Speaker 1: In that way.
Speaker 2: In human relationship with man or woman, or between a
Speaker 2: neighbor and so on, the image making is the process
Speaker 2: of registration, right. That is, when a wife says something ugly,
Speaker 2: to listen to it and end it, not to register it,
Speaker 2: you'd see. Or when the husband says something ugly, listen
Speaker 2: to it catholic edit, not carry it on. Then you
Speaker 2: will find that there is no image making at all,
Speaker 2: because if there is no image between the man and
Speaker 2: the woman, then relationship.
Speaker 3: Are quite different, entirely different.
Speaker 2: But when there is an image between the two, the
Speaker 2: relationship is between one thought opposed to one other. Right,
Speaker 2: And that we called relationship, which actually is not. It's
Speaker 2: just an idea that I am, that you're my wife
Speaker 2: or my girlfriend, just an idea. Do you get all this.
Speaker 1: A merty, don't be playing man, ladies and gentlemen. The
Speaker 1: voice of reason has returned to the scene of the conversation.
Speaker 1: I am rejuvenated, back in the building, ready to cook,
Speaker 1: got a barn burner of a topic. Here's the thing,
Speaker 1: And of course this topic is coming from a bunch
Speaker 1: of conversations that I've had recently. And whether it's an
Speaker 1: intimate relationship or a friendship or family member. Man, you
Speaker 1: gotta translate who you really are so their perception of
Speaker 1: you can align with your translation of you. Nah, I'm
Speaker 1: not doing it. I'm gonna let you be confused as
Speaker 1: to who you think I am. Do you understand like
Speaker 1: when I was younger, I was with the smoke. I
Speaker 1: want to argue, I want to I want to do
Speaker 1: it all day. I wanna clown. I don't want to
Speaker 1: do that no more. It's a waste of time for me.
Speaker 1: Do you you feel what I'm saying, like I gotta
Speaker 1: be doing something else. When I was younger, I was
Speaker 1: with it. Yeah, let's let's let's get to it. You're confused,
Speaker 1: and this is why, because nobody knows me better than me.
Speaker 1: Do you understand I am the experience of me internally?
Speaker 1: You are the experience of me externally. You don't understand
Speaker 1: what the inner workings under the hood. I can translate
Speaker 1: myself to you, but I can't rewrite myself for you.
Speaker 1: A deeper investigation into weather intimacy. This is gonna be
Speaker 1: a hard topic, and I know a lot of people
Speaker 1: want to talk about it too. Listen, nonjudgmental space, you
Speaker 1: can call in. I want to hear your thoughts one
Speaker 1: eight hundred and nine twenty fifteen eighty Do you find
Speaker 1: yourself stuck in a way trying to explain and interpret
Speaker 1: and help your partner understand you have to learn the
Speaker 1: language of their perception in order for them to understand
Speaker 1: man and vice versa. I would say that's a vice
Speaker 1: versa thing. A deeper investigation into whether intimate mastery requires
Speaker 1: learning the language of your partner's perception without rewriting your
Speaker 1: own interior to make their interpretation of you true? Are
Speaker 1: you loving me? Or your interpretation of me?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 1: My god? True intimacy asks each partner to become fluent
Speaker 1: enough in the other person's perceptual world to understand how
Speaker 1: meaning gets made there. That fluency carries an obligation towards translation,
Speaker 1: not surrender. I may need to learn why my silence
Speaker 1: registers as rejection to you, why my directness lands as hostility,
Speaker 1: Why why are you angry? Why you start turned up?
Speaker 1: Because I'm being misunderstood, because I'm being marginalized. My point
Speaker 1: is being thrown away as if it's as if nothing
Speaker 1: has been said. And then if, if if I intensify
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, I'm not who I am, right,
Speaker 1: I'm somebody else. Do you see?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 1: I may need to learn why my silence registers as
Speaker 1: rejection to you, why my directness comes across as hostility,
Speaker 1: why my need for space awakens fear, or why an
Speaker 1: action I experienced as neutral right acquired an entirely different
Speaker 1: meaning inside of you. Perceptual bilingualism gives love that range.
Speaker 1: It allows two people to cross the distance between separate
Speaker 1: intent without requiring either person to abandon their own point
Speaker 1: of origin. Yes, I said perceptual bilingualism. No, it's not
Speaker 1: a clinical term. But I need to understand the vocabulary
Speaker 1: of your perception and you need to understand the vocabulary
Speaker 1: of mine, or we're gonna run aground. We're not gonna
Speaker 1: understand each other clearly, Do you understand? The deeper conflict
Speaker 1: begins when understanding another person's perception becomes a demand to
Speaker 1: reinterpret yourself through their perception. I won't do it. Have
Speaker 1: you ever had somebody or been with somebody and they
Speaker 1: loved everything about you until there was conflict and then
Speaker 1: everything about you is wrong? Wait, I'm a genius when
Speaker 1: it's all good, but then I'm an a hole when
Speaker 1: we got conflict and somebody saying, well, maybe you're an
Speaker 1: a hole when there's conflict. Yeah, perception, I want to know.
Speaker 1: Your experience of me deserves consideration. Your interpretation of me
Speaker 1: deserves examination. Many people can't stomach the examination of their
Speaker 1: interpretation of another person. They think my interpretation of you
Speaker 1: is the actual truth of who you really are. Well,
Speaker 1: let's go back to Alfred Korzibski. The map is not
Speaker 1: the territory. Your perception of me is a map of me,
Speaker 1: it's not the actual reality of me. And that perception
Speaker 1: could go through some filters, whatever broken relationship construct that
Speaker 1: raised you. Right, you're looking at that person through those filters.
Speaker 1: Your experience of me deserves consideration. Your interpretation of me
Speaker 1: deserves examination. Right neither automatically possesses the final authority over
Speaker 1: who I am, what I intend, or what exists inside
Speaker 1: of me. The same limitation applies to me. I cannot
Speaker 1: use self knowledge as immunity from what you observe. You
Speaker 1: cannot use impact as proof that you possess complete knowledge
Speaker 1: of my interior. Have you ever been truly sorry that
Speaker 1: there was a miscommunication and maybe you said something that
Speaker 1: you wish you didn't say. And you apologize for it,
Speaker 1: and you genuinely say, hey, I apologize for that. That
Speaker 1: was not my intention. I did not mean it, and
Speaker 1: a person turned around and says, yes, you did, totally
Speaker 1: throwing out your sincere apology and your sincere acknowledgement of
Speaker 1: something that you may have done. They throw it out
Speaker 1: as if it's not real. Intimacy requires enough humility for
Speaker 1: both forms of information to remain in the room, to
Speaker 1: remain in the environment right. This makes revisibility indispensable. A
Speaker 1: perception capable of love must remain capable of learning new
Speaker 1: behavior must have some power to disturb old conclusions. Clarification
Speaker 1: must remain eligible right to change meaning. Here's the clarify.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to clarify what I meant, and if you
Speaker 1: truly care about me, you would consider the clarification. If
Speaker 1: I matter, if I have meaning right, the living person
Speaker 1: must retain the right to contradict the image already formed
Speaker 1: of them. If you love me, I should be able
Speaker 1: to contradict the image you have of me. And I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about if I'm abusive or anything like that.
