Nietzsche Was NOT an Atheist. He Was a Mystic

We are to apes what the uber mench is to us.

>> I came to Nichze because lives were completely changed by reading Nichzche.

He'll say things like [music] I'm a disciple of Dionius or I am Dionius or I am the Christ or I am the Buddha for Europe.

>> Every high culture needs slavery in some sense. [music]

sense. [music] >> And I was like who is this? Who is this writer? And so I read him and I was like

writer? And so I read him and I was like oh [music] my goodness.

>> Nze spiritual but not religious.

>> Yes. This is going to sound very Meian.

I so wish [music] that you're not happy, that you're not normal. I want you to be totally messed up, and I want you to be really interesting.

In other words, I want you not to fit in, not to be integrated into society because health and happiness are often your true potential is higher than you

can possibly [music] imagine. It is literally superhuman.

imagine. It is literally superhuman.

But modernity is suffocating [music] that potential. Whether it's the

that potential. Whether it's the materialists, the religious, or the technologists, they've trapped you squarely as a herd animal. This is

[music] why you need to learn to not fit in, to not be normal, to give up health and maybe even sanity if you want to realize this superhuman potential.

This is the seductive invitation of my guest Jeff Krial, who's going to give us a mystical reading of Nichzche's Uber Mench. Now Jeff himself is a scholar of

Mench. Now Jeff himself is a scholar of mysticism who had a transformative mystical experience while researching Hinduism in Kolkata as a young man. As

you're going to hear in this interview, Jeff came face to face with the erotic presence of a Hindu goddess [music] as a grad student decades ago. He literally

had an experience with divinity and has since been wrestling with his experience through his writing. Jeff's ambition is for his writing to engender similar mystical states in your [music] life to

realize your superhuman potential. And

he sees the same mystical inspiration and impulse in Nietz. Jeff's claim is that Nichze must be read primarily [music] not as a political, philosophical or

literary thinker but as a mystical and religious one. And he thinks this is

religious one. And he thinks this is true for all the great thinkers. [music]

They are all mystics inspired by their own supernatural experiences.

What you're going to hear in this interview then isn't just a new way to read Nietze, but a new way to read the entire cannon as mystical. Jeff is

mounting nothing less than a Capernac revolt against the materialist [music] worldview. If you want to be invited to

worldview. If you want to be invited to online and inerson lectures, seminars, and events [music] I host across the world, then please join my email list at jonathanb.com to be kept up to date.

Without further ado, Jeff Krial.

>> Who is the Uber Mench for Nichze?

>> The Uber Mench is the future human. It's

where um humanity is evolving or transitioning toward and we are transition. We are a transitional

transition. We are a transitional species. Not just a transitional person,

species. Not just a transitional person, but a transitional species.

>> We are to apes what the uber mench is to us. That's that's the that's the image n

us. That's that's the that's the image n use of course in thus spoke on zerustra that that you know we're on this tightroppe and when we look in one direction we see the ape and when we look in another we see the ubench and

we're sort of in the middle of this we're we're on our way as it were but na was not a Darwinian in the sense that he didn't think that this was a random process that there was some there was

some role here some central role for the will as he called it um and so it's unclear how we get to to to the Uber Mench or to the superhumans. Um, but

again, it has something to do with culture. It has something to do with

culture. It has something to do with will. It has something to do with um

will. It has something to do with um intending it. I I I suspect um there's

intending it. I I I suspect um there's certainly time travel that goes on in the the Nitian text. So, it's

I think it's an oult uh or an esoteric uh practice that produces the uber match. your nichza is uh more mystical

match. your nichza is uh more mystical than than any niche I've I've ever encountered.

>> He's he's explicitly mystical.

>> Yeah. And so when I was taught uh who the uber mench was, and I think this is the common kind of scholarly consensus, he's either a value creator, right? Who

who is able to affirm a new set of values after the death of God, he's either a yesayer uh or maybe he's a anti-galitarian political leader. Uh

maybe like our friend Napoleon the third here.

>> Yeah. Um

yeah are those miss missing something?

Yeah.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I think it's missing a lot.

There's like a niche of niche scholarship that definitely sees that definitely emphasizes this mystical or this this Buddhist or this esoteric thinker. And

thinker. And >> I I mean I'll back up. I mean I think what what will help here is >> so first of all I came to Nichze because

>> honestly graduate students and colleagues their lives were completely changed by reading Nichze. One of my graduate

reading Nichze. One of my graduate students his life was literally saved by reading Nichzche. I mean he was going to

reading Nichzche. I mean he was going to commit suicide and he uh entered a kind of trans state and he and he and he Ouija drove to to a major bookstore. We

drove meaning unconsciously or or >> in a trance, >> right?

>> He wasn't supposed to go to this bookstore, by the way, because it was a it was a pagan bookstore.

>> And he's a he's a devout or he >> he's an evangelical Christian, grew up in an evangelical household. And and I think that's partly why he wanted to kill himself, by the way.

>> And I think he was going to do this. Uh

he had the pistol and and it was his parents were gone and so he was he was going to die that night. uh and he trans to this bookstore and he did a beehive

to the philosophy section. He didn't

even know what the word philosophy meant and a book literally flew off the shelf and was thus spoke there literally and >> which is one of niche's most mystical

texts. Yeah,

texts. Yeah, >> it is his most it is his most mystical or poetic text and and uh this student took it home and literally read read it in a thunderstorm which is if you've

read the book it's filled with thunder and lightning and and and this is a sign of the superhuman by the way of the uber mitch and tears were streaming down this

young man's face and he put the gun away he didn't didn't kill himself that night so I heard those stories I mean the stories like that in the multiple. And I

was like, who is this? Who is this writer? And [gasps] so I read him and I

writer? And [gasps] so I read him and I was like, "Oh my goodness." I

immediately saw uh a mystical writer, an esoteric thinker. And then when I found

esoteric thinker. And then when I found out that he had this essentially this altered state in front of this boulder in in Sils Maria in the in August of

1881, I was like, "Okay, that's that's one of the moments. That's one of the moments right there." And then all these books that come off come after

that in the 1880s, I I personally think they're essentially channeled. I I think he received them as as a writer and and

he just he just writes out all these books.

>> It's crazy. It's like eight or nine books in the 1880s, >> right, >> within the span of 10 years and we're still reading them.

>> You're giving him a run for his money though with your with your copious amount of production. And [laughter]

but I there's a there's a serious point behind that joke which is uh you talked about your own experience of a mystical experience you had in Kolkata

>> um with this it's energy sexual erotic >> and you describe your writing after that point as being channeled and and so you read that into Nichze and my first foray into into this whole realm it was Gerard

>> and Gerard also described that he had a moment of insight and he felt like his the rest of his entire life was just unpacking whatever revelation that he that he received.

>> I think I think with a lot of writers and thinkers that is how they receive ideas. I think it's utter nonsense that

ideas. I think it's utter nonsense that people think their thoughts, >> right?

>> You don't think your way out.

>> Is there any hope for someone like me that is a second rate thinker clearly who has not been granted the divine the divine?

>> Yeah, there's there's there's hope. Um I

I think your desire I think desire itself and your your your seeker status is itself uh evidence that there's something there and I think

something something responds to that seeking and when you then create works of culture and that that might be art that might be literature that might be

philosophy that might be film or a podcast I think there's some kind of relationship going on right >> between between that that seeking and that that that that inspiration.

>> So here's my first question for you personally before you were writing without being channeled because you were a scholar before already and after your writing describe to us the phenomenological difference and this might help us understand niche as well.

Yeah. Well, the ph the phenomenological difference is that after that event in Kolkata in '89, I felt that I had to write and it wasn't that it it stopped

the scholarship or it stopped stopped the historical analysis but it added this other level to it. There was a kind of verticality. There was a kind of like

of verticality. There was a kind of like to put it mildly before the event in Kolkata I would have psychoanalyzed saints and been happy with a kind of

Freudian horizontal reading of it afterwards. I knew that was true but I

afterwards. I knew that was true but I also knew there was this vertical dimension.

>> Wow. Well, this is so fascinating because the next obvious question I was going to ask is well, can we see this difference between before and after this event that that inspired Nichze of the

Rock and his writings and so I just read Darthra because I went to I have a terrible habitu of going to the places where ideas were formed and I was just

an essay in the in the u uh uh yeah uh where NZ wrote uh I believe book three of his he used to hike this this mountain path that connect it's this

extreme extremely steep slope that comes from the the ocean and then goes all the way to the highest peak. And he writes about that. He says the highest peaks

about that. He says the highest peaks comes from the lowest. And what was striking reading book three while hiking that trail is how much he emphasizes verticality.

>> And he mentions that he hates the planes, >> right? And what's really interesting is

>> right? And what's really interesting is I my [snorts] muggle mind clearly before I was inspired by you. I immediately

went to a political reading.

>> Yeah.

>> Verticality is as anti-egalitarianism.

Yes correct.

>> It's his his infamous >> stateance equals authority.

>> It's his it's his infamous statement that every high culture needs slavery in some sense, >> but you're hinting at something different. A real kind of ver

different. A real kind of ver ontological verticality, right? I I

wonder is that available in his early works? I'm trying to think births of

works? I'm trying to think births of tragedy, untimely meditations. Yeah, may

maybe it is. I think I think nuk I I don't I don't put everything >> on the SS Maria boulder awaken 6,000

years above man and time as he put it in his notebooks. Um, I I think he was

his notebooks. Um, I I think he was inspired from the get-go to link altered states and creativity and art and and

thinking and but these things did develop um and and they manifested in these moments of of inspiration and and mystical awakening. I mean, if you read

mystical awakening. I mean, if you read if you read a lot of niche, what you realize is that the ego is a a function of language. It's not really real. Um,

of language. It's not really real. Um,

you learn that there's these these other ecstatic states of inspiration that are really key to his ideas. Uh, I mean, you

read you read him as a religious thinker and his rejection of God um is very familiar. It's like, well, he's

familiar. It's like, well, he's rejecting the images of God. He's

rejecting theism. Good for him, you know, but it's not a rejection of the religious or spiritual impulse.

>> Interesting.

>> Um, and he'll even say, I'm the most spiritual person in in the world. He

says that >> in other words, Nietze is spiritual but not religious.

>> Yes.

>> Interesting.

>> I think so.

>> Yeah.

>> And I think he the thing about NZ is he's fierce. He's fierce in his writing

he's fierce. He's fierce in his writing and and and but he was not fierce in his personality and his life. He was a very gentle >> human being who got along even with

people really well.

>> Right. Sickly and almost the reverse of what he advocates for. Yeah.

>> And I I think his his sickliness and his his suffering is somehow tied into this as well. This is what I call the

as well. This is what I call the traumatic secret that there's there's something about uh madness and and illness and breakdown that's that's that's a part of these

insights as well.

>> Before we go back to Nietze, I think you helped me interpret another common thing which is uh you know what begins all the great poems. Sing to me Omuse. This is

not just some random invocation. This is

a genuine inspiration in your mind.

Right. I think I think it's very real. I

think it really happens.

>> This is going to come off maybe as funny or overly modern, but how can I again a mere muggle ever comp like why bother at this point? You're you're the muse is

this point? You're you're the muse is seeing through you. I'm using my own brain trying to figure you see what I'm trying to say, right? Like how how can I ever compete with you divine revelation folks?

>> Are there great thinkers who don't who have not been touched by the music?

>> I don't think so.

