0:00 - Unpacking Passive-Aggressiveness
0:46 - The Importance of Self-Knowledge
5:11 - The Complexity of Intentionality
11:52 - The Existence of the Soul in Philosophy
17:49 - Eternal Impact of Thoughts and Truth
24:20 - The Purest Form of Thought Reproduction
27:44 - Living Eternally Through Technology
30:55 - Incomprehensible Brilliance of the Mind
39:42 - Managing the Collective Brain
43:24 - Distorting Truths of Morality
45:24 - Wresting Angels for Material Greed
The speaker delves into a detailed analysis of a message received, dissecting its passive-aggressive nature and the manipulative tactics used within. They highlight the importance of self-awareness and communication in interactions. The speaker reflects on their own ability to remain stable and not easily offended, emphasizing the need for genuine intentions in communication.
The discussion transitions into the concept of the soul, exploring how it represents eternal truths and universal aspects of existence. The speaker draws parallels between the soul and the capacity to create, identify, and validate ideas that outlive individuals. They express their commitment to producing content that will have a lasting impact and be accessible for generations to come.
Furthermore, the speaker connects the soul to the communication of concepts that transcend time and space, emphasizing the eternal nature of truth and the power of philosophical thought. They discuss the importance of managing the mind as a collective entity and the responsibility to contribute valuable insights to humanity.
The speaker contrasts the ephemeral nature of the body with the enduring qualities of the mind, stressing the need to prioritize eternal truths over temporary pleasures. They caution against selling one's soul for fleeting desires and emphasize the significance of upholding moral values for the betterment of society.
In conclusion, the speaker encourages self-reflection and the pursuit of universal truths, highlighting the transformative power of philosophical thought and the responsibility to contribute positively to the collective understanding of existence.
[0:00] So every now and then you get a message that is just a sheer work of art, in particular, due to its passive-aggressive nature, and it's very, very instructive, and I'm going to read it to you so that we can unpack it. Somebody wrote this is a question about the soul which he'd answered he said thanks for answering my question and apologies for upsetting you but I assure you that that was not my intention, my question was based on genuine curiosity and I don't find your answer particularly satisfying because you basically just insulted me and completely ignored the core of my argument.
[0:46] Oh my, I'm older now, I'm wiser now, I'll just tell you straight up, people. And this is, you know, again, if you want quality people in your life, then what you need to do is show a modicum of self-knowledge and a modicum of how you appear to others. So when I see this brain tangle of fairly hysterical manipulation, I roll my eyes and I don't particularly want to answer this person's question. If I've misunderstood a question, you can tell me in a nice way, but, you know, just insulted you and so on. And the funny thing is that he's very sensitive to being insulted, and then he insults me. Like, just so you know how this stuff works, right? So first of all, he says, thanks for answering my question, and then he says, your answer was wrong. Okay, whatever, right? Apologize for upsetting you. See, here's the thing. If I find something annoying or offensive or silly or foolish or whatever it is, to say that I'm upset is a sort of power move, right? It's a way of, well, I'm sorry that you're so triggered and so upset, right? It's a way of, I guess, making me appear, you know, somewhat volatile or something like that. And I assure you that that was not my intention. As an empiricist, I...
[2:07] Put almost no stop in people's self-assessment of their intentions. Because you see, intentions are something that you can just lie about. I mean, you can lie about them to yourselves and so on, right? So I'm not a person who is easy to offend or upset. You know, I say this all the time in my call-in shows, where I say, it's mildly annoying, it's fine, I'm not mad at you, or if people are rude or whatever, you know. I'm not an easy person to upset. I'm sort of very stable that way.
[2:42] So when people say, I apologize for upsetting you, but I assure you that was not my intention. So the reason why this is so, first of all, thank you for answering my question. And then he says, I didn't answer it. And then he says, I apologize for upsetting you. But if I'm upset because of my own irrationality, then you have nothing to apologize. For, right? So I'll give you an example from my childhood. When I was a little kid, I had mice and hamsters and we'd bred hamsters and all that kind of stuff. Now, I wanted to show my hamster to the French couple who lived upstairs. Now, they were older, and I assumed they'd been through the war. And I assumed that having gone through the war, they had had terrible experiences with rats and mice, which of course flourish in a time of war because of all of the bodies and lack of sanitary, sanitation and so on. So I went up to show my hamster to the French couple who lived upstairs.
