Speaker 1: As far as I'm concerned. And it's partly because, well,
when we started this conversation, I said, for example, that
it appears to be the case that a description of
the structure through which we see the world is a story.
We see the world through a story. And so that's
a remarkable thing. This is a remarkable discovery, and it's
emerged probably in the last sixteen years.
Speaker 2: This is true, and this is actually a good reputation
of this Goofball's worldview, as if science could tell you
anything about values, anything about meaning, anything about telos telos.
Science is merely a tool for investigating the natural world.
That's it. It cannot tell you the origins of life.
It can't tell you meaning, It can't tell you any
of these types of questions ethics, oughts, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera. It's a very limited tool. Is that dinosaurs?
What they got damn velociraptors running in the background. What
the heck is that tell what they look like? They're
in Arizona somewhere. So where are they where there's two
veloss rapp They're at damn Jurassic Park. Dude, watch out
forget a dude Hey, look, we need to get Jeff Goldbloom.
They're in Jurassic Park. You see them, Velossi raptors back there.
Get Jeff Goldbloom in there to set them all straight
on freaking chaos math, the eighty kiosh kiosh math. The
one thing I know is that life, life is life,
is certain to survive, right, we need some gold Bloom
action in this in this room here, since they're at Jurassic.
Speaker 1: Park, sixty years in multiple disciplines, because we have to
prioritize our facts, and so we prior to them according
to a particular pattern. And there are patterns that seem
to work and to propagate themselves properly and to orient
cultures towards life abundant. And there are other patterns, the
pattern of Cain, for example, that lead to absolute, bloody devastation.
And I don't know exactly how to construe that sort
of truth. But we talked about the oppression of women
for examples like, how do you make a case on
purely factual grounds that women should be treated as equals.
Speaker 3: It's a moral question, man, I know, that's exactly exactly
I was dealing with a fatal question, which is did
Jesus have a father, do you won't answer it.
Speaker 1: Jesus father and a heavenly father, like almost all mythological heroes.
Speaker 3: That's the bone of a virgin. Then so he is.
You're saying that Jesus was not bone of a virgin.
Speaker 1: I said first of all that I don't I don't
know how to mediate the fact value dichotomy in that.
Speaker 2: I think we need to take a brief interlude here
to get some real scientific, just you know, decisiveness on
the matter from our favorite chaos mathematician and game spitner,
Jeffrey Goldbloom. And if you don't know, guy, we got
a lot of single guys out there in Ohio, a
lot of single men. You want to hit on a
blonde woman, You're you're at You're at the park, You're
at the zoo, you're at Jurassic Park. You want to
hit on some blonde woman? How are you going to
do it? I'm gonna show you how. This is the
jeff Goldbloom model a game, right. And by the way,
it almost works because wasn't she with uh freaking sam
Neel or whatever, I can't remember, fly effect a.
Speaker 3: Butterfly and flap chains and cooking in Central parking range.
Speaker 2: He's spitting that butterfly chaos butterfly game.
Speaker 3: That I go too fast, I go to fast.
Speaker 2: I did give it. Give me that big glass of water.
We're gonna conduct an experiment. Yeah, give me, give me that.
I don't even know. It's just an example. Now put
your hand fly by the way. He's he's straight up
cucking Sam Neil right there. Sam Neil's over here like
freaking Dicky Dawkins, obsessed with you know, palaeontology and a
munch of them fake ass dinosaurs. Right, he's over here
looking at raptor ass. Meanwhile, Jeff gold blooms over here
stealing his girl.
Speaker 3: Now, let's say drop waterfalls in your hand.
Speaker 2: Which way has drop off? Guys, you're paying attention. How
do you get a girlfriend? Right here? Use some of
that smart gold bloom game, some of that science game.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, now freezing hand, don't move. I'm gonna do
the same things, start with the same same place again.
Speaker 2: So use a butterfly chaos magic cow's math. Excuse me,
throw in a little quantum phone. The chicks love that. Right,
He's gonna let's say change it change why boom. It
worked as tiny variations, uh, the the orientation of the
hairs in your hands being above to stending your vessels
and perfectionists skin that gold Bloom game right there. I see,
That's what I'm talking about. And then on top of that,
not only is is he an amazing leather clad ladies man,
he also can't expound upon ethics from a scientific perspective.
So the very thing that Dawkins is looking for, how
can I base ethics in science? I have no answer
to this question. Why doesn't he turn to Jeff Goldbloom.
Speaker 3: After that absolutely spectacular design said no expense in the world.
Speaker 2: That's the right you ready, you'll ready to learn of
humility before nature that's being displayed here. I see a
lot of a lack of humility before nature in this audience.
This audience has got a lot of hubris, a lot
of quantum hubris. I see quantum hubris right here in
this audience. Staggers, Well, thank you, I'm staggered by the
quantum hubris in this audience, doctor Malcolm. But I think
things are a little bit different than you and I
have fear. Yeah, I know they're a lot worse. No, wait,
a second, Now we haven't like this. He's got like
a Jewish Elvis thing going on here. Right, He's like Jelvis. Right,
he's got it going on. Baby, Wait a second, now
we haven't even seen.
Speaker 4: Don't let him talk.
Speaker 3: There's no reason I want to hear it.
Speaker 2: Let quantum Jewish Elvis talk.
Speaker 4: Don't you see the danger John inherent?
Speaker 3: What you're doing here?
Speaker 2: Genetic power is the most awesome forced the planets ever seen.
Speaker 4: But you wielded like a kid that's found his dad.
Speaker 2: It's hardly appropriate.
Speaker 4: Start hurling gerization if I mean, I'll.
Speaker 2: Tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're
that you're using here. It didn't require any discipline to
attain it. Oh boom roasted. Let's get back to this.
Speaker 1: I said the same thing about the risums.
Speaker 3: It's not it's not a value. It's a simple fact.
I mean, did did did a man have intercourse with
Mary and produce Jesus? That's that's a factual question. There's
not a value question.
Speaker 4: You must understand what we're being asked here.
Speaker 5: That that even if you think that, say, the author
of the biblical texts in tended much more significance than
a simple scientific analysis of events. Professor Dawkins is interested
in scientific truth. That's the kind of truth that he's
interested in. And even if you think it's irrelevant to
the point of what the Gospel authors we're getting at,
that first needs to be clarified before you can then
begin actually uncovering what the stories are about.
Speaker 2: So, oh, man that I had this. I'm sorry I
had the I didn't realize the mute was on because whatever.
Look I'm sick. I'm sorry, but the people in the
Twitter have heard it. So I'm just reading super chats anyway,
So I apologize that if you wanted your superchat, maybe
I should reread these and answer and really quick. I
didn't realize it was still muted. Let me go back
and read. I'm gonna read these supertests really quick because
I didn't realize it was muted. As a new inquirre
of Orthodoxy, should I go out and still be involved
in sharing the Gospel with Pride fest and Abrach and Mills.
My answer was that you should be catechized before trying
to do that. Hallowed Night, five dollars, How will we
ever debate again? If we have Vatican funko pops, we
won't was my answer. Should it be Project Skeptic instead
of Project pat Yes and Project Peterson funk luster five dollars.
I know it's not only topic, but what about Catholicism
and the history of Judaism. Yes, I'm familiar with that.
What is Orthodox conception of brain and body or mind body?
It's that mind is a property of human nature. Human
nature is made up of body, mind, soul, and will.
Human persons are the have or or the subject that
has the nature. So mine is a property of nature.
It is the active state of conscious awareness. I don't
know much more like, what can we say much more
than that? In your book you cite Alvin Noe. Yeah,
but that was in the context of a philosophical discussion.
We wouldn't cite Alvin Noe has anything to do with
Orthodox theology storm the cat ten dollars. I read that
in ancient Rome financial centers had Saturn as the locus
of their financial sinners had Saturn temples, and many glib
Elite have Saturn symbolism. That could be an unconscious spiritual
kind of connection there. I don't know that they're always
necessarily trying to think back to the ancient world. Also,
I read that Canaanite equivalent of Saturn is the molocher
rim fan. Yes, that's a human sacrifice, Deity. Pano five dollars.
If you were going to debate Peterson, how would you
structure your opening statement. I'm reading through these fasts because
I read them and I didn't realize it was muted.
