Speaker 1: You see, something's going to happen.
Speaker 2: What's going to happen?
Speaker 1: What help?
Speaker 3: Welcome to the occult rejects this episode. I got a
Speaker 3: couple of rejects with us this morning, and we will
Speaker 3: this afternoon and we will be talking about the inniads
Speaker 3: with arrows. Very excited to cover this topic or this stuff.
Speaker 3: This was associated with the platinis. People haven't listened to
Speaker 3: my Platinus episode. I highly highly suggest to go listen
Speaker 3: to tons of info in there and you will hear
Speaker 3: about the indiads. But before we get to the guest,
Speaker 3: I'm going to introduce the other rejects on the show.
Speaker 3: And today we got the lovely Lisa with us. What's
Speaker 3: going on? The cult reject mad scientist?
Speaker 2: How are you good?
Speaker 4: And thank you for inviting me on. Hey, fellow rejects.
Speaker 4: I'm very excited to hear about the indiods. I listened
Speaker 4: to Nick's Platinus and so he touches about the idiods
Speaker 4: and theirs uff. It's going to go deep down into it,
Speaker 4: So I'm very much looking forward to that. You can
Speaker 4: find me on Twitter, sois Lisa or a Cult Research
Speaker 4: Institute dot org.
Speaker 3: Thank you awesome, Thank you very much. And Headless Giant,
Speaker 3: what is going on, sir?
Speaker 2: How will you you doing?
Speaker 5: You can find me on Twitter and on x or
Speaker 5: x a Twitter, I guess they're the same thing. And
Speaker 5: you can find me on YouTube. Look up the Headless
Speaker 5: Gai podcast. And I love the topic. Platinus is so
Speaker 5: influential in early Christian thought, you know, late antiquity thought,
Speaker 5: and it's it's a really interesting bridge between the two.
Speaker 5: So I think this is going to be a great episode.
Speaker 5: So check me out. On Thursdays, me and Nick do
Speaker 5: a show where we read your occult email, So send
Speaker 5: them over to the Headless Guy Podcast gmail dot com
Speaker 5: and he will send you some stickers if you include
Speaker 5: your address, So that's great. Tomorrow we have the Trilogus
Speaker 5: with Ethan and Ricardo, so check that out early in
Speaker 5: the morning. And that's about it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, yeah sending those sending those emails. I mean
Speaker 3: even at this point, you could be making up a
Speaker 3: fabricated story and you're gonna get free stickers out of it.
Speaker 3: So I mean, just fucking said something at this point,
Speaker 3: Jesus Ethan Indigo, my man, what is going on? So
Speaker 3: how were you?
Speaker 2: Thank you for making it thanks so much everyone.
Speaker 6: I'm honored to be here. Yeah, I'm excited for tomorrow
Speaker 6: doing the trialogue. I'm easy to find on social media
Speaker 6: and frequently share writing and so forth, and I've written
Speaker 6: a couple of books. And Nick, yeah, props on your Platonius.
Speaker 3: Show, and thank you.
Speaker 6: I'm excited to learn more about all this. Thanks for
Speaker 6: being here at else.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you for joining Ethan. I really appreciate it,
Speaker 3: really wanted you here. I figured this would be right
Speaker 3: up your rally as well, your kind of speed and
Speaker 3: your style.
Speaker 6: Of fascination anything numerological and it is.
Speaker 3: Awesome. And finally, Arrows, let everybody know what your deal
Speaker 3: is and where they can find your stuff. Please.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sure, So I'm Arrows Up. You can find me
Speaker 1: on Twitter, I think at Arrows Up Arrows to eat
Speaker 1: those on Twitter or x. And then I'm also on YouTube,
Speaker 1: where I've been going through the eniads and studying them
Speaker 1: and presenting that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I came across I can't even remember how I
Speaker 3: came across your stuff. I don't know if maybe you
Speaker 3: commented on a video and then I went and noticed
Speaker 3: that you had your own channel, but like somehow I
Speaker 3: came across you know, I was like, Yo, what's the
Speaker 3: odds of this go like covering this stuff? Why I'm
Speaker 3: working on Platonis. I think I had even mentioned you
Speaker 3: and told you I was working on it. After it
Speaker 3: came out, I was like, I'd really like to have
Speaker 3: you on to cover the inniads. So it was like,
Speaker 3: it was even really weird how I even came across
Speaker 3: you in the timing. So I was really excited to
Speaker 3: finally get you on because I do think this stuff
Speaker 3: the ani ads from the stuff that I looked at
Speaker 3: when I covered Platonis, there was some real, real deep
Speaker 3: shit to me. And there's actually a lot of chapters
Speaker 3: in there that are on topics that I think are
Speaker 3: actually very important. It's interesting to know that he does
Speaker 3: cover stuff on site. He does have a whole ch
Speaker 3: chapter that I think, you know, people are into the occult,
Speaker 3: you should read his chapter or narcissism. I think he
Speaker 3: has a solid solid point. But yeah, that's enough about that. Eros.
Speaker 3: What got you into I guess Platinus. I'm assuming it's Platonis.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it was Porphyry that or however
Speaker 3: you say that guy's name that got you into the
Speaker 3: Inniads because he wrote them. But you know, how did
Speaker 3: you come across I guess the Aniads and Platonius and
Speaker 3: other stuff.
Speaker 1: A long journey, I guess, but what really, Like I
Speaker 1: would say, initially, I was really into Taoism and Taro,
Speaker 1: and I practiced astrology, and then I got into Thelema
Speaker 1: a little bit, and then just I guess, weirdly, Christian mysticism,
Speaker 1: and I think that Christian mysticism is really what brought
Speaker 1: me to Platinus. And I also wanted to say that, yeah,
Speaker 1: I watched you guys religiously, like I've watched you guys
Speaker 1: for a long time, so I think I probably did
Speaker 1: comment on something, and that's probably I think you're right
Speaker 1: recalling those details. But yeah, I just wanted to thank
Speaker 1: you guys for continuously expanding my perception on things, and
Speaker 1: obviously the awesome guests that you have on as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Thank you. You know what I think it was.
Speaker 3: I think you commented on the premiere something about like
Speaker 3: you're excited for this. I was like, Oh, somebody actually
Speaker 3: knows who this guy is, you know, so when he
Speaker 3: clicked at his stuff, I was like, oh, she covers
Speaker 3: the eniots that is wild. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so uh
Speaker 3: uh you mentioned Thelma. I had no idea about that.
Speaker 3: Uh is is that kind of where? I mean? That
Speaker 3: brought you to Platinus in a sense as well. You
Speaker 3: were saying, is he one of the saints.
Speaker 1: Platinis?
Speaker 3: Yeah, he may not be.
Speaker 1: No, absolutely not.
Speaker 3: That would be kind of funny, that would be actually
Speaker 3: hysterical if he became a Gnostic scene.
Speaker 1: See, Augustine was very influenced by Platinists though, so, and
Speaker 1: he talked about about that in some of his writings.
Speaker 1: But Platinis is definitely not a saint. He probably would
Speaker 1: have been murdered by the Christians.
Speaker 3: Well, see that was something you had interesting that you
Speaker 3: mentioned before with a Lima and then you went straight
Speaker 3: into Christianity or Fellos. Uh do you think there is
Speaker 3: do you think there is a that's do you think
Speaker 3: that's in the Lima?
Speaker 1: I think that there is a tie between Thurgy and
Speaker 1: uh neo Platonism. So maybe in that.
Speaker 3: Way I like that how you explained that, that's interesting?
Speaker 3: Yeah all right, so, uh we'll get into it. I
Speaker 3: guess I don't want to get too hung up on
Speaker 3: that on the Lima and stuff. So yeah, what what
Speaker 3: what did you pick and why to let people know
Speaker 3: what we're getting to here.
Speaker 1: Yes, I wanted to focus a bit on are the tractate?
Speaker 1: Are the stars causes? So that's any two track tate three,
Speaker 1: I believe, And I think it just really showcases some
Speaker 1: of his depth that maybe a lot of us don't
Speaker 1: always get to see. So I'm really excited about that.
Speaker 3: And one thing I just wanted to add, maybe correct
Speaker 3: me if I'm wrong, just for people were listening and
Speaker 3: may not have listened to the Latina's episode. Uh, these
Speaker 3: were notes that were compiled by somebody else and put
Speaker 3: him into the indiads.
Speaker 1: Correct, right, yep, Poor free his student went through the
Speaker 1: nads and he ordered them and published them.
Speaker 3: And if I even remember correctly, they put it in
Speaker 3: an order that was kind of like some people question
Speaker 3: like why'd you do it like that? But isn't there
Speaker 3: I think in one of his books, I think Poor
Speaker 3: Forey actually lists like how if you wanted to do
Speaker 3: it in order, there is an order that you could
Speaker 3: do it in, but he just didn't put it out
Speaker 3: that way something like that.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's right, And I think but I think
Speaker 1: in general, you can really read any tractee independently.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, there's a thousand pages, so there must be
Speaker 3: a lot of something in there. All right, So here
Speaker 3: I'll pull this up and we got sorry, what was
Speaker 3: this one again? On the stars?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yep, are the stars causes. So these are just
Speaker 1: some quotes from the Enyads to kind of give us
Speaker 1: a teleological view and then also get our us thinking
Speaker 1: about some of these ideas that we're going to be covering.