>> Okay. Okay. So, there's no hope for there's no hope for me whatsoever.

>> No, no, [laughter] no. So, so there's there's good news and there's bad news.

>> Okay.

>> The bad news is I really do think it takes these extraordinary experiences to have these insights and and to write these books or to create these works.

The great thinkers Schopenhau and Hegel and Marx I I think they're all >> right.

>> They got something going and it's >> So, that's the bad news for me. What's

the good news?

>> Here's the good news. This is really good news. They wrote books

good news. They wrote books and they wrote books so you could read them.

>> But but the secondhand muse no >> I [laughter] want what you had.

>> No. This is where the theory of writing comes in. The they wrote books to encode

comes in. The they wrote books to encode and transmit their altered states and then readers pick those books up decades maybe centuries later and sometimes they

themselves have these altered states. So

the books themselves >> are the transmitters >> are the transmitters of the altered states. That's what I'm trying to say,

states. That's what I'm trying to say, >> right? Okay.

>> right? Okay.

>> And so that's the good news because when you study the humanities, and I think we've messed that up. I think that's the wrong thing to call it. What we're

really what we're really doing is transmitting altered states and being impacted by these these states of of inspiration.

>> Okay. Fascinating. And we're going to fully unpack this if people are interested. Let's let's go back to

interested. Let's let's go back to Nietze. When you read Nietze, what did

Nietze. When you read Nietze, what did you Yeah. What did you find that was so

you Yeah. What did you find that was so that was so valuable for you?

>> It had something to do with a writer who was acknowledging that the image of God that that people

assume is just wrong. Uh and it creates tremendous human suffering and that there's this deeper human spirituality

that is beyond all that and that will result in some uh superhuman evolution or some superhuman future that's actually wildly affirmative

and like really really amazing >> interesting. So the way the way Nietze

>> interesting. So the way the way Nietze was received in my education, the way he was communicated to me, he was just a naysayer.

>> He was the source of >> it was the genealogy. It was in nature of the genealogy, right?

>> He was and and that's all true that he really he is a naysayer. He is a a master uh deconstructor, but he himself

will say, "These are all just warm-ups for the yayang. I'm really about yay.

I'm really about getting uh human beings out of their nealism and out of their out of out of their depression and affirming the the innate divinity of all

things and all people. Uh and so he'll say things like I'm a disciple of Dionius or I am Dionius or I am the Christ or I am the Buddha for Europe or

you know he he was very aware of his superhuman status as it were and so I think he was very in touch with this the humanist two again as I call it the super the

superhumity but that doesn't mean he himself was super hum this is where Nietian's this is what a lot of people miss it wasn't about affirming that individual social.

>> He says this explicitly that I am not who I write about in the genealogy.

Yeah.

>> Well, he's right. I mean, he knows that.

And he says in his knockoffs, too. He

says, "Look, he says there are people on the first floor and they hear me rustling around on the second floor and they can't understand me. Nothing

nothing is heard. They don't have they have no idea what I'm saying. But I'm

not talking about the first floor. I'm

talking about the second floor. And

there's a sky above the the >> verticality again.

>> There's a verticality again. And and and so I think we just shuffle around on that first floor and we say, "Oh, Nietze, it's about uh glor self glorification,

>> anti-galitarianism." Yeah.

>> anti-galitarianism." Yeah.

>> Yeah. That's just all it's all first floor stuff. And that is not what these

floor stuff. And that is not what these books are about. What he says is is books like a genealogy of morals and beyond good and evil. These are what he

calls fish hooks. They're ways to hook people in for books like Twilight of the Idols and Edge Homo and thus spoke Sarahustra, which he thought was his his

most revoly book that anybody had ever written in all of human history. He

wasn't it just wasn't his best book. It

was the best book ever written. I'm

like, whoa, that's of course that's what every writer thinks, [laughter] but but we're still reading that, >> right? In fact, he said that there would

>> right? In fact, he said that there would be an entire department set up just to study vespoke. He's not too far off.

study vespoke. He's not too far off.

Yeah, he's not too far off. Let's go

back to the uber mench because we sort of danced around what it might mean. Can

can we say does Nietze say anything more determinate? So, we can break this down,

determinate? So, we can break this down, right? Like on the values layer, what

right? Like on the values layer, what are the values that we were mention on the biological layer? Is he like us? On

the mental layer, you seem to imply a mysticism. tell us a bit more about what

mysticism. tell us a bit more about what Nichza says and what you might want to add on to that.

>> So, first of all, I don't think Nietze knew >> exactly what the Uber Mench is because obviously the Uber Mench doesn't exist

yet, but I do think he had insights and he had ideas of what the Uber Mench might be. Certainly, it's about creating

might be. Certainly, it's about creating new values. Um and essentially I think

new values. Um and essentially I think what NZ means by that is you see that the standard moral and religious values

of the time are of the past. People have

created them but you have enough the uberch has enough self-will or enough confidence to create new morals and to create a new worldview.

>> Right. But but that kind of sounds like a first floor niche or or that can be a first floor niche because >> well you asked about values. I mean, I think that's what that is about, >> right? Okay. So, but but it's more than

>> right? Okay. So, but but it's more than that, right? Because because I can do

that, right? Because because I can do that. I I can create new values.

that. I I can create new values.

>> Maybe, but >> I mean, I I maybe I can't, maybe I can't. I mean, I don't I'm not so sure.

can't. I mean, I don't I'm not so sure.

>> I'm saying it's within your the realm of metaphysical possibility for for you to create new values.

>> Maybe. I don't know. But

>> is there is there anything more than than than a valley creator? because that

that's the kind of standard reading of the >> by new values though he didn't mean what we mean when we think about new morals we're thinking in English

>> you know we're we're locked in to a particular language game and we're we're articulating values probably in a social sense and I have a a dear friend who is

a niche scholar Paul Loe who really thinks the uber mench is a bi a new biological species and that uh it will live and maybe is living among humans

right now. And so there's another

right now. And so there's another there's another kind of human uh species that comes out of us that that certainly we we reproduce and we

biologically create but is fundamentally not like us. Um and so I think this is where I go to science fiction where the Uber Mench is really received the most

accurately is actually in comic books and science fiction. I mean, you literally get the Superman in 1938. And

that's not necessarily completely faithful to Nichze, but it's it's clearly Niet and you get superhumans everywhere, >> right?

>> Everywhere in in we call them superhero comics, but you also get this notion of linking evolution and spiritual insight in science fiction

uh and in film now and in television.

And I think that's where these ideas are debated and talked about uh in the most explicit way. You know, I'll give I'll

explicit way. You know, I'll give I'll give you an example, Jonathan, and we we can come back to this, but I personally

think Magneto of the X-Men is Nichzche.

I think it's just uh [laughter] >> there's many many things you can mean by is like you like the writer intended it to be or or or or literally

>> I mean he's voicing he's voicing Nietian >> ideas in a very expans don't worry about them I'm going to kill them. I mean it's pretty violent.

them. I mean it's pretty violent.

>> Yeah.

>> And Xavier is always there. He's sort of the liberal professor saying, "No, wait a minute. We have to get these two

a minute. We have to get these two species to live together, the humans and the superhumans." And so you have this

the superhumans." And so you have this debate. And what's what's so interesting

debate. And what's what's so interesting about that particular mythology is Xavier and Magneto are friends.

>> They're they're they understand each other. And so it's not this violent

other. And so it's not this violent debate. It's like they play chess

debate. It's like they play chess together.

>> Wait, isn't Magneto a villain?

>> What do we mean by a villain? This is

another thing. What do we mean by a villain? Well, we mean is he is he a

villain? Well, we mean is he is he a super villain? Well, but he's also on

super villain? Well, but he's also on the X-Men. He's been on the X-Men team

the X-Men. He's been on the X-Men team as well. So, he kind of goes back and

as well. So, he kind of goes back and forth between, >> right, >> these different and you know, N himself, he called himself the antichrist, you know, and he wrote a book called the Antichrist,

but he doesn't he doesn't mean the antichrist is evil, you know, in the in the in the negative or sinister sense.

He means it stands against the social values of the of the place and time and certainly the Christian values.

>> Okay. So much to unpack here. We're

going to get to your full read on comic books later. It's fascinating.

books later. It's fascinating.

>> Okay.

>> But I just want to poke one question here because you describe yourself as Xavier or right or you use Xavier to understand your own kind of >> I think I I think I think I

>> and so therefore you would you're you're opposing yourself to Nichza.

>> I don't idolize Nichza. I don't think he was right about everything, right? Um I

don't think anybody's right. I don't

think I'm right about everything, Jonathan. Um so I think that's why

Jonathan. Um so I think that's why everything needs to be talked about.

>> But I love Nichzche, >> you know. I think Xavier loves Magneto.

I think they're very affectionate friends mythologically. Now speaking,

friends mythologically. Now speaking, the reason that I think I inhabit the Xavier mythology a lot is because a lot of [laughter] a lot of people come to me to tell me

their mutant stories. I mean a lot. I'm

not saying a little, a lot. And I am I'm a professor and I am >> You're a liberal professor.

>> I'm a liberal professor and I I live in a in a I think I wrote a book called the superhumanities. I wanted I want to

superhumanities. I wanted I want to start the school of the superhum I mean >> I'm this is it. You know this this is this the mythology is true >> and knowing your backstory this is

actually so cool because you're a little kid inside geeking out cuz because you always wanted to be a superhero. Um

anyways, so uh I just want to pin down your reading on Nietze as much as I can.

>> I think so. I think Nietze had a nonduel experience but he didn't have that Asian language and so he framed it in terms of German idealism and Schopenhau and all

the things the great books that that's essentially my read of it >> right and of course Schopenhau does draw on heavily from this from this eastern language.

And but on on the Uber Mench, the claim is he he's gesturing at a direction, right?

He he's looking back at the evolution from Ape and he's gesturing in a direction. It has something to do with

direction. It has something to do with the the the courage to create new values. There's probably a biological

values. There's probably a biological component to it, but it's amorphice.

>> I think it's more than that. I think

it's much more than just creating new. I

think he's talking about divinity, some kind of ontological shift, some kind of epistemological shift in what human beings can become.

Um, and it's religion is the only language that our ancestors had to to talk about that metamorphosis or that transformation. And and Nietze will say

transformation. And and Nietze will say and I will say too, religion is not doesn't work for us anymore. If you want to kill a

anymore. If you want to kill a conversation on a plane, just tell them you're a professor of religion. Just go

do that.

>> I'll have that in my pocket next time.

>> You can kill it instantly. Um, so the the words we use somehow kill the conversation and stop the the transformation. And what NZ was doing

transformation. And what NZ was doing was like, we're not going to use those words. We're going to use other we're

words. We're going to use other we're going to use a different language. And

remember, he's thinking and writing after Darwin, >> right? And we didn't have Darwin before

>> right? And we didn't have Darwin before 1859. We didn't have evolution. We

1859. We didn't have evolution. We

didn't know that biological forms evolve and change and that maybe everything changes. Maybe everything evolves. But

changes. Maybe everything evolves. But

after Darwin, we began to suspect that.

And Nichch's this amazing intellectual who in the 1880s takes that in and and creates a whole philosophy or

worldview around that basic idea. And

that's the Uber match.

>> I see. Um, but he also has a very ambivalent relationship with Darwin.

>> He thinks he's not Darwinian.