My answer was that I would do what Peterson does
where he tries to go at the atheist with layer three,
the moral tropological. My response would be to go at
Peterson with layer two and points out that three presposes
two and two presupposes one. That was my answer, Sea
Bass five dollars. Jay, what's a good response to a
Catholic that says that Orthodox Church has no unity because
has no authority? My answer was that the that's if
a Roman Catholic argue that they're re refuting themselves, it's
a self own because if the Church of the first
thousand years was the Roman Catholic Church, then that means
the Church of the Council of Ephesus was the Romancolic
church that granted autocephaly, and so therefore the Romancolic Church
itself is refuting itself. So hopefully you see how to
see who it is. That's a great own Anti pac
Man ten dollars, thank you so much. Or the doxphernis
five dollars. The septuagent reads, my crime is too great
for me to be forgiven. In Justesis four thirteen, the
KJV reads, my punishment is greater that I can bear.
We see that a lack of faith in Kin is
the true issue, not an angry God like Protestants thing.
That's interesting. I didn't know the difference of the septuagient there.
That makes sense to DC. Would working three dollars? Appreciate
that MKG five dollars. JM mute Jay you're still im muted. Yes,
I figured it out, Thank you so much. Mccolvin five dollars.
The utube stream is muted, thank you, MKG ten dollars.
I got caught off guard when O'Connors of the verse
needs to be clarified in thirty eight thirteen. Okay, let's see.
Speaker 5: Well you can then begin actually uncovering what the stories
are about. So I think Professor Dowkins is asking from
a scientific perspective, and maybe you think that scientific approach
is wrong. But if you just take it for a moment.
Maybe this is how we find out that it is wrong.
Let's take a scientific approach, ask the question did this occur?
Speaker 1: I think that it's inappropriate to use a question like
that to attempt to undermine the validity of the entire
what would you say deep mythological enterprise?
Speaker 5: Suppose we were asking out of interests. Suppose that we
were all here about Christians, maybe even UNI and Christians,
and we thought this is interesting over dinner. Do you
think it really happened? Like scientifically? Would your answer just
be I don't know, yes, and you wouldn't consider it.
I mean, it's not an inappropriate question to ask just
on a point of interest, right, did this really occur?
And I think so often people are asking you that,
and especially given the context of this conversation, we've heard
everything that you're saying about metaphor and myth. But because
the question is still then being asked, did it really happen?
Speaker 4: You know that that's what you're being asked, And the.
Speaker 5: Way you just so easily said yes, I wonder why
you struggle to do that in so many other circumstances.
Speaker 1: I think because I don't look at the situation the
same the way that doctor Dawkins and I look at
the situation are really quite different and at many, many,
many levels.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: So even on the meme question, for example, you know,
like I know the literature on the history of religious ideas.
I see how these ideas have battled across millennia in
a manner that is very reminiscent to me of the
same sort of claim that doctor Dawkins is putting forward
with regards to meme. I know that literature. Doctor Dawkins
doesn't know that literature. It's very difficult for me to
communicate from within the confines of that literature because it's
indeed and we're and.
Speaker 2: We're were we muted for that? Hopefully we weren't muted
for the whole Jeff Goldbloom showing up?
Speaker 6: Was that?
Speaker 2: Was that muted? It shouldn't be muted? Now, are we good?
Did y'all hear the wisdom of gold Bloom? I think
the chat's behind No, you didn't hurt Oh this damn mute?
Oh my gosh, wait, you did hear that? Okay, as
long as you got the wisdom of gold Bloom. I
was proud of that. I thought that was funny. Okay, good,
Then all you missed was super chats, is okay? I
reread the super chats.
Speaker 1: Dealing with things that we don't understand the relationship between
metaphoric truths and value predicated truth and factual truth. We
don't understand that. It's a big problem. We cannot there's
no evidence whatsoever from the scientific perspective that we can
orient ourselves in the world merely in consequence of the facts.
Speaker 2: Sure, this is actually a really good point that Peterson's making.
This reminds me of an essay. I think it's called demarcation.
Let me see, yes, so this reminds me of an
essay by Manion. I'm sure you guys are aware of
Russ Russ Manion, who Lord have mercy. I think he
did pass away. Of course we referred to a lot
of Russ Manion's papers. I think this Manion essay is
referring to what Peterson's talking about. So Russ Manyon called
this essay demarcation and a meaningful research project. And I
think what Peterson. I'm going for memory because I haven't
read this essay in several years, but I think what
Peterson is talking about is the same point that's being
made by Manion in this paper that you basically there
is no clear way to demarcate when science is giving
you meaningful truths and propositions versus pseudoscience in the sense
of comparing it to say truths in literature, like there's
no clear quote scientific way to demarket these things. I
think that's right. I'm trying to remember this essay. We
need to pause here, for the idea that nature signifies
things to scientists is going to need a narrative of
its own. We don't even need to be concerned about
probable narratives at this point. We just need a narrative
that is at least possible. That is, we need a
narrative that is meaningful. In the prior paragraph we saw,
we placed the words somehow in italics for that purpose,
somehow as a placeholder for a narrative which exists explain
nature and scientists that can have such a rich relationship.
Most just leave us somehow alone for fear of too
many possible explanations. But there are not so many possible explanations.
There are only two that we need to be concerned with.
These are the same two possible explanations for the world itself.
In the end, that special relationship between nature and sciences
exists either intentionally or by accident. So this is intentionality
versus a purely accidental world. Intentionality would then be a
world where there is tellos. The first story is easy.
It is not difficult to imagine a story where scientists
are what they are on purpose, for a purpose, and
in which nature is created for some purpose. What if
nature was meant to be read? What if reading nature
was the very purpose for which scientists were made. What
if nature was made for an epistemic environment, in an
environment which signifies as clear and reveals something to be
a sign. What if scientists were intentionally made to be
epistemic beings with epistemic faculties for the purpose of observing
and interpreting those signs. What if reading nature was a
form of communion between scientists and the maker of nature.
It's a very neat story. It's a simple story, and
perhaps a story that if it's not true, it's a
story which even ojectable to those who prefer an accidental
or natural story. Nonetheless, it is a story which explains
why nature and scientists are in an epistemic relationship. In
that sense, it makes sense. Is a possible narrative. What's
the alternative narrative that the Dawkins worldview must prefer. The
alternative story is easy too. If nature and scientists are
not what they are intentionally, then they are what they
are by accident, and their stories are accidental. But nature
as an accident just is the case. Scientists as accidents
also just are. Their relationship just is, and anything we
might want to say or think about them just is.
But just is just means there is no narrative for
that somehow, because just is just means there is no
reason or explanation whatsoever for an epistemic relationship that is.
The accidental story is that there is no story. Nature
does not mean anything at all. A purely accidental state
of affairs signifies nothing. It is absurd to declare at
the outset that there is no reason whatsoever why anything
is what it is, and then go on in the
name of science Dawkins and give reasons for why things
are as they are. In an accidental world, there are
no signs, and if there are no signs, the world
does not signify anything. In other words, there is no
story and there is no science. Or meaning. Look how
absurd this makes the entire gibberish of Dawkins. Now, if
you want to read this out, say, I want to
link it right here. It's an energetic procession right there.
It's a great russ many in essay, and it's called
on demarcation and the signs of nature. It is making
I believe the point that Peterson's making here.
Speaker 1: That's a fact, and it's a fact. It's been detailed
out in great detail in the last sixty years by
people from a variety of different disciplines. We have to
prioritize the facts. That's a value hierarchy. There may be
true and false ways of prioritizing facts, but you can't
determine the truth or falsehood of the way that you
prioritize fact by making reference to the facts. That's a
big problem.
Speaker 5: Okay, let's let's let's talk about that as perhaps a
slight detail here, because I think we do need to
come back to this christ resurrection thing. But Professor Dawkins,
would you say that underlying the scientific scientific enterprise is
a fundamentally unscientific assumption. You can, you can make scientific
investigations in the world, but in order to do. So,
you need to choose what to prioritize, You need to
choose what to investigate. You also need to value the truth.
You need to have a value and a motivation for
doing it. In the first place. Those kinds of things
cannot themselves be scientifically justified. And so does the scientific
scientific enterprise have an unscientific assumption in the space.
Speaker 3: I suppose it does. I mean, I think we. I
think that maybe just be Jordan and Richen, but by
the way of a group, I think that Jordan prioritizes
myth and I prioritize fact, and I think myth is
kind of vaguely interesting, but it's not the spell and
end or of my life, I think.