Speaker 3: So one thing, one thing I did want to just
Speaker 3: bring up real quick, or I could be wrong, because
Speaker 3: there's been a few people I've covered recently that felt
Speaker 3: this way. Was he also in belief that these stars
Speaker 3: did not, like put you in a cage like they
Speaker 3: could influence, but they were not as said Destiny. Did
Speaker 3: he feel that way as well?
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, like the.
Speaker 3: I didn't. Unfortunately, I feel like nowadays it's kind of
Speaker 3: looked at it like that. I think a lot of
Speaker 3: people who want to get into zodiacs are these woo
Speaker 3: wool people. They putting you in shackles with the zodiac,
Speaker 3: in my opinion, or they'll blame the zodiac when they're
Speaker 3: acting out. You know.
Speaker 5: Well, I think that's that's why it's so important is
Speaker 5: because he provides sort of a philosophy behind it. Instead
Speaker 5: of just saying, here's the stars, here's what they do,
Speaker 5: he's actually making the distinction between these are the influences
Speaker 5: and these are your actions. It sounds like they were
Speaker 5: having the same problem back then as well.
Speaker 3: Probably.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's a it's a response to Plato's Timaeus, right, kiss.
Speaker 1: Plato did think of the planets as gods and of
Speaker 1: like having will themselves, and so it's kind of just
Speaker 1: a response to that and expressing his different opinion on that.
Speaker 3: All right, so how did you what? Did you just
Speaker 3: want to read through this and then we'll just talk
Speaker 3: on it what we think and stuff. That's good to me?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I can just I'll just run through this
Speaker 1: and just feel free to stop ye at any time
Speaker 1: for questions or if you want to provide an insight.
Speaker 3: All right, sounds good works for me.
Speaker 1: All right, bear with me through these quotes. But I
Speaker 1: think that they're important because they really show the nuance
Speaker 1: of the one and then just kind of some of
Speaker 1: these other ideas that are going to follow up from it. So, okay,
Speaker 1: the one is perfect because it seeks nothing, has nothing
Speaker 1: and needs nothing, but instead it overflows, and this overflowing
Speaker 1: is creative. The one perfect and full generates from its
Speaker 1: own super abundance.
Speaker 3: That sorry, sorry to jumping already, but I was like,
Speaker 3: totally Kabala right there. That's like Ketha. I actually use that.
Speaker 3: I used that quote in my episode. That's that's exactly.
Speaker 2: I love that quote.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm so much Kabbala. So that's interesting.
Speaker 2: I was going to say, it's so Dallas.
Speaker 6: It's like almost directly in correspondence with the Eating or
Speaker 6: some other similar work, and in fact too that I
Speaker 6: wanted to ask Erros what you mentioned that you're into Daoism,
Speaker 6: What aspect of Daoism and did you find, I mean,
Speaker 6: other aspects of the Aeneods that may sound dallast or
Speaker 6: have Dallas elements.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel very far removed from Daoism now, you know.
Speaker 1: I studied all of that, like I don't know, close
Speaker 1: to eight ten years ago, and so you know, I
Speaker 1: only remember some of the big principles. I did a
Speaker 1: lot of tai chi back then. But the idea of
Speaker 1: kind of becoming one with the cosmos, I think that
Speaker 1: definitely aligns to platinis like his ultimate teaching of returning
Speaker 1: to the one. It's a very similar idea because it's
Speaker 1: different than Yeah, it's different than Nirvana. So to say,
Speaker 1: I guess if you're to compare Buddhism in Daoism.
Speaker 5: Are you familiar with the Eleatic school of philosophy with
Speaker 5: Xeno's paradox and all the rest of that stuff like
Speaker 5: five hundred BC and Greece. I'm not, well, that sounds
Speaker 5: like where he's getting this from. On nature, they talk
Speaker 5: about specifically how everything is an emanation from the one thing,
Speaker 5: and then they go through all of the gods and
Speaker 5: how that that sort of relates back, and that that
Speaker 5: sort of ethos you could see through Plato and you know,
Speaker 5: all of his people and then right up into the Neoplatinust.
Speaker 5: It's like, this was the surviving thread that seems to
Speaker 5: come through in Kabbalah, hermeticism, all that stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all right, so we'll try it in the second one.
Speaker 3: I'll try to interrupt it again.
Speaker 1: No, it's great, it's great. In the act of vision,
Speaker 1: the seer and the scene are two, but here in
Speaker 1: the one they are not yet too. From this unity,
Speaker 1: the vision is born, and with it the distinction of
Speaker 1: nowhere and known. Thus from the one arises multiplicity. All
Speaker 1: things are different from one another, because each draws from
Speaker 1: the one its own share, not as if divided, but
Speaker 1: as each, according to its nature, receives what it can.
Speaker 1: In this way, the one is present to all, yet
Speaker 1: each is distinct. The one overflowing produces something other than it's.
Speaker 1: This other turns back towards it and becomes intellect, containing
Speaker 1: all things different within itself, yet unified by their origin.
Speaker 1: If there were no one, there would be no number,
Speaker 1: but only non being. Because of the one, there are two,
Speaker 1: and so multiplicity. From unity, difference is born. But the
Speaker 1: one itself remains without difference. And then the last one,
Speaker 1: intellect springing from the one, is the first to contain difference.
Speaker 1: It thinks itself, and in doing so it contains both
Speaker 1: the thinker and the thought, and the many beings which
Speaker 1: it knows.
Speaker 3: Nice, you know a lot of that's still before you
Speaker 3: go on. I mean, it really doesn't remind me a
Speaker 3: lot of the Kabbalah. There was even one, the one overflowing,
Speaker 3: producing something other than itself. This other turns back towards
Speaker 3: it and becomes intellect. That right there even gave me
Speaker 3: the whole idea of Chokmah, because that's like coming face
Speaker 3: to face with God. And obviously, like if you're gonna
Speaker 3: keep going down the tree, you're turning the yellow way
Speaker 3: because of going up the tree, coming face to face,
Speaker 3: you know you're heading a different direction. So just a
Speaker 3: lot of and even like recently, I think when I
Speaker 3: was covering the Kabbalah, I had taken like a quote
Speaker 3: out of Gareth Knight's Cabalistics book, and it was very
Speaker 3: much like even describing how like Cather starts off and
Speaker 3: like everything exists due to Cather and everything that kind
Speaker 3: of was created falling from that. I mean, it's like
Speaker 3: the same thing you're hear and here you know, it's
Speaker 3: within everything. You know, even like in the Tree of Life,
Speaker 3: when you look at the four worlds of each sphere,
Speaker 3: there is like this the middle one, or this one
Speaker 3: right in the smallest one in the middle is supposed
Speaker 3: to be like the God essence or like the god
Speaker 3: idea of God in that sphere. And that's pretty much
Speaker 3: like how I feel like this is describing how it's
Speaker 3: in everything. Like even I think Platinus was saying that's
Speaker 3: why he didn't agree with the gnostics is because if
Speaker 3: they existence, Scott is in there somewhere and it's not bad,
Speaker 3: you know what I'm saying. So it's within everything, you know,
Speaker 3: It's very cabalistic to me. I like it.
Speaker 5: As well as the Emerald Tablet of thought. It's almost
Speaker 5: like one to one of the Emerald tablet there.
Speaker 3: All right, even say, I'm like.
Speaker 4: I was going to say that this particular part of
Speaker 4: the one where these quotes are talking about it immediately
Speaker 4: brings me when it says the one, and it says
Speaker 4: the beginning, and it seeks nothing and it just interprets,
Speaker 4: and then as it begins it turns into itself. It
Speaker 4: reminds me of what the Pythagoras is used to represent
Speaker 4: the metaphysical being the monad which you have the circumpunked,
Speaker 4: and when you look at the circumpunked it looks like
Speaker 4: an eyeball with with the iris as the white part
Speaker 4: controlling the aperture of the pupil itself, and that that
Speaker 4: is the representation or interpretation of reality. And as the
Speaker 4: pupil ingests the message of light or the message of
Speaker 4: the photons, it then turns into itself on the retina
Speaker 4: and then back into the actual optic nerve to interpret
Speaker 4: and begin the process of reality or begin the interpretation
Speaker 4: of reality. And that is at the beginning, but it
Speaker 4: also is at the end, so it's like an actual circle,
Speaker 4: like coming back to So it's you know, the one,
Speaker 4: we came from the one, and then we will return
Speaker 4: back to the one. And you see that kind of
Speaker 4: like lay out in most of the quotes that you selected,
Speaker 4: So I just wanted to insert that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's awesome. I feel like that does tie into
Speaker 1: everything that we're going to be talking about. All right,
Speaker 1: so all of these ideas are that. Then the one
Speaker 1: pours out of itself to experience the multiplicity of existence
Speaker 1: almost like a it's based off of differentiation, so it's
Speaker 1: almost like a constant state of gnosis or novelty producing.
