darren, thank you so much for covering the topics
Speaker 4: that we were pretty much just throwing at random at you,
Speaker 4: and you were answering so thoroughly. So I appreciate that,
Speaker 4: Fellow Rejects. Great to be on the show with you again,
Speaker 4: and thank you Nick for having me on for this guest.
Speaker 4: And the only thing I like to promote is the
Speaker 4: Occult Research Institute dot org. Some of the Rejects Ethan
Speaker 4: has contributed to the website in literary form content, so
Speaker 4: if you can find as Theretical Research Institute dot org.
Speaker 3: Thank you awesome, Thank you so much, and Tyron.
Speaker 2: Hey, Darren, that was actually pretty good. I took a
Speaker 2: lot of notes.
Speaker 6: I'm just looking at, you know, some of the stuff
Speaker 6: that from your book, the you know, basically the blurbs
Speaker 6: and stuff about your book, and I'm very interested in
Speaker 6: now I have them in the cart so I'm definitely
Speaker 6: going to be reading them probably in the next three
Speaker 6: or four months.
Speaker 2: Very interesting what you shared.
Speaker 6: I believe a lot of the same things that you
Speaker 6: believe in in the confusion on the religions and stuff
Speaker 6: like that.
Speaker 2: I actually do deep dives in that. I do have
Speaker 2: one question for you.
Speaker 6: I've always ask people who study religion this question, do
Speaker 6: you believe that the New Jerusalem Bible is the most
Speaker 6: accurate Bible out there for us to understand the Bible?
Speaker 1: There's a question for you. So I mean, unfortunately, I
Speaker 1: don't think we're going to get close to accurate enough
Speaker 1: to what I want. I mean, I use the Greek,
Speaker 1: you know, but I think that almost all the ones
Speaker 1: in English. I guess the new, Revised, Updated, Standard version
Speaker 1: ever it's called, is pretty good in terms of academic rigor.
Speaker 1: I'm not as familiar with the one you described, so
Speaker 1: I don't I wouldn't want to speak to it one
Speaker 1: way or another. But I mean, right, the hardest truth
Speaker 1: is we're dealing with copies of old Greek texts that
Speaker 1: many of them were fragmentary, right, that they had to
Speaker 1: kind of harmonize to even put together the Bible. So
Speaker 1: that's a whole story, right, and journey in itself. I
Speaker 1: definitely would advocate people getting a Greek it's called interlinear
Speaker 1: or something I might be called version, where you've got
Speaker 1: the English, the Greek, the transliteration of it and all that,
Speaker 1: because I think that's a great reference. There are so
Speaker 1: many things that are mentioned in the English versions that
Speaker 1: kind of distort, like the word repentance being a big
Speaker 1: one coming from medanoia in Greek and like melanoya and
Speaker 1: Greek doesn't really mean repentance. But seven out of ten
Speaker 1: English Bibles will have it as repentance. And that's pretty
Speaker 1: important because John the Baptist, Jesus Paul all talking about
Speaker 1: this term at annoy yet. So if it's being translated incorrectly,
Speaker 1: that's like their whole mission statement. That's just a good
Speaker 1: classic example. But I can't speak to the version you
Speaker 1: are are talking backsite. I really don't know.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it. Yeah, Nick, thanks man, this is very informative.
Speaker 6: I appreciate you for letting me have on everything that
Speaker 6: could be found on me is at my Westside rebirth
Speaker 6: at the word dot com.
Speaker 3: Awesome, Thank you very much, man, Man, Yeah, we got
Speaker 3: Ethan Indigo is going.
Speaker 2: On, Darren.
Speaker 7: That was awesome. Thank you again, as leads to point
Speaker 7: it out. Thanks for answering all our questions that your
Speaker 7: work inspired are super interesting and thorough great research that
Speaker 7: you've done. Yeah, Ethan Indigo on all the usual social
Speaker 7: media and at least pointed out a cult Research Institute
Speaker 7: dot org coming out with new writing here and there.
Speaker 7: And Darren again, thank you that was really interesting and inspiring.
Speaker 1: Well, I want to thank all of you on it
Speaker 1: was a really fun conversation. Oh yeah, so I got
Speaker 1: me on.
Speaker 3: No, that was great, Thank you very much, Darren. Sure,
Speaker 3: I'll probably get you off for the NDE and maybe
Speaker 3: talk about some other stuff. Definitely got interesting.
Speaker 1: You guys want to talk contra ever too, so we
Speaker 1: can go maybe i'd get Summerling on. We can go
Speaker 1: deep dive on that if you want to.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure. I'm definitely definitely show
Speaker 3: you here, like I said, get you back on and
Speaker 3: talk about other things. Uh yeah, and I will uh
Speaker 3: if you want down after the show. If you want
Speaker 3: to send me any links for me to share, I
Speaker 3: will put those down in the show notes for everybody.
Speaker 3: Uh but yeah, thank you very much. Again, I thank
Speaker 3: everybody who jumped on the show and joined me. I
Speaker 3: appreciate you making time and joining us. And that's the
Speaker 3: end of another Recault Rejects and until the next one,
Speaker 3: everybody be well. Alita