Speaker 2: But you understand that, as we just read in the
in the Manion paper, there is no such thing as fact.
Fact is an illusion, just as much as the spaghetti
monster that this goober is always talking about, right, It's
a metaphysical myth fantasy. There is no fact. What is
a fact because the fact presupposes a meaningful signification between
events in the external world and the perceiver of those facts.
And we just saw in the manual paper. The world
is pure and true and only accidentalism, then there is
no meaning at all.
Speaker 3: It's somewhat secondary to scientific fact, sort of facts that
tell us how old the universe is, how old the
world is, the history of life, the engineering achievements of
landing a spacecraft on a comage, these are the things
that science can do. And as I said, the predictions
of pantum theory, to come back to that, the predictions
of pantum theory which are verified to a sufficient lamp.
Speaker 2: Have you noticed I just realized how many times these
people include themselves in this domain of what engineers do. Bro,
what have you invented? He's over here talking like he's
damn Elon Musk or some shit, right, Like he's inventing
all this high tier you know, the high tech stuff
because of science. And then he's part of that. You're
not part of some collective of engineers. Do you have
an engineering degree? It's funny how many things he talks
about when he requires credentials of anyone else to talk
about it, which he has no credentials in. Right, So
here he is talking about all these engineering achievement achievements,
as if that's any way equivalent to the so called
life sciences, which life sciences just means we sit around
and we come up with weird theories about what we
thought monkeys were doing eleven million years ago in trees.
I'm not joking, right. Life sciences is not the equivalent
of engine And because I have a lot of respect
for engineers, I think they're real scientists. They're people who
do real mathematical, technological scientific work. And people like this
are like sued Midwick con men who don't do anything
like that but claim themselves to. They claim to be
the voice in the face of what actual engineers produced.
It's really annoying.
Speaker 3: We're investing places such it's equivalent to predicting the wits
of North America to warm hairsbreadth. Now, that is, however
difficult quantum theory is to understand. That is what you
can get from quantum theory. Now, the mysteries of the Bible,
if they are mysteries, aren't in the same league.
Speaker 2: I mean, they just how did we get back today?
Did he bring back quantum shit? I thought I thought
we were already through the quantum foam. We waded through
the quantum foam, and now we're back to it. What
is he talking about? How did he get to quantum
crap from we were just talking about, did I skip
ahead somehow.
Speaker 3: That science can do? And as I said, the predictions
of quantum theory to come back to that, the prediction
of quantum theory, which are verified to a sufficient number
of bessing places that it's equivalent to predicting the books
of North America to one hairsbreadth.
Speaker 2: Dude, what kind of bullshit is this? Who actually believes this?
So he's number one? No, how this outlandish, absurd measurement
is a measurement no one can measure. He's saying that
the ability of quantum gibberish to predict things is the
equivalent of predicting the width of North America to one
hair's breadth. What who could even test that or measure that?
So here's the king of testing and measuring things making
some preposterous claim that quantum physics capabilities are equivalent to this.
Like what is am I the only person who hears
this and thinks what the hell does that mean? That
is no? That has no That's like complete gibberish. It's
like saying I have created the world's most accurate, invisible,
infinitesimal measuring device. And its successfully measured the length with
perfect precision of every NAT's dick. So we now know
the perfect scientific average of NAT dick from my infinitesimal
perfect quantum natdick measurer. You can't see it, but it's
perfectly accurate, so we know it's true. What the heck
are you talking about?
Speaker 3: Now? That is, however difficult quantum theory is to understand.
That is what you can get from quantum theory. Now,
the mysteries of the Bible, if they are mysteries, aren't
in the same league. I mean, they just don't cut it.
Speaker 2: What in the heck is like? What is he even
talking about? Like, let's say, quantum. He said it was
a Richard Fineman quote, right, quantum mechanics measure North America
to a hairbreath. It's this sounds like some crap, like
a science fiction, like a some propagandist wrote up or something.
Hair bread. I want to try to find the Fineman quote.
All right, Well, does anybody know where this quote comes from?
What the what the hell is it supposed to mean?
I don't know. I don't see it anywhere. Oh, now
here we go. It's going to get interesting. Preconditions for sciencetions.
Speaker 1: Axioms that need to be accepted. I don't want to
put words in your mouth because I want to get
this right before the scientific enterprise can begin. So I've
tried to think those truths. Let me lay out a
couple of them. This is partly what I've done while
trying to make the case, for example, that you're more
of a Christian than you think you are. So, for example,
I think that the scientific enterprise is motivated by the
axiomatic presumption that truth tends towards a unity. I think
that it's predicated on the notion that there is a
logical order that's intrinsic to the cosmos, that that fundamental
order is good, that it's intelligible to human beings, and
that discovering that order and aligning ourselves with it makes
for life more abundant. I think that the scientific enterprise
is also predicated on the idea that the truth will
set you free. And I think all of those axioms
are religious and derived from the Judeo Christian tradition. And
if you don't believe that, you have to account for
why science emerged in Europe and nowhere else. In the
entire history of humanity, for example, and why it's also
why it's under assault from like all quarters now as
that underlying metaphysic disappears. Like you haven't had to be
concerned with the mythological substrate in your lifetime in some sense,
because it was intact, and so the universities could flourish
and you had your freedom, remarkable freedom to pursue your
scientific enterprise wherever you wanted, and people lauded you for it.
Like that. Time is that time is threatened, and seriously so.
And I think it's partly because these metaphysical assumptions have
now become questionable, and that's part of the reason that
I'm attending to them. It's not because I don't admire
the accuracy of quantum prediction, for example, or celebrate what
Musk is doing with his capability of sending rockets to
the Mars. It's like, more power to the technological enterprise.
But you know what's happening in the universities, it's awful,
And that's that's not a scientific problem.
Speaker 3: It's underta I agree about that. I think it's an
interesting question.
Speaker 2: Oh he agrees about that. What with the universities going woke? Uh?
Did you not realize that his basic bitch scientism is
what leads to the absurd cult of the woke? Can
he not put two and two together that the woke
people are in the exact same boat as him, and
they're in the same cult because all of the woke
people have the same scientism cult religion as you, which
you are the high priest of for however many decades.
So how does he not know what his own cult
devotees believe.
Speaker 3: By science emerged in Europe? I mean, and I'm not historian, Tom,
it is even possible that Christianity did have something to
do with that. I categoric to deny that, but that
doesn't in any way increase my trust in the validity
of Christian propositions like the Resurrection, the Virgin pers and miracles,
and Jesus is the Son of God. Christianity may have
had some kind of historical facilitating effect that led to
the Renaissance, that led to the sun.
Speaker 2: I agree in principle with Jordan Peterson here that obviously
the Christian ethos and the idea of a world governed
by regularity, all of life having you know, sanctity meaning
purpose it's itself, you know, as the Manion paper talks
about what gives the possibility of meaningful predication. But I
also think that that doesn't prove anything, because we know
DAWC is just going to say, okay, but maybe myth
gives way to science, right, That's that's their whole narrative
is that mankind is in this sort of Comptian process
whereby he sheds the superstitions of the previous generation. But
the irony of that is that, well, guess what, Richard,
your woke offspring are the ones that are shedding the
pretensions of your generation. So you've created these monsters which
you now disavow. You're the high priest of the gobbling
class gufas.
Speaker 3: Different revolution, and that would be a very interesting historical analysis,
but it doesn't bear upon the truths of the propositions
of the Christian religion.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's concentrate on the resurrection for a moment now. Unfortunately,
see this is part of the problem. Part of the
problem with discussions like this is that the mode of
approach that's taken by the mythological tends to circle and
wander like it doesn't because you have to shine light
on the problem from multiple perspectives. That's why it's often
encoded in image, for example, or in drama. It's not
the same tack as a purely propositional in logical argument,
so it's more difficult to make. But let me tell
you a story that I believe bears on the resurrection.
You tell me what you think about it, because I don't.
This is a very difficult story to account for. It's
going to take me about five minutes because it's it's complicated,
but there's no way around it, I don't think.