Speaker 1: And so I like to tie it to this principle
Speaker 1: of chaos, and I think you'll see that. I think
Speaker 1: uh Platinis does parallel that a bit. And this is
Speaker 1: echoed in multiple creation stories. Right, It's like the orphic
Speaker 1: creation story. You know, you have the cosmic egg, which
Speaker 1: represents unity, and then Fames emerges and out of him
Speaker 1: multiplicity and ordered cosmos, and then the Egyptian creation story
Speaker 1: is similar. Sometimes like like there's this infinite potential and
Speaker 1: sometimes a like unified egg, and then from this egg
Speaker 1: arises a god or a creator, and out of them
Speaker 1: the multiplicity. And then Hermeticism as well, right, a primordial
Speaker 1: chaos identified with the mind, which brings awareness and order
Speaker 1: to what was previously undifferentiated. I feel like that's that
Speaker 1: exactly ties into what we're going to be talking about.
Speaker 1: From this differentiation and ordering, the cosmos becomes alive and structured,
Speaker 1: and all living beings emerge, each reflecting aspects of the
Speaker 1: original unity that was contained within the boundless chaos. Kay.
Speaker 1: And then that just brings it to you know, like,
Speaker 1: how is the one kind of represented in different schools
Speaker 1: of magic. I think it's kind of interesting to talk
Speaker 1: about how it's seen differently in different schools of thought.
Speaker 1: Like hermeticis believe that chaos is onto logical and that
Speaker 1: it's a fundamental nature of reality. It serves as the
Speaker 1: substrate from which all order, form and life emerge. The
Speaker 1: focus is as is on chaos as something to understand
Speaker 1: and align with rather than something to manipulate. But for
Speaker 1: chaos magicians, you know, they believe that this is like
Speaker 1: a primordial soup that can be shaped like a stem
Speaker 1: cell or a source of you know, creative potential.
Speaker 5: And about the electron, huh, what about the electron? So,
Speaker 5: for instance, if you think about photons, right, and the
Speaker 5: speed of light being the upward limit of the entire
Speaker 5: visible frame of reference. Right back to what Lisa was
Speaker 5: saying about, how the divine is sort of an emanation
Speaker 5: that can be reflected in the way that we perceive
Speaker 5: the world, and so the upward limit of light would
Speaker 5: be the speed of light, and that sort of represents
Speaker 5: the god of this world because they can't imagine a
Speaker 5: place outside of the speed of light. You know, that's
Speaker 5: something that a lot of scientists have no idea what
Speaker 5: they're grappling with, but we do know that it exists.
Speaker 5: So it's almost like the spiritual realm exists outside of
Speaker 5: the light world that we live in. That's like the
Speaker 5: upward limit that's Phani's again, is the god of light,
Speaker 5: and so from that.
Speaker 2: All things are emanated.
Speaker 5: It's almost like they're describing physics at the same time
Speaker 5: that they're making these poetic illustrations.
Speaker 3: I can see that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's so interesting too, because Platinus uses light as
Speaker 1: an analogy so often.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, that nil the grassy guy if I even
Speaker 3: say his day, Right, he came out with like he
Speaker 3: was saying some shit, what tied with his boy on
Speaker 3: some show, theorizing that the reason we can't go past
Speaker 3: the speed of light is because we're in a matrix,
Speaker 3: and then the program wouldn't be written. So that's why
Speaker 3: we can't go past it.
Speaker 5: Well, photons and electrons are the same thing. Their vibrations
Speaker 5: change the p everything would be well, you know, it's
Speaker 5: like the energy transfer from electron to photon is really easy,
Speaker 5: so there's there's something going on there. It's almost like
Speaker 5: that's the matrix of realities, all these little light particles
Speaker 5: vibrating together.
Speaker 3: I think it's like say it was like in the Sims.
Speaker 3: It's like you can't get to that room yet because
Speaker 3: it didn't make it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the photons are going to be smaller than electrons,
Speaker 4: and photons do not have electrons, but they are the
Speaker 4: elementary particles. They're smaller than the fundamental particles. And so
Speaker 4: when you get a photon, it's like zero mass and
Speaker 4: it's like pure energy like there is it is its
Speaker 4: own you know message, there is nothing kind of that
Speaker 4: can change it its its own entity. But yeah, just
Speaker 4: a fire.
Speaker 3: I would also think if you went past the speed
Speaker 3: of light, wouldn't that just be into the darkness the
Speaker 3: light again, Well, if you went past light, where would
Speaker 3: you see nothing?
Speaker 1: Then?
Speaker 5: Right, that's like the boundary of the black holes. Like
Speaker 5: you've got this a little bit on the black holes
Speaker 5: where everything seems to freeze.
Speaker 4: At that point in the event horizon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, time stops.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Well, and then that's what China's talking about. Matter and
Speaker 4: how you know, transmutation of the soul into matter. You
Speaker 4: had to go through this process.
Speaker 5: Sorry, it's perfect spelled your name wrong.
Speaker 2: At least he gave you credit.
Speaker 4: Coming whatever you want. Just don't comb for lunch. But yeah,
Speaker 4: and sorry and it means interrupt. But yeah, what what
Speaker 4: heless is saying is is accurate. It's just the the
Speaker 4: photon is like its purest form of energy, I mean
Speaker 4: purest form of information. It's it's like an adulterated information.
Speaker 4: Whereas with electrons, it depends the spin, it depends the position,
Speaker 4: it depends the temperature, it depends this blah blah blah.
Speaker 4: So yeah, and electrons belong to the actual you know
Speaker 4: that it's circulating or whatever, or unless it's like expelled.
Speaker 4: But anyway, sorry, that's good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I love where you guys are going with this.
Speaker 6: I mean, I say, I didn't want to be stuck
Speaker 6: on the Dallas thing, but I guess I always am.
Speaker 6: The Dallas also have their egg creation myth. As you
Speaker 6: mentioned the egg concept before, and there's a quote here
Speaker 6: from the uh from the Dowtaye shing excuse.
Speaker 3: Me, uh.
Speaker 6: The Dow gave birth to one, one gave birth to two,
Speaker 6: two gave birth to three, and three gave birth to
Speaker 6: the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry yin
Speaker 6: and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces.
Speaker 6: And just in respect to some of the any lines
Speaker 6: that you just quoted just kind of reminds me. But
Speaker 6: also thinking about that in terms of electron and photon
Speaker 6: instead of yin and yang, it's almost like the light
Speaker 6: gave birth to the myriad things type of thing.
Speaker 2: The one became the many things, you know, the whole.
Speaker 4: I love how you talked about chaos being like a
Speaker 4: stem cell and that it can give rise to anything,
Speaker 4: and it is the primorial soupia truly is like that
Speaker 4: was probably the best analogy I've ever heard, kind of, uh,
Speaker 4: relaying it to the chaos that I guess magicians manipulate
Speaker 4: for their own and and I do think in you
Speaker 4: on on the on the quote where it says it
Speaker 4: represents the underlying quantum like flow of reality absolutely, because
Speaker 4: I feel like it can become anything. It has the potential.
Speaker 4: It is in its potential energy state. And and obviously
Speaker 4: with the observer or the you know, the airbender, the
Speaker 4: soul in matter, we can manipulate reality. We are able
Speaker 4: to manipulate mass, and I've I've often heard that chaos
Speaker 4: is probably our inability to see the pattern yet. And
Speaker 4: so I think if in which you know, Platonists was
Speaker 4: talking about this, that we should strive towards intellectual perfectism
Speaker 4: or write something like that perfection in that it's it's
Speaker 4: more important to continue that growth towards understanding and that
Speaker 4: that God or the One exists beyond that understanding. And
Speaker 4: so when you look at chaos, chaos is potentially, you know,
Speaker 4: not an artifact, but an actual We're able to visualize
Speaker 4: matrix when we don't understand the matrix into us, it
Speaker 4: looks like chaos because we're either not stepping far back
Speaker 4: enough or we lack the actual synapses to understand the
Speaker 4: equation or the algorithm, so to speak.
Speaker 3: I've read that recently that almost like that same phrase
Speaker 3: right there, and I think it was in a couple
Speaker 3: of book. It might have been that Gareth nightbook saying
Speaker 3: something about like chaos. It's chaos to us because we're
Speaker 3: just looking at such a small little part. Yeah, actually
Speaker 3: look back more and you would see it's a small
Speaker 3: intricate part of a whole big moving.
Speaker 5: Thing quantum computing to try and to achieve God.
Speaker 2: Yoh, very truly, very good way to put it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that platinis can really help make sense
Speaker 1: of chaos for sure. I included in here a little
Speaker 1: bit about Emboocus, just that he believes that you need
Speaker 1: intermediaries to shape the chaotic substrate. So it's just kind
Speaker 1: of interesting how different schools of thought think of this principle.
Speaker 5: Well, think about the principles of geometry, right, So as
Speaker 5: these lines are crossing over each other, they're creating new patterns,
Speaker 5: and that would be like these intersections, these points that
Speaker 5: govern other other things and other ideas and so the
Speaker 5: ideas of geometry were really central to everything that they
Speaker 5: were about, you know, the Platonic solids and everything else.
Speaker 5: We're really meditation tools of how to understand the world,
Speaker 5: how to understand the universe.
Speaker 1: All right. So in the Are the Stars Causes he's
Speaker 1: talk he's responding right to Plato's Timaeus, and he's arguing
Speaker 1: that the planets aren't deterministic, they don't act in accordance
Speaker 1: with will. They follow intelligible order, and they reflect this order,
Speaker 1: but they aren't the actual cause of the things that happen.
Speaker 1: And he uses this analogy of the universe as a
Speaker 1: single living organism to illustrate the interconnectedness of all beings.