>> Yeah. He he thinks of Darwin as kind of petty and somewhat petty. So, so yeah, describe that relationship to us. What

does he take? What does he reject?

>> So, what he rejects in Darwin is randomness that evolution isn't just about mutation. Well, what would later be

mutation. Well, what would later be called mutation isn't it isn't just about randomness. there's something

about randomness. there's something willed, you know, to use the Nietian language in this in this evolution. I

think that's why he says, "I'm not Darwin." And

Darwin." And >> there's a teology. In other words, >> I think there is a teology.

>> Yeah. Um do you have a sense of what by what mechanism evolution for NZA happens and importantly is going to lead us to the

Uber mench because right if you take the Darwinian view the natural bedfellow is randomness right the natural bet fellow is these these random mutations survival of the

fitt of the fittest >> the will >> the will there's something about the will >> this is the German idealism this deep down now not not me willing breakfast or

willing lunch or something but this deep this is what I meant by your seekership this spiritual seekership this is your will manifesting in all of these

projects so I I think there's something deep down there's this isn't very niche and there's something about the will that results in in this future

transformation >> okay that's a that's [laughter] a that's a huge statement Let's unpack that a bit like huge. So, okay. So, to give an

like huge. So, okay. So, to give an example um I'm a seeker and that's going to change the genes of my children. I mean, I'm bastardizing it, right? But but but but because there is a biological component

to evolution. So, how does that how does

to evolution. So, how does that how does the will connect?

>> Well, first of all, we know that that that genes are are are influenced by by >> epigenetics, right?

>> By will and by what how they're turned on and turned off. And we know that there's a >> wait there. Actually, this is the first time I'm hearing that genes are influenced by will how >> well they're turned on and they're

turned off and the epigenetic thing we can we can >> they're influenced by the circumstance you how you live or like the the shape of your life. Yeah.

>> Right. But the shape of your life is by the by the will. I mean so it kind of kind of goes back. So at the end of the day, I mean, you know, scholars of Nietze will tell me things like

um well, NZ is not an idealist for for obvious reasons, but he's also not not an obvious materialist in in the way we normally think of that either. And I I I

I think these are essentially idealist notions. um that there's some kind of

notions. um that there's some kind of mental force that is determining or shaping material reality. And so I

actually think we don't understand genetics, you know, I I think there's something about genetics and mind or consciousness that we haven't even tapped into.

>> Uh and and I I suspect that's what the will is, >> right? Um,

>> right? Um, you talk a lot about uh evolutionary esotericism right?

That's what we're talking about right now. Yeah.

now. Yeah.

>> So, let me give you and I feel like I'm I'm constantly trying to pull you down to the first floor and which is good, right? It's attention and I'm trying to

right? It's attention and I'm trying to ground you a bit and you're trying to make me transcended.

>> Yeah. Cuz I'm I'm really mocking around on the second floor.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's it's a little tugof-war we got here, which is great.

Okay. Here's my boring muggle secular interpretation of that. And I'm going to draw on a thinker uh who you mentioned in your books Hegel >> uh phenomenology of spirit right there

is an evolution of spirit throughout history. That's what the phenomenology

history. That's what the phenomenology is about.

>> Why I mean why why is there >> okay so so the secular interpretation is that it's through the ideas level that

um how the will conceives of it of itself and the world becomes evolved.

Yeah. But you want to say something stronger than that right? It's not just, you know, now we think of ourselves as free so individuals and before we were we were ser. That's not what that's not what you're saying.

>> I'm saying something stronger.

>> Yeah. Tell us about that.

>> Well, there's spirit, you know, the the there there's something behind the will. There's

something there's something behind the ego that is willingness and that is moving moving life forward, >> right? And so I am saying something's

>> right? And so I am saying something's wrong with that. I you know one of the things I quote a lot is I quote it's it's anonymous. We don't even know who

it's anonymous. We don't even know who said it but but it's like um a definition of hydrogen a light odorless gas that give given enough time turns into people. [snorts]

into people. [snorts] Why?

Why does it turn into people? Why why

evolution? Why why the transformation?

Why are why the transitional species?

Why? What what is what is the deeper uh impulse or the deeper deeper life force?

And I think this is what NZ was getting at there is a deeper life force there.

And I think this is what all the the esoteric evolutionary systems are getting at that there's a deeper life force that is not any of these specific moments.

>> Right. Right. So

>> but that's a faith statement, Jonathan.

>> Interesting. Yeah.

>> Uh >> because of your experiences and >> do I know that? I mean, no, I don't know that. But gosh, so many people after

that. But gosh, so many people after Darwin say that because Darwin gives them a way of talking about their their altered states.

>> You describe your ontology as a dual aspect monist. And for audience, it's

aspect monist. And for audience, it's you affirm that there's material and consciousness in the conventional realm, but you think they kind of all connect together. They're from one substance. Is

together. They're from one substance. Is

that substance the spirit for you?

>> Yeah, that's that's that deeper.

>> That's the one. That's the one. So, it's

not just a a spirit, it's the spirit of of the the world.

>> I actually don't I don't ultimately believe in spirits in the multiple. I I

I of course they exist, you know, for a time, but but I I don't think they're ultimate. I think that deeper unis

ultimate. I think that deeper unis mundus or that deeper one is is where this is all coming from.

>> So, the uber mench is just the one or or he's still like us. He's still particular. He's still

us. He's still particular. He's still

particular. It's not even a he. Uber

Uber mench is a human. I mean, and the uber mench, you know, if if we take the biological perspective, which I I like, >> has a material form just like you and I

do, but there's also this mental world which is not ours, which is which is distinctly different. And and again I

distinctly different. And and again I think that's the mistake we make is we always >> we always reduce or explain things in

terms of our own humanity or or in terms of our own understanding or our own language. And I think what Nichch is

language. And I think what Nichch is saying and certainly what I'm trying to say is no there is a future uh superhuman existence. It's literally

superhuman existence. It's literally super it's literally not Englished. It's

literally not cog cognition. It's

literally something else. And and I just I get so frustrated with people who just they just want to imagine the far future is just

I don't know again it's it's it's English again or it's or it's material reality again in some in some biological sense that they like you know it's

always something they want and I'm like ah that's not it. Can we say something more about the like where this direction

of spirits evolution is going or where is this tilos you see clearly it's it's teological >> it's going towards the uber and it's going for niche now it's going towards uber and it's going towards a new

understanding of temporality and it's going through >> okay now now we're getting somewhere so so it's something that is able to relate to time and substance radically differently >> totally differently >> than than we do now

>> totally differently Right.

>> This is why I mean again this will push us forward into the science fiction thing but this is why I love the movie Arrival because what it does is it shows that to understand the alien

consciousness you actually have to understand their language and it completely changes how you think and it involves temporality.

>> Right? you you understand on a on a direct level that temporality is not linear that it's not just about causes in the past producing the present that

it's also about the future it's also about causes from the future um so it totally changes things and I think that's the kind of shift we we need to

make is how we how we don't just understand temporality but how we inhabit it right >> let me give you an example so I I personally think some of the strongest

uh empirical evidence for paranormal phenomena is precognition.

>> It's knowing what's going to happen before it happens.

>> Testimonial.

Yeah.

>> It's it's it's it's wild and it's benol, by the way. It's

it's not what people might it's not everybody's Napoleon or or or Jon of Arc. It's not grand. You know,

Arc. It's not grand. You know,

precognition is often benol. It's about

details. It's about and it has this reproductive or Darwinian function as well to it. And it's often about negative things, bad things that are about to happen. Um, but it's obvious.

It's obvious when you listen to these these cases or these testimonials.

Well, it's impossible. It's completely

impossible if you only recognize causality as something that happens in the past and moves to the present. You

can't. The future hasn't even happened yet.

>> Right. Well, that's your worldview.

That's your understanding of temporality. What if it's wrong? What

temporality. What if it's wrong? What

What if temporality is not like that at all? And and so that's what I'm trying

all? And and so that's what I'm trying to get at. That's the uber that's that's the uber match. That's that's

acknowledging superhuman experiences that have no explanation now, but they likely will have an explanation or they'll have a a worldview that makes

them possible in the future.

>> Yeah. Um before we unpack this with Nichzche and we're going to have to talk about eternal recurrence and worlds of power. Now help the audience and me get

power. Now help the audience and me get to the kind of confidence you have in the real happening of pre precognition.

What are the testimonies you're seeing?

Give us an example. Give us an idea of the the sheer quantity, the reliability.

Just help us get to where where you are.

>> All of that. All of that. Remember I'm

Professor Xavier. I mean, people tell me their experiences and they're impressive. You know, people are having

impressive. You know, people are having experiences of the future 24 hours out, 3 years out, 10 years out. One of the

most famous is a woman who woke up and told her husband, um, the chandelier is going to fall on our baby at 4:32 a.m.,

whatever the time was. I might have that off a few a few minutes. And the

husband, of course, said, "Go back to sleep. It's it's it's just nothing, a

sleep. It's it's it's just nothing, a bad dream." She says, "No,

bad dream." She says, "No, I know." And so she goes and gets the

I know." And so she goes and gets the baby and the chandelier falls at 4:32 a.m. just exactly like she precognized

a.m. just exactly like she precognized it.

>> There's another one with the child on the train track, right?

>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so we have this, too. We have this again it's a mother

too. We have this again it's a mother and a child and we have this um the mother just knew that the child was in danger and was lying on the train

track and and sure enough it was you know but she had no way of un knowing that right >> so I I think there's you know one of the things people don't realize about

telepathy it means pathos at a distance it means emotional entanglement at a distance it doesn't mean >> you're playing the lottery or you're watching a football game or something.

It it it right >> it's between >> telepatho interesting. Yeah. It has to have some state. It has to have some >> it's this deep emotional bonding. Uh and

you know one of the other cases I tell a lot and I've written about is it began as a mother and a son. She sends her this is a really interesting case. The

mother sends her child with her nanny to the zoo and at like say 10:11 a.m.

Again, I'll forget the time. She sees

in perfect detail a white powder or a white cloud in her car and she looks back and her son is screaming

his head off and they're in this big accident and she thinks, "Oh my god." She she mistakes it for clairvoyance. She says,

"Oh my god, my nanny was just in a car accident and I don't know what that white smoke is, but I know I I know my child is screaming." And so she calls her nanny and her nanny's fine. There

was no car accident. And she says, "I want you to drive on the side roads and I want you to drive slowly and get back here." Because she took her vision

here." Because she took her vision seriously. I mean, it was like a vision

seriously. I mean, it was like a vision just like she said it's like a movie going off, right? This isn't subtle.

Um, and the next day the child of course is is wants to go back to the zoo because of course mom ruined the trip the first day. So the mom says, "All right, I'm not taking any chances. I'm

I'm going to drive myself this kid to the zoo and she's in a high-speed car accident and the bags go off and that's why where the

white smoke comes from and she sees her child just exactly like in her dream before." Um, and her the guy who hits

before." Um, and her the guy who hits her, she can't move and he calls the husband and it comes in at like 10:14

a.m. So, she had a precognitive vision

a.m. So, she had a precognitive vision at exactly the time that it happened, but she didn't know it was precognitive.

She thought it was clairvoyant the same the same time, right?

>> Yeah. And so, this is what you see in a lot of pre-cognitive experiences. They

mistake it for something else because they themselves can't deal with the temporal the the cir circ circularity of time and so >> this is eternal recurrence. Yeah.