Speaker 1: I'm simply saying, if I said something that wasn't an
Speaker 1: alignment with your image. First off, you shouldn't take your
Speaker 1: image of me as the real mean anyway. Man, do
Speaker 1: you know how many people I've dated that said you
Speaker 1: the voice of reason? You should have the answer for that. Wait,
Speaker 1: you're gonna you're gonna bring up the radio. You the voice.
Speaker 1: So at no point in my life can I be
Speaker 1: confused about anything. I gotta have an answer on deck
Speaker 1: all the But wait a minute. When I do have answers,
Speaker 1: typically you rebuff those. I don't want your answers. Don't
Speaker 1: this ain't the radio. Don't come in here trying to
Speaker 1: I'm not on your cow. I don't hey what, don't
Speaker 1: try to teach me. But then you, the voice of reason,
Speaker 1: the irony again, the perception capable of love, must remain
Speaker 1: capable of learning new behavior, must have some power to
Speaker 1: disturb old conclusions. When we come forward the voice of reason,
Speaker 1: I'm going to open up the phone lines. Let's get started.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about tonight's conversation. Question is what is dialogue?
Speaker 6: So dialogue is basically a new way of talking, and
Speaker 6: it's broken down into three parts mirroring, validating, and empathizing.
Speaker 6: And the mirroring is an experience where you listen to
Speaker 6: another person and you get what they're saying and don't
Speaker 6: deflect it. Validating is when you see the logic and
Speaker 6: what they're saying and you don't have to agree with it,
Speaker 6: but you see it and you honor it. And empathy
Speaker 6: is when you experience the emotions they have with what
Speaker 6: they're saying and you really understand that that's the experience. Well,
Speaker 6: the biggest impact that dialogue has owned couples is that
Speaker 6: it transforms the relationship. Incrementally makes it better, but it
Speaker 6: actually transforms the relationship because couples partners begin to see
Speaker 6: each other in a new way, and they begin to
Speaker 6: relate to each other in a new way. What happens
Speaker 6: when you do this dialogue process is that you create
Speaker 6: a place of emotional safety, and in the place of
Speaker 6: emotional safety, people who are there begin to fuel themselves,
Speaker 6: expressing themselves in a new and different way. They become
Speaker 6: vulnerable to each other. And the reason they become vulnerable
Speaker 6: is that in a safe place, there's no judgment. You're
Speaker 6: holding each other's reality, without judgment, without criticism, without any
Speaker 6: kind of blame or disagreement, even of it's simply them
Speaker 6: being themselves and when you hold people in that space,
Speaker 6: the otherness of each other begins to emerge with great
Speaker 6: delineation and clarity. You see the other as not you,
Speaker 6: and they see you as not them. And when that
Speaker 6: otherness emerges, then what can happen is connection at a
Speaker 6: very deep level. And we think that also what happens
Speaker 6: here is that love can be born, because love is,
Speaker 6: in fact, two people who are an other to each other,
Speaker 6: caring for each other's welfare and being an advocate of
Speaker 6: each other's potential, the fascinating part of the.
Speaker 1: Other to each other. I love that. That was great?
Speaker 1: Who was that? Andy? He was cooking with the rarest Grease,
Speaker 1: Harville Hendricks ba bah bah bah he was cooking with
Speaker 1: the rares Grease. You know already know who these people are.
Speaker 1: I just love to ask Andy, Andy be keeping me
Speaker 1: on point here. Ish. Tonight's topic is one of those topics.
Speaker 1: Have you ever felt misunderstood by your partner over and
Speaker 1: over again? You feel like you're having the same conver
Speaker 1: or even your friends where sometimes their strength and just
Speaker 1: not responding. Oh, you going out of your way to
Speaker 1: misinterpret me. You making what I said align with what
Speaker 1: you think I meant. You don't want to know what
Speaker 1: I meant. You have no care for what I actually meant,
Speaker 1: because if you did, you would have did some investigation
Speaker 1: in your communication. You would have said, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: what do you mean by that? Can you expound before
Speaker 1: I give you my final evaluation? All right, let me
Speaker 1: say it again. A perception capable of love must remain
Speaker 1: capable of learning. If you're in a conversation with your friend,
Speaker 1: your lover, your family members, and you're not trying to
Speaker 1: learn from them, you're not communicating like I really want
Speaker 1: to know where you're coming from. I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: learn the language of your perception. I'm trying to impose
Speaker 1: my perception of who I think you are onto you.
Speaker 1: How many people have you dealt with that are like that?
Speaker 1: Twenty fifteen eighty listen to one of my new behaviors.
Speaker 1: Must have some power to disturb old conclusions. I've always
Speaker 1: thought that about you. Wait a minute, and then when
Speaker 1: they do something different, they now you're surprised. I never
Speaker 1: thought you would do that, of course, because you're leaning
Speaker 1: on old conclusions. Clarification must remain eligible to change meaning.
Speaker 1: In other words, if I bring clarity clarification for what
Speaker 1: is going on. You should be able to recontextualize that image.
Speaker 1: The living person must retain the right to contradict the
Speaker 1: image already formed of them. Once perception becomes impossible to revise,
Speaker 1: communication changes function. Explanation no longer carries new information. It
Speaker 1: becomes evidence possessed by a verdict already reached. When I
Speaker 1: come forward the voice of reason, we're going to continue
Speaker 1: cooking up this few right now.
Speaker 7: So with that conceptual background, I'd like to attempt a
Speaker 7: description of empathy which would seem satisfactory to me today.
Speaker 7: I would no longer be termining it a state of empathy,
Speaker 7: which was in my earlier definition, because I believe it
Speaker 7: to be a process rather than a state, And perhaps
Speaker 7: I can capture that quality the way of being with
Speaker 7: another person, which is termed empathic as several facets. It
Speaker 7: means entering the private, perceptual world of the other and
Speaker 7: becoming thoroughly at home in it.
Speaker 1: Hmm.
Speaker 7: It involves having sensitive, being sensitive moment to moment to
Speaker 7: the changing felt meanings.
Speaker 1: Nah positives, hold on, hold on, is that my homeboy, Marshall? Wait?
Speaker 1: Who is that? That's positive? Unconditional positive regard Carl Rogers.
Speaker 1: Hold on, he said. Empathy is entering the perceptual world
Speaker 1: of another. I'm gonna let it. We're gonna start him over.