[3:43] And the woman screamed and ran away. And the husband was like, I'm so sorry. Now, I didn't feel apologetic. I didn't say, oh my gosh, I did something wrong because someone was upset. Right? I mean, I obviously don't want that person to be upset. But you know, showing someone my My hamster is not cause for that level of upset, at least not the act of showing the hamster. So I wouldn't have apologized to that woman because I hadn't done anything wrong. And an apology is for when you do something wrong. So if I have genuinely no intention of upsetting someone and someone gets upset, I mean, they don't even necessarily owe me an apology. It wasn't like the French woman had to apologize to me. but you don't apologize if you haven't done something wrong so if he had no intention of upsetting me and nothing he did was upsetting in any objective way then me being upset is not something he has to apologize for so there's there's just so much convoluted and manipulative of falsehoods at the beginning here. So thanks for answering my question. And apologies for upsetting you. Not even I apologize. Apologies for upsetting you. But I assure you that that was not my intention. So, anyone who claims a perfect knowledge of intentionality is lying.
[5:12] To know what your own intentions are, your own personal intentions, your unconscious intentions, the intentions of all of the alter egos that float around in our heads. Being defensive, whether you're being defensive or not. So saying that to be upsetting was in no way, shape, or form any part of my intention is to claim a knowledge of intentionality, which is almost certainly a lie. I'm still trying to figure out why I'm so much into philosophy, right? That's just an interesting question for me. My intentions. I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood. understood. So he says, my question was based on genuine curiosity.
[6:05] And I don't find your answer particularly satisfying because you basically just insulted me and completely ignored the core of my argument. So now he's claiming not just a perfect knowledge of his intentions, but a perfect knowledge of my intentions. And you can't communicate with people like this because he's saying not that I misunderstood him but I ignored what did he say here completely ignored the core of my argument ignored not made a mistake not misinterpreted but I ignored the core of his argument and what that means is that I was aware of it but I ignored it so now he's claiming my intention is one of conscious ignorance and avoidance right Right.
[6:53] So, if you walk into the room and somebody, you know somebody can hear you and so on, and they don't look up, right? Maybe you've had a conflict with them or something like that. And then you walk past them, you say hello, they don't respond back. Then you say, oh, this person is ignoring me, right? They know that I'm here, they're ignoring me, right? If somebody in Seoul, Korea is playing a video game with headphones on, and I'm here in Canada, I don't think that that person is ignoring me because they don't know that I exist or certainly what I'm doing right now. So to ignore someone is to know that they're there and then purposefully evade interaction, right? So when he says I'm ignoring the core of his argument, he's saying that I knew, I knew what the core of his argument is.
[7:41] But I'm ignoring it, completely ignored the core of my argument. So he's claiming a perfect knowledge of his own intentions, which is easy to falsify. And he also claims to have a perfect knowledge of my intentions, which is to purposefully ignore the core of his argument. So how on earth is it possible to have a conversation with someone who claims a perfect knowledge of his own intentions and a perfect knowledge of my intentions? His own intentions are completely clear to him, even though I made a case. And my intention, according to this guy, was to completely ignore, not just misunderstand or misinterpret, but to ignore his argument, right? To accuse me of being defensive and avoidant or whatever it is, right? So in just one, in two sentences, right? He thanked me, he thanks me for answering and then says I didn't answer. He apologizes for upsetting me, me, even though I had no real reason to be upset, and therefore he has nothing to apologize for. He assures me that this was not his intention, which is an insult to me, because he's saying, if I have no intention to offend someone, and that person gets offended, then clearly that person is unstable, or weird, or triggered, or defensive, you know, something like that, right?
[9:05] I certainly had no intention of frightening the French woman with my hamster. After all, there's a sentence I didn't think I'd be talking about. So there is an insult to me. He had no intention of, quote, upsetting me. Now, I didn't just say that I was upset. I actually went through and identified the reasons why what he said was vaguely annoying or whatever. And it's only confirmed by this, right? So he says, my question was based on genuine curiosity. So if his question is based on genuine curiosity, then me being upset, I'm apparently now, I'm upset, you see, by genuine curiosity. Genuine curiosity is just horribly upsetting to me because I guess I'm unstable, whatever it is, right? So this is just very, very, very, the reason I want to unpack this is very concentrated laser-like manipulation, and you need to see this kind of stuff in your life as a whole.