Speaker 2: So before he tells his five minute story paranoid Joe
ten dollars, how can when I try to show the
pope being apostate th Roman Catholics, they try to explain
it away or deny it because the religion is about
the pope ultimately, even if they don't acknowledge it. It's
a worship of authority. All the apologists spend all their
time basically defending the papacy. It's ninety nine percent of
their apologetics. And their apologists are people lawyers, so of
course they're going to explain it away when that's what
the religion is all about. So that's why. Also, I mean,
they're so committed to that that they'll deny the trinity
of the deedy of Christ, the incarnation, the virgin birth.
They'll deny all that before they deny the papacy. Honeybee
double o honey Bee, two hundred dollars. I hope you
feel better. Wow, thank you you won the super chat
competition today, honey Bee. You always do bringing those fat
superchats a Manuka honey Bee with that two hundred dollars,
Manuka Honey, appreciate it. That's right. I think the Manuka
honey did help with this. You know, whatever kind of
bug I had, it seemed like the only thing that
really helped was sleep. Like nothing else worked. I did
take charcoal, so because I didn't know whether At first,
I thought maybe I had food poisoning because the first
two days were very different than the rest of the days.
So the first two days I thought, oh, I got
food poisoning, and then you know, I'm on a But
then I wasn't. Really I didn't throw up. So, Michael,
if I'm not throwing up, what do I have? It's
something else. So I had mega fever for two or
three days and then then it was just off to
the races, you know what I mean, MKG five dollars.
You got muted right after Jeff Goldblum. Then you unpaused
Alex and he interjected, yeah, sorry about that storm the
cat ten dollars. There's another problem with Carl Popper's falsification
epistemology is that he can't know that something is falsified
today won't be false falsified tomorrow. Yeah, that's true. He
has the same issues as David Hume. Yeah. Bonson had
a good critique of falsification in one of his lectures,
and I think he said something like that as well
as you know, just doing a pre subpositional critique the
principal falsifiability itself right, that it's unjustified.
Speaker 1: There's a strange scene in the Gospels where Christ tells
his followers that unless he's lifted up like the bronze serpent,
and there can be no hope for the redemption of
mankind unless he's lifted up like the bronze serpent in
the desert. Okay, this is a very strange thing for
someone to say, So.
Speaker 2: You need to know what Now. This is interesting because
this also plays into iconography, and if you're going to
be around November eighth, we have our icon Conference coming up,
so I want to remind you that you can still
get tickets for that. It's going to be a fun,
kind of small event. Let's see. Here's the details. November eighth,
Palm Coast, Florida, the Ology of the Icon. It's in
eight days. It's going to be an intimate event we have.
We're going to be going pretty deep on icons from
different angles. Father Vladimir will be discussing the rubleav Icon,
which is obviously one of the most famous. Father Theodore will
be discussing a mystical practical theology of the icons. Father
Deacon's paper, I forget the title of it, but I
think it's just called Theology the Icon. And then I'll
be giving a talk on kind of the biblical defense
of iconography in regard to like Protestant apologetics. So if
you go to the link, you can get the tickets.
It's also in the show description for the icon Conference.
It's going to be an intimate, fun affair. If you're
in the Florida area, or even if you're not, if
you want to come for that, let me know there's
the link right there.
Speaker 1: The story of the bronze serpent in the desert was
in what it signifies, and I think we can understand
it psychologically. I really do believe this, and so and
the concordance of that story, which was generated millennia before,
with Christ's utterance, is something I just cannot imagine how
anyone put those two things together, especially given the lack
of explicit understanding about the relationship. So let me detail it.
So there's a scene in Exodus, in the Exodus story
where the Israelites are doing their usual fractious foolishness and
whining about the fact that they're lost and bemoaning the
loss of their privileges under the Pharaoh, and complaining about
the power dynamics of their leadership, and just generally being
followers of Cain. Let's say, and God, the cruel god
that you refer to, decides to send among his suffering
subjects poisonous snakes to bite them, which seems a little
over the top, you might say. But in response to that,
I would say, there's no situation so terrible that some
damn fool can't make it infinitely worse. And so that's
what happens to the Israelites. So they're being bitten by
these poisonous snakes. And the leaders of the people who've
wandered from God go to Moses and they say, look,
we know you've got a pipeline to God, and you
know there's a lot of snakes and they're doing a
lot of biting, and maybe you could just ask him to,
you know, call off the serpents. And so Moses, who's
not very happy with the Israelites, either decides that he'll
go talk to God. And God says something very strange.
He doesn't say, to hell with the Israelites. More snakes
is what they need. And he doesn't say, well, I
produce the snake, so I'll get rid of them. He
says something very very peculiar. He says, have the Israelites
gathered together all their bronze and make a giant steak
and put a serpent on it, a bronze serpent, which
is the symbol of healing. By the way that even
the Greeks use that symbol of Asclepius. It's a very
old symbol, very widespread, still used by physicians today. And
then he says, put it up where the Israelites can
see it, and if they go look at it, then
the serpent's poison won't harm them. And I read that
thought that's exactly what psychotherapists discovered as they all converged
in the twentieth century on the utility of exposure therapy
as curative and that's the pharmicon. A little of the
poison that hurts you cures you. It's the same principle
that's used for vaccines, by the way, So what we
saw in psychotherapy is that if you get people to
voluntarily confront the things that are poisoning them, so to speak,
that hurt their life, that frighten them, and discuss them,
they become braver and more well adapted. It is.
Speaker 2: Now I'm not saying there might be there might not
be some application of this principle from the biblical symbology
going on here, but what the psychotherapists discovered is not
what these texts are conveying. Again, there might be some
loose connection or analogy, but what is being displayed here
is the defeating of death by death. The thing that
brought death, the serpent, right becomes the instrument of healing,
the cross, which is a image a horrible Roman image
of death becomes a healing instrument of life, trampling down
death by death. Hello, Christ has risen from the dead,
trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs,
bestowing life right. Everybody's sung this million times. How is
that because death becomes the instrument through which death is defeated.
It's the trick God's trick of the devil to defeat
the devil by his own instrument. That's the meaning of it.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And so I guess you could loosely say that it's
exposing the subject to the thing, because I guess in
a sense, Christ willingly took on and underwent death in
his human nature, meaning let the divine person of the
word willingly and actually experienced the severing of his human
soul from his human body. In that sense, I guess
you could say maybe that's what he.
Speaker 1: Means, that they become less afraid, because that's been very
carefully tested. It's that.
Speaker 2: Oh, and I forgot to mention there is this.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: There's a good article actually by Pagot speaking of this
topic from about ten years ago on the Serpents of Orthodoxy.
This is a really good article to give to like Protestants,
because I don't know how many times I've heard Protestants.
Speaker 6: So why is the Orthodox bishop got a thing with
snakes on it? Do you worship the lucifer serpent? Serpents
don't just mean bad things like the bronze serpent. Duh, Right,
So every.
Speaker 2: Low tier Protestant needs to read this article from Pagot.
It's a good article.
Speaker 1: They learn by watching themselves expose themselves to the things
that they once flee from, that there's more to them
than they think, and that that generalizes across situations. And
it's the same mechanism that underlies learning as such, because children,
when they learn, put themselves on the edge of ragged
disaster and that's where they advance. And so what God
tells the Israelites essentially in this dramatic endeavor is that
it's better for them to face the terrors that confront
them than to have than to be shielded from the
terrors or for them to hide from them. That they'll
be better people if they face what's right in front
of them, even if it's poisonous. And so it's like, Okay,
that's pretty damn interesting and quite remarkable. And then that
symbol is used, for example, by the Greeks to symbolize
medicine as such. But then there's this additional weird twist
which is Christ identifies with that bronze serpent. You think, okay,
that's a very peculiar thing for anyone to do. What
is exactly? What is exactly? Does that mean? Well, so
then you might say, well, what's the most poisonous thing
that you could possibly face? You if you dramatized the
idea of poison itself, if you wanted people to face
what was worse so that they could become strongest. And
the answer to that is the most unjust, possible, painful
death and the ultimate confrontation with malevolence. And that's what's
dramatized in the Passion story. Now does that redeem everyone? Maybe? Maybe? Maybe?