Speaker 1: He explains that everything that exists emanates from the One,
Speaker 1: like light from the sun, without diminishing its unity. All beings,
Speaker 1: including human stars and matter, are fundamentally connected to the
Speaker 1: One as derivatives of its overflow. So it's like this
Speaker 1: idea that right, and we'll get into it more in
Speaker 1: the other sides, but that there's the One, and then
Speaker 1: that multiplies into a seer and the scene, and even
Speaker 1: further when he goes into archetypes, because he talks about
Speaker 1: archetypes quite a bit. You know. It's this idea that
Speaker 1: things mirror each other because they have little pieces of
Speaker 1: these patterns, of these pure ideas in the intellectual principle. Right.
Speaker 1: So like if one archetype is a piece of gold,
Speaker 1: and as a human, you're a rock, or you're like
Speaker 1: an unpure piece of gold, right, Like, maybe you have
Speaker 1: the gold in you, you have these these this pattern
Speaker 1: in you, but you're a offshoot of it, so you're
Speaker 1: similar to it, but you're.
Speaker 5: Different vibration and frequency. That's where those differences start to
Speaker 5: come in and have a geometric relationship to one another.
Speaker 3: I mean again, I hate to even go back to
Speaker 3: like the Capolla with this, but I guess maybe you know,
Speaker 3: for people who are into the kabala, they can see
Speaker 3: a really easy connection, you know, or even like how
Speaker 3: I use like sometimes like the whole like light bulb thing,
Speaker 3: it'd be like kind of like the light that shines
Speaker 3: out of that container, that light bulb, just like it
Speaker 3: the father of the distance goes. I feel like the
Speaker 3: more of a matter it comes into, you know, like
Speaker 3: it explains like how this emanates, this one thing emanates
Speaker 3: and just eventually starts to turn into a more dense
Speaker 3: form as it goes along.
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 3: Until it hits the wall. You have an image.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 5: Time is a form of distance, right, So we're really
Speaker 5: with the time scale from you know, the big bang
Speaker 5: or whatever start everything, And as it moves along and outwards,
Speaker 5: you've got different emanations that come off of the path.
Speaker 3: Well, sense on all, right?
Speaker 1: So I have this quote from this the tract. He says,
Speaker 1: we may think of the stars as letters perpetually being
Speaker 1: inscribed on the heavens, or inscribed once for all, and
Speaker 1: yet moving as they pursue the other tasks allotted to them.
Speaker 1: Upon these main tasks will follow the quality of signifying,
Speaker 1: just as the one principle underlying any living unit enables
Speaker 1: us to reason from member to member, so that, for example,
Speaker 1: we may judge of character and even the perils and
Speaker 1: safeguards by indications in the eyes or in some other
Speaker 1: part of the body. If these parts of us are
Speaker 1: members of a whole, so are we in different ways.
Speaker 1: The one law applies all teams with symbol. The wise
Speaker 1: man is the man who in anyone they can read another,
Speaker 1: a process familiar to all of us, and not a
Speaker 1: few examples of everyday experience. But what is the comprehensive
Speaker 1: principle of coordination? Establish this and we have a reasonable
Speaker 1: basis for the divination not only by stars, but also
Speaker 1: by birds and other animals from which we derive guidance
Speaker 1: and our varied concerns. I guess I added this example,
Speaker 1: a certain planet's position coincides with the person's birth and character,
Speaker 1: or a bird's flight might coincide with an omen at
Speaker 1: what's coming. If the cosmosis an organic unity, then different
Speaker 1: events and phenomena can reflect one another. Stars don't cause
Speaker 1: human events, the birds don't cause omens. Instead, both are
Speaker 1: coordinated expressions of the same higher order. This cosmic harmony
Speaker 1: is why divination works at all, not because these creatures
Speaker 1: are for stars generate fate, but because their actions lined
Speaker 1: up with the greater pattern.
Speaker 2: I think that interesting.
Speaker 5: Think about bird murmurations and how hypnotic it is. Right,
Speaker 5: It almost puts you in a different frame of mind
Speaker 5: or a different consciousness as you're watching the bird murmurations
Speaker 5: as they move across fields and stuff. You know, it's
Speaker 5: almost like seeing the geometry patterns of a different world,
Speaker 5: and so being able to connect images with that seems
Speaker 5: to be a very common practice of you know, meditation, right,
Speaker 5: So you're looking up at the sky, You're seeing the
Speaker 5: different shapes in the sky and everything else. It's like
Speaker 5: you're connecting your imagination to the things outside of yourself
Speaker 5: and then coming back with new images.
Speaker 3: I do like how like this thing was putting it
Speaker 3: at the end, and I sometimes I would even want
Speaker 3: like it's this kind of almost applies to it's a
Speaker 3: little lost. But like even with like the true crime stuff,
Speaker 3: when we cover it with the jamatri, I.
Speaker 4: Was just about to say that exactly you.
Speaker 3: Could say, you can say, because I have something else
Speaker 3: that I was going to say, so go for it.
Speaker 4: Okay, Just that last sentence that you mentioned. Nick has
Speaker 4: always said that when we would do true crime, that
Speaker 4: we would look at jamatria, and that he did it
Speaker 4: was almost as if it's not so much that maybe
Speaker 4: that the crime or the events were being done purposefully
Speaker 4: for those numbers, but that maybe the event itself echoes
Speaker 4: a pattern and jamatra is the way to decipher the
Speaker 4: pattern or decipher the number or the math that is
Speaker 4: being expressed because of the event, or that there's a
Speaker 4: linkage into being able to interpret the event through math.
Speaker 4: Or through you know, some kind of numerology of sorts.
Speaker 4: But with talking about the cosmic harmony in that that
Speaker 4: you can math your way in a way, you could
Speaker 4: math your way into the understanding of what is being said.
Speaker 4: Like looking at the birds or looking at the stars.
Speaker 4: It's not that the stars themselves are influencing, it's the
Speaker 4: stars are being reflective. You know, ASBOs of blah blah
Speaker 4: blah blah.
Speaker 5: You're talking about Benford's law. No, have you ever heard
Speaker 5: of this? Yeah, it's a tool of the I R.
Speaker 5: S uses to see who's committing fraud on their tax
Speaker 5: paperwork because certain numbers have a certain mathematical frequency that
Speaker 5: happens in natural numbers versus unnatural numbers. People don't know
Speaker 5: about these these frequencies, so they'll put the numbers in
Speaker 5: the wrong order or the wrong proportion, and you'll know
Speaker 5: that somebody is fooling with the numbers. So in a
Speaker 5: lot of ways, you've got a pattern to nature that
Speaker 5: goes along these basic principles, like one is the most
Speaker 5: commonly used number in all of nature, so you've got
Speaker 5: to have a certain number of ones in your thing
Speaker 5: to represent a more natural number. So it's kind of
Speaker 5: crazy how that works.
Speaker 3: I was even thinking of, like, uh, even like you know,
Speaker 3: once shit gets weird or like for well, conspiracy theorists,
Speaker 3: when you know, everything starts to seem like, you know,
Speaker 3: it's just doesn't make any sense, you know, and it
Speaker 3: just seems to be from everywhere. Sometimes I wonder, is
Speaker 3: that just like, are we witnessing something happening but it
Speaker 3: just ripples through a bunch of shit it just causes
Speaker 3: weird shit to happen, or just I don't know, it's
Speaker 3: just like sometimes like it seems like when weird shit
Speaker 3: pops off from politics and the rest of the world,
Speaker 3: it's just like a fucking huge shit comes up once
Speaker 3: and like everywhere, you know, everybody's looking everywhere. It's just
Speaker 3: weird shit everywhere, and it's just like, is there some
Speaker 3: sort of like eggregre that just passed by humanity?
Speaker 1: I don't know, that's crazy. I can't believe the I R.
Speaker 1: S Is coming after us with.
Speaker 3: Like I didn't know that, but I've heard of that law.
Speaker 3: I had no idea that you said.
Speaker 5: Yeah, they've got Bedford's Law apps for your phone, so
Speaker 5: you could actually tell if somebody's fucking with you or
Speaker 5: not based off of the numbers they're giving you.
Speaker 3: What the fuck?
Speaker 7: Yeah, interesting, it's like chatchypt for fraud, right, But nobody
Speaker 7: knows why it's like that, Like there's no definite reason
Speaker 7: why numbers would be distributed like that, naturally versus unnaturally.
Speaker 5: You know, they can't really explain why that law exists,
Speaker 5: but it does.
Speaker 4: I think it's a signature. I think it's you know,
Speaker 4: kind of like with true crime. You know, the whoever
Speaker 4: is the orchestrator of the crime leaves his signature. They're good,
Speaker 4: all right.