>> Yeah. This is I think it's eternal recurrence. And so when when niche talks

recurrence. And so when when niche talks about internal recurrence or when he talks about the uberman I'm like this is a real thing. Yeah.

>> This isn't this isn't a metaphor. This

is like >> this is it. So one thing NZ had a pre-cognitive dream right as a kid.

>> Of course he did. His father died at 35 and he saw his father coming out of out of the out of the graveyard and holding

uh I think his son and within 24 hours the young boy develops a serious illness and dies.

>> Right?

>> And so Nietz says my dream was fulfilled perfectly by the events. So he knew darn well that there was this >> that there was this circularity to

temporality and to how human beings tap into that through altered states in this case dreams or or or in the case of the the mother this this video going off in

her head. So I mean that's just those

her head. So I mean that's just those are just two experience Jonathan there are thousands of these I've heard or read about and after a while you're just

like okay that happens.

>> Yeah. So, what does the world look like?

What does the world have to be?

>> What is the metaphysics to to kind of make sense of this?

>> Yes, that's my question. What does the world have to be to make this possible?

>> Right. And again, we're we're going to go back and I know I'm keep teasing the audience. We're going to go to eternal

audience. We're going to go to eternal occurrence. We're going to go to power.

occurrence. We're going to go to power.

But I just want to touch on something that clicked in my mind when you said that, >> which is first of all, like why are all the visions in the Bible like of disasters?

>> Okay. Well, they're still bad. They're

still negative. Daniel, right?

Revelation.

Um, >> they're still all negative.

>> Here's my question for you, though. Have

you yourself encountered anyone who told you a story that you were you decided to be fraudulent and that they were actively deceiving you?

>> I don't I don't think intentionally, but I >> Wow. Thousands of cases. You don't think

>> Wow. Thousands of cases. You don't think there was there was one single?

>> There might have been. I mean, come on.

It's the internet. It's email.

>> Okay. People can

>> you know. they could just tell lies, but I'm very careful about what I write about. You know, I often know the person

about. You know, I often know the person and I >> So, so those stories you you talk to them and >> I wouldn't write about something. I

wouldn't publish something if a I hadn't I didn't know the person and b I didn't ask for their permission. By the way, too, I'm like really careful about

because there is a lot of um as you call it fraud. There is a lot of lying in

it fraud. There is a lot of lying in this zone. It's it's a it's a it's a

this zone. It's it's a it's a it's a fraught zone. But the question is always

fraught zone. But the question is always why? Why?

why? Why?

>> Well, I have I have an explanation for you because I get a lot of uh inspired crazy in between people who comment on on my things, especially after interviews like this. And some of these

I can just tell they are they are not well like like they they are not >> I I get a lot of that, too, by the way.

>> They're just not well. Oh, I get a lot of that.

>> They're not cogent. And we should talk about Nietze and his madness when there's something productive there. But

I mean, is there just crazy? There is

just crazy. Yeah.

>> So sometimes [laughter] I mean this is the problem is sometimes being crazy is being really insightful

and and maybe what they're saying is true, you know? I mean,

but there also is mental pathology and there's a lot of projection and there's a lot. So I again I don't I don't

a lot. So I again I don't I don't actually believe everything regardless of what people think. Um

>> and I'm very careful about but I know that these experiences happen to people.

>> You you know there are legitimate ones.

That's for sure.

>> But I also know that they happen to people who are quote unquote crazy. I

know that.

>> Right.

>> You know and and so I don't I don't draw lines that that are so simple. But I

don't write about the people who are are crazy. I don't I really don't. You get a

crazy. I don't I really don't. You get a lot of people who you you read this, you're like, >> I also don't respond to those people, by the way.

>> Right. Because it encourages them.

>> Yes. Yeah. And it's I I feel great compassion, but I I understand that I'm an authority figure. I I think that's an illusion, by the way. But I

understand that and I use it in a particular way.

>> Right. Um

well, let's use this as a segue uh to talk about N's madness. And let me give you a quote from from one of your books.

There's a legend that Nze finally collapsed into madness while embracing the neck of a horse in a desperate attempt to keep it from being beaten by its owner. The superhuman is the man.

its owner. The superhuman is the man.

Both men actually, though the cruel man, the one beating the horse, does not know it yet, but it is also the horse. It is

cross species compassion. It is life itself. It is the only god, the spirit

itself. It is the only god, the spirit you're gesting at. And so am I. And so

are you.

Is there something philosophically profound in his madness?

>> Most scholars don't think there is.

>> I think there is.

>> Okay, >> this is interesting. Yeah.

>> You know, I've been deeply informed here by a philosopher named Dr. Kers who wrote a book called The Philosophy of Madness. It's huge. I don't know if

Madness. It's huge. I don't know if you've read it or looked at it. MIT

translated it, published it. And

basically what what Kers argues is that if you look at the history of philosophy and particularly the history of mystical experience, it's a history of madness too.

>> It's it's there are non-man people, right?

>> Yeah. Well, of course there are, but there are also there are also states that are are psychotic and and so he he he talks about the vita mystica

psychotiva, you know, the the the psychotic mystical way. And I

way. And I I'm totally persuaded by Voucher's argument um and by other people's argument that there's this link between

philosophical insight into the way things actually are and what we call mental illness. And and again,

mental illness. And and again, you know, one of the things I tell my graduate students, and this is I I realize this is going to sound very Meian. I'm like, I so wish that you're

Meian. I'm like, I so wish that you're not happy and that you're not normal. I

want you to be totally messed up and I want you to be really interesting.

In other words, I want you not to fit in, not to be integrated into society because health and happiness are often uh uh codes for being integrated into

the social system.

>> I don't want that because that's actually not the case.

>> Yeah. Um, this is the matrix. You're

living in the matrix.

>> This is the matrix. Oh, this is Plato's cave. This is I don't want you to be

cave. This is I don't want you to be enchained uh in in the cave. I want you to get out and see the light. But here's the thing.

You need to return to the cave. You

know, you need to you need to come back in >> to help others or survive.

>> To help others. And you know what? The

others will probably kill you or they'll they'll be really mean or they won't give you a job or whatever. They'll

ignore you today. It's less violent today, but but it's it's also probably very effective still.

>> Yeah, I see. So, so where where does the where does the direction of causality go between madness and philosophical profundity? Here's one direction. Uh

profundity? Here's one direction. Uh

madness causes philosophical genius in the following sense. You had this traumatic hypothesis, right? That uh the breaking down the disorder. You had your mystical experience while you told me you were sick. You were you were

completely messed up. You were in a foreign land. You were out of your

foreign land. You were out of your element. That's one direction. The other

element. That's one direction. The other

direction is that profound philosophical insight causes madness because you see all of this and you're like, well, I can't stay in the cave anymore.

>> That's the muggle argument, by the way.

So, I I work with a filter thesis. The

filter thesis basically says that the brain in particular but also the body it doesn't produce consciousness.

It filters it. It mediates it. It

languages it. It enculturates it. It

embodies it. But it actually doesn't produce it. That consciousness exists

produce it. That consciousness exists cosmically. It's it's like gravity. It

cosmically. It's it's like gravity. It

it's it's everywhere.

>> So we are a radio. The signal is not produced by the radio. The the radio receives the signal. So, so if that's your model, that is my model by the way.

If that's your model, how do you get that cosmic signal? You with the radio. You

signal? You with the radio. You

break it down. And so you do things like medit meditate for hours on end or lock yourself in a cave for >> aesthetic practice. Yeah, you do aesthetic practice or you take a

psychoactive chemical or and so this is where madness or or psychosis like yeah or a car wreck a car accident will do

that. You know there are ways to break

that. You know there are ways to break open the ego and that cosmic mind will rush in

but it doesn't mean that it's good for the person.

This is what I'm trying to say. So the

person, the psychotic individual, >> Plato's divine madness.

>> Yeah, it might be completely true and it might be really bad, >> right, >> for the person. And the same is true of religious practice. The same is true of

religious practice. The same is true of near-death experiences, by the way, often lead to divorces.

>> Interesting. Why? Why? Because they just can't handle it.

>> The person's totally changed. It's not

the same person, >> right? So, so okay, privately actually I

>> right? So, so okay, privately actually I was telling you how my secret path is preventing me from having a stable relationship and this is this is what I mean. It it's not uh it's not very fun

mean. It it's not uh it's not very fun to be around or or it's not very stable certainly to be around someone like me.

Yeah.

>> Again, this is the source of my humanness too. It's like

humanness too. It's like we have to be in society and we we we are egos and we are bodies and that's all okay and good but there's this other

superhuman consciousness that surrounds us that is the source of insight and philosophy and religion and there are individuals who can tap into that and who have tapped into that but that does

not mean that those individuals are good social egos are good good people. So if

you think that tapping into this cosmic signal better is in some sense the the tilos as the mixes do of a life right as the >> Yeah and I do

>> and you do and there is a I won't say dependable way to get access to the signal but there are things you can do which is to damage yourself to aesthetic

practice to really mess up with the radio as you described. Does it follow that you would advocate for aesthetic practice or >> Yeah. I mean, a lot of a lot of

>> Yeah. I mean, a lot of a lot of religious people do advocate. They do.

>> That's exactly where they go, right?

>> They advocate for those extreme aesthetic practices. And again, I don't

aesthetic practices. And again, I don't question that. But that's this goes back

question that. But that's this goes back to the good news, bad news. I get that through reading people who have been in these altered states.

>> Okay. So, you had your uh >> I would you you had your mystical experience uh quite young. You told me privately that you have been trying to recreate that.

>> I once tried. I don't I don't anymore.

>> You once tried. And you were doing this kind of stuff. You were trying to mess with the radio.

>> Yeah, I was.

>> But it it just didn't work for you. And

so you were like, I just need to find a different way, right? Or

>> Well, I I think I gave up trying. And And

>> But why would you give up trying if it's the tilos of of of man?

>> Because Okay. I think we really get out of the cave and we really enter the tilos when we die and we all die.

>> Oh, so you're like what's another 20, 50, 30 years?

>> Yeah. It's like Yeah. I'm I'm more like aandi now. It's like I'm just going to

aandi now. It's like I'm just going to be a professor and I'm gonna I'm gonna do this thing, you know, until till I can't do it anymore and then I'm gonna

I'm an organic being. I'm going to die.

But then I'm gonna see the light or I'm gonna be the light and I'm I'm gonna >> and this is what the near-death experiences a lot of them show.

>> That's what they say. That's exactly

what they say. And I'm like, yep, that's right.

>> Interesting. Um,

Nietze wrote, these are some of the quotes from from Nzera. I'm all names in history. Among the Indians, I was Buddha

history. Among the Indians, I was Buddha and in Greece, I was Dianisis. Alexander

and Caesar are my incarnations. I have

and he says I have the most extensive soul of all Europeans now living or whoever lived Plato Voltater I could become the European Buddha which admittedly would be a counterpart of the Indian one.

Most scholars interpret this of course as his madness early madness.

>> I think he's right.

>> Right. And here's your defense of that.

This is this is you. This is not niche anymore. The Muslim mystic Al Bistami

anymore. The Muslim mystic Al Bistami famously proclaimed, "Glory be to me.

How great is my glory? Pastami's

successor in ecstatic speech, Alhalage, is said to have uttered phrases such as, I am the truth, read, I am God, and was crucified upside down for such outrageous offenses to Islamic

orthodoxy. Consider the Christian mystic

orthodoxy. Consider the Christian mystic Katherine of Genoa, who once described her own most profound realization this way. The proper center of everyone is

way. The proper center of everyone is God himself. My me is God, nor do I

God himself. My me is God, nor do I recognize any other me except my God himself.