The idea is that if we were courageous enough to
look death in the face unflinchingly, and if we spent
our time putting our finger on the source of evil itself,
it would revital us, revitalize ourselves to a degree that
would be unimaginable. Now, as a biologist, you know you
could think about this too, because I don't remember the
philosopher said it. I think it was Whitehead, but that
might be wrong. We let our ideas die instead of us, right,
So human beings have evolved so that we can undergo
these deaths of our own ideas and the rejuvenation that
emerges in consequence of that. That seems to be something
like evolution towards what towards the process of sacrificial logos
as the thing that redeems human beings, and that makes
us biologically unique too, because we can die in ideation
and imagination instead of dying in actuality. Does that fundamentally
redeem us? Does that deliver us from death and evil?
Speaker 4: Maybe?
Speaker 1: Like the job isn't done obviously.
Speaker 2: I mean, that was a good exposition of kind of
what's going on with the symbolism and the meaning of
this stuff at certain levels. But he's just so close
to pointing out that, Yeah, but it needs to be
the divine person of the word healing our names. That's
the that's the point. So it's like he's like all
the way up to everything, but the ultimate point of
doing of why Christ did it right? Yeah, you can
say it's an example for personal courage and facing evil
and battling malevolence and all that. But that's ultimately still
the Aryan Jesus, right. Remember, Arian Jesus is the great
moral example. It's actually it's actually called in theological verbiage,
the moral example theory of the atonement. What's the purpose
of Christ's death and atonement? The Aryan idea is that, well, obviously,
if Jesus is just a man, it doesn't do anything
metaphysically or miraculously to anybody, because it's just a man dying.
How can that? That can't save you, but he can
set an example for you, you see. So the Aryan
view of Christ's death was always this sort of de mythologized,
non marae aculus type of an event in the sense
of salvation, because it's just just an example. So Jesus
is no more than any other prophet setting an example
of how you should live. But the difference, of course,
is that the whole message of Christianity Orthodox Christianity is
that it's a miraculous event where the divine person of
the Word is deifying and healing our actual human nature
and resurrecting it and by extension, the entire cosmos. That's
the real message of Christianity, so he's always just right
at the edge of what Christianity is really about.
Speaker 5: Ory that we've just heard the Old Testament bronze serpent.
It's rhyming with the New Testament Christ depicting himself as
that bron serpent. I think from Jordan, if I may,
as Richard suggest from what I've heard you say before
on the same story, there's something about that, that harmony
between that New Testament Jesus and that Old Testament story,
which is so profound and so impressive that it's difficult
to imagine it having sort of naive human authorship.
Speaker 4: What do you make of that story and of that assertion, Well.
Speaker 3: It doesn't impress me. I mean, I don't understand why
you would say that Has. I don't think us Has
said it had a divine inspiration. Maybe he did.
Speaker 5: I'm not divine inspiration necessarily, but more than just as
I say, naive human authorship, not like someone just sat
down and wrote.
Speaker 1: It's a minimum. It's a staggeringly brilliant literary move, especially
given the fact that that relationship hasn't been explicated before.
Speaker 5: Do you think, for example, if you were looking in
scripture for something which would identify this as a as
a God given text. Maybe you, as a scientist, would
look for some scientific information. It might have told you
the shape of DNA or something like that. But do
you think think, yeah, we can perhaps get onto that.
But do you think that a little terrary brilliance of
a similar kind or a similar intensity that if the
Bible is not a scientific text, you might be looking
for something which some scientific fact which you couldn't have
otherwise known. Is it possible that some kind of genius
moral move or literary move could also indicate that this
is something more impressive.
Speaker 3: And more or less Ask me whether what would impress me?
And I'm a naive literalist, and so I would say
if if any prophet had said something like the world
is just one object in rotating around the sun, something
like that, They never do, I mean, it's always some
kind of moral lesson which leaves me cold.
Speaker 5: Well, why is it that there is no They say
that God meets you where you're at, right? And there
are some people who just care about.
Speaker 2: I mean, doesn't Isaiah talk about the luminaries and a
pretty fascinating way. What's he talking about? Their moral lessons
leave me cold?
Speaker 5: What does that mean scientific truth? That's that's what they know,
that's the pithecial. Why is that anything in the Bible
for them?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the idea that sacrifices the basis of
the community is a remarkable, h and scientifically valid hypothesis.
I think that it's precisely akin to the what would
you say to the process of cortical maturation. I think
they're the same thing, because as we mature, we move
farther away from the immediate gratification of our of our
self centered emotional and motivational needs to a ethos of
care that brings our future self into the picture and
a wider and wider array of other people. And I
think that's associated with cortical maturation. In fact, I think
the purpose of the cortex, the purpose a purpose of
the cortex is to bring the dynamics of the shortsighted
underlying motivational and emotional systems into the kind of harmony
that allows for communal existence and the protection of the
future at the same time that the present is what
would you say, cared for and attended to. Now, there's
a kind of harmony there. There's also a pattern there.
It's not arbitrary at all, And I think we know
this biologically. Is that the number of ways, and I
think we already alluded to this, the number of ways
that a society can organize itself so that each individual
can harmonize their own future with the present and do
that simultaneously with many other people. That there's a very
limited universe of possibilities. There rich very limited universe, which.
Speaker 5: As Austry before about the difference between a story or
an idea naturally evolving over the course of numerous manuscripts
and throughout human history, and the idea of it being
divinely inspired, and you were seeming to imply that these
are almost interchangeable concepts. Now, if that's the case, when
you say that this divine spirit behind the Bible is
actually just the way that it has evolved throughout the
human history, throughout the different manuscripts that we've had, then
saying that that is what divinity is, I think for
you may drag the mundane up into the realm of divinity.
But I think for people like Richard and for many
people listening, what it doesn't said is drags the divine
down to the realm of the mundane.
Speaker 3: Very well put, yes, when we think about.
Speaker 2: Then there's a shopify after that. I don't understand this
objection that Dawkin says is really well put, that it
drags the divine into the realm of the mundane. I mean,
what kind of bizarre metaphysical gibber jabber does the atheist
base this on, Like, because the divine is in any
way involved in the here and the now, in the madane,
that's somehow below the divine, Like, how do you know that?
On what basis? Is that what the divine does and
doesn't do according to you know, your standards. It's just
really they're so arbitrary. It's so weird to hear these
people be this way and they're never they're never called
out on their standards, I think, which is what's so annoying.
And that's what that's the power of tag is tag
just immediately goes to on what basis are you making
these you know, grandiose critiques and claims here? How do
you know what is too mundane for the divine today?
Speaker 5: To upgrade your selling that shopified.
Speaker 1: Multiple modes of being. I don't think it doesn't make
any difference to me whether it's the material reaching upward
or the divine descending downward. I don't think there's any.
Speaker 2: Difference, but multiple modes of being. I mean, now we're
in straight up metaphysics territory, which I don't mind. But
I remember watching all those the Peterson lectures. Maybe he's
changed positions since the personality lectures from I don't know,
ten years ago, but in those he's all about I
don't do metaphysics. I don't do metaphysics. I mean modes
of being is like, that's like straight up one percent
pure metaphysics. You're talking about modality between those two.
Speaker 3: You don't that's exactly right, that's the problem.
Speaker 1: Well I don't.
Speaker 3: You don't see the difference.
Speaker 1: Well look look look at it this way. So for example,
in this conversation, you know this to be the case. Like,
there's various ways that this conversation could go sideways, right, seriously,
like we can Either of us could.
Speaker 2: Try to I mean, I could be just sick, but
I generally have no idea what O'Connor and Dawkins are
trying to argue here.
Speaker 1: Either of us could try to demonstrate our intellectual superiority, right,
each of us could misrepresent the other or we could
both try, and I do think we are in fact
trying that, and I think Alex is helping along with that.
Speaker 2: Just now, I'm gonna be honest here between these two.
I mean, Jordan Peterson is legit like a ten ex genius.
I mean, I mean, I think Jordan Peterson is generally
really really intelligent, but I mean he's talking about comparing
it like he's talking to a damn midwet dude. Like
I'm not kidding, like both O'Connor and this goofas here
pseudo intellectual Dawkins. I mean, like it's like they're not
even on the same plane. Honest, I'm just being honest
between these two, these three. So it's weird to me
too that like I really don't understand why how Alex
O'Connor has this audience And well, you're just jealous. I'm
not jealous of that dude at all. That it was
a vegan like a year ago. What are you talking about,
I'm jealous of him. No, I don't understand how these
people get these Maybe they're propped up like, but I mean,
Jordan Peterson genuinely is. I have my criticism of Jordan Peters,
but he's like way smarter than these either of these goofballs,
especially cosmic skeptic. I don't, but like, what is it
that I mean he really is like like remember when
he debated Trent. I mean, Trent just made Alex O'Connor
look like a complete slow boy. I mean, like what
And now he's sitting here with Peterson and Dawkins like
he's like this, like they're all like comrades, like or
they're all like, uh, you know, peers, like this guy's
a goofball. But I mean Dawkins is kind of a
fraud too.