Speaker 1: The comparison to the universe has one single organism is
Speaker 1: his idea of cosmic sympathy. And all part of the
Speaker 1: cosmos are all parts of the cosmos are interconnected, like
Speaker 1: organs in the body, all part of a living whole.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of like this idea like that we're
Speaker 1: all connected, right, Like if you have a body and
Speaker 1: your finger gets hurt, then the whole organism, like your
Speaker 1: whole self, responds to that. Right, And he says all
Speaker 1: things must be unchained, and the sympathy and correspondence obtaining,
Speaker 1: and anyone closely knit organism must exist first and intensely
Speaker 1: in the all there must be one principle constituting this
Speaker 1: unit of many forms of life and enclosing the several
Speaker 1: members within the unity, while at the same time, precisely
Speaker 1: as in each thing of detail, the parts to have
Speaker 1: each a definite function. So in the all, the higher all,
Speaker 1: each several member must have its own task. This is
Speaker 1: part of his argument against determinism and deterministic astrology. If
Speaker 1: stars had direct power over human fate, then the principle
Speaker 1: of distinct functions in the all would collapse. Stars would
Speaker 1: overstep their role and humans would lose theirs. But in
Speaker 1: Platitis's metaphysics, each part of the cosmos must fulfill its
Speaker 1: proper function for the harmony of the all. We all
Speaker 1: participate in the cosmic harmony. If the universe is an organism,
Speaker 1: humans are the sensory part. Intelligence is the electricity and
Speaker 1: the brain and animating the organism. And that way, nosis
Speaker 1: or novel thought could be a new sign apps from
Speaker 1: the universal brain and interesting thought in relation to thought
Speaker 1: forms that Grigore's chaos, magic, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've often said myself, I think like in intelligence
Speaker 3: is electricity, you know, they even use I find weird
Speaker 3: about that is like even if you go back to uh,
Speaker 3: like the magic squares, when you start messing with what
Speaker 3: people consider angels and demons, I think it's listed like
Speaker 3: intelligences and spirits, you know, And I myself have even
Speaker 3: said I thought some sigils were actually like circuit boards
Speaker 3: or something to do with electricity. So it's just interesting
Speaker 3: you even have that crossover intelligence.
Speaker 6: I've heard recently that they're making the correspondence or correlation
Speaker 6: with plasma and consciousness to your to your point, Nick.
Speaker 3: Oh that's interesting. I like that. I'll have to keep
Speaker 3: an eye on that. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Yeah, forgive my only topical knowledge of the idea.
Speaker 2: But oh that's too much, thank you.
Speaker 5: What does that mean for fusion? Fusion power is just
Speaker 5: pure plasma?
Speaker 3: Oh, just running on souls?
Speaker 1: Right, Shoot it at an aggre.
Speaker 3: Shoot it at right.
Speaker 5: Well, think about orbs and they're predominance of the that shape.
Speaker 5: When it comes to mysterious lights in the sky. There
Speaker 5: you go, that's plasma.
Speaker 3: Because I I I still think there's something to do
Speaker 3: with the plasmaia blood has something to do with a
Speaker 3: magical experience.
Speaker 5: You got back that tis you got plasma.
Speaker 6: And the development of our quality of our mitochondria leads
Speaker 6: to all kinds of changes, right, which might be the
Speaker 6: juice in that.
Speaker 3: Are you good else?
Speaker 1: Yep, Yeah, just interesting because I'm I think that too,
Speaker 1: like that all intelligence is electricity, and I've been kind
Speaker 1: of following that plasma as consciousness idea, but I'll continue here.
Speaker 1: Plotinus quotes Thus each entity takes its origin from one principle,
Speaker 1: and therefore, while executing its own function, works in with
Speaker 1: every other member of that all from which its distinct
Speaker 1: task has by no means cut it off. Each peron
Speaker 1: forms its act, each receives something from the others, everyone
Speaker 1: at its own moment, bringing its touch of sweet or bitter.
Speaker 1: And there is nothing undesigned, nothing of chance in all
Speaker 1: the process. All is one scheme of differentiation, starting from
Speaker 1: the first and working itself out in a continuous progression
Speaker 1: of kinds. So we're returning to that idea of multiplicity.
Speaker 1: And I roughly just added a couple pictures. But this one, two, three, four, five, six,
Speaker 1: seven is reminds me of this quote from the first
Speaker 1: slide uh, where it says if there were no one,
Speaker 1: there would be no number, but only non being because
Speaker 1: of the one, there are two, and so multiplicity from unity,
Speaker 1: difference is born, but the one itself remains without difference.
Speaker 5: Seven rays of light Oh jeez, right, yep, yeah, I mean.
Speaker 1: The light spectrum has to be part of this, uh,
Speaker 1: this algorithm, right, and we don't even know all of
Speaker 1: those that spectrum. So you know, he continuously talks about
Speaker 1: the one being this multiplicity principle, but obviously there has
Speaker 1: to be something limiting that principle, right, And so this
Speaker 1: is similar to the idea or the story of Uranus
Speaker 1: and Saturn, right, where Urinus represents the unchecked production of
Speaker 1: multiplicity and the castration of Uranus symbolizes the imposition of order,
Speaker 1: measure and limit on unbounded fertility. Time divides some portions
Speaker 1: out what was previously undifferentiated, and undifferentiated also kind of
Speaker 1: means like without form, like unmanifest.
Speaker 5: Think about think about chronos and Uranus as being the
Speaker 5: photon and then the speed of light limited by time,
Speaker 5: and then you've got the formula kind of laid out
Speaker 5: right there of how time cuts off light. You know,
Speaker 5: Uranus is the god of the sky and that's where
Speaker 5: all of these light forms come from. Like you know,
Speaker 5: so you've got these geometric principles sort of embedded right there,
Speaker 5: and the mythology itself. That's why I love the theogeny.
Speaker 5: You guys haven't read the theogoeny.
Speaker 2: Read it.
Speaker 5: It's short.
Speaker 2: You eat a lot of good ideas from that.
Speaker 1: The universal organism is not static, it's a living pulse
Speaker 1: in hierarchy. For it to work, you need emanation, which
Speaker 1: is movement outward from the one. You need reversion, so
Speaker 1: like this relationship between the one and what emanates from it,
Speaker 1: like recursively, you know where they're tied together and experiencing
Speaker 1: each other, and you need limitation and form to shape
Speaker 1: the multiplicity at each level. This triad is a hallmark
Speaker 1: of neoplatonic metaphysics. In his Tractate on the Intellectual Beauty,
Speaker 1: Platinus makes it to the Chronos myth. A says the God,
Speaker 1: fettered as in the Chronos myth to an unchanging identity,
Speaker 1: leaves the ordering of this universe to his son Zeus,
Speaker 1: for it could not be in his character to neglect
Speaker 1: his rule within the divine sphere, and, as though stated
Speaker 1: with the Authentic Beauty, seek a lordship to recent and
Speaker 1: too poor for a mighty ignoring this lower world Chronos,
Speaker 1: the intellectual principle claims for himself his own father Uranus,
Speaker 1: the absolute or one, with all the upward tending between them,
Speaker 1: and he counts all that tends to the inferior, beginning
Speaker 1: from his son Zeus, the all soul as ranking beneath him.
Speaker 1: Thus he solds he holds a mid position, determined on
Speaker 1: the one side by the difference pferentiation implied in the
Speaker 1: severance from the very highest, and on the other by
Speaker 1: that which keeps him apart from the link between himself
Speaker 1: and the lower. He stands between a great father and
Speaker 1: an inferior son. But since that father is too lofty
Speaker 1: to be thought of under the name of beauty, the
Speaker 1: second god remains the primarily beautiful.
Speaker 5: Well that gets right into Venus and Aphrodite, because what
Speaker 5: happens after the severance You get the rise of Aphrodite
Speaker 5: from the sea foam where he threw the member into
Speaker 5: the ocean. Right, So it's almost like love is the
Speaker 5: principle that then binds all the rest of the forces together,
Speaker 5: sort of like the underlying principle behind all.
Speaker 1: Of it, that cosmic sympathy. I guess if differentiation were unlimited,
Speaker 1: you'd get sheer chaos, infinite and distinguishable multiplicity without coherence.
Speaker 1: Platinus insists that to be intelligible, things need form something
Speaker 1: that defines that they are limit, a body that distinguishes
Speaker 1: them from other things. When multiplicity is given limit, it
Speaker 1: becomes structured multiplicity. The many are arranged in relation to
Speaker 1: each other. Each one is distinct and knowable, the whole
Speaker 1: forms of pattern or harmony rather than random fragments. And
Speaker 1: then an example is music, right, And I think that
Speaker 1: music is a great example of these forms. So like
Speaker 1: if you had infinite sound without limit, it would all
Speaker 1: just be noise, but it's shaped and by ratio and
Speaker 1: measure into melody and harmony Platinas says soul. Then in
Speaker 1: the same way is intent upon a ask of its
Speaker 1: own and everything it does it counts as an independent
Speaker 1: source of motion. It may take a direct course, or
Speaker 1: it may I might have misspelled that divegate. But a lot.
Speaker 3: Maybe you're supposed to say, I.
Speaker 1: Don't know, I don't know, But a lot of justice
Speaker 1: goes with every action in the universe, which otherwise would
Speaker 1: be dissolved and is predurable because the entire fabric is
Speaker 1: guided as much by the orderliness as by the power
Speaker 1: of the controlling force, and in this order, the stars,
Speaker 1: as being no minor members of the heavenly system, are cooperators,
Speaker 1: contributing at once to its stately beauty and to its
Speaker 1: symbolic quality. Their symbolic power extends to the entire realm
Speaker 1: of sense, their efficacy only to what they patently do.
Speaker 1: For our part, Nature keeps us upon the work of
Speaker 1: the soul as long as we are not wrecked in
Speaker 1: the multiplicity of the universe. So yeah, I like this
Speaker 1: because this just ties it all together. There's this law
Speaker 1: of justice and that there is limitation.