[10:00] So, yeah, thanks for answering my question. Didn't answer his question. Apologies for upsetting you. Nothing to apologize for. And I wasn't upset. I was annoyed for, I mean, upset. I was, but it wasn't, I wasn't just upset. I sort of said, why? I assure you that was not my intention. That's putting the entire onus of the negative experience on me and him being a perfect angel. My question, my question was based on genuine curiosity, right? Right? Don't believe it. Don't believe it for a second. Any more than I believe anything that he's writing here. And again, I'm not saying he's consciously lying. This is just a habit of manipulation, which is one upping someone else. Right? It's one upping someone else, right? Oh, I'm sorry you were so upset. I had no intention of upsetting you, right? Thus painting me as the unstable and triggered one and blah, blah, blah. And his question is based on genuine curiosity. I don't find your answer particularly satisfying because you basically just insulted me and completely ignored the core of my argument. Right, so he's very sensitive to being insulting, but everything he writes is an insult, even the word the. All right, so let's go on. It would have been fine, for instance, to say that your use of the word soul, is just a figure of speech, or that answering the question of the existence of the soul does not really belong in the realm of a moral philosopher. After all, it is not really necessary in order to prove UPB, which, of course, is of far greater importance for the work that you do.
[11:29] Okay, so what do I mean here? For instance, to say that your use of the word soul is just as a figure of speech. Okay, a figure of speech, what kind of figure of speech, how literal, how figurative, and so on, doesn't really answer much. Or that answering the question of the existence of the soul does not really belong into the realm of moral philosophy.
[11:52] I think it does. I think it does. Because if there's a soul, then that raises the possibility of a God, particularly if there is immortality in the soul. And thus, divine commandments would be much more credible, and thus there would be no particular need for UPB. So I think it does. And of course, the other thing too, FDR podcast, he could just have done a search for wherever I've done shows on the soul. I had a four-part series on the soul. All right. But it took your arguments to heart and in an effort to increase self-knowledge and lead with love as you suggested which, um he didn't leave with love he accused me of being unstable and avoidant and manipulative anyway uh i went back over some of the past podcast episodes oh good boy you mentioned the soul and attempted to answer my own question as well as figure out my possible motive for being triggered, What? Okay, well, I'm glad he went over this.
[12:50] So, why was he triggered? He's saying that he's... What? He's saying he had no intention of upsetting me, but he was triggered. He said his question came from genuine curiosity, but now he says he's triggered. I don't understand. Okay. In episodes 70, 71, and 189, You basically use the term soul as interchangeable or synonymous with the true self or original personality that existed before the infliction of any childhood trauma. You also make the case that soul murder is essentially the infiltration of a false narrative on someone, usually children, whether by means of violence slash threats, manipulations, or through forced participation culture, which is both violent and manipulative. Quote.
[14:05] I believe I've also heard you make the case, although I'm not sure what episode this was, that actively harming a child when you're a grown-up, and thus many times stronger than them, is the point where the soul last becomes irrecoverable because empathy cannot be restored after that.
[14:27] Does this seem like an acceptable answer to you? Because it certainly makes sense to me, and I think this is in fact the answer I was expecting. Since it is both logical and consistent with the empirical evidence and perfectly explains why you do the work that you do. And just to be clear, I certainly don't think of it as entertainment. I find it enormously helpful and valuable, and I've been a paying subscriber for several years. I'm also working very hard on myself and trying to find ways to contribute value to the community, which is admittedly rather difficult for me, as much of my childhood experience consists of not being valued by my parents at all, which I'm very sorry for. I really do sympathize with that. Hopefully this post will serve as a demonstration of goodwill and restitution for the emotional upset I caused. I appreciate that. And yeah, I mean, I identify these things. I find myself mildly annoyed when reading it. I'm not particularly upset or triggered. It doesn't ruin my day. It's just something that I notice. And I need those emotions to notice that kind of stuff. So So to try and answer your question in a better way, what I would say is I use the soul as an analogy to talk about.