Speaker 1: I think, fine, we could try to follow the thread
of the exploratory truth and see if we could get somewhere. Now,
I don't think there is any difference between that, by
the way, and what's expressed in the Biblical texts as
the spirit of the logos. That's why we of dialogue.
Speaker 3: I'm very interested in the possibility that truths emerge through
evolving manuscripts. Now, that's a very interesting idea, and it's
totally different from divine inspiration, and I want to pursue
it because I don't believe in divine inspiration, but I
would be prepared to believe in evolving manuscripts.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say, well, I would say, this is
why I had set forward the possibility of taking a look,
particularly at mature Aliata, because that's where you'd find the
best work. He's a he's brilliant the history of I
believe that if you studied the history of religious ideas,
it's a three volume manuscript. Or The Sacred in the Profane,
which is probably his single best work that you'd see.
Speaker 6: Well see.
Speaker 2: Now, a lot of people get Peterson flack because they
think he's like a sued or No, he's not. He's
not a suit He's actually how can I put this?
I think the big problem here is that he won't
fully commit to what I think he does know is true.
That's what I'm trying to say. Like you don't get
tag and then almost do tag and then back off,
you know what I mean. It's like he's he's not
living up to what he could be. That's what I'm
trying to say. And I mean Sacred and Profane is
really good. I'm trying to think of the right word
for what I want to say. I don't think, I
genuinely do not think Peterson is a sued or a
like a fake intellectual or or. But I think that
he's he chooses this broad appeal normy approach to reach
a lot of people, and it undercuts the effectiveness that
he could have, isn't you know what I mean? Yeah,
I'm gonna take the call ins with This just ended
up being a lot longer than I thought because we're
having so much fun joking with proj pat cutting in
and being silly that this is going on for forever.
But anyway, let's get back to it.
Speaker 1: Profound analogies between the manner in which you've been construing
the world biologically, including the trains of thought that led
you to the development of the idea of the meme.
Speaker 3: I really believe that analogies is one thing. But is
it the same thing?
Speaker 1: I think it's the same I do, I think. Look,
I don't know. That's why I like your opinion on it,
you know, well, seriously, like it's a complicated question. I've
talked to It's a complicated question. Most people don't know
both literatures. There's not a lot of people to discuss
this sort of thing with Camille Pelly. I talked to
Kamil Pelly about this, she studied the work of a
man named Eric Neuman. Neuman wrote a book called The History,
Origins and History of Consciousness, which is a work of genius,
and also another book called The Great Mother, which is
a study of the symbolism of the feminine. It's a
great book. Pellia told me that she believed that if
the academy would have turned to Eric Neuman, who's a
student of you, although the greatest student of you, and
maybe one who surpassed him, that the entire culture war
that's torn the universities apart wouldn't have happened. People don't
know this literature, and it's let me give you an
example this. You tell me what you think about this. Okay,
So I spent a fair bit of time studying the
psychophysiasology the hypothalamus case.
Speaker 2: By the way, this is another criticism I would have
at this point, which is that I don't doubt that
Jordan Peterson is correct about people are not aware of
this important literature. But this is the whole misunderstanding about
academia and Man's problem in general. Like accurately diagnosing man's problem,
Man's problem isn't academic. Man's problem isn't ultimately a lack
of knowledge, a lack of facts. Man's problem is his ethics,
and that determines his lack of knowledge and lack of facts.
So it's almost always reversed. People think that all these
domains are separated. They don't really relate. No. No, you can't
have ultimately the right worldview, the right knowledge without the
right heart. And nobody thinks this way because that's unique
to orthodoxy. In Roman Catholicism, it's all intellect and scholasticism
or whatever I mean it used to be. That's discarded.
They don't care about that anymore. That's just online. Larper's
the only people that care about Thomism. But they lost
the notion of you have to get your heart right
before you can interpret the world right right, And that's
not what is going on with Academia or Dawkins or
these people. So while it may be true that there
are good pieces of literature out there that could have
helped academia once academia was severed from the transcendent of
the divine and all that, which was a long time ago,
there's no manner of academic texts that will fix this
problem because it's not an intellectual problem.
Speaker 1: Hypothemis is set up. It's got two halves. Basically, one
half deals with fundamental motivated states hunger, thirst, defensive aggression, sexuality,
and so forth. And when those areas are dominated, the
biologically relevant goal is activated and perceptions are oriented towards
that goal. Okay, so now then you might ask yourself, well,
what happens if all those biologically motivated states are satiated,
And the answer seems to me is that the other
half of the hypothelamist kicks in and it mediates exploratory behavior.
And so the default structure of the mammalian nervous system is,
if satiated or in doubt, explore and gather new information.
There's no difference between that and hero mythology. They are
the same thing. They're the same thing. The dragon fight,
for example, So the oldest story we have, it's's coded
in the Mesopotamian mythology. The dragon fight story is explore
the dangerous unknown, discover the treasure that revitalizes the community.
There's no difference between that and the science that you practice.
They're the same thing, the same story.
Speaker 3: I didn't want to make for that. I mean, you
say that they're the same story. You've analogized that the
dragon fight too.
Speaker 1: Overcoming your life.
Speaker 3: I'm not interested in dragons, I'm interested in reality.
Speaker 2: Is this dude so uh like numb and dumb to
not understand what he's referring to? Like he's not literally
talking about a dragon. He's talking about adversities in your
life that you have overcome. Now, even if you disagree
with Jordan Peterson, like that's obviously what he's talking about.
And Richard Talkins is like that, I don't believe in dragons.
I mean, does this dont even know how to what
a metaphor is? I mean he sounds like a like
a Baptist fundamentalist.
Speaker 6: What you mean by your dragon? I don't believe.
Speaker 2: Dragon, right, I mean, like what is everything literal? By
the way, the Dragon Fight? Is Jordan Peterson talking about
the Kuma te Stop asking? I think he's talking about
the Kuma te Bro. Jordan Peters has been watching blood Sport, Bro,
you know about the dem mock. Do you fight to survive? Listen,
if you're gonna be going up against dragons, you better
fight to survive. And if you're gonna if you're gonna
fight to survive like the fraudster Frank Dukes. Did you
want to play this song? I can't play too much
of it, but you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Fight to survive.
Speaker 6: Ka te te te.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna leave that little jim in the chat for
you boys and girls right there. Now, that's how you
beat a dragon. First of all, how number one become
van dam. That's step number one to defeating dragons. Step
number two, read the collected works of Carl Jung and
Jordan Peterson. Step number three, enter the kumite. Step number four,
do five roundhouses against a giant chong Lee dragon defeated?
Speaker 1: Okay, let's let's okay. So I read a book a
while back that described the describe the uh, the biological
reality of the dragon. Say, well, there's no such thing
as a dragon. It's like, okay, is there such a
thing as a predator?
Speaker 3: Of course?
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's a meta category. What's the category of predator?
Bear eagle? If you're a primate? Fire? Is fire a predator?
Well it's complicated, because a fire kills you. Okay, So
is there a worse predator than serpentine? Flying, fire breathing reptile?
Is that not the imagistic equivalent of predator. So is
one way if predator is real, in what ways?
Speaker 2: Chong Lee Bolo Young predators Predator from the movie Predator?
Is he a predator? Richard Dawkins? Can you answer yes
or no to any of these obvious predatory individuals?
Speaker 1: Dragon reel doesn't take that much imagination to see the I.
Speaker 2: Just enter the dragon Reel entity.
Speaker 1: And then wouldn't the fundamental task of edible primates be
to figure out how to overcome the dragon forever?
Speaker 3: And why rather? I mean, we have lungs, we have tigers,
we have saber tooths, we have.
Speaker 1: Why not right? But why not abstract? Because it's for
the same reason that we have the term predator, we
have the term bear, lion, komodo dragon. Well you make
an amalgamation, you say, well, the relevant set of features
is an image. Well, what's the image predator as such?
What's the image of that? The dragon that never disappears?