Speaker 3: And I think that's what all this reality is about,
Speaker 3: is the limitation and being.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems like they can't be form without limitation,
Speaker 1: and I think, no.
Speaker 3: I'm messing with magic or whatever or whatever they consider
Speaker 3: what was it honosis they would call it, or to
Speaker 3: think that would be unraveling those limitations, breaking those limitations.
Speaker 5: Back to Mercury again, right, so Mercury and Saturn are associated.
Speaker 5: You've got that that same sort of thing going on here.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that reminds me too, because like if you
Speaker 1: start looking into Iamblicus, he believes in like Hecata as
Speaker 1: a psychopomp that can traverse through like the world soul
Speaker 1: and the in use, and I think other trains of
Speaker 1: thought would definitely consider that to be mercury. Right.
Speaker 5: Well, they both have a similar psychopompic quality, but I
Speaker 5: think one is the projective, one is the receptive, and
Speaker 5: the three headed goddess would be the receptive version. You know,
Speaker 5: she's associated with dogs as well, so there's there's some
Speaker 5: sort of black dog association and snakes, so you've you've
Speaker 5: also got the keys and in a lot of ways,
Speaker 5: if you think about Vadicus, the goddess who was on
Speaker 5: top of that mountain before they put the Vatican there,
Speaker 5: really has that same sort of quality as Hecata over
Speaker 5: in Greece or Turkey.
Speaker 2: Actually, so the two.
Speaker 5: Keys of the Vatican flag might be associated with some
Speaker 5: sort of a control of goddess worship.
Speaker 1: I think that there is some like people have made
Speaker 1: some relation to like uh Asteria and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: and that makes me think of goddess worship a lot.
Speaker 3: Was that was that the last sorry, go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 5: Well, they had a lot of association with the daughter
Speaker 5: of Demeter. Well, yeah, daughter of Demeter, which she was
Speaker 5: kidnapped by Hades, right, and so that idea goes back
Speaker 5: to Mesopotamia as well. They have this goddess going through
Speaker 5: the underworld being stripped of different articles of clothing until
Speaker 5: she's finally at the center and then she's got a
Speaker 5: rise again. So it's the springtime kind of easter association.
Speaker 5: And then you've got Nergall, which is like the complete
Speaker 5: opposite of all of it, and he's like this bloody
Speaker 5: god who rises in the spring to wage war on
Speaker 5: all the rest of the tribes, because you know, to them,
Speaker 5: spring is at a time of flourishing and everything else.
Speaker 5: That's war season. That's when you go over to your
Speaker 5: neighbors and you steal all of his stuff season. So
Speaker 5: it's kind of interesting how these different gods and goddesses
Speaker 5: and associations are really heavily into the culture, and you know,
Speaker 5: they still have a reflection of each other.
Speaker 3: Though when it comes to him talking about the stars
Speaker 3: and stuff. Do you think he's putting it in the sense
Speaker 3: that they're not stopping you from having the experience of
Speaker 3: anosis or is it saying more of like it's not
Speaker 3: like or it's you know, something to that degree, or
Speaker 3: do you think he's saying, like, it really doesn't impact
Speaker 3: your daily life that much, it stops you from achieving thing.
Speaker 3: How do you think he's like meaning it in that
Speaker 3: sense too, when he talks about the stars not impacting
Speaker 3: us as much as others things.
Speaker 1: I think that he would agree that the stars, well,
Speaker 1: not the stars, right, but the pattern that the stars
Speaker 1: are mirroring definitely has an effect on the material world.
Speaker 1: So it can affect things external to you and maybe
Speaker 1: your b steal form, but it's not going to affect
Speaker 1: the soul within because that's independent, you know, and that's
Speaker 1: just kind of attached to you by choice. But I
Speaker 1: think that he would believe that it's up to us
Speaker 1: to kind of contemplate the soul and contemplate the higher
Speaker 1: sphere so that we can we separate ourselves from the
Speaker 1: beasteal world, which would be more ruled by those patterns
Speaker 1: and stuff like that, and you've become more aligned. And
Speaker 1: then through that alignment with the higher sphere, you know,
Speaker 1: you would explore that and contemplate, and eventually, through that
Speaker 1: contemplation and this act of dialect dialectic, you would reach
Speaker 1: a hinnosis. So it's about kind of overcoming the best
Speaker 1: steal and becoming an alignment with the higher sphere.
Speaker 5: I think it works on the same level that you
Speaker 5: know magic works. In the system, everything is associated, and
Speaker 5: we could choose those associations to some degree, and so
Speaker 5: by making those new associations through actions and everything else
Speaker 5: and symbols as well, you can kind of move from
Speaker 5: one area to another in the same way that you
Speaker 5: know free will acts on nature. So I think it's
Speaker 5: all about associations and how these associations play.
Speaker 2: Out, you know.
Speaker 4: I think also we have to kind of consider as
Speaker 4: with and I think Nick and I kind of went
Speaker 4: into all that whenever we were looking at the gematria
Speaker 4: and numerology and isosophe and all that other stuff. You
Speaker 4: have to keep in mind what was happening at the
Speaker 4: time when all this was being thought about, thought about
Speaker 4: or thought upon in that was this kind of like
Speaker 4: a pendulum thought from the current thought that everything was
Speaker 4: ruled by the movement of the stars. In that were
Speaker 4: they existing in a time where the stars dictated everyone's actions, thoughts, behavior, whatever.
Speaker 4: And so his his his, I guess rebuttal to this
Speaker 4: is that maybe it's not And I agree, but I
Speaker 4: think a lot of it too. Is that I think
Speaker 4: some people take it all the way to the other side,
Speaker 4: and I think when we forget what was being said,
Speaker 4: we kind of, you know, listen to the extreme part
Speaker 4: of it, not keeping in mind that at the time
Speaker 4: everybody was on the all the way on the other side.
Speaker 4: So I don't know, just something to kind of insert.
Speaker 5: Well, what patterns do you associate these stars with? You know,
Speaker 5: I mean all of them are associative, so there have
Speaker 5: to be some sort of relationship based off of the
Speaker 5: associations in our minds. The way we associate concepts and
Speaker 5: ideas are basically how we live out our lives. And
Speaker 5: so if all you're doing is trying to connect the
Speaker 5: nuts with these stars, you're not going to be doing
Speaker 5: much else, and so it becomes determinative at that point.
Speaker 4: You know, I think it's all I think you have
Speaker 4: to keep it all in context. I think it's all true.
Speaker 4: Let me say that, I think there is truth in
Speaker 4: every single theory and every single concept. And it's like
Speaker 4: when they say contemplate the soul. I think it is
Speaker 4: that indicates that we have to look upon each theory
Speaker 4: or thought or philosophy and tease out what is truth
Speaker 4: and what is not, and that percentage varies within our
Speaker 4: own experiences. So one truth for one person is not
Speaker 4: going to be absolute truth for another. And that's when
Speaker 4: you say, contemplate the soul, like what is true to
Speaker 4: you and then be ruled by that.
Speaker 1: Right. So Titus would definitely, you know, he speaks of
Speaker 1: archetypes a lot, and so he believes in these ideal forms,
Speaker 1: these ideal archetypes, and these eternal truths, and his tractate
Speaker 1: on the Dialectic, he talks about this kind of contemplation
Speaker 1: a lot, where it's this act of comparing and contrasting things,
Speaker 1: recognizing how things are similar, how things are different, what's true,
Speaker 1: what's false? What are eternal truths? What are things broken
Speaker 1: down to their most simplest parts. And so I think
Speaker 1: that goes along with a lot of what you were saying,
Speaker 1: this idea of kind of recognizing those patterns to understand
Speaker 1: the role that you play and then to ultimately recognize
Speaker 1: the the One for what it is. And there's a
Speaker 1: lot of discerning that has to take place to fully
Speaker 1: recognize the One.
Speaker 3: Yeah, something I find interesting is how, yeah, I know
Speaker 3: Platinus was big on talking about this stuff. With with
Speaker 3: the stars. You know once like Marsilio Ficino uh started
Speaker 3: rept you know, translating his stuff. You actually see like
Speaker 3: with him, uh, it was Tiger Brahe and a few
Speaker 3: other people. When you start covering them or looking into
Speaker 3: them because of them being into this, that whole idea
Speaker 3: is seemed to resurge again, like at some point in
Speaker 3: between now and then in between these inniads but kind
Speaker 3: of saying this stuff and then it changes to where
Speaker 3: people do think it totally dictates everything. And then these
Speaker 3: people come back out because this gets translated, it starts
Speaker 3: repeating it again. It's kind of funy. You'll see that
Speaker 3: happen around the Renaissance time is a I know Marceillia
Speaker 3: Facheetah and Tyco Brahe when I covered them, they definitely
Speaker 3: had a little bit of a different opinion of the people,
Speaker 3: and they're saying it definitely can influence, but it is
Speaker 3: not keeping you in change.
Speaker 5: Isn't it funny that conspiracy thinking has become the new
Speaker 5: form of dominant sort of superstition online.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know.
Speaker 5: Some eras it's it's all about the stars, and other
Speaker 5: eras it's all about you know, conspiracy it's almost a
Speaker 5: frequency between the two.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's it, Like it's interesting even like what
Speaker 3: you know, I was thinking about that kind of what
Speaker 3: Lisa was getting at, is that like even just an
Speaker 3: outcome to pushing back on an idea that's just constantly
Speaker 3: being forced. You're just coming up with something different now,
Speaker 3: you know, right, Yeah, very.