[15:40] Abstract things that we partake of that are true and universal and eternal right so two and two make four is true and universal and eternal by eternal i mean it's always true throughout time go back in time go forward in time go across the universes it was a reality in the past that two and two make four like two two rocks and then two rocks that wash up on a stream did in fact make four rocks, but until it was identified in the conceptual mind of man, it remained a fact.
[16:13] But not true, because truth is when we compare the contents of the mind to the facts and processes of reality. And so it was a fact that there were four rocks on the shore, but the statement two and two make four was not true until human beings identified it, because truth did not exist. Obviously the atoms existed and the natural processes existed and the discrete entities known as rocks existed and the fact that two and two is just another way of saying four, the fact that four discrete entities existed, all of these are true, but two and two make four, while it is eternally true and universally true, was not a truth that existed before the human mind identified these sort of facts and principles of reality. So when i talk about the soul i'm talking about the aspects of consciousness that define and unite with that which is true and universal and absolute which is upb as well right so.
[17:14] The soul is the part of our mind that is the most human aspect of us it what's differentiates us us from the animals, which is our capacity to create, identify, and validate statements in the mind that outlive us, that are immortal. We say, well, the soul lives on after death. Well, the truth that we identify lives on after us. Newton's physics is valid. I mean, obviously refined a little bit by Einstein, but Newton's physics are valid even though Newton is long dead.
[17:49] To be or not to be, that is the question, whether it is noble in their mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troublesome by opposing and them. To be or not to be is a wonderful sequence of poetry, although Shakespeare has not been for 400 years. His thoughts live on. And as long as people draw breath, as one of the sonnets go, these lines will be celebrated, and rightly so.
[18:23] So, we identify truths that outlive us. We weep over the plight of Oliver Twist, though he never existed, and Charles Dickens is long dead. And I'm very aware that the arguments that I make and put forward to the degree that they are true and universal and essential, will outlive me and that I am taking the operations of my mind and literally like with a knife point I'm carving them into the atoms of the universe because the atoms on this camera, the atoms that are on the server, the atoms that flow through the tcp tcpip network protocols uh the they rearrange the atoms in your phone or or your computer or wherever you're listening to this the um atoms on my screen are changing based on my hand getting closer and further away from the screen and they are frozen in time altering the atoms of the universe in ways that can never be undone and also i am rearranging, the atoms in your mind, just as thought rearranges the atoms in my mind. So, I am changing atoms universally, and in many ways for all time, although everyone who's listening to this will die.
[19:51] What I'm doing, and especially now, there's no degradation of quality. You don't get that old herky-jerky movie stuff, because there's no degradation of quality. when I'm played in a thousand years, it will be like nothing changed. This room, this lighting, this sort of early evening, I guess late evening now, fading lighting and all of that is all going to remain absolutely perfect. It's as crisp and as clear and as accessible and as vivid in a thousand years or 10,000 years as it is now tonight with me talking in this room. And the opportunity to speak the truth in a clear, vivid, personal manner for all time to rearrange the atoms of the universe, to rearrange the atoms of people's minds in perpetuity is a great blessing and a great honor and one in which I take, of course, very seriously. So my thoughts, while I will die...
[20:48] Will remain eternal. As long as people are drawing breath, the philosophical questions and answers that I deal with and other philosophers have dealt with will remain forefront in people's minds. I have done most of the major work that I wanted to do, and I've really sort of felt that just by the by. I've really sort of felt that since the end of Peaceful Parenting, which was a year plus of pretty ferocious labor, and the shortened version of Peaceful Parenting, which you can get at peaceful parenting.com i really feel that the major parts of what i wanted to do, are done that doesn't mean i'm not going to continue to enjoy philosophy i love these kinds of conversations and i'll maybe new stuff will come along and i'm sure i write more books and so on but i don't have a yearning burning major thing to do uh maybe i can be a little bit more who are certainly peaceful parenting was grim joy filled and recreational with this kind of stuff going forward. So the soul is that which unites our minds with a communicable truth that spreads and lasts forever.