Speaker 1: But have you ever been grieving? Maybe you lost a job,
Speaker 1: you lost a girlfriend, you lost a boyfriend, uh, you
Speaker 1: lost a family member. And people will say I I'm
Speaker 1: gonna give you some time, and then they determine how
Speaker 1: much time you need. Then they come back talking crazy,
Speaker 1: as if you weren't grieving when they said they was
Speaker 1: gonna get So do you understand what I'm saying? People
Speaker 1: are so selfish Sometimes they want you to show up
Speaker 1: the way they need you when they need you. So
Speaker 1: in one moment, is I okay, I'm oh you you grieving?
Speaker 1: Oh this is heavy. Okay, I'm gonna give you a
Speaker 1: little time. Say a week go by, you should be good.
Speaker 1: Now we should have had a conversation. I've been trying
Speaker 1: to have. Wait, what so you gonna put a time
Speaker 1: limit on When it's been a week, you should be
Speaker 1: good and will come back talking to you as crazy
Speaker 1: as they did before. See, I done got to the
Speaker 1: point in my life when I stop talking to you.
Speaker 1: That's all the indication you need from me. I don't
Speaker 1: stop talking, man, play Carl Rogers man unconditional positive regard.
Speaker 7: So with that conceptual background, I'd like to attempt a
Speaker 7: description of empathy which would seem satisfactory to me today.
Speaker 7: I would no longer be termining it a state of empathy,
Speaker 7: which was in my earlier definition, because I believe it
Speaker 7: to be a process rather than a state, and perhaps
Speaker 7: I can capture that quality. The way of being with
Speaker 7: another person, which is termed empathic as several facets. It
Speaker 7: means entering the private, perceptual world of the other and
Speaker 7: becoming thoroughly at home in it. It involves having sensed it,
Speaker 7: being said sensitive moment to moment, to the changing felt
Speaker 7: meanings which flow in this other person, to the fear
Speaker 7: or rage or tenderness or confusion or whatever that he
Speaker 7: or she is experiencing. It means temporarily living in his life,
Speaker 7: moving about in it.
Speaker 1: Pause. Do you hear what he explained? Andy's shaking his head.
Speaker 1: Andy in here like damn, Because that's the real He's
Speaker 1: explaining the real reality of what it is to be
Speaker 1: in relationship with somebody and be in their perceptual reality
Speaker 1: from an empathetic lens. That's what it is Man, do
Speaker 1: you know how many people don't know how to be
Speaker 1: with another human being as their raw human selves? Carl
Speaker 1: Rogers is explaining it right there, Bring it back twenty
Speaker 1: seconds because he's on complete fire.
Speaker 7: Being sensitive moment to moment, do the changing felt meanings
Speaker 7: which flow in this other person to the fear or
Speaker 7: rage or tenderness or confusion or whatever that he or
Speaker 7: she is experiencing. It means temporarily living in his life,
Speaker 7: moving about in it delicately without making judgments, sensing meanings
Speaker 7: of which he is scarcely aware, but not trying to
Speaker 7: uncover feelings of which he is totally unaware.
Speaker 1: Pause without making judgments. Man, if you going through something
Speaker 1: and you say something crazy to me, it's up and
Speaker 1: it's stuck. Am I lying? Andy? I'm not even here
Speaker 1: to understand what you're going through. Can't you see I'm
Speaker 1: trying to help you. So because you care about me,
Speaker 1: that means you get to disrespect me all in the
Speaker 1: name of care. Right let him finish, Andy, I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: It includes communicating your sensings of his world as you
Speaker 7: look with fresh and unfrightened eyes at elements of which
Speaker 7: he is fearful. It means frequently checking with him as
Speaker 7: to the accuracy of your sensings and being guided by
Speaker 7: his responses. You are a confident companion to him in
Speaker 7: his world by pinting to the possible meanings in the
Speaker 7: flow of his or herds.
Speaker 1: Wait, wait, bring it back, Andy, at least thirty more seconds.
Speaker 1: He's just dropping too much, he said. You a companion
Speaker 1: in his world. You're not in control. You're walking with
Speaker 1: his process. Do you understand being in that perceptual world? No,
Speaker 1: don't nobody communicate like that. What's wrong with you? You got
Speaker 1: to get right so I can be good again with you.
Speaker 7: Go ahead andie this world as you look with fresh
Speaker 7: and unfrightened eyes at elements of which he is fearful.
Speaker 7: It means frequently checking with him as to the accuracy
Speaker 7: of your sensings and being guided by his responses. You
Speaker 7: are a confident companion to him in his world. By
Speaker 7: pinting to the possible meanings in the flow of his
Speaker 7: or her experiencing, you help him to focus on this
Speaker 7: useful type of reference, to experience his meanings more fully,
Speaker 7: and to move forward in his or her experiencing.
Speaker 1: Nah, this is too good to be true. Andy. People
Speaker 1: don't do that. People only care about their time, their
Speaker 1: co attribution, and their energy to another person, and ultimately
Speaker 1: they want to pay off from that. They could care
Speaker 1: less about the person they're dealing with. Listen what I
Speaker 1: Once perception becomes impossible to revise, Communication changes function, Explanation
Speaker 1: no longer carries new information. It becomes evidence possessed by
Speaker 1: a verdict already reached. The more one partner explains, the
Speaker 1: more they may find themselves editing the source rather than
Speaker 1: improving the translations. DC That marks the threshold. I can
Speaker 1: translate my experience into language you can receive. I can
Speaker 1: reconsider myself when your perception reveals something I have failed
Speaker 1: to see. But I cannot rewrite my interior merely to
Speaker 1: make your interpretation of me correct. There are so many
Speaker 1: people who just don't want to know what's going on
Speaker 1: with you. They just want the end result that they
Speaker 1: showed up to receive from you. Listen, when we come forward,
Speaker 1: the voice of reason is going to keep this fire lit.
Speaker 4: I was working with twenty three psychiatrists in one community,
Speaker 4: and I was giving them an exercise on empathic connection,
Speaker 4: and I asked them to write down what they would
Speaker 4: say to people to empathically connect with them who expressed
Speaker 4: certain things. So one of the things that I've said,
Speaker 4: in the role of a patient that came to see
Speaker 4: them was, I'm feeling so depressed. I don't know that
Speaker 4: I want to keep alive. I think the world would
Speaker 4: be better off without me. And I asked each of
Speaker 4: them to write down what would be an imp ethic
Speaker 4: reaction to this person's statement. I would then ask them
Speaker 4: to hand in these responses they made, and then I said,
Speaker 4: I'm going to read each of these out loud, and
Speaker 4: I'd like you to raise your hand. If you were
Speaker 4: that person expressing this pain, that you would really feel
Speaker 4: an empathic connection, an understanding of what you were feeling
Speaker 4: and needing hands.