And then there's a twist on that which is so cool.
It's so interesting because you can imagine rabbit mythology, which
would be something like predator appears freeze. But that's not
the human story. The human story is predator appears, there's
a treasure somewhere.
Speaker 2: Is this a different Jordan Peterson? Like this is like
some sort of like this seems like a Jordan Peterson
that teaches PUA classes and has been lifting weights and
is he taking Chad mode? Like this is a different
This is like some kind of this is like, who's
a dude that ran the WWE or whatever? Remember that
guy all y'all wrestling fans out there. This is some
other Jordan They clone that Almanata had done. Cloneordan Peterson. Bro,
who's that guy that ran the wwd Uh? Is he
the CEO or the leader? Or is he do Jordan
Peterson is Vince McMahon. That's what I'm trying to think of.
Vince Mcpeterson, dude, what's going on? Do Jordan Peterson has
done turned into Vince McMahon.
Speaker 6: Bro?
Speaker 2: Well, maybe not the present day of Vince McMahon because
he looks looks kind of weird, but like this era
of Vince McMahon, dude, that's what we gotta We got
a new and improved We gotta chalk heavy Jordan Peterson.
If you want to also be chalk heavy, head on
over to chalk Dot com c h o q dot com.
Use the promo code jay f J forty. Excuse me,
choq dot com. Get a hold of that performance stack.
Get a hold of that wrong stuff right there, the
performance stack JAY forty to get forty percent off of
that right there, get that Chad Mo, get that tonk
out of league at that action two point oh, so
that you can become Vince mcpeterson.
Speaker 1: Right. That's completely that's a completely different pathway of evolutionary significance.
Like the way that we construe the world isn't freeze
like predator. It's like, oh, there's a predator. Maybe there's
something valuable lurking in our conflict with it. You know,
our sticks in our spears that enable our fragile bodies
to stand up against the dragons of the world.
Speaker 5: So a dragon is a pictorial representation of the abstracted
concept of a predator.
Speaker 4: Yes, as you.
Speaker 2: Say, oh, way way to good job there sherlock. Wow.
So Jordan Peterson spends ten minutes explaining the symbolism of
a dragon, and genius O'Connor chimes in with a sentence
basically saying, so it's a symbol of a predator. Thank
you debate, Coop, go back to the village people, please.
Speaker 5: We already have the term predator, and so it might
be useful in art and narrative to I mean, you
can't paint an abstraction.
Speaker 1: We had the image way before we had the word.
Speaker 4: Sure, okay, but that's.
Speaker 1: A seriously important thing to understand.
Speaker 2: You can't paint an abstraction. I mean this Dufus just
called a dragon an abstraction. So if I painted a
dragon by his own definition, I could paint an abstraction.
What this guy is like an idiot man.
Speaker 5: But now we have the word, We have the word predator,
and maybe if we were doing art, maybe if we're
going to sort of draw a picture of tell a story.
We wanted to invent a story to give our children
a good moral message, we might invent this dragon.
Speaker 4: Use this dragon as well.
Speaker 1: We do all We do it with Harry Potter, but
we do it with the Lord of the Rings, we
do it with the Avengers.
Speaker 5: When you say the biology of the dragon, you must
understand how that can be misleading.
Speaker 2: Uh, there's one easy term that if these I don't
know if any of them are maybe Peterson may Peerson
probably knows this I think he's even used this term before.
But what these other two goofballs don't even know. The
term they're looking for is the ontological status. So what
they want to know is what is the ontological status
of a dragon, of a predator, of divine authorship of
the Bible of God. Right, that's the thing that these
like midweights, who have such a limited vocabulary, don't even
know where to go, what term to use. They're seeking
for that term this whole.
Speaker 5: Time as to the enterprise that you're engaging in, because
we're talking here about narrative, we're talking here about art,
we're talking here about representations in Literally, I.
Speaker 7: Just think Alex O'Connor is a fabulous isn't he just
a fabulous midwith. He's just the most fabulous midwith village
person cop of all time because he's got such a
cop mustache from the nineteen eighties. He looks like he'd
be on chips or something.
Speaker 1: I don't think the category of dragon is any less
valid than the category.
Speaker 4: Of lion, any less biological.
Speaker 1: Well, it depends on your level of analysis. We have
the term predator, which implies that all predators have something
in common, because otherwise we wouldn't have the term. It's like,
there's no reason to assume ontological priority for the category
of lion or for the category of predator, Like I
think it depends on all.
Speaker 2: That would that's actually a really good argument. I wish
he would like push that at.
Speaker 1: These goofballs determine which of those terms should be used.
Is the purpose towards which the conceptualization is being directed,
if you want to identify it.
Speaker 2: Dude, is Jordan Peterson like taking he must be just
like sniffing straight chalk. Dude, he looks like he's about
to jump over this table and strangle these soy men.
We got a new Peterson on our hands. Bro, new
Peterson just dropped and it's Vince mcpeterson. We're talking Army
level special ops, Navy seal Peterson. He's about the he's
about to punch these dudes.
Speaker 1: Particular classic predator.
Speaker 2: Well then, I mean he looked at him. He looks
like he's about eighteen feet tall and these boys are
like literally in the process of shrinking. Dawkins looks like
he's about to just tip over and die.
Speaker 1: Rictory, and it is a good term.
Speaker 5: You would say that lions instantiation of this bracket term
of predator.
Speaker 4: Well, I would also say, would you therefore.
Speaker 5: Say that a line is an instantiation of the bracket
term of dragon?
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, because see because.
Speaker 2: I think Alex thought he was going to get them
with that one.
Speaker 1: We're not only fact oriented creatures, right, it actually matters
to us whether we get eaten. Like there's it's one
thing to lay out the nomenclatcher of the animal kingdom,
but it's another thing to remember that predators can eat you.
And then it's another thing. And this is very interesting,
and it's relevant to that story of the Bronze serpent.
It's like, what do we want to teach our children?
Well to identify predators obviously, well, what do we want
to teach them more profoundly, what attitude they should take
towards the eternal fact of the predator. And the attitude
they should take is something like the courage to voluntarily
confront and not to run away, and not to hide
and not to freeze.
Speaker 2: In other words, you should enter the Kumite. Study these moves,
and this is how you would win. That's how you
beat the predator right here, watch all van dem movies.
Study them intently that's how you beat the predators.
Speaker 1: Not to casually demonize, but to assume that in the
combat with the eternal predator, an eternal treasure might be found.
And that's exactly what you do, whether you know it
or not, when you teach a child to be courageous.
And we know from the psychological literature that generalizes, and
I do think it's identical with the mechanism of learning
in human beings because kids us, we always learn on
the edge. You know, in your own life, you know,
and I don't want to be presumptuous, but no doubt
there have been situations where you've been battling to have
your ideas distributed, even to modify your own conceptions when
you had something new to learn. That's a sacri You
have to kill your stupidity so that you can move forward.
That's what happens in the story of Abraham, by the way,
when he makes sequential sacrifices. So in the story of Abraham,
you tell me what do you think about this? Because
it staggered me when I understood it. Abraham is a
protected person. He doesn't have to lift a finger. He
lives in the socialist utopia. He's got everything delivered hand
to mouth. He's at home till he's seventy and God
comes to him as the voice of it.
Speaker 2: What does he saying to Abraham lived in a socialist utopia?
What is he talking so or of the Kaldis was
the first socialist government? What does that mean? Maybe he
just means because but do we even know that Abraham
is actually prominent in I mean we know his dad
was the idol maker.
Speaker 1: But what a dventure which is something remarkable to see
and it says you can leave your zone of comfort
and deeled into the world, have your terrible adventure.
Speaker 2: And Abraham, dude, this is some kind of like I'm
just kind of blown away at the like the high
high tee Peterson that's appeared, like this is the We're
gonna have U freaking UFC Peterson before we know it.
He's going to be out there grappling with the Gracies
in the next year. What the heck's going on? Have
you ever seen them him this animated like he's he's
getting red, dude, He's like he's out there in Arizona
Jurassic Park drinking some of that dinosaur juice, getting getting
juiced up, juiced up dinosaur Juice, who.
Speaker 1: Says yes, and then a series of cataclysms occurs around,
just like it does in every adventurous life, and in
every time.
Speaker 2: He's like one millisecond away from calling these people a
bunch of soy retards. No, like he's about to just pop.