This seems very radically different from the mystics I'm I know. Maybe mostly

because they are Christian. I guess the last one was

Christian. I guess the last one was Christian or Buddhist holy men and and they seem to have a radical selflessness to them.

>> A radical what?

>> Selflessness. Egolessness.

It's not. Whereas Niche was writing and the chapter titles are hilarious.

They're like why am I in such such a good writer, right? Why I'm so awesome.

>> I love that stuff by the way.

>> Help me said egoania egolessness.

>> But but he also said that the ego is a function of language. It doesn't exist.

>> Right. Okay. Help me make sense of all these these statements. Are are these is this exact same as the holy men I've met or is this the radical opposite?

>> I think so. I think they're saying the same thing. Right. You you are not

same thing. Right. You you are not Jonathan B. You are God. You know I am

Jonathan B. You are God. You know I am not Jeff Krile. My me is God. I I think that's absolutely >> because this is the one. This is the one. This is the signal.

one. This is the signal.

>> This is the signal. I think that's absolutely spot on. Now

>> the So Katherine and and and certainly a lot of the other figures, they're using their religious categories because that's what they experience. That's what

they know. They're using they're they're in they're they're filters as well.

They're encultured. They're embodied.

They're language. So they're going to speak in terms of whatever their culture is and so is niche by the way. You know,

so are we. So none of that none of that bothers me. It's just like of course

bothers me. It's just like of course it's filtered. Of course it's language.

it's filtered. Of course it's language.

Of course it's always different. That's

the nature of embodiment or language.

But that doesn't mean the cosmic consciousness is coming through is is different. In other words, saying I am

different. In other words, saying I am all names. I am God is the exact same as

all names. I am God is the exact same as saying I have no ego in your mind.

>> I think so. I I I again I read Nietze through this other mystical literature.

I just think it's obvious what if you know this other literature and then you read Nietze you're like whoa this is like this is this is this is familiar

and and yes that is that exists on the margins of Nietz scholarship but but screw them Jonathan I just they're talking about the first floor

and Nze was very clear I'm on the second floor and you know what you're not going to understand me you're going to hear nothing. But what I'm telling you is

nothing. But what I'm telling you is this. And what he's telling us is what

this. And what he's telling us is what has been said in other mystical traditions.

>> Okay? So

>> I can hear him. I can hear him just fine.

>> So So I uh [laughter] So I agree that metaphysically I am God can mean I'm egoist because of the filter.

However, how do you make sense of Nietz's, I think, positive outlook to people who are egotistical, not in the merely uh the mystical sense, but in

just the great thinkers and great writers who who don't believe they're they're they're god. You see, I'm trying to say, right? I I'm seeing okay maybe these two extremes kind of horseshoe back together but Nichze does kind of

elevate I mean he doesn't affirm totally the master but he does elevate the master as as as positive certainly over the slave as the the very

this worldly yeah there's some very there's some very troubling things in niche and again I'm not I don't I don't want to affirm everything niche thought or wrote that's not again that's not the

point the point is to is to isolate these these these altered states, these ecstatic states and to say these are extremely similar to X, Y, and Z.

>> Right? Let me try to push you maybe in another way which is how does one as a mystical scholar or as

a mystic um I think arrogance is a very easy thing to develop. In fact, I believe the Catholic tradition has the the pride of humility or something like

that. I'm so holy. And the reason I say

that. I'm so holy. And the reason I say it's easy to develop is because I mean you have this thing Jeff if you're right. I mean you you have the thing

right. I mean you you have the thing that everyone else is missing. You're up

there in the second floor with NZ. We're

all here graveling our muggle with our muggle. I don't know what we're doing in

muggle. I don't know what we're doing in this first floor. H how do you or maybe you don't need to defend arrogance.

>> So so first of all the charge of arrogance and hum these those are social charges.

the that's the first floor making fun of the second floor again.

>> But you said you still need to operate in the cave. You still need to >> Of course you do. You still need to live on that first floor.

>> But but you care about being a good person, a good social person, right? And

a good social person is not extremely prideful and arrogant and egoomaniac, right?

>> Not not generally. I mean, I get called arrogant. I get I've been described as

arrogant. I get I've been described as arrogant a lot, but I'm just like, but it's not arrogance if it's true.

[laughter] It's just it's like look you are God.

That sounds arrogant then okay then you >> I'm not saying those statements are arrogant. I think what I'm getting at is

arrogant. I think what I'm getting at is is is a bit more subtle which is to say okay let me put it this way. I think

part of the reason a lot of French and continental philosophy of the 20th century attracts young men especially is because it's all a I got the key to unlock everything. You know

unlock everything. You know >> you got you got what?

>> I got the key to unlock everything. This

is the hermeneutics of suspicion.

Whether it's fukco >> and how mysticism in my mind is can be the ultimate form of that I I okay this is not a charge really this is a confession okay which is when I think

about these states when I think about my own experience here maybe I tend to develop ideas of pride that I do not fully endorse in the in the first floor and my question for you is how does how

does a mystical scholar guard against that if at all >> okay so the way the way at least I avoid that is through humor you know, is again I say things like I

don't believe in myself. I and I love comedians and I think when you laugh at something you're standing outside it.

>> You know, you're not it because you can't laugh at something you are. Um,

and so I think I think mystical states lead to profound states of reflexivity and and not knowing. Uh, and and and by

not knowing, I don't mean, you know, I don't know a plus b equals c. I mean, you really don't know.

c. I mean, you really don't know.

There's this the whole point of knowledge is this the sub subject knowing something about an object and there's some no that that's not non-duality, right? So arrogance, what

non-duality, right? So arrogance, what are you talking about? That's that's the state of an ego in relationship to a society. It's like you're in the realm

society. It's like you're in the realm of difference and and division there. It

it just doesn't even make any sense.

>> Okay. So here's the two-prong response I'm hearing. Number one, there is

I'm hearing. Number one, there is ultimately there is no self to to to be arrogant. But there's also on the

arrogant. But there's also on the conventional layer you're saying yes as a mystic a scholar of mysticism I know a

lot but it's also shown me so like how how deeply unknowing I I I am right so let's I promised the audience we'd go back to eternal recurrence >> okay

>> when I learned of eternal recurrence from the muggles on the first floor >> right >> uh this is what they told me eternal recurrence is a thought experiment >> it's a way you use to evaluate your own life

>> that's how you get around the reality.

>> Yeah. You you you and but but I I do think it's an interesting thought experiment in the following sense.

>> Can you affirm your life even if it doesn't lead anywhere?

>> Yeah.

>> So it's an anti- teological like can you just say no afterlife, no esquetology, no divine retribution, no karma. Can you

would you will your life again? I think

that's a quite helpful thought experiment. So I was happy to stay on

experiment. So I was happy to stay on the first floor to tell me the real reading.

I think he really experienced eternal recurrence that and you know this is where again I differ with the niche scholars like take deja vu you know when you experience something in the moment

that you just had an experience of you you're in a you're in a eternal recurrence as it were. So I I think time

itself is is is is recurring is is a temporal loop. But I don't think I don't

temporal loop. But I don't think I don't necessarily think that we're going to experience everything again, you know, but I think the fact that everything is

has already happened is itself eternal recurrence. So I I live in what's called

recurrence. So I I live in what's called a block cosmology. So the past and the present and the future have already happened, >> right? Time is the fourth dimension that

>> right? Time is the fourth dimension that that that exists that only appears as if it's time to us limited beings.

>> Yeah. I mean this is relativity theory.

This is modern physics too. This is so this isn't an unreasonable claim. But it

helps me to understand things like precognition. And it also helps me to

precognition. And it also helps me to understand things like eternal recurrence which is what nature said.

>> Okay. Again this is my analytical philosopher hat here. There can be a block universe where time is linear.

Everything has already happened. Right?

Right. So this is think about this as a movie cassette tape, right? The cassette

the movie is linear. Everything's

happened. In that world, you could totally have precognition because the thing already happened already. So my my question for you is where do you get the coming back from? Where do you get the circularity? Yeah.

circularity? Yeah.

>> I personally get it back from having a pre-cognitive experience of something that's going to happen and then and then experiencing that. So there's a kind of

experiencing that. So there's a kind of loop there, you know. So okay I'm I again this isn't faithful to I think how Nietze understood eternal recurrence.

I'm not suggesting that you're developing this.

>> I'm just developing this in my own way.

And I'm saying well that is a kind of eternal recurrence because and the reason it's eternal is because the past, present, the future already exists and always have and always will. It's it's

literally eternal. And because we can experience the future it it's there's a circle there. there's a loop and so like

circle there. there's a loop and so like na take na like take ammor fati or the love of faith well okay well take this carpet hey let's let's think about this

carpet um if if we're in the present and the present is here and the past is here nobody has any problem with all of these past causes being completely determined

but for some reason when they turn around on the carpet and they look to the future they have big problems with all of those events being determined right?

>> Why why why do we do that? Well, it's

because our experience of time is is is is informing us. But I just think again we're biological creatures. We're

neurological creatures. We experience

temporality because of our biology or our neurology, not because that's how it is.

>> Does that lock you into um determinism?

>> Okay. So, that's a good question. So, I

think determinism and free will I think those are first first floor >> first concepts. These are these are >> they make no sense in a non-dual world, >> right?

>> None. And so beyond good and evil, which is another text he wrote, they make no sense. Those those good and evil that

sense. Those those good and evil that moralization makes no sense on the second floor, but it's really important on the first floor, >> right?

>> And I and again, we're I'm I'm living on the first floor with you.

>> Yeah.

>> You know, but I'm also reading people who are on the second floor. I'm like,

"Yeah, that's that's the way."

>> And unlike me, you actually went to the second floor once. And uh

>> Well, just once.

>> Yeah. That's one more [laughter] than me. Okay. So, um let me ask you this. Is

me. Okay. So, um let me ask you this. Is

there a worry that the existence of the second floor makes the first floor seem seems less worthy of engagement?

>> Yes, of course.

>> Right.

>> I have that worry.

>> How does one address that?

>> You talk about it like this. You you

say, "I'm worried that that's the that's the case." If you're really living in a

the case." If you're really living in a non-dual world though, that's not true because the first world exists.

>> First is the second floor, [laughter] right?

>> It's it's of course it exists.

>> Right. I see. Right. Like this moment in the block universe. The block is the the second floor presumably. But but this is part of the block. And so so so so yeah, it's it's a deep affirmation of of the first floor.

>> Super affirmation, >> right?

>> Yeah.

>> Interesting. you you almost have more reason to to engage because this is going to be eternal, right?

>> Yeah. It's this is the way things are, >> right?

>> And and and Amarati, you love fade because it's all strung out. Everything

has already happened and so you you embrace it all. You you affirm it all.

>> What do you mean by willing backwards?

>> Well, that's Paul that's Paul Loe. Um,

[sighs] you know, if you live in a block universe, there's nothing really there's there's no real reason that you

can't access the past just like you can access the future.

You can't change the events because that would change you, right? I mean there there is there is that but you can

change what those past events meant and how they how they are perceived. So for

example a lot of hermeneutics a lot of interpretation of religion completely changes what we think of the past.