[21:55] It is the immortal aspect of our thoughts. And immortality for a lot of people is not in the conceptual realm, but rather in the biological realm. Now, the problem The problem with that, of course, is that my daughter is half my genetics and half my wife's genetics, but these videos are all me. It doesn't mean I'm not influenced by other people, but I don't have to dilute or water down or mix in with other things. There's not intersplicing things with people saying the opposite or saying other things. This is sort of all me in the same way that...
[22:28] Newton's genetics were a mix of his mother's and his father's, but Newtonian physics is all him, all the product of his mind, and it's not diluted or changed. So the perfect form of reproduction is conceptual and communicated. Genetics is a way to pass along your genes, but there's an intermixing that doesn't happen with conceptual arguments and ideas. I mean, obviously, I mixed in with other people's thoughts and so on, but the form of communication, the content of the communication is mine and mine alone and it is you know when i do shows i'm very much aware of the tunnel of time argument that uh if i'm right in my assessment of what it is that i've done philosophically speaking which is answered most of the major questions of philosophy in rigorous and, syllogistical ways if i'm right in my assessment of that i believe that i am.
[23:22] Then i'm very much aware that what i say is going to continue on and continue on and continue on i've obviously wanted to be the guy who puts a lot of these controversies to rest and that doesn't mean the controversies won't continue but the controversies are put to rest if you're willing to be rational and empirical about things so the soul of an idea is that which outlasts the physical mind. The concepts that transfer and flit like ghosts from mind to mind and replicate and are carved into objective reality in the way that memorized stories were, like Beowulf of the Distant Past or the Iliad or the Odyssey, and in the way that Shakespeare is and in the way that written language is and songs and so on, right? We still know the tune of Greensleeves, right? So.
[24:20] This is, in many ways, to me, the purest form of thought reproduction that can be achieved. And everyone's going to say, why is his nose always itchy? I don't know. Somebody said that when you go on camera, your blood vessels dilate and your nose gets a little itchy. It's just a thing. so this to me is the purest form of idea transmission which is the lively mind unfiltered unedited communicating in real time in a perfectly reproducible format for all time a perfect um, it's the best way to put it a non-degraded quality you ever hear sort of like oh here are the great singers of the past and and the recordings are pretty bad by modern standards and so on right so this is the most essential thought reproduction that is capable of even when you listen to i remember t.s elliott reading the wasteland and so on the audio is pretty bad the affect it's pretty affected you know and uh head pieces filled with straw alas you know that kind of chanting middle intellectual 1950s stuff.
[25:38] So, I am laying tracks that go on forever. I am laying language down that alters reality in a physical sense, in a biological sense, in a conceptual sense. I am rearranging atoms in a perfectly reproducible format at that lasts for all time it's about as good as a philosopher has ever had it and of course i do credit the perfection of the medium with giving me a lot of the insight and drive right so i speak to a limited number of people in the present obviously more limited now since i spoke a little too much truth for the general.
[26:24] Censorious overlords, but I'm laying tracks that will go on forever and knowing the impact that what I do will have in the future gives me a lot of motivation to do what I do in the present, right? So the soul is the definition and communication of concepts that are true and universal that outlast the test of time. Now, true can also mean deep and meaningful in a poetic or literary sense, which is one of the reasons I work in poetry and novels. And of course, I wrote like 30 plays as well. So.
[27:09] True can just be something that connects people in a very sort of powerful and deep way. We could say meaningful and so on, but in terms of morals and philosophy, the goal is truth, not emotional resonance, although of course I like to bring that in as well. So that which elevates us to the universal and the conceptual, which unites humanity, in common threads of reason and experience and lasts forever or lasts as long as people and language and technology will last, which I assume will be pretty much forever, that is an amazing thing.
[27:44] And, you know, of course, in the future, I put out enough material that I will live on in the future in a strange kind of way. I mean, honestly, I've got so much video material, written material, spoken material.