Speaker 1: Who is this Andy? I think I know? Is is
Speaker 1: this Marshall? That Rosenberg?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, I'm gonna go back to them, but hold tight.
Speaker 1: You can't be empathic if you're holding a grudge. That's
Speaker 1: why most of y'all misinterpret what your person is saying.
Speaker 1: They have offended the image you've held in your mine
Speaker 1: about them, and once they've offended that image, you start
Speaker 1: building a case file, a dossier. This is what it
Speaker 1: is when the image is defiled. Now you can defile
Speaker 1: the person. It could be a person you once respected.
Speaker 1: And why is it that, in your misinterpretation or your
Speaker 1: declaration of what you think the person is, you get
Speaker 1: to be nasty, disrespectful, condescending, and then wrap it all
Speaker 1: up as the truth. Oh, I'm just telling the truth.
Speaker 1: What I can't translate myself to fit your perception of me.
Speaker 1: I'm no longer going listen when I'm explaining something to you.
Speaker 1: That's me caring enough to do so. Right, I'm saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: how you see it is not exactly the way it is.
Speaker 1: Let me give you some context, let me expound and
Speaker 1: share with you what's going on. If you right, or
Speaker 1: if you are like inflexible and you don't want to
Speaker 1: change your perspective after I've given you context, then that
Speaker 1: means you've already passed the verdict before you got the information.
Speaker 1: You see, I can't. I'm at a point now where
Speaker 1: there's power in skipping the translation. I can translate my
Speaker 1: experience into language you might be able to receive. I
Speaker 1: can also reconsider myself when your perception reveals something I
Speaker 1: may have failed to see some blind spots that I
Speaker 1: didn't see. I can also rewrite well before I even
Speaker 1: go there, let me stop, let me say it again.
Speaker 1: I can reconsider myself when your perception reveals something I
Speaker 1: have failed to see. So when you're talking to your
Speaker 1: partner and they point out something that you may have missed,
Speaker 1: and then you come back and say, you know what,
Speaker 1: You're right, I did miss that. Thank you for that clarification.
Speaker 1: Let me reorganize my perception around the blind spots you revealed.
Speaker 1: And then they act like they're superior to you because
Speaker 1: they showed you something. And first off, it is a
Speaker 1: gift to be acknowledged, and that goes both ways. When
Speaker 1: you acknowledge, like if your partner actually shows you a
Speaker 1: blind spot, thank you, that's gratitude, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for showing me that. I didn't see that. But they
Speaker 1: act like they're superior to you because they did that,
Speaker 1: and that reinforces their sense of rightness. You remember the
Speaker 1: last time I showed you something you missed? Do you
Speaker 1: understand what I'm saying? Here's the central question. Can two
Speaker 1: people learn each other's perceptual language deeply enough to understand
Speaker 1: one another while remaining free enough to revise what they believe,
Speaker 1: disagree without erasing each other, and allow the person they
Speaker 1: love to remain larger than the interpretation they have formed
Speaker 1: of them. It's I don't seen it. People can go
Speaker 1: It's almost like they going through something. Oh, this person
Speaker 1: is going through something. They're experiencing grief. I'm gonna wait
Speaker 1: for the grief to subside before I continue my war
Speaker 1: with them, the war of who I think they are
Speaker 1: versus who they really are, and that a deeper I
Speaker 1: can translate myself to you, I can't rewrite myself for you.
Speaker 1: A deeper investigation into whether healthy relationship communication ends and
Speaker 1: self abandonment begins when your partner's perception demands a different
Speaker 1: version of you Gosh one eight hundred nine twenty fifteen
Speaker 1: eighty translation versus alteration? Geesh, are you loving me or
Speaker 1: your interpretation of me? What happens to emotional intimacy when
Speaker 1: your image of your partner becomes more powerful than the
Speaker 1: person standing in front of you? Gosh, I can't become
Speaker 1: your version of me? How about that? I simply can't
Speaker 1: become your version of me. A deeper investigation and intriguing
Speaker 1: investigation into whether understanding your partner requires learning their perspective
Speaker 1: without surrendering your identity to their interpretation. When your perception
Speaker 1: of me becomes when I come forward, I'm gonna give
Speaker 1: you to rest it out. When this is on fire tonight,
Speaker 1: we got callers calling it. We're about to take it
Speaker 1: over the top.
Speaker 8: So let's start with what I heard. Men have used
Speaker 8: you as a sex object. Okay. There's a lot of
Speaker 8: women here and men who can identify with that. Okay,
Speaker 8: so let's hear what you've written.
Speaker 9: I am angry and saddened by I could put so
Speaker 9: many names in here, but I just wrote men.
Speaker 8: Because they win my trust and then they betray me. Okay,
Speaker 8: So what's an example of Okay, turn that around. Let's
Speaker 8: turn it around that I win my trust and then
Speaker 8: I betray myself. I win their trust and then I
Speaker 8: betray them.
Speaker 2: I win their trust and then I betray them.
Speaker 8: And how do you do that? By not telling them
Speaker 8: how I really feel? Yes? Yes, by not telling them
Speaker 8: how she really feels.
Speaker 7: Because I'm afraid to show my pain to them.
Speaker 8: And because you don't let them know, they just keep
Speaker 8: doing what they're doing. Thinking you both agree on it, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: But I can't find that voice, honey, I mean.
Speaker 7: I want to find it.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm afraid to say it. Yeah. If I want
Speaker 8: something from my husband, I can do all kinds of
Speaker 8: lies about around it. I can be his sex goddess.
Speaker 8: I can cook him as great meal. I can do
Speaker 8: all this stuff so he'll give me what I want,
Speaker 8: you see. Or I can just say, you know, honey,
Speaker 8: I'm going to do all of this and then will
Speaker 8: you do this? Well, first I'll ask him, will you
Speaker 8: just do this? And if he says no, I say, well,
Speaker 8: what about this barter system?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 8: What if I cook for you? What if I love you?
Speaker 8: What if I you know? Or at least pretend you
Speaker 8: know all of this because you do or you don't?
Speaker 8: You do, you do, you don't? You know, depending on
Speaker 8: what you get or what you want. So I can
Speaker 8: be honest with him, But you see, what it could
Speaker 8: cost me is what I want. So I delude myself.
Speaker 8: I'm his sex goddess, I'm the great cook. I sacrifice
Speaker 8: my whole life and he still doesn't give me what
Speaker 8: I want. So I'm angry at him. I think he's psychic,
Speaker 8: you know, And it turns out he's not. He's not.
Speaker 8: So now I just ask but I don't try to
Speaker 8: buy it with my body, or am I cooking? See now,
Speaker 8: I have honest sex and I cook honestly. I do
Speaker 8: it for me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, looking too, Ladies and gentlemen. Who the Voice of
Speaker 1: Reason is on complete fire tonight? Andy? Who is that Byron? Katie?