Speaker 6: Interesting in that last sentence relative to what we're talking about.
Speaker 6: For our part, nature keeps us upon the work of
Speaker 6: the soul, which is like we're all we're all doing
Speaker 6: our own mission. Maybe it's to be the best shoemaker
Speaker 6: two hundred years ago, but it's all self development internally also,
Speaker 6: And that last part, as we are as long as
Speaker 6: we are not wrecked in the multiplicity of the universe,
Speaker 6: or maybe one could interpret that is, you know, as
Speaker 6: long as we're not as long as we don't become
Speaker 6: obsessed with one idea or another into a detrimental pattern,
Speaker 6: you know, because all these things, as Lisa you said,
Speaker 6: there's truth in so many different things that sound divergent,
Speaker 6: but there's actually truth in them, and in the different
Speaker 6: planets and the different star So is that that that
Speaker 6: idea of being wrecked in the multiplicity of the universe
Speaker 6: is just like wrecked by all these ideas.
Speaker 4: Maybe I would agree, And you know how like they say,
Speaker 4: don't bind yourself to this earthly realm. Well, in essence,
Speaker 4: if you are governing yourselves by the planets, that's still
Speaker 4: binding yourself to the earthly realm, because well, I mean,
Speaker 4: it's what you see, and what you see is earthly.
Speaker 4: I don't know, but.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, absolutely so. China's definitely think so the planets
Speaker 1: is just like part of the like no different than.
Speaker 4: Trees, or I would agree, I would agree, and I
Speaker 4: almost I would almost guess that maybe at the time
Speaker 4: when he was walking the streets, people did not I
Speaker 4: think the planets were also governing the earthly realm, you know,
Speaker 4: I mean, no, no, that's not how I want to
Speaker 4: say it, that the planets were also part of keeping
Speaker 4: you tethered to the earthly realm. By looking at the
Speaker 4: planets and saying that the planets had an influence, they
Speaker 4: think that they're trying to be metaphysical or you know, supernatural.
Speaker 4: But he still was trying to say, no, you're still
Speaker 4: being governed by this this binding to the earth.
Speaker 5: Well, think about how important the stars would be to
Speaker 5: an agricultural or agrarian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well, and it I think it's part of
Speaker 1: an important evolution anyway, because the patterns that they recognized
Speaker 1: and the stars, you know, opened up the train of
Speaker 1: thought that would lead to a greater understanding of the universe.
Speaker 1: So a lot, a lot of things start that way.
Speaker 1: I was thinking too with what Ethan last said about
Speaker 1: that last sentence. You know, as long as we're not
Speaker 1: wrecked in the multiplicity of the universe, you know, I
Speaker 1: just think of chaos again, because you don't know how
Speaker 1: it's going to overflow, you know, and it's it's always
Speaker 1: going to be something different, some sort of differentiation. And
Speaker 1: you know, we are unfortunately on the bottom of the
Speaker 1: totem pole, I mean above rocks, I guess, but we're
Speaker 1: still when it comes to like the intellectual sphere, we're
Speaker 1: at the bottom. So it's just that idea of like
Speaker 1: it's going to continuously overflow into things that are different
Speaker 1: and new and novel, and you just don't know how
Speaker 1: that's going to affect you and affect the universe.
Speaker 4: So and you know Arizona that he kind of did
Speaker 4: he get into something speaking of the intellectualism, in that
Speaker 4: some people are more aware than others, be based on
Speaker 4: how many times you've incarnations, right, in that some people
Speaker 4: are going to be much more hyper aware of you know,
Speaker 4: the metaphysical or whatever versus people that are brand new
Speaker 4: in terms of incarnations or I forgot how he referred
Speaker 4: to it. And so when you think of like, you know,
Speaker 4: don't get wrecked by the multiplicity of the universe. Everyone
Speaker 4: has their own measuring stick of what is real and
Speaker 4: what is metaphysical, right, And I'm saying metaphysical lightly like
Speaker 4: you know, what is not like outside of reality in
Speaker 4: that based on what he was saying, some individuals are
Speaker 4: more hyper aware than others, and so you can't expect
Speaker 4: a person that is not aware of the metaphysical to
Speaker 4: have the same measuring stick that you do. And I
Speaker 4: think that that that when we look at the different
Speaker 4: truths or how much is true in a theory or whatever,
Speaker 4: we also have to consider what measuring stick are we like,
Speaker 4: what rubric are we using to gauge And it's not
Speaker 4: going to be the same as you know, for me,
Speaker 4: as it is the next person or my neighbor or
Speaker 4: anything like that, And how they gauge it is not wrong.
Speaker 4: It's just how their soul is now, you know, transversing
Speaker 4: this understanding of who it is and how it is
Speaker 4: and how it's evolving within that trajectory.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well about think about the word logos, right, so
Speaker 5: in the Greek it would be the word is almost
Speaker 5: pure metaphysics like that, that's, you know, the pure state
Speaker 5: of metaphysical matter, because as you're speaking and discussing, you're
Speaker 5: almost creating these different ideas and thoughts in a creative sphere.
Speaker 5: So you've got a connection to the universe on a
Speaker 5: personal level with sound frequencies. So in some ways you
Speaker 5: could see that we're on the bottom of heaven, but
Speaker 5: we're at the top of hell, and maybe we keep
Speaker 5: trying to crab bucket each other back down when we
Speaker 5: could be using our speech and everything else to edify
Speaker 5: and lift up. So there's a there's an element of
Speaker 5: positivity there, I think.
Speaker 3: I think I heard. So we say, like the best
Speaker 3: part of hell and the worst part of heaven. So
Speaker 3: that's where we're stuck in right now.
Speaker 4: We're the bacon layer and the blt.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he definitely talks about how like every part of
Speaker 1: the universe is working together to kind of elevate itself
Speaker 1: to a higher sphere. Right, So that's it's pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: I forgot what else I was gonna say.
Speaker 3: One thing I did want to say about the the planets.
Speaker 3: You know, when I look at it akabalistic form, I kind
Speaker 3: of go back and look at it almost like the
Speaker 3: way I think Headliss said something earlier about frequency and vibration.
Speaker 3: I just look at it as like those those planets,
Speaker 3: or just different frequencies that we are, times of chaos
Speaker 3: of change that we went through before we ended up
Speaker 3: in physical form, you know, or it's just representing that
Speaker 3: something that that or light going through different frequencies.
Speaker 1: Do you mean like a like we all have different
Speaker 1: starting points kind of.
Speaker 3: Well, I think probably the same starting point, just maybe
Speaker 3: the different reflections of the different way different frequencies that
Speaker 3: we all went through to, I mean, into our own
Speaker 3: form that we are in a human there would probably
Speaker 3: be like, you know, a certain I'm just gonna make
Speaker 3: it up like this, like a certain frequency be seen
Speaker 3: a certain number, but then all the little stuff in
Speaker 3: between is what makes us all a little separately different
Speaker 3: than the next one. But we all fall into this
Speaker 3: one certain frequency something like that and you go through
Speaker 3: like you know again, like all that different shit that
Speaker 3: you know might determine you don't know, I wouldn't say
Speaker 3: maybe a hype, but like just certain things like that
Speaker 3: might kind of determine like how you ended up popping out.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it certainly seems so right because if the
Speaker 1: be steal, you can have tendencies that can be related to,
Speaker 1: you know, an ordering of the planets at your time
Speaker 1: of birth, but you can evolve that. Then it does
Speaker 1: kind of indicate that you do have some sort of
Speaker 1: starting point that is influenced by the environment of matter,
Speaker 1: the material world, at the time of your birth, and
Speaker 1: then kind of how that material world unfolds over time
Speaker 1: is definitely going to affect you as well if you're
Speaker 1: not taking charge of your own will to like raise
Speaker 1: yourself above the material And I think that it's interesting
Speaker 1: too because I think, like what Lisa was talking about
Speaker 1: about kind of these starting points and navigating up to
Speaker 1: the one, right, Platina talks about these different starting points
Speaker 1: and these different archetypes and kind of how people are
Speaker 1: naturally inclined to take these paths. So, for example, if
Speaker 1: you are really drawn to aesthetics or music or something
Speaker 1: like that, like compositions of beauty. Then you might recognize
Speaker 1: these patterns and through through those types of things, right,
Speaker 1: and then through reflecting on those patterns of aesthetics or
Speaker 1: musical composition. You know, that can lead you to deeper
Speaker 1: contemplation and then to the one. Or if you are
Speaker 1: just naturally born like virtuous, more virtuous, and more of
Speaker 1: a meta physician, then it's more of a direct path.
Speaker 1: But we all definitely have these starting points and these
Speaker 1: different patterns that we notice that will lead us to
Speaker 1: that evolution up through the intellect into the one.
Speaker 5: Have you ever heard of nominative determinism. No, that's the
Speaker 5: idea that names can have an outcome on a system.
Speaker 5: So like if you think of a woman named Karen,
Speaker 5: that name is kind of determining how she is.
Speaker 1: Right. That's such a good example too of like you
Speaker 1: don't know how the multiplicity will work because ten years
Speaker 1: ago Karen was a fine name to have.