[27:58] That my call-in shows will go on forever because there will be enough extraction of what I do from all of the call-in shows that I've done, that people will be able to call me up in the future and have the exact same experience. 100,000 people at the same time, if they want, have the exact same experience of having a call-in show with me, or as close to that as humanly possible. And where it lacks in accuracy, it will make up for in volume, which is great. I'd rather have a hundred thousand imperfect steps than one quote perfect step who's going to die uh and this will happen not just in an audio sense but in a video sense as well like you can talk to me as if i'm here forever that's just this sort of ai and of course this technology is only going to get better and better there'll be virtual reality staff there'll be uh you know a staff that you can uh, take to the park. Friend Stef, husband Stef, Lord knows what. I should probably make a plaster cast like Jimi Hendrix. Anyway, so... I am building both the content, the form, and the value of living forever through technology, and that is my eternity. That is my eternity.
[29:16] So the flesh is, you know, the mere wetware, physical casing, and, you know, three pounds of neurons that is going to die and rot in the ground, right? I've probably got, you know, 20, 30 years to go. I'm dead and rotting in the ground. I'll live on digitally, but I won't be aware of that i won't be conceiving of that because it's not me right it will just be another copy like a silent copy paste kind of thing right so but but the thoughts and the pattern like people are going to extract because i've done i don't know thousands of call-in shows uh one time or another and so the principles and the ai will extract how that works now will it get the same sort of spontaneity i don't know because i don't know how far ai is going to go ai becomes human when it can analyze its own dreams and find meaning in its existence which is a long way off if it ever does arrive. But as far as the sort of functional and technical aspect of what I do, it will be a word guesser predictive enough to have powerful call-in shows with people as a whole because the principles aren't that varied. So the soul is the part of you that ascends to eternity through definition, objectivity, value, and meaning, and truth, obviously truth.
[30:34] So the flesh is obviously the source of all of that, and I am not a ghost in a machine, though I will be in the future. I am three pounds of wetware functioning at, to me, an incomprehensible biological level. It is absolutely, completely, and totally incomprehensible to me, how my brain does what it does.
[30:56] I don't know. It makes no sense to me. The energy and eruptions of spontaneous brilliance that occur in my communication. And I say brilliance with no like, oh, I'm so brilliant. It just kind of happens and I'm managing the process. I mean, I'm riding a coked up horse. I'm not calling myself a great runner. I'm just saying I'm not too bad at managing the coked up horse of my unconscious conscious that apparently can ride clouds like a pegasus so i i don't consider myself brilliant i consider myself fairly good at managing the brilliance that comes up in my mind which is not me it is something else and i'm not even gonna hesitate as to what that is i certainly can completely and totally understand how people can believe that they're channeling the divine mine because there are times when I have thoughts and insights, both in call-in shows and regular shows, that completely defy. We defy augury, as Hamlet says, right?
[31:56] I don't know where the analogies come from. I don't know where some of the insights come from. I don't know how to work hard to formalize them and make them make sense, but I don't know. I do not know where all of this stuff comes from, any more than you go to a songwriter and you say, well, where did this song come from? He's like, I don't know, it's just playing around, and then this came, and then that That came and you can see Paul McCartney and the Abbey Road tapes working on Get Back and just sort of slowly grinding it forward and grinding it through. Freddie Mercury came up with Crazy Little Thing Called Love lying in a bath in Hamburg or someplace in Germany.
[32:35] So, who knows? Of course, if people knew where these things would come from, they'd just create more of them and reproduce them and so on. And Paul McCartney's last album, a bit like the fish above the Indianapolis. So, the flesh is that which is transitory and falls away and does not differentiate you much from others, right? So, I'm a shade under six feet tall, you know, a little taller than the average, not super tall. I have two eyes, everyone has two eyes, I have a nose, everybody has a nose, I have teeth, most people have teeth, I have two nipples, pretty common except for Chandler. So yes, I do not share that much that is different physically from everybody else in the world. But the operations of my mind is a different kind of category. So that's a different matter. So physically, I am fairly unremarkable, but with a very round Charlie Brown head. So physically, I'm fairly unremarkable. My brain doesn't weigh more than other people's brains. I'm sure that they'll slice and dice and analyze my brain after I'm dead and gone, at least I hope they do. And they'll find out that the language center is like, I don't know, 16 times the norm or something like that. Like those London cab drivers, which have the spatial reasoning is There's all kinds of crazy high.