Speaker 1: Got got got got got got out here cooking with
Speaker 1: the rares Grease? Tonight's topic is a deep one man.
Speaker 1: We got callers on the line. I want to get
Speaker 1: to him, our number two, the Voice of Reason, non
Speaker 1: judgmental zone. If you want to join the conversation, all
Speaker 1: you have to do is call us at one eight
Speaker 1: hundred and nine twenty fifteen eighty. When your perception of
Speaker 1: me becomes more real to you than I am. How projection,
Speaker 1: relationship history, and fixed interpretations can make two people stop
Speaker 1: encountering each other in the present. Is your relationship experiencing that?
Speaker 1: How long do I have to keep explaining who I
Speaker 1: am to you? Hey? An intriguing look into when relationship
Speaker 1: communications stop creating understanding and start becoming an endless trial
Speaker 1: against your partner's perception. I'm exhausted explaining who I am. See,
Speaker 1: here's the thing I have to explain who I am
Speaker 1: because you've never accepted who I am. You're only on
Speaker 1: board and at the table for negotiation with the version
Speaker 1: of me that you accept that you want. Huh one
Speaker 1: fifteen eighty You heard my words? But did you hear me?
Speaker 1: Why couples can communicate constantly yet remain strangers to the
Speaker 1: meaning behind each other's words? Yikes? Let me ask it
Speaker 1: another question another way, because I'm tired of playing with y'all.
Speaker 1: Are you fluent in the person you love? Are you
Speaker 1: fluent in them? Because your damn show? Fluent in you?
Speaker 1: Because whenever there's a conflict, you're understanding Trump's theirs, don't don't,
Speaker 1: don't act brand new tonight because I'm calling it out?
Speaker 1: Are you fluent in the person you love? Fascinating investigation
Speaker 1: exploration into perceptual bilingualism, partner understanding and whether two people
Speaker 1: can learn each other's language without losing fluency in their own?
Speaker 1: Do you really know me? Are you concerned about what
Speaker 1: I'm concerned about? Stop making me prove I'm not who
Speaker 1: you decided I am. What happens when every explanation, apology, emotion,
Speaker 1: and silence gets used to confirm your partner's existing story
Speaker 1: about you fifteen eighty. We got callers on the line.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get him in here right now. Who's been
Speaker 1: on the longest, Denver, Colorado CALLI from Denver, Colorado. What
Speaker 1: are your thoughts on tonight's topic.
Speaker 10: I'm triggered and I don't do it.
Speaker 1: You should be triggered.
Speaker 10: Yes, I definitely appreciate the topic as I was. I've
Speaker 10: experienced this recently with the companion of mine where it
Speaker 10: was communicating. They sent a message and I just sent
Speaker 10: what I thought in the moment that would be funny back.
Speaker 10: And I did did contemplate before I sent what I
Speaker 10: sent to ask for clarification, but I pushed it. I
Speaker 10: plowed straight past that thought and just went to straight
Speaker 10: to what I thought. And Yeah, again, I definitely appreciate
Speaker 10: the topic tonight because I'm like, totally confirms that I
Speaker 10: should spend more time doing some investigative work when I'm
Speaker 10: unclear about something that someone is saying, because that's how
Speaker 10: so how mess becomes mess in relationships and resentments become resentments.
Speaker 1: Well, let's go even deeper. You said investigative work, Well,
Speaker 1: what kind of investigative work. Let's play the word game.
Speaker 1: Investigative work is one way? What's some other ways?
Speaker 10: I would just say, asking a simple question in the
Speaker 10: moment to get clarity.
Speaker 1: That's investigative. I like that. That's investigative. Let's see it.
Speaker 1: Are there other ways?
Speaker 11: Silence?
Speaker 1: Oh? Mindfulness? Wow? How novel of an idea? Mindfulness? How
Speaker 1: about sit down? Just be still? Ain't that what big
Speaker 1: Mama say? Here's a piece of candy? Be still? So
Speaker 1: that's the mindfulness? What else?
Speaker 10: I think empathy too.
Speaker 1: Goes along with yes, yes, now we're cooking. You've given
Speaker 1: them a blueprint. You said investigate. So is the investigation
Speaker 1: an inward investigation like self inquiry, like I'm looking inside
Speaker 1: in crey? Right?
Speaker 10: I think there is that, and then there's also, you know,
Speaker 10: with your loved one as well with whoever you're doing
Speaker 10: with this outside of you.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So you gave the investigative piece, you gave the mindfulness piece. Uh,
Speaker 1: then you gave an empathy piece trying to understand where
Speaker 1: they're coming from. Right? Do you think the lack of
Speaker 1: those three things is what actually creates this kind of intransient,
Speaker 1: kind of intractable, you know, unforgiveness energy that many people experience.
Speaker 10: Yeah, because if you have many moments like that. It
Speaker 10: just piles up and piles up and piles up, or
Speaker 10: packs down and packs down and packs down until somebody explodes.
Speaker 10: And then maybe something that is in a moment not
Speaker 10: necessarily a big deal. It's like, whoa, you're blown up
Speaker 10: about that, right, And it's like, nah, it was two
Speaker 10: months worth of stuff for two years, or you know whatever.
Speaker 10: How many other times I suppressed my thoughts or went
Speaker 10: too deep into my thoughts and fun out, went down
Speaker 10: the rabbit hole of my own deceptive illusions, started painting
Speaker 10: a picture of this person that wasn't true.
Speaker 1: Wow, I love it. I love it. This is good stuff. Cally's.
Speaker 1: So you're on the smooth Sounds of Zoe Williams's Voice
Speaker 1: of Reason live on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty. I just
Speaker 1: have one question to ask you, young lady. Guess what
Speaker 1: you just did.
Speaker 10: Brought Denver into the building.
Speaker 1: Denver, Colorado is in the building. If you want to
Speaker 1: bring your city in the building to join this non
Speaker 1: judgmental conversation, all you gotta do is call us at
Speaker 1: one eight hundred nine twenty fifteen eighty. Listen, we got
Speaker 1: more callers on the line. Let's get them in here.
Speaker 1: You already know what it is. We got the legendary
Speaker 1: Deaconess Nicki from the SIP is in the building, Nicki.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts on tonight's topic?
Speaker 10: So the fam Hey, Hey, food for thought.
Speaker 1: Food for thought. Here we go.
Speaker 11: Isn't it interesting? Particularly in family relationships around grieving, that
Speaker 11: experience brings forward this word perception, which has to do
Speaker 11: with experiencing people who you say you love through your
Speaker 11: senses see here touch tastemau. I find often in familial
Speaker 11: relationships where perception is concerned, the people who you have
Speaker 11: the most trouble with understand that perception is their reality.