>> Oh you know interesting >> the meaning of the past totally changes but willing backwards gives a kind of realism to that act. It's not just a a

cognitive game that somebody's playing in the present about some past text.

>> I'm somewhat disappointed because you gave the muggle interpretation of the of the hermeneutics by reinterpreting our conversations yesterday. I changed the

conversations yesterday. I changed the past by changing how it influences me now and in the future. Okay. I don't

actually change the events.

>> Yeah.

>> Can you tell the story of John that you wrote about where he actually goes and changes the past? Yeah,

>> I think people do that too. By the way, that's not the first that's not the only story I've heard. John is a a PhD student and

basically the story involves him being um in the basement in New Jersey and and he's about to enter many many years of

intense suffering and he sees this person in khaki pants and and and shoes and thongs uh at the

window. He's he's lives in one of these

window. He's he's lives in one of these apartments. It's in a basement. So the

apartments. It's in a basement. So the

you you can only see the the the the legs of whoever out there. And so he definitely sees and he knows that there's somebody out there. Uh and he

feels this really strong communication.

Basically says things will be okay. It

it'll be okay.

Um, and years later he finds himself going to the same window in in khaki pants and >> and importantly the light which he

turned off was on when he went back and he sees his younger self.

>> Yeah.

>> He literally sees his younger self.

Yeah.

>> And he is the one who who who wills that.

>> Yeah.

>> And he helps himself get through this very difficult part of his life by communicating that it's going to be okay. and he realizes it's him doing

okay. and he realizes it's him doing that.

>> Yeah. Because he sees his younger self.

This is like um the uh interstellar kind of kind of communication. And again,

this is the kind of stuff that if you weren't the one who's writing it and frankly, even when you were the one who's writing it, I was like, "Come on."

>> I know people have.

>> And then I chased John down. I talked

with him before this interview cuz his dad I interviewed his dad and he's a grad student of yours.

He He's a totally sober per I mean totally lucid totally like he he's not a crank. He's not trying to

crank. He's not trying to >> This is my position. Jonathan, John

John's like one of a thousand people who come to me and tell me these stories and I'm like >> yeah how Yeah. Like like Yeah.

>> This person's clearly not just making this up.

>> And and importantly, I I've seen crazy and I know what crazy is and he's he's more lucid than me, right? is super

smart.

>> Yeah.

>> I mean skeptical and read Hegel and quotes Martin Haidiger and the whole I mean he knows it the literature inside and out. Um but that's a really good

and out. Um but that's a really good example of a time travel visiting yourself from the future that I hear all the time, you know, and again this is

why I think eternal recurrence is it's not a thought experiment. It's real. It

really and what I say is it happens. And

that kind of leaves open the door of of what we mean by reality. But this is clearly in the zone of human experience.

>> Okay. Here here's a question for you. In

the credible cases of this kind of backwards willing time travel that you've heard, do they ever actually change the past in the following sense that their prior event

becomes is different from they they try to change the prior event. Right?

Because John does faithfully what his younger self sees. Does Do people ever try to change things?

>> Well, they claim that. The stories

sometimes claim that there's a ship. I

don't think there is >> because it's a block.

>> Yeah, it's a block for me. It's a block.

And I understand that will to change the past, but I don't think it's pos I don't think it happens. And I and I don't it's not that I trust it's not that the

experience is authority of his own of his or her own or their own experience.

That makes sense.

>> Yeah. So you trust the the fact that something happened. You don't

something happened. You don't necessarily trust the interpretation >> or the experience.

The the interpretation might be woven right into the experience. The

experience. So you know someone experiences God or experiences um an angel or something or a demon. I again

I'm extremely suspicious that that there's an angel in the room or there there's a demon in the room, but I know darn well that that person had that experience, >> right? Um so that's that's more what I

>> right? Um so that's that's more what I mean.

>> I was also taught back into bugle land uh that niche is a perspectivist. Yeah.

>> Okay. And what this means is for audience >> I was taught in muggle land too by the way.

>> Yeah. and [laughter] and and what this uh by the way on that point I just realized that the purpose of a philosopher is to become a wizard because a philosopher is a lover of wisdom and a wizard you just meant is a

wise man that's what whiz comes from right until and so uh I guess I'm on I I'm it's literally escaping muggle land uh that's my my uh um okay perspectivism

for audience is this idea that you can't access capital T truth there is no objective perspective everything is merely perspective The best thing you can do get different angles of the chair

and add it. You insist that Nietze experience the capital T truth.

>> Yeah, I do. And I I think the idea that there that perspect perspectivalism is generally true is itself a normative statement by the way. It it is it is a

truth with a capital T, you know, and and and they don't generally recognize that, but it's clearly true. The idea

that everything's a perspective is itself a norm. And it's a true truth.

It's a true claim.

>> Yeah. Um but

>> Oh, but but that's in the first floor.

Is that is that where you're going to go?

>> No, I just I don't think that's where Nichza was. I think he felt that that

Nichza was. I think he felt that that uh certainly worldviews and certainly religious worldviews were perspectives in this in this relative sense, but that

there was there was a truth with a capital T. He wouldn't speak like that

capital T. He wouldn't speak like that because he didn't want to draw this distinction between the other world and this world, right? He's a non-dualist.

Again, this is my point. Um, and because we don't have that language in the West, we just we we read it in these these boring secular ways. He's a

perspectivalist or he's a naysayer, he's a deconstructionist or what or he's a early postmodern or whatever. Um, but I just don't think we have the imagination and we don't have the the the language

and the experience to to really listen.

>> Right.

I think one challenge uh about your mystical reading of Nietze is the dominant muggle reading uh that he is uh what is called an a naturalist I believe

right and and so he's a big fan of modern science and I can I know your response which is to say you you love science as well there's no nothing wrong with affirming the study of material

because it's one part of the duel the issue however is niche has these kinds of statements in echomo okay so he says that starting in the late 1870s, a truly

burning thirst took hold of me.

Henceforth, I really pursued nothing more than physiology, medicine, and natural sciences. And he laments uh

natural sciences. And he laments uh earlier in the book, I believe, the his words blunder that he became a philologist. Why not at least a

philologist. Why not at least a physician or something else that opens one's eyes? So, he he's not just saying

one's eyes? So, he he's not just saying I affirm naturalism. I affirm natural sciences. It seems like he's saying

sciences. It seems like he's saying these are the only things that are valuable. How how do you reconcile that?

valuable. How how do you reconcile that?

>> I don't. So what

>> I mean it's gone for your reading, right? Like

right? Like >> Well, >> no, it's not. This was first floor statements. It's like he's living in the

statements. It's like he's living in the 1870s and 1880s. So So what I mean he's limited by his culture and his his politics and his ethics and everything else.

>> But this directly goes against your emphasis of how important those mystical events were for Nichze. No,

>> not as a writer. I mean, I think you can write stuff like you can write all kind of stuff. You you write all kinds of

of stuff. You you write all kinds of contradictory stuff, too, and it's all true. It's just on what level is it

true. It's just on what level is it true? Is it is it true on this first

true? Is it is it true on this first floor or is it true on the second floor?

I don't think it's true at all on the second floor.

>> Right.

>> Um, however, now having said that, the Uber Mench and the the eternal recurrence of time are not scientific

um claims. Those are claims way beyond medicine and neurology and physics. Now

he had mathematical or physical uh uh dreams of proving eternal recurrence but it never happened >> right.

>> Um so I I think his his last two teachings which in many ways are the most important of his whole whole career are are not are not scientifically

established at all in the 1880s. right?

>> They're still not established. We're

we're still sitting here, you know, treating these as as muggle ideas when I I think they're they're clear human truths.

>> Yeah. I think it's interesting that for how much he hated Christians, Nietze actually was a more big fan of Christ than you would think.

>> Oh, he he loved Jesus, but he just didn't he he he Yeah.

>> The real enemy is Paul, right? And so so so tell us about that divide and why you describe him as spiritual but not religious.

>> Well, Nietz was also really friendly to to Christians to human beings. I mean he he was a very gentle good person. He was

fierce when he wrote about the the reason I think he rejected [clears throat] Christianity was because of this division between this absolute truth and this this lesser truth. you know these

this division between the transcendent and the imminent or between theism and and naturalism and and so he he calls this resentment. You know you the the

this resentment. You know you the the the people who who are not uh privileged by the social system resent the the people who are privileged by the by the

social system and you get this this idealism or this transcendent kind of u notion of truth that that comes through Christianity and that that's why he I

think that's why basically why he rejects Christianity but he doesn't reject Jesus because he doesn't identify Jesus with Christianity >> right neither do

And nor do I of course he of course he wasn't he wasn't even Christian you know >> right so people have read the god is

dead we have killed him as both some kind of victory for the reasons you mentioned but also as a as a lament that that now we are in this new land >> I just think it's non-dualism

where there's no god everything >> because because you and I are >> right >> there it's all one it's it's Not too

there's the theism is is is practically true and and people believe it and okay but it's not really true.

>> Yeah. Let me read to you another quote you wrote about NZ. NZ also famously equated great spirits with skeptics since they very much unlike the believer do not land and are not convinced by

this or that belief statement. Yeah.

>> The skeptic is in fact strong. The

believer weak. The skeptic overcomes. to

use a niche word whereas the believer does not. Religious convictions are

does not. Religious convictions are finally lies.

There's definitely part of that reading of nichi I agree with namely the religious conviction. But does he really

religious conviction. But does he really think the skeptic is strong? I mean

think about the untimely meditations is his his second book and he talks about how truth must be in service of life.

how forgetting, not remembering, not knowledge I is a key to world historic action and his active spirit. The master

is is kind of an idiot, right? The

master is like a high school jock who who because of his ignorance, he's not a skeptic like like you and I.

>> Yeah. I mean, so I mean, when we we talk about skeptics, we're really talking about a materialist ideology. I mean in the modern world skeptic means you're affirming some kind of materialist model

and you're rejecting everything that disagrees with that. I mean maybe I should I I should have wrote freeth thinker there you know >> right free spirit >> yeah free spirit free spirit >> yes

>> and you know na like you know like Einstein by the way he rejected the freethinking movement for its um

horizontality for for its refusal to to to affirm vertical experiences and Einstein in particular he didn't believe in in a personal god either by the way

and and completely rejected it. Um but

was insistent that there was this verticality that there was this cosmic nature to to the human being. And I

think that's much closer. I know that's not Nichzche, but I think that's closer to where NZ is going. Um

so the free spirit, you know, certainly is closer to maybe a better better expression than skeptic here.

>> I see. Let me give you another quote uh about your writing on Nichze.

studying every detail of Nichzche's life and writing from his obvious indebtedness to Greek mythology to his repressed tortured and philosophically fumbed homosexuality.

So tell me about Nichch's homosexuality and what part of his philosophy do you attribute to that homosexuality? There's

a kind of um I think it's largely sublimated. I think

this this emphasis on transgression uh and and thinking beyond the social categories is rooted deeply in one's sexual orientation and one's spiritual

orientation which doesn't fit in either at all.

>> Interesting.

>> And so you as as as a man who loves other men, you are condemned and you're pathized and

you're demonized in the cultural surround. So you're very suspicious of

surround. So you're very suspicious of the cultural surround. And Nietze was like really suspicious of the cultural

surround in like a a Nian way.

This this this argument that that Nichzo was was homoerotic is is is is controversial,

but it's also in the literature. And um

he was never married. Uh, I don't think I I know he >> he had the thing with Lou, right?