I like this new Peterson we're getting here. This is
not the Peterson that was like crying every talk like
a year ago or two years ago. Remember that Peterson,
Remember that weep person we got now high tea, I'm
gonna bust your chops in Peterson. That's what I like.
We got project Patterson. That's what I'm talking about. That's
what I predicted at the beginning of the stream.
Speaker 1: I'm an episode concludes he makes the sacrifice what to
get rid of what's stupid and old about him so
that he can progress and transform, and that happens to
such a degree that he gets a new name, which
means he's changed so dramatically he's not even the person
he used to be. And that's a consequence. So following
that adventurous pathway, and that's all coded in the story.
Speaker 3: I think we just have to agree that we have
different kinds of minds, and you're interested in symbols, and
I'm interested in facts. I mean, let me, let's take predators,
I mean predators. I'm fascinated by predators. Predators are the
relationship between the predators.
Speaker 2: I bet he is a fascinated by predators. He gives
all predator vibes, doesn't he? I mean, yeah, you've given
off them predator vibes. Boy, But you're really fascinated by
predators now, he says, I'm interested in facts, not symbols.
Symbols can be facts, dummy, These are such midwits, man,
this is this is painful to sit through. Maybe Jordan
Peterson is just tired of talking to these midwits and
he's just he's about the pop and just snaps some
necks in a minute or something.
Speaker 3: He doesn't prey. He's an alms race, and even should
alms race. Whenever you see a really complicated, beautifully designed
piece of biology, what hume I think what one of
Human's characters called things that ravish into admiration all who
contemplate them. This is almost certainly the result of an
arms race, probably between predators and prey, could be between
parasites and hosts and So if we are talking about
adaptations to just the climate, wooly rhinoceroses grow hair because
it's getting cold, that's relatively boring. But when it's an
adaptation to a predator, then you get an escalation of
adaptations by prey which are counted by predators, which are
counted by prey counterbary, So you get a gradual escalation.
Now that's interesting. That explains why you have animals that
run fast, why they have keen sense of organs, why
they have teeth, why they have show teeth, why they
have behavior patterns that either protect them from predators or
is there predators help them to catch pray. The idea
of the arms race is the thing that grabs me.
The arms race between nothing to do with dragons.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, so okay, so fair enough, right, and I
share your appreciation for that remarkable what the remarkable phenomena
that emerge in consequence of that? Okay, So let's take
the idea of arms race. All right, So we here's
how I would construe what I said in what I
think might be your terms. All Right, we transformed the
battle with the predator into a mean battle. We abstracted
it so that we could figure out how to deal
not with a predator, but with the class of all
possible predators, right exactly, And the appropriate way to deal
with the class of all possible predators is something like
a meta ethic. It's a stance that.
Speaker 2: Oh well, who talks about that all the time? Hmm,
I wonder hmm tag me meta ethics. Now, good luck
with these two midwits knowing what the heck you're talking about.
Red Mars says for fifteen dollars, tricky Dicky Dawkins doesn't
like the Bible because it makes prescriptive claims instead of
facts about planets. Maybe if the ancients knew that the
universe had just a cosmic fart, it would have stopped
so much evil from happening. Yeah, exactly. If they'd just
known that everything was meaningless, they would have operated in
a rational way. See how logical that is, Steve, one
hundred dollars. Thank you so much, Steve, appreciate that for
your Dawkins impression.
Speaker 3: Ah.
Speaker 8: Yes, I like predators because I myself am a predator.
Many ladies and others of the species have called me
a predator, so I I like it myself to predators.
Speaker 1: Give an example of this. We actually know something about
this psychophysiologically, and you can look at it spiritually or
physically and it doesn't matter. So, for example, if you
take people in psychotherapy and they're accidentally exposed to something
they're afraid of, they have a stress response that's damaging
if it's sustained, and they become more frightened. But if
you expose them to exactly the same strip.
Speaker 2: You know what's odd about this whole discussion is it
seems like how many How long are we into this?
Now we're nearing the end of it, so we're over
an hour, so it's an hour and a half. Basically,
Jordan Peterson trying to tell these two midwits about all
the things that he finds fascinating, and then these two
other midwes saying, well, I don't find those things neat.
That's really what this is amounted to. Now, I'm saying
that Jordan Peterson is talking about a range of things
that are actually fascinating and which do actually make good
points except for the weaknesses at the early on about
the specific question about the reality of the events, but
the entire response of the two midwits, for the rest
of this discussion has been that they don't find these
things interesting. I mean, we are dealing with public intellectuals
who are still lauded in praise, who believe that it's
a sufficient reply to an argument, or to a statement
or to a question to say that I don't find
that convincing. I don't find that interesting. Remember the Matt
dill Hunty debate. He did this, He did this to me.
We see the atheists do this all the time. This
is like Matt del Hunty's favorite retort. This is a fallacy.
No one cares. It's called a psychological report. It's a
fallacy of incredulity. I don't find that believable. So what's
the argument? This is so tiring. So people were wondering,
why why did you stop doing debate reviews? Because the
so called public intellectuals are all midwits or suits and
they don't even know basic fallacies.
Speaker 1: So what's the point, Yes, sir, and they do it voluntarily.
They manifest an entirely different pattern of psychophysiological activation. Okay,
and it's a it's a it's a stance of challenge, right,
and not of fear. All right, And so one of
the things that you're doing in psychotherapy when you get
people to expose themselves to you could say predators, because
that's an accurate way of dealing with it. Is that
you get them to shift into a mode of voluntary
confrontation instead of prey like apprehension and retreat. And what
they learn from that is that they can embody that pattern,
which I would call a spirit metaphysically. They can embody that,
they can practice it. It's also the case there's some
evidence that there's empty.
Speaker 2: So well, it's interesting because Peterson ten years ago would
not say, uh, I'm talking about a spirit metaphysically. I mean,
remember we went through we analyzed at least maybe half
of the personality lectures, and at that time, and maybe
it was maybe he would say, because he was teaching
a course on you know, psychology or whatever, he couldn't
talk about the metaphysics. I don't know, but he seemed
to generally not want to go in that direction. So
it's interesting to hear him talk about the ontological status,
the meta ethical question, the metaphysics of spirit. I mean,
this does seem to be a different era of Peterson,
And I would point out that one of the things
that sparked the Pago versus Doctor Lindsay fracas was actually
the concession I would say. Now, it may not have
anything to do with me. I'm not saying it was
due to me. But if you remember, maybe what a
year ago, year and a half, maybe two years ago,
Peterson was starting to critique the Enlightenment. Now, what was
the very first critique that I did of Jordan Peterson
seven eight years ago? Oh? It was about Enlightenment. Well,
I'm glad to see things shifting in this direction, because
if you remember, I was pointing out the inadequacy of
the Enlightenment classical liberal ethos as a sufficient rejoinder to
modern liberalism and modernity? Where is it at Ago? Trying
to find exactly where it's at? Seven years ago? This
is it? Even years ago I did the critique of
classical liberalism, and now we have an era of JBP,
I would say, via Pago discussions. Probably I'm guessing I
don't know, but I'm assuming that that has some degree
of influence there to critique these Enlightenment ideas, which is good.
And if I recall, that's what sparked some of this
Lindsey drama let's move on towards the end. I don't
know if I can. I don't see any more super chats.
I was going to take calls. I apologize. There's not
really anybody. There's one person, but we've been going for
a long time, and I'm pretty sick still, so I
think my minimum levels of energy due to sickness are
pretty much like drawing thin. So I don't think I
have much more energy. But if you guys want to
watch the rest of this, I'm sure you can see
it right here. I don't know what the bulb one
effect is, but it looks like the discussion. I guess
it went about as I expected. It's funny to me
that Dawkins didn't really say a whole lot. I mean
pretty much. Jordan Peterson was like heated and animated the
entire time, which was enjoyable. I would say he dominated
the discussion, and the other two sort of soy men
were kind of like sort of cowering and like shrinking.
So Jordan Peterson looks Jordan Pearson looks like the CEO
of a company, like setting a bunch of people straight
before the great the merger, and these are the people
that are getting let go for their failures. That's that
this is the boardroom. These are the people getting let go,
and they're getting screamed at. That's essentially my analysis of
this debate. Anyway, I hope you guys had fun. Hopefully
I will be full one back to health in the
next few days. And uh I