Speaker 3: F it's not.
Speaker 4: I think that when he talks about how and you
Speaker 4: were mentioning aesthetics and music composition and all that other stuff,
Speaker 4: all that is math, and I think I forgot who
Speaker 4: it was Nick. We were talking about this but beauty.
Speaker 4: How we perceive things that are beautiful, just for instance,
Speaker 4: a human face. What we perceive as beauty is actually
Speaker 4: recognition of symmetry. We recognize that there is high order
Speaker 4: of symmetry on someone's face and then perceive them as beauty.
Speaker 4: And from a biological standpoint, when we see high order
Speaker 4: of symmetry and we perceive it as in a brain,
Speaker 4: then we recognize harmonially they may be someone perfect to
Speaker 4: mate with, because that means that their DNA has high
Speaker 4: order of symmetry, high order of organization, and therefore they
Speaker 4: may be the most suitable to mate with or have
Speaker 4: offspring with. And so when we think about high order symmetry,
Speaker 4: we start thinking about the Fibonacci sequence, about the golden ratio,
Speaker 4: about pie and all these other higher order mathematical concepts.
Speaker 4: And when we get into some of these philosophers that
Speaker 4: talk about the One or the source, they are in
Speaker 4: relation to symmetry and mathematics, and there are many of
Speaker 4: them that believe that you can math your way to God.
Speaker 4: And so I think all of that kind of goes
Speaker 4: hand in hand with itself. How our brains perceive beauty, esthetics, symmetry,
Speaker 4: and so forth. So I don't know, And the soul
Speaker 4: is usually inclined towards symmetry, whether it's music, composition, literature,
Speaker 4: or anything like that, because that is I think part
Speaker 4: of a reflection of the soul realizing the math towards source.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Platinis does talk about how them met a physition
Speaker 1: has to become adapt at mathematics, and I think that
Speaker 1: recognizing beauty is like recognizing these patterns of order in
Speaker 1: this cosmic harmony.
Speaker 3: Is anything else anybody wanted to do? You have more slides? Well, okay,
Speaker 3: I thought.
Speaker 5: It kind of was it Marcus Orrelius that focused on
Speaker 5: the good, the true, and the beautiful? He was almost
Speaker 5: making a metaphysical statement and everybody just sort of took
Speaker 5: it as like a moral statement. But like these are
Speaker 5: these are ways of seeing the world that exist outside
Speaker 5: of what we know of those words. You know, there
Speaker 5: there's something different and something deeper to that concept. And
Speaker 5: I think that's probably why the Stoics were so uh
Speaker 5: so interesting to everybody, because they kind of went along
Speaker 5: that same pathway of hermetic thinking more you know, neo
Speaker 5: platonic thinking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that beauty or that idea of arrows, right, it's
Speaker 1: almost like this drive towards the one. It's like, not
Speaker 1: like erotic, but kind of like in that. I mean
Speaker 1: that is a path to the one, right to like
Speaker 1: recognizing patterns or whatever. But there is just this innate
Speaker 1: craving and like attraction towards the one that draws us
Speaker 1: in that parallels and beauty and certain sensory thing.
Speaker 5: Think about the Greeks obsession with beauty. That's the whole
Speaker 5: purpose that they thought. It was getting them closer to
Speaker 5: God and their way of thinking.
Speaker 3: I mean it's like even when you get into the Kabbalah,
Speaker 3: I that's like an idea of a sphere. You know, beauty,
Speaker 3: I mean even when it comes into like a cultism
Speaker 3: or depending on how you're taking and it can even
Speaker 3: have a negative connotation in a sense. You know, the
Speaker 3: beauty of the bedazzles, what took you off the course
Speaker 3: of what you were doing. You know, that made you
Speaker 3: fall in love with something other than I guess your
Speaker 3: commitment to being a magician something like that.
Speaker 5: Well, I think it's all got to line up. That's
Speaker 5: how you get home. You've got it all in a row.
Speaker 5: That's the way it's supposed to, you know, flourish and
Speaker 5: blow them.
Speaker 3: I think when the beauty makes you lust, that's the problem. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but uh, was anything else that you guys wanted to
Speaker 3: say or ed? I think that was great. Actually I
Speaker 3: had a really good time with him. Absolutely, Yeah, Erros
Speaker 3: will definitely have to move on to another one. We
Speaker 3: got to do on ostssism or something or on site. Nice.
Speaker 1: Yeah we should do on site at some point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would really like that. But yeah, this was
Speaker 3: really fun. I really had a good time. I appreciate
Speaker 3: everybody else are jumping on as well. Was there anything
Speaker 3: that you wanted to plug errors or anything you wanted
Speaker 3: to mention before we wrap it up?
Speaker 1: Nothing that I didn't mention in the beginning, But I
Speaker 1: really appreciate you guys having me on and it was
Speaker 1: too bad an get to go over on site a
Speaker 1: bit more. I feel like I jypped you a little bit, right, No.
Speaker 3: Well, these things, honestly, there's a lot to them. So
Speaker 3: I mean, really trying to stick to of these into
Speaker 3: one episode, you know, it could be a lot. You know,
Speaker 3: you may not do injustice if you try to crunch them.
Speaker 3: So not a problem is you know, I'm not going
Speaker 3: anywhere right now? So I'm sure we can do another
Speaker 3: one down the road. So yeah, real quick, I just
Speaker 3: want to let people know if they have not listened
Speaker 3: to the Platina show that I did, please go check
Speaker 3: it out. And if you're interested in that stuff, go
Speaker 3: check out her channel. She does cover the any ads.
Speaker 3: I will get her links of I forgot to add them.
Speaker 3: I forgot to put anybody's links. Actually, after the show,
Speaker 3: I will throw in her links so you can go
Speaker 3: check out her Twitter and her YouTube. But thank you
Speaker 3: very much, Erro. So let everybody know where they can
Speaker 3: find you as well, if you.
Speaker 1: Can find me on Twitter at Arrows to Eat Those
Speaker 1: and on YouTube as Arrows Up.
Speaker 3: And again, thank you so much for coming on. I'm
Speaker 3: glad you responded. I really appreciate it. That was a
Speaker 3: good time, and yeah, of course, of course, you know,
Speaker 3: we'll definitely get you back on again. And my man, Ethan,
Speaker 3: please let everybody know what's up with you and where
Speaker 3: they can on your amazing work and your books.
Speaker 2: Pisa Aros, that was awesome, very inspiring. Thank you for sharing.
Speaker 6: I'm easy to find on the usual social media sites
Speaker 6: and Ethan Indigo Smith on Amazon too. I got a
Speaker 6: few books and yeah, I appreciate talking with you guys
Speaker 6: as always. Thanks for putting this together.
Speaker 3: Of course, of course, and go check out his books.
Speaker 3: He's got a plethor of so I'm sure there's one
Speaker 3: in there that you'll like. And my man, Headless Giant,
Speaker 3: what is going on?
Speaker 1: Sir?
Speaker 2: How you doing?
Speaker 5: You can find me on x at the Headless Giant
Speaker 5: and also on YouTube, and if you have any occult
Speaker 5: or strange or magical experiences that you want to tell
Speaker 5: the world about on Thursdays, you can send it to
Speaker 5: me at the Headless Giant Podcast at gmail dot com.
Speaker 5: Thank you for this episode. It was a great time.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, thank you Heller, So I appreciate you coming
Speaker 3: on and contributing. And lastly, but Ales, Lisa, what is
Speaker 3: going on? How are you? Thank you very much much
Speaker 3: for joining us.
Speaker 4: Thank you Nick, Thank you for inviting me on Fellow Rejects.
Speaker 4: Always great to chop it up with you. Airs up.
Speaker 4: You did amazing. I really really liked your presentation and
Speaker 4: definitely I think with this topic, I think it was
Speaker 4: good to concentrate on just this itself because you could
Speaker 4: deep dive into some of the other stuff way more
Speaker 4: and we would probably not do it. We would do
Speaker 4: it a disservice if we were just kind of picking
Speaker 4: and choosing. I think, like actually going concentrating on this
Speaker 4: is really good. I love that you picked the specific
Speaker 4: ones to talk about it hit on so many different
Speaker 4: episodes that Nick has covered recently. So and then of
Speaker 4: course Nick's amazing. Latina's so thank you so much. The
Speaker 4: only thing to plug is soirly Lisa on Twitter, and
Speaker 4: please check out the Afficult Research Institute dot org where
Speaker 4: some of the rejects like that and head lists as well,
Speaker 4: has contributed to some projects literarily and checks out there
Speaker 4: a cult Research Intoitute dot org.
Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you very much, Lisa. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: I'm glad you I'm glad you made it. I appreciate
Speaker 3: your contribution. And again, Erros, I really appreciate you coming on.
Speaker 3: I had a really good time. I needed that. It
Speaker 3: was really something that I wanted to talk about. I
Speaker 3: was looking forward to it, and it was a good
Speaker 3: way to start off my Saturday. So I appreciate it,
Speaker 3: and we'll definitely do this again again. Thank you everybody
Speaker 3: in the chat. I really appreciate everybody here. There's a
Speaker 3: lot of people here, from the beginning to the end,
Speaker 3: and that's what's up, and that's why I go live.
Speaker 3: And uh yeah, glad everybody enjoyed it. And until the
Speaker 3: next one, everybody be well later