Speaker 11: They're not necessarily in tune with the deeper, particularly if
Speaker 11: you're a person who is showing up real as yourself
Speaker 11: to people who don't operate in real self realms. They
Speaker 11: only stay in perceived realms. That's why it's easy for
Speaker 11: them to say, there's a times on how long you
Speaker 11: get to be grieving before I come back to you
Speaker 11: with whatever that it is, because in reality, one cannot
Speaker 11: put a time stamp on another person's grief. You can
Speaker 11: observe their behavior to determine where they are in it,
Speaker 11: but not if you operate in the realm of perception.
Speaker 11: Then you asked earlier what happened when in relationships there
Speaker 11: is a breakdown in the translation. Well, particularly if you've
Speaker 11: had an opportunity to be exposed to the real me
Speaker 11: and you still operate in perception, what happens is you
Speaker 11: get to experience the absence of me.
Speaker 1: Wait, wait, hold on, don't go nowhere, Nikki, Nikki out here?
Speaker 1: Why now you get to experience the void when we
Speaker 1: come forward? More from Niki from the sill.
Speaker 3: This is UH the practice of the fourth mindful extraining, loving, peace,
Speaker 3: loving speech, and deep listening. H A bodhisa is someone
Speaker 3: who can talk. He can speak with a kind of
Speaker 3: language called gentle loving speech. Is someone who can listen
Speaker 3: with compassion. And if you can for three days, you
Speaker 3: might become able and you might talk to him or
Speaker 3: to her with that kind of langue wish and you
Speaker 3: might listen to him to her with that kind of compassion.
Speaker 3: You don't have to stractice ten years in order to
Speaker 3: do that. A few days maybe enough. Father that I
Speaker 3: know you have suffered so much in the past many years,
Speaker 3: I was not able to help you to suffer less. Instead,
Speaker 3: I have reacted angrily in such a way that makes
Speaker 3: the situation worse. That they is not my intention to
Speaker 3: make you suffer. That's only because I did not see
Speaker 3: the suffering in you. I did not understand the suffering
Speaker 3: in you. So please that they tell me what is
Speaker 3: in your heart. Tell me what is in the difficulties,
Speaker 3: no despair, the conflict in your heart. Please help me
Speaker 3: so that I will understand. If I understand, I will
Speaker 3: not act like the way I have in the past.
Speaker 3: Please help me. If you don't have me, who will help.
Speaker 3: That is the kind of loving speech, kind speech that
Speaker 3: you can you can do, you can heuse.
Speaker 1: That's the homie teach not Han rest in peace. Born
Speaker 1: in nineteen twenty six, passed away in nineteen twenty two.
Speaker 1: He was speaking of the energy of a bodies satphah.
Speaker 1: Just being in the very presence of a bodies satfah
Speaker 1: uh induces some type of self realization. And he was saying,
Speaker 1: you only need two days in their presence, not years.
Speaker 1: That was very interesting and I'm a big believer in that.
Speaker 1: I believe the mask creates perception, right, and we have
Speaker 1: a perception of ourselves, which is the mask. We want
Speaker 1: people to accept that perception. We try to project it
Speaker 1: out onto others, and then we have a perception of
Speaker 1: others and we want them to accept our perception of them.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you right now, I don't give a
Speaker 1: damn who you think I am. Whatever you think of
Speaker 1: me can't be true because it's coming from you. It
Speaker 1: can't be true because I'm me. Now. You might be
Speaker 1: able to experience me in a certain way. You might
Speaker 1: be able to ascertain from your perspective through your lens,
Speaker 1: maybe a fractal right of the totality of who I
Speaker 1: am as a being, But your definition of that fractal
Speaker 1: means absolutely nothing to me. Stop making me prove I'm
Speaker 1: not who you decided I am. And many people in
Speaker 1: relationships are dating the image, are loving on the image right,
Speaker 1: and this is why they never make contact with the
Speaker 1: real person. Nikki from the sip, stay with me. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna carry you to the other side because I want
Speaker 1: you to have time to land your plane and then
Speaker 1: we're going to go to OKAC. When we come forward,
Speaker 1: the callers are still coming in. Let's get it today.
Speaker 12: I'll talk about consciousness and the interface theory of perception.
Speaker 12: One third of your brain's cortex is engaged in vision.
Speaker 12: When you simply open your eyes and look around, you're
Speaker 12: using billions of neurons and trillions of synapses just to
Speaker 12: see the world in this room. This might be a
Speaker 12: bit surprising to most of us because to the extent
Speaker 12: that we think about vision at all, we think of
Speaker 12: it as like a camera. Vision is just a process
Speaker 12: of taking a snapshot of a world that exists out there,
Speaker 12: that has objects, colors, shapes, and motions. So there is
Speaker 12: a part of vision that is like a camera, and
Speaker 12: that is the eye. The eye has a lens which
Speaker 12: focuses an image on the back of the eye, where
Speaker 12: there's a piece of tissue called the retina, about one
Speaker 12: hundred and twenty million photoreceptors and two hundred million inter
Speaker 12: neurons that do sophisticated processing, a very very sophisticated piece
Speaker 12: of computational hardware. It's also an example of unintelligent design.
Speaker 12: The light goes through the lens and it has to
Speaker 12: go through all the inter neurons and blood vessels before
Speaker 12: it reaches the photoreceptors which are behind. That's really bad.
Speaker 12: That's true of vertebrate eyes, thought eyes. They have it right.
Speaker 12: The photo receptors are in front, the interneurons and the
Speaker 12: blood vessels are behind. We got the B model, So
Speaker 12: why all this horsepower in the brain just to look.
Speaker 12: The idea from cognitive neuroscience is that perception vision is
Speaker 12: really a reality engine. In real time, you're creating all
Speaker 12: the depths, colors, motions, shapes, textures and objects that you see.
Speaker 12: So you are creating the reality that you experience right now.
Speaker 12: You're not just taking a snapshot of a world that
Speaker 12: was already there. So, for example, just a couple concrete examples,
Speaker 12: this table and that table have exactly the same shape
Speaker 12: of the tabletop. One might look low, gosh.
Speaker 1: Who was that, Andy Donald Hoffman? I let your reality down.
Speaker 1: I didn't let you down. You had a reality of
Speaker 1: me that I let down. Gosh, this is why you
Speaker 1: can't see me as another human being that's flawed like you.
Speaker 1: I let your reality of me down. The name of
Speaker 1: sweet baby raised barbecue sauce. Let me get Nikki in
Speaker 1: here to finish her final thought. Then we're going to Okay,
Speaker 1: see Nikki, please land your plain sweetheart the song. If
Speaker 1: you don't know me by now ooh, simply read.