[34:00] But you wouldn't look at me and, like, I have a certain, I guess, vague nobility of countenance and so on, but you wouldn't look at me and say, aha, you know, wow, you know, in any way that you'd look at, you know, Freddie Mercury pulling a rickshaw and say, he must be a great singer, right? You wouldn't notice that until you heard him, right? so.
[34:19] The flesh is undifferentiated falls away is unremarkable in that you know a great singer is infinitely more valuable to a band than a bad singer who if you're just looking for a singer a bad singer has negative value a great singer has positive value and so, from a negative infinity to a positive infinity is double infinity but people are just shorter and taller right and it's like four feet or five feet or six feet between the tallest and the shortest and most people are in the center of the bell curve where there's only a couple of inches difference so the body does not differentiate that much the mind however is in a completely different category that's where, um i mean almost ascent asymptotic to omniscience is close to what the brain can do in terms of exponential abilities so you know paul mccartney is not just.
[35:19] A you know twice as good a songwriter as what was it the guy who played radar o'reilly on mash apparently wrote hundreds and hundreds of songs or ike turner wrote a bunch of songs or whatever which apparently sounded pretty much the same and so, He's not just better-ish, you know. Taylor Swift is not just slightly more popular than, I don't know, the woman who played Ginger on Gilligan's Island, who was also a singer, or Diane Lane's mother, who was a 1957 Playboy pin-up and also a singer, which nobody really knows or remembers anymore. more.
[35:57] So the brain has the capacity for multiple levels of value that the body really doesn't. Now you could say, of course, well, say Kobe Bryant or Reggie Jackson or whoever, like fantastic top tier athletes that their bodies are doing, or Michael Phelps with his double jointed wrists and feet and elongated torso and half the lactic acid production and so on so but that that makes them slightly faster swimmers but philosophy and other kinds of abilities are just a different matter i mean i can't obviously swim nearly as fast as michael phelps although i was seventh in ontario back in the day i can't swim nearly as fast as but his difference would be, I don't know, 30 seconds faster than mine, but a great songwriter doesn't just write 30 seconds of better material. Like, a great songwriter's song, a fantastic hit song is three minutes 30, but an average songwriter is only three minutes, right? It's a whole different category. So...
[37:07] As far as selling your soul, that is surrendering the conceptual to the physical. So, it is surrendering the joys and meaning and power and value of participating in eternity and universality. It is to sacrifice all of that for the sake of the flesh, right? So if you look at some of the ruined people, like the 27 Club of Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix and others, they sacrificed some amazing musical talents for the sake of drugs and alcohol. If you look at Marlon Brando, sacrificed a lot of his incredible genius at acting, depriving us of countless fantastic performances, because he liked to eat a lot.
[38:02] Or, you know, people who sacrifice the love of their wives and the love of their children for the sake of, you know, petty lusts and cheating and so on, right? Cheating with other women or men and so on, right? And so, if you take and destroy our ability to participate in eternity for the sake of eternally indulging, or not internally, as long as you're alive, indulging in the mere pleasures of the flesh, then that is selling your soul to the devil. Now, this is not to make the devil the flesh. I'm not that way inclined, because there is no angel without the flesh. There is no eternity without the temporary. There is no conceptual truth without the transitory physical brain, right? So, the body serves eternity, and there is no eternity without the mortal. There is no immortality without the death. Because it is the body which produces our capacity for eternity. Without the body, we don't have that. And so the body should serve eternity. And eternity should also serve the body, right? So I want to do philosophy as long as possible. So I'm generally on a program of losing a couple of pounds a year because that will sort of soft land me into living longer.
[39:17] I exercise for, you know, eight to ten hours a week because I want to stay healthy in order to do philosophy. I got out of politics when it became a very dangerous blood sport because I wanted to be able to participate in philosophy for longer. So the body serves eternity and the capacity for eternity in the conceptual mind should also serve the body because that gives you the chance to produce more of value in the concept.
[39:42] Then I view my brain as a sort of collective entity, which is why I give myself away for free, freedomain.com slash donations to help out the show. But i view my brain as a collective product it is not just sort of my brain because i didn't create it i didn't earn it i didn't you know i do some management of it i i ride the coked up horse fairly well i think but it's not my horse right it's a product of evolution and and society i didn't invent the language i didn't invent philosophy i didn't invent syllogisms i didn't invent the words i use and and the technology that i use to communicate so i view my brain as a collective value that I should attempt to manage as best as possible for the good of mankind as a whole.