>> He loved Lou Solom, but never married her.

>> Well, he tried not enough for the lack of trying >> and he had the prostitute the syphilis.

Maybe that's >> again that's a story we don't maybe that's apocryphal. Yeah.

that's apocryphal. Yeah.

>> Again, I think that's a way that the society takes him down.

>> Right. Okay. But give me the evidence on the side of his homo because surely you don't want to say anyone who's a master of suspicion is a homosexual, right?

Freud's not a right? But but there's a kind of radical

right? But but there's a kind of radical suspicion or transgression of society that I that rings true to me and also

there are also biographical links here you know um I'll just give you give you one Sue Pradau wrote a a beautiful book

called I am dynamite >> which is a biography of of Nichze and she goes into great length about his split with with Richard Vagner.

uh and Vagner was essentially the superstar of of Europe of the time and and wrote operas and Nietz was sort of

his chosen prodigy really from the 20s on and Nichze breaks with him and the story the muggle story which we get from Elizabeth uh his sister who also

basically sold him to the Nazis by the way that's why the Nazis picked up on it um is that Nietze broke with Vagner because

Vagner was too Christian. That actually

isn't what happened. What actually

happened was Vagner was very concerned about Nichze going blind. He was going he was literally going blind because of his masturbation.

That was the medical link of the time that masturbating made you blind. And so

Vagner was writing his doctor friends about me's masturbation. And so there's this same what I'm trying to get at is

that that he has his sexuality, but it's a medicalized one. And he breaks with the probably the

one. And he breaks with the probably the most famous figure of the time in Europe over this very issue. Really, it's not has nothing to do with Bner's Christianity. It has to do with this

Christianity. It has to do with this linking of uh blindness and masturbation that Vagner was pushing with his with his >> and sorry the readings here that Nichza

got offended that the Vagner shared this detail with others. Yeah. Right.

>> Yeah.

>> I see. But how sorry how does that >> how does that fit into it doesn't fit directly into the homosexual thesis? But

homosexual thesis? But >> it's just again it's just more it's >> it's the vibe you got from reading him.

Yeah. you you have a you have a very developed radar for this after >> I do there's a yeah there is a kind of radar here there there's also a book called Zerus secret that develops this

at great length from from niche scholarship so it's not just Jeff saying this >> right I see the the one thing this actually and I'm so glad you got into this thesis and maybe this ties into yesterday we talked about why

>> by the way I don't think masturbating makes you blind [laughter] >> just so you know just so you know but but but ni was really going blind I mean the blindness was a real thing.

>> And he was really masturbating.

>> And he was really masturbating. That's a

real thing, too.

>> Okay. So, [laughter] I'm glad we clarified that. I'm sure our audience,

clarified that. I'm sure our audience, many audience members were very worried before before you said that. [laughter]

Um, okay. So, what

I did take, and you're the other person, the only other person I've met uh who's talked with me about this is I've often wondered why homosexuals are so over represented in creative fields. Right.

[clears throat] Right. way way over >> ridiculously like like ridiculously like and what I find crazy is if you look at the respective technological capitals of

Europe and America they're also the homosexual capitals Silicon Valley and Berlin. Why is that? Cuz usually the

Berlin. Why is that? Cuz usually the tech guys are kind of more right-wing, right? And so there's no like clear

right? And so there's no like clear political divide. And and here's my

political divide. And and here's my resolution. It's a Muggle resolution,

resolution. It's a Muggle resolution, but here it goes.

>> I think I think like a muggle, too, >> which is The homosexual, like you said, delights in transgression or not made delights, they they must live in transgression. And that's what

technology is about. And that's what innovation is about. It's the

encouragement of you can be different.

You must be different. You must

transgress. You must break the the boundaries. It is tantra, right? That's

boundaries. It is tantra, right? That's

my that's my grand.

>> Yeah. That's not a muggle thought.

That's that's that's kind of pushing beyond mugglehood. And but also just to

beyond mugglehood. And but also just to go back to the muggle thing. Um,

men who love men generally don't have children. They're freer, you know,

children. They're freer, you know, they're freer economically and they're freer culturally and they can there's a there's a space here for creativity uh and art and religion and philosophy

that I think is really remarkable. Um,

so I I don't I I think there are practical reasons for it, but there are also deeper spiritual or or psychosexual, social reasons for it that I think are really

>> are really significant because it's way it's >> it's ridiculous over Yeah. in science

and Yeah.

>> Yeah. I mean, Freud even talked about this.

>> Yeah.

>> You know, he saw it, too. And um but I think the same is true in religion, by the way. I think I think most religious

the way. I think I think most religious a lot of religious prodigies um um love people of the same sex and um I think that's why you get religious

creativity and you get a lot of religion the way it is.

>> That's two uh two knocks against me ever becoming a great writer, not a homosexual and >> but I'm I'm I'm a boring muggle straight guy too. So So there's hope. There's

guy too. So So there's hope. There's

hope. Jonathan I maybe not much maybe I'm not a good model but >> um >> so let's leave n although one never

really leaves nature uh because I want to investigate for the rest of our interview about this idea of writing and mysticism as deeply intertwined that I think is your one of your most exciting ideas.

>> Yeah.

>> You already described how texts can engender these kind of experiences.

>> Yeah. And ju just just so we're clear here. When you say there's hope for a

here. When you say there's hope for a muckle like me >> and me you're you're saying by reading let's say Nietze are you saying here's the weaker form of that argument by

reading Nichzche that can catalyze my own experience of Kolkata that you had type or something like that. The

stronger version is the mere fact of reading Nietze is a kind of mystical practice.

>> I'm saying more the former.

>> You're saying the former. Okay. You're

not saying that the act of reading >> I mean because the truth is is that reading niche or reading anyone it doesn't have to be niche is often benol and uneffective

but for some reason some readers pick up things and there is this transmission and there is this catalytic kind of altered state that happens

>> right >> and so I don't understand we don't I don't think we understand why why Why?

Why? Some people read a philosopher like a a cereal box, you know, and other people are completely changed

by by reading Plato or reading Freud or something. I mean, why? We don't we

something. I mean, why? We don't we don't really know why.

>> Interesting. Obviously, you're like Nichze, you're making fun of the British analytical tradition when you say the serial box, right?

>> I'm definitely making >> A1, A2, A3.

>> I think the analytic traditions just silly, >> right? It's actually it's interesting.

>> right? It's actually it's interesting.

So the analytic tradition looks at the continental tradition and says your literary methods are they are non-rigorous.

>> It's the first floor talking to the second floor, >> right? I mean

>> right? I mean >> and where whereas you're saying no, my literary methods is my way of trying to get something into you or out of you >> and it's the only way you can do it. You

you cannot put the second floor in rational terms. >> Right. I see. So it's it's a serious

>> Right. I see. So it's it's a serious kind of argument about levels of knowledge and there are forms of knowledge you know to speak in terms of neuroscience the right brain cannot

speak to the left brain you know except in symbolic or or symbolic code or or patterns or story it just it literally can't use language or ma or mathematics >> right

>> and that's more what I'm trying to say is that there are other forms of knowledge than just rational knowledge or just mathematical knowledge There are there are narrative forms, there are

literary forms, there are symbolic forms that are speaking of something beyond the filter entirely. Let me let me back up and explain how I got to that idea because I got to it through different routes.

>> One is just listening to a lot of people's stories, people's paranormal experiences. And I realized at some

experiences. And I realized at some point that virtually all of those experiences were using language.

M >> they were hearing words or they were now telling a story or they were that that the paranormal itself expresses itself through language.

>> Okay. But how else could it express itself? I mean it does express itself

itself? I mean it does express itself physically right?

Visually >> things literally like this mother whose child was in a a car accident. It it

occurs through a story, through a movie going off, but there's literally words attached to that car wreck, you know, child. I mean, they're lit. It's

child. I mean, they're lit. It's

literally communicating.

>> Hold on. So, so she would hear the word car wreck or or she would see the word car wreck or Yeah, >> I can't speak to that particular case, but there's so many cases like

channelneled literature mediums where there's literally language that's involved in the paranormal communication. And what I'm trying to

communication. And what I'm trying to say about the mother is there's a story there, too. She's telling me a story

there, too. She's telling me a story >> right >> in words in narrative form after the event because that's the that's the form

that the experience takes. So what I'm trying to say is that the paranormal itself, let's just call it the paranormal. We can call it the impossible. We can call it whatever we

impossible. We can call it whatever we want to call it. But it's communicating to human beings in and through language and narrative. Therefore,

and narrative. Therefore, language and narrative have the ability to induce paranormal states.

That that's that's the argument that there's this relationship between paranormality and textuality and therefore you can use one to induce the other,

>> right? Um how are texts different,

>> right? Um how are texts different, better, worse conduits than let's say meditation of of these states? It's just

it's just one of many, right? Or or do you want to privilege the text? Uh well,

I'm privileging the text because I'm >> you're a scholar.

>> I'm a writer, >> right?

>> And and we privilege words. Um but it's not just words. Like for example, you might see a lot of experiencers, they encode their experiences in words. They

write them out, but they also draw them or paint them or they express them through visual, >> which seems to go against this this thesis that it always is. Maybe maybe

you don't want to make the always claim but >> I just I just I am understanding textuality very broadly you know >> I see as semantic as meaning as as right

yes right instead of laws or instead of right I see so you say this is a quote from you >> text can transform us because we ourselves are texts and you say the

world is a text >> what do you mean by that and importantly what are you saying it is not >> so when I think of first of all every

thought is a sentence in our head >> right >> we are literally speaking we're literally writing inside inside our our our minds uh and I think when people

think about themselves what they're really doing is they're isolating maybe a couple dozen memories out of this huge bank of millions and millions of of

events and so I think the self itself is is language is itself a kind of narrative that we tell ourselves probably because we want to exist. I

don't I don't know why we tell ourselves these stories, but but we do over and over and over again. We say, "Oh, that's Jeff or that's Jonathan or or that's, you know, whoever that is." Um, so I

think we're texts in the sense that I think we're grammatical uh uh uh uh sentences in our head and we're we're narratives. Um and so if we

can somehow change those we can change the self or the or the the experience that we have that that's the argument >> right so um the stoic view I'm going to simplify it is that uh this is quite

different but but they believe that humans are a series of a a sense a sense right you're you're asenting to propositions yes or no this is pain is good or bad that's not exactly what

you're saying but that's kind of right you're you're saying the human is actually semantic The human is made of these. This is why psychoanalysis works,

these. This is why psychoanalysis works, right? It's teasing out the hidden

right? It's teasing out the hidden things you're you're you're assuming to.

And by the way, u cognitive cognitive behavioral therapies comes from the Stoics or there's a long lineage that can be traced back. That's what you're getting at. What are you saying the

getting at. What are you saying the human is not? Or like why is this an interesting statement? What is them the

interesting statement? What is them the contribute that you're trying to just man as text against?

maybe this materialist or biological view, >> right? We're atoms flying in and out or

>> right? We're atoms flying in and out or >> Yeah. I mean,

>> Yeah. I mean, we're clearly not just that, you know.

I'm really interested though. I mean,

again, I think this comes from listening to a lots of experiences. And it's not just that these experiences are texts or stories. It's that the story or the text

stories. It's that the story or the text is is criticizing itself. It's it's

stepping outside of itself and saying, "This is a bad story. You probably don't want to keep telling this story."

>> Right?