Speaker 13: Okay, Now, it is not a coincidence that that song resonates,
Speaker 13: particularly as it rates to this topic, because that song
Speaker 13: isn't talking about a perception. It's talking it's not talking
Speaker 13: about a performer person. It is talking about the real you,
Speaker 13: whoever you are. And when people are sincere in knowing
Speaker 13: the reallyion, we don't have to talk about translating you
Speaker 13: over and over and over again. So if you need
Speaker 13: that translation, particularly after significant exposure passed the three days,
Speaker 13: for example, then perhaps you will understand better with the
Speaker 13: absence of me. People generally get clearer when their absence, when.
Speaker 1: They got just themselves. Hey, Nikki, I love you to death.
Speaker 1: You already know that, right? You know that? Right, Nikki?
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you. Guess what you just did about to sip.
Speaker 13: In the building and I still love it.
Speaker 1: We love you. Mississippi is in the building because of
Speaker 1: Nikki from the sip. But hey, is this our first
Speaker 1: call from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is in the building, Duke?
Speaker 1: What up? What are your thoughts on tonight's topic? And
Speaker 1: because this is your first call? I gotta tell you
Speaker 1: no profanity talk to us?
Speaker 5: What else with you? Thoe?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 9: Good?
Speaker 1: Brother man.
Speaker 5: I mean, uh, I thought you I thought you was
Speaker 5: going in and I want to comment on the specifically
Speaker 5: two points that you made as far as and I
Speaker 5: got my phone on speaker. If I need to take
Speaker 5: it off, I can if its.
Speaker 1: You sound pretty good right now? Yeah, you sound pretty good.
Speaker 1: Just no profanity and we good. What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: on the topic?
Speaker 5: So, yeah, you were speaking about you know, can you
Speaker 5: speak your the person? And you're in you're in a
Speaker 5: relationship with can you speak the language? And the other
Speaker 5: topic is living up to other people's expectations. I do
Speaker 5: think these things are parallel, kind the one and the same.
Speaker 5: They kind of butchets off of each other. And I
Speaker 5: will say that I can speak my significant other language,
Speaker 5: but do I want to know? Because I'll end up
Speaker 5: play I'll end up play caten and compromising on ship
Speaker 5: on things. Excuse excuse me, I apologize, end up compromising
Speaker 5: on things that I don't want to and that and
Speaker 5: that goes into the living up to other people's expectations.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 5: I think men are coming into themselves and realizing that
Speaker 5: we don't have to live up into up to nobody's expectations,
Speaker 5: but our.
Speaker 1: Own hold on Now you can't say in one breath
Speaker 1: you don't want to speak their language because you wind up,
Speaker 1: you know, play Caten. Then I'm gonna say, is that
Speaker 1: their problem or your problem?
Speaker 5: I'm gonna say it's a relationship issue.
Speaker 1: Nah, it's it's a strength issue. It's an internal strength issue.
Speaker 1: If you play Caten, who they didn't make you play Kate?
Speaker 1: You did, so why would you blame them for play Kating.
Speaker 5: I'm not blaming anybody for play Caden. What I'm saying
Speaker 5: is society has these rules already in place. For example,
Speaker 5: monogamy is the norm. What if I don't want to
Speaker 5: deal with monogamy with it exactly. But what I'm saying
Speaker 5: to you as a young man, it was hard for
Speaker 5: me to say that. Now that I'm in my mere forties,
Speaker 5: I'm coming into myself and I don't have to play
Speaker 5: k right. I don't have to live up to these
Speaker 5: expectations that the world put on me, or that you're
Speaker 5: trying to put on me. I can say, get with
Speaker 5: this program, right, I'm accepting. I'm accepting. I'm accepting responsibility
Speaker 5: because I think that in my younger years I did
Speaker 5: try to conform to what the world around me said
Speaker 5: I should be, and I don't want to live up
Speaker 5: to those expectations. I'm a man.
Speaker 1: You were young, and I have my home. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: were young, and that's okay. It sounds like you found
Speaker 1: your strength. But again, be comfortable with saying when I
Speaker 1: was young, I was weak and now I'm stronger and
Speaker 1: I can stand on my own. Oftentimes men are so
Speaker 1: afraid of the word weakness that they can't be honest
Speaker 1: about the time when they were weak. I'm simply listening
Speaker 1: to you talk and you're talking about play caton. That's
Speaker 1: weakness you talking about. You understand what I'm saying. Just
Speaker 1: be honest and say, you know what, I was weak
Speaker 1: at that moment. I'm not weak like that no more.
Speaker 1: Now I can stand on the truth of who I am.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense?
Speaker 5: No, that makes absolutely sense. And I want to take
Speaker 5: it a bit further because I think that also you know,
Speaker 5: and you probably won't agree with me on this, but
Speaker 5: I would even throw religion into the mix too. I
Speaker 5: don't want to. I don't want I don't want to
Speaker 5: agree to those terms. You feel me and you won't
Speaker 5: you won't take it that far. But also, these are
Speaker 5: terms and conditions that other people are projecting on meat
Speaker 5: that are not my own, and I don't have to
Speaker 5: accept as a.
Speaker 1: Man hundred percent. Wait, that's a hundred perent. I agree
Speaker 1: with that one hundred percent. But let me ask you this.
Speaker 1: How old are you?
Speaker 13: Brother?
Speaker 1: You said you're in your forties, right, forty three? Forty three?
Speaker 1: Come on, grown man. I love it. I love what
Speaker 1: you're doing here. But do you speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Aderbic, Greek?
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 1: Then, don't back off of religion until you study it
Speaker 1: all the way to the bone to the bone marrow. See,
Speaker 1: it's easy to quit something before you learned it. See,
Speaker 1: I've studied it, so I am qualified to go. No,
Speaker 1: I'm good. I see how you change the translation? The
Speaker 1: translation in twenty twenty six, it's different than the translation
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety six, which is different than the translation
Speaker 1: in nineteen fifty six. See, I've studied. Oh, I see
Speaker 1: you trying to hide that word there? Oh? Why are you?
Speaker 1: Why is this word still transliterated? What's the difference between
Speaker 1: translation and transliteration? See, if you don't know, don't back out.
Speaker 1: Figure do you understand? What do you understand?
Speaker 5: What I'm saying that's fair and.
Speaker 1: Stay right there. Don't go nowhere. No, don't go nowhere.
Speaker 1: I need you stay right there, don't go nowhere. Okay,
Speaker 1: se is on the line, he cooking. When we come forward,
Speaker 1: more heat.
Speaker 2: From the v O R.
Speaker 1: We need the black version that simply read did not
Speaker 1: create this song. Simply read version is a remake. I
Speaker 1: need the soul and grit's version I need, we need
Speaker 1: something was missing. Did y'all you see the way he
Speaker 1: came in and the grit wasn't there. I need the
Speaker 1: grit where Uncle Tony at Tony said we need black
Speaker 1: people on the show. Here we go see this that
Speaker 1: black church, right, I gotta understand this, that break up
Speaker 1: church music. Now, baby, I know the difference. Come on,
Speaker 1: that's wheat right at wrong.