[40:28] As a whole. I mean, if you have some weird ability to cure people of an illness by touching them, it's not weird if you're Jesus, I suppose, but it would be if you're not. You have some ability to cure people by touching them, you should really try to touch people and cure them, because that's a gift you didn't earn that could really be used to the benefit of mankind, and that's sort of the way that I view it. So, if you take your capacity for eternity and you then use it or degrade it to be a slave or handmaiden or serf to the physical demands of the transitory body, then you are removing from mankind very powerful internal truths for the sake of pursuing your own petty lusts.
[41:11] That is selling your soul to the devil. Now, of course, truth in a philosophical sense is opposed to hierarchy in a political sense. We are all human. UPB is universal, and it strips away the adulation and worship of human pretend deities for the sake of moral egalitarianism. It's very much an egalitarian when it comes to morals. Everyone is subjected to them, and they're everybody's responsibility. Ability so the power structures of the world come to people who have the capacity to create great virtues and try to bribe them or threaten them you know you bribe them with money to join your say media empire or you threaten them with violence imprisonment harassment to de-platforming debanking and all this kind of stuff in order to get them to be quiet and trying to ride that a gap, right? To produce maximum philosophy is the goal for me, because I have a collective gift for this, and therefore, whatever I can do to produce the maximum, like if you have the capacity to heal people by the touch, don't get yourself thrown in jail, because that's another couple of hundred people you can't heal, right? So you want to, I'm trying to do that. Obviously, this is an analogy. I'm not putting Jesus in the equation anywhere near me by a zillion miles. So, um.
[42:33] So, sacrificing that which is pure and eternal and true and of value and necessary for the world for the sake of temporary pleasures. If I were to not exercise, eat badly, smoke or do drugs or something like that, then I would be sacrificing something that is, I think, of true and great value to the world as a whole for the sake of something that is a transitory pleasure that destroys my capacity to create crystalline eternal truths and communicate them and carve them into the fabric of the universe through this incredible technology. So, that I hopefully understand. I'm sure that I've, what was it, purposefully misunderstood your question and so on, but that would be mine.
[43:24] The other thing, of course, with regards to selling the soul is when you use the truths of morality and you change and distort them in order to serve the greed of the body, right? So if you say, well, we have to help the poor, which should mean going out and actually helping the poor, which is what I've been doing for most of my adult life, certainly as an entrepreneur, to help the poor. And it turns out that helping the poor is just forcing people to transfer wealth at gunpoint.
[43:57] That's selling your soul because you are sacrificing the truth of morality for the sake of people's material greed. What do the poor need? The poor need help guidance, moral self-knowledge, sympathy, understanding, and exposure to people who've overcome obstacles so that they themselves can overcome obstacles, which is why I have charged for private call-ins recently just as a result of demand, but, you know, again, thousands of people I've helped with call-in shows and not charged a penny.
[44:33] And then put those examples out for the world as a whole to listen to and to consume. So that's helping. The poor peaceful parenting I put out for free.
[44:43] Millions of children since I've started are no longer being hit and circumcised and yelled at and abused because of the work that I've done, again, with your support at freedomain.com. Thank you, by the way. So, when you wrestle the angels down and put them and chain them to Satan's army as minions of falsified virtue serving the endless ballistras of greed. Greed, analogy was not the three-point landing, but it happens sometimes, I suppose.
[45:25] But when you, you know, spear down the angels and put them as slaves to the orcs, that's selling the soul to the devil. So taking true virtues and then distorting them to serve the material greed of people and say, well, the way you help the poor is you rip money away from these people and you give money to these people. People that is a distortion of virtue and that definitely would be in the category of selling, your soul in this case it would be for votes and political points so i hope that helps i really do appreciate these questions and comments hey be as bitchy as you like it does seem to get some good stuff out of me and i appreciate that have yourselves a wonderful wonderful evening freedomain.com slash donate take care my friends i'll talk to you soon bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