Speaker 14: My, my, my, I ain't gonna do nothing, so up
Speaker 14: said I have that.
Speaker 9: My question is how can we maintain our own entailor
Speaker 9: to your identity and a relationship, especially a close one,
Speaker 9: without compromising me in take other.
Speaker 1: Strock listen, I wanted I wanted to cook because that
Speaker 1: was a new Ramdas clip and he was gonna cook.
Speaker 1: But my caller, Duke from OKAC is on the line,
Speaker 1: and I want him to have a little bit more
Speaker 1: time to say what he needs to say, but he
Speaker 1: must not use profanity. Duke from OKC, get back in
Speaker 1: here your thoughts, man, Come on, share with me.
Speaker 5: You were cooking, man, You was cooking too, And I
Speaker 5: appreciate you for letting me go. And I apologize for
Speaker 5: you know, talking out of bounds. But like we were saying,
Speaker 5: you made the point as far as just like maybe
Speaker 5: I haven't studied enough. Right, well, then the owners, Well,
Speaker 5: the onus is on you, then, sir, because I would
Speaker 5: challenge you to tell me and your audience something profound
Speaker 5: that you learned in another language that I didn't in English,
Speaker 5: that you may have to make make me look in
Speaker 5: a different manner.
Speaker 1: Nope, the onus is not on me. You came here
Speaker 1: with your own purpose. The onness is not on me.
Speaker 1: It's on you to discover. But you found me, nonetheless,
Speaker 1: right indeed, all right then, so it's not on me
Speaker 1: to point you in the right direction. You found the
Speaker 1: which is why you're here right now. But again, if
Speaker 1: you understand what you're saying, you're saying, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to be beholden to any concept or construct, right your
Speaker 1: perception of me, the book's perception of me, the religion's
Speaker 1: perception of that's what you're saying, correct.
Speaker 5: I'm saying that I am entitled to create my.
Speaker 1: Own one hundred percent. So look, we walking the same path,
Speaker 1: so I'm not beholden. Then if we're on the same path,
Speaker 1: we're learning together.
Speaker 7: So I.
Speaker 5: I agree. I agree to a certain extent because my brother,
Speaker 5: I still think you have hurdles, and that is the
Speaker 5: religious hurdles, because like you're telling me that, maybe I
Speaker 5: don't know enough. But I'm thinking that because I don't
Speaker 5: know the language. I have read translations and transliterations, and
Speaker 5: I read a lot. Also, I got a nice little
Speaker 5: library myself, nice right, and I have not. I have
Speaker 5: not come to the same conclusion that you have. And
Speaker 5: maybe you may be more well studied, and maybe we
Speaker 5: can have this conversation about religion and maybe you can
Speaker 5: enlighten me on things because I come from a I
Speaker 5: have an agnostic point of view right then that I
Speaker 5: don't know and I haven't. I haven't been I haven't
Speaker 5: seen substantial enough evidence to make me, you know, just certain, right,
Speaker 5: I would love to be certain. I think the other
Speaker 5: side is beautiful. I think that that. If that is true,
Speaker 5: then it's great, But I'm just not convinced.
Speaker 1: Then you can't say you're agnostic if you would love
Speaker 1: it to be the opposite. Agnostic. It's a Greek word,
Speaker 1: and whenever you see a Greek word, just know when
Speaker 1: there's an A in front of a Greek word, that
Speaker 1: a means against. So when you see atheist, a thought
Speaker 1: us against God. When you see agnostic, a gnosis against knowledge?
Speaker 1: D you see did you know that?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, that may be how the word No, No, no, that's
Speaker 1: not that's not what I asked you. I asked you,
Speaker 1: did you know that? No, then don't claim it. Do
Speaker 1: you understand?
Speaker 5: Hold on? But no, I hear exactly what you're saying,
Speaker 5: But the definition doesn't say that you hear me.
Speaker 1: I know, I'm just listen. I'm trying to give you
Speaker 1: the game.
Speaker 5: Can break down hold on, hold on, You can break
Speaker 5: down a word at the etymologically speaking, when you did
Speaker 5: this word means this, this word means that. But when
Speaker 5: you put these words two words together, it's a. It's a.
Speaker 5: It's a definition for the new word, right, So you
Speaker 5: are correcting what those words mean. Separate When when you
Speaker 5: put those two words again, there's a concept behind it,
Speaker 5: and agnostic means that you know, you don't know if
Speaker 5: they're is a god or there isn't a god, but
Speaker 5: he hasn't made himself known. And you don't have no,
Speaker 5: Uh you don't. You don't have enough evidence to substantiate. Now, look, let.
Speaker 1: Me just ask, I mean, pull up, pull up the definition. No, No,
Speaker 1: I don't have to. I already know the definition. It's cool,
Speaker 1: Uh that that that's not the point that I'm trying
Speaker 1: to make. When people say there's no evidence of God,
Speaker 1: I always take you're a proponent of science, aren't you. Uh, yes,
Speaker 1: if you're an agnostic, come on, quantum mechanics.
Speaker 5: Against But I'm not. I'm not against the other side
Speaker 5: because I know, like when you say anti, right, that's
Speaker 5: the literal. But I'm saying that I'm just not convinced.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm so you're open.
Speaker 5: It's not that I'm against exactly.
Speaker 1: I'm good. That's a good place to be. Being open
Speaker 1: is the greatest place to be because that's where the
Speaker 1: information comes in unfiltered. But open also means unconditioned, so
Speaker 1: you can't come from the perspective of I'm agnostic, which
Speaker 1: is your You said that, you said I'm more of
Speaker 1: an agnostic, so and I'm saying, don't claim that. Right.
Speaker 1: If you're open, then you're in the gate. That's where
Speaker 1: all the probabilities are superposition. You should be there right.
Speaker 5: Yes, in a way, but in a way let me okay, yeah,
Speaker 5: because so So this is why I say that agnostic
Speaker 5: is a person who believes that nothing is known or
Speaker 5: can be known about the existence or nature of God.
Speaker 5: So whenever you say that, I'm in that position because
Speaker 5: whenever I ask, though, I say, how do you know
Speaker 5: about God? You can only reference scriptures and the feeling
Speaker 5: that you that you've had. But to me, it don't
Speaker 5: mean shit.
Speaker 1: There you go again. See gosh, we was having a
Speaker 1: great conversation and then you start cussing. Oh goodness, Andy,
Speaker 1: you called it, didn't you? Andy said if he cursed
Speaker 1: one more time, I'm gonna drop him in the name
Speaker 1: of sweet baby raised barbecue sauce. Well, listen, we got
Speaker 1: Monday off to a bang. Guess what. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: back here tomorrow with another slapper. It's gonna be great.
Speaker 1: I'm Zoe Williams, the Voice of Reason, I'll see y
Speaker 1: all tomorrow with another Eater, Douce