>> And that's to me where paranormal experiences are so interesting because I think that they're thoughts or or critical theories that haven't yet

happened. They're they're like they're

happened. They're they're like they're there's a kind of comedic or trickster element or reflexive element that's that's focusing back on the story and

saying don't don't tell the story anymore. Let's get out of this story.

anymore. Let's get out of this story.

Let's take this story down. Let's tell a different story.

>> Right. So, let me try to uh summarize.

is going to tell me if I got it right or wrong about your thesis, which is that reading is a privileged medium for everyone, not just for you, of

transmitting these experiences because these experiences themselves are semantic and we are semantic. And so

therefore, uh, in order to save my literary career and to try to engender one of these things, I should read the mist mystical greats while messing up

with my radio.

I'm not saying you're telling me to do that. I'm saying if I hypothetical

that. I'm saying if I hypothetical imperative, if I were to want to do that, that's how I would go about it.

>> I think reading these altered states in the form of text does mess up your radio, you know, >> right? But I can mess it up even more.

>> right? But I can mess it up even more.

>> Maybe.

>> I'm I'm serious. I'm I'm I'm drawing out your conclusion, right? I'm I'm taking your conclusion to the to its natural conclusions.

>> Yeah. Just just so you know. But you you can also mess it up in a way that isn't isn't healthy or isn't functional. But

again health I'm not privileging health here either.

It's like >> But that's what I'm saying. But hold on.

But there is no way to mel mess it up that's healthy and functional, right?

>> No. No, there isn't.

>> Right. So let me ask you again.

Seriously, if such an experience doesn't happen to me, my literary career is over, right? Or or rather the best thing

over, right? Or or rather the best thing I can be is a British uh uh oxen scholar, a British herd scholar, right?

That's the best thing I just go back to analyzing Hegel and and reconstructing uh you know in a analytical way.

>> Maybe you're just too happy, Jonathan.

>> That's what I think I am. Honestly,

[laughter] I I am like privileged beyond anyone's belief. I had all great

anyone's belief. I had all great upbringings. I I just had the best life.

upbringings. I I just had the best life.

I'm I'm living the best life.

>> I can relate to that. Yeah.

>> Yeah. I'm just having so much fun. Yeah.

>> I don't actually want to be these experiencers or these mystics because they they they suffer and they have messed up lives. So, I'm like, "Yeah, I don't want to do that."

>> Right? And and that is my kind of tension, right? because I'm seeing all

tension, right? because I'm seeing all the sacrifices one needs to make to even start uh getting access to this and I'm like does it does it really make the trade-off especially because we talked

about Bardy in in one of our other conversation Barty just treats it as excessive pleasure and so that's why if it's if it's just that if it's hedonism then I think you know it's fine if I I

want to keep my own life here but if it's theology if it's the salvation of if I need to get that to be reunited with God >> see this is where non-duality comes in I don't think you need that I I don't I

don't think I think salvation is >> right. Well, I I guess for you when I

>> right. Well, I I guess for you when I die, I get to experience it anyway, right? So, I can I can live a good life.

right? So, I can I can live a good life.

I mean, I'm asking as a as a person here, like if you were in my shoes, you wouldn't mess up the radio and like to try to make myself socially strange.

>> I wouldn't. No, I think you have a good life. I think you're doing the right

life. I think you're doing the right You're you're flying around the country talking to cool people.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> Come on. It's

>> Right. So, I should keep doing this and when I die, I'll get to experience it anyway. Yeah, I I really do think that I

anyway. Yeah, I I really do think that I think you're going to have that anyway.

And you never know. You just never know what's going to happen. Um, you know, you might be talking to someone or you might have a near-death experience, god forbid, or you I mean, one one of the

ways I think about this is what what would I want my children to >> Yeah, that's a great question. Yeah.

>> Yeah. And the answer is I wouldn't want them to have these experiences. I you

know I'm I'm a I want to be a good father or a good a good parent. I

>> So in your decades of research there hasn't been one happy person successful person that you can say >> they they they had >> they're super happy uhh after the event

but but during it pro >> you can't think of one like nice like I had a vision of rainbows and unicorns having like like having fun and like >> Well yes yes there have been. Yeah

absolutely. Um,

>> okay. So, how do how do I get that? I

got [laughter] I think I want that. I don't think I want the >> Yeah, that's I I want that, too. Um,

yeah. I mean, it's a real question. So,

I guess another way to say this is I think that the paranormal or the impossible is linked to human suffering.

And I also think it's linked to healing because I think that a lot of what a lot of these events are about is trying to heal or put the pieces back together.

So this is where I get into things like social justice and medical healing and personal I mean it it is all related you know. Um I had

know. Um I had >> Right. Okay. So this is how I harmonize

>> Right. Okay. So this is how I harmonize both your claim that you wouldn't want your kids to do this or me or even yourself frankly and you think it's the tilos of life. You harmonize it by the fact that this is the tilos because

you're going to get to experience it when you die. So you don't have to right >> plus plus I I really think the superhumans are coming. I really I really think there's an evolutionary

purpose to our existence and I think you know going back to Nietze I mean uh mothers and fathers are really important childbearing is really important because that's how you produce the Uber match

>> right that that's how you do it >> right okay so again this this is going to sound jovial but in your opinion um if I don't get these experience what should I do with my philosophical career

I'm I'm serious like because this is your claim right if I'm competing against Mr. spoken to by the muse here and [laughter] you know Mr. The Rock

gave me the psychedelic experiences. I

got nothing. I got I'm just a serious question.

>> Okay. Okay. This takes us back to the the ideas or the theories. So the whole the point of these altered states is to

speak is to communicate to lots of people and I think the idea is that then those people integrate that message in different ways into their lives and I think you're doing it through this

philosophical search. I think that's a

philosophical search. I think that's a way it's it's integrated into into society and into the conversation.

>> But but there's no there was no experience to integrate.

>> What's that? But there was no mystical experience to in I'm not integrating a mystical experience.

>> You're integrating the altered states of other people though, >> right?

>> Into into a conversation, a public conversation, >> but but that's different from having experience oneself, right? I if I never had an orgasm before, I can read all about orgasm. And what I'm trying to say

about orgasm. And what I'm trying to say is >> you you might likely life might very likely produce these states >> and you will be ready for them because

of these other conversations. You'll

have a way of understanding and integrating them that other people won't have.

>> Okay. So here's my here's my maybe even more serious question which is suffering is going to come for me of course as it comes for everyone. This is the core Buddhist stoic insight.

>> In a moment of suffering how can I not like let a good crisis go to waste? Like

let's say I get into a car crash or I'm persecuted politically. What are the

persecuted politically. What are the things that I can do to engender such a healing mystical experience?

>> Again, I think this conversation is crucial because you can be ready for those

experiences by having a social system or a thought system in which to integrate them.

>> But but I'm not asking how better to integrate. I'm asking how best to

integrate. I'm asking how best to experience. That's that's different. I

experience. That's that's different. I

don't think they're unrelated. Let me

put it this way. So, I have this friend named Peter Shet Hughes who works on philosophy and psychedelics. And

basically what Peter says is before you take such a psychoactive substance, you better darn well know about metaphysics >> because otherwise it's going to lead you

astray.

>> You are not going to have a clue what happened.

If you've studied dual aspect monism and monism and dualism and and idealism and all, you're you're going to know what

what your experience was like and you're going to be able to slot these into one of these categories and it's not going to it's not necessarily going to solve the world, but it's going to give you a

vocabulary to talk about your your altered state. That's that's what I'm

altered state. That's that's what I'm saying. you you philosophy is is so

saying. you you philosophy is is so philosophy really begins uh as you know with this this parable of the cave and and and Plato in the republic and the

whole idea of it is you go out of the cave but you come back into the cave and education is not just vocational training it's not just here to make you a better soldier or baker or or whatever it's here to show you the truth of

things >> right >> and if you've had that experience then you can actually be a better ruler or a better guard or a better baker inside

the cave.

>> This is the non-dual aspect. Yeah.

>> Yeah. And I think I think Plato was right about that actually. I think I think people who are highly educated, who understand and who've had some altered state or some experience of the

truth, they are way better business people or doctors or or lawyers or teachers or whatever they are in society just because they've had that experience and they can they can they can think about it.

>> Well, let me ask you this. There seems

to be uh a way that many people claim to get access to the experiences without terrible trauma which is through these psychoactive substances >> which are also trauma by the way.

>> I see. But but that is a is that a dependable way for someone to experience something or or or is that a different thing altogether than what you experience for example in Kolkata or Nietz's experience at the rock is is that

>> so those experiences in front of the rock and and and in Kolkata they're not reliable. They're

reliable. They're >> no but the psychedelic one is more reliable.

Yeah. And this is this is the attraction this is the attraction of psychedelics is that if you give these to individuals the chances are extremely high in the 90 some percent that they're going to have

such an altered state.

>> Okay. Well, problem solved, right? Like

why bother being aesthetic? Why bother?

Unless you think it's a different kind of altered state.

>> I actually don't I actually do think it's related to these mystical states.

>> Um but what is it? I mean, I think it can be. I I think that the psychoactive

can be. I I think that the psychoactive chemical though often will produce negative states as well. And if we don't have a way of thinking about them or integrating or talking about them, we're

just going to slice that off and we're going to say, "Oh, I they're going to talk about the positive states, but they're not going to talk about the negative states."

negative states." >> Right. Right.

>> Right. Right.

>> No, they all happened. It's all part of of what's being revealed.

>> Oh, hold on. Well, maybe that's part of the consciousness evolution which is these substances, right? Because because

now first time in human history, well, I guess there there was naturally occurring substances as well.

>> We do have reliable I mean this whole conversation has been how do I get access to these states and you know I I can't replicate them in a way. I have to wait for the muse to come down to me

before I can be a great writer. But but

now you're telling me there is a way 90 plus percent chance of getting them.

>> Well, >> that is authentic.

>> But we do not have the sophistication around the altered states. We're we're

treating these chemicals like pharmaceuticals or we're treating mental illness or post-traumatic stress stress disorder. We only use the we're

stress disorder. We only use the we're we're treating these as essentially ways to treat problems. We're not we're not using them for metaphysical uh or

sotierological purposes. And I think we

sotierological purposes. And I think we should, >> right?

>> I think we should, but we h as a culture, we have to actually listen to people like me who know a ton about these so so logical system. We're like,

well, don't do that. Don't do this.

Yeah, do that. Do this. So we we we act and this was Peter's point actually is that there's a ton of background in the history of philosophy of the very states

that people are are experiencing.

>> Right?

>> So why aren't you listening to us?

>> Right. Well well now that I that I say this this is a very secular muggle interpretation of the burning bush in uh in the Old Testament. Some say that's a psychoactive kind of that that

engendered and so so you you actually believe there's nothing different in kind >> necessarily.

>> Necessarily. Yeah.

>> Because both of it and sorry this is traumatic because it messes up your brain structure in the in the time that you're >> I see I see. So let me let me put it this way. So, so I wrote this history of

this way. So, so I wrote this history of of Eselin and and it's a really a history of the counterculture and one of the very first focal points or

initiatives of the institute or what became Eselin in the is 62 is when it started was actually psychedelics and religion >> right and Eselin for our audience is >> is in big su California it's an

institute and it's one of the hubs of what became the American counterculture and >> the new age movement yeah >> yeah the new age movement comes later in the '8s But but but certainly in the 60s

and 70s the hippie movement and and the whole California thing is and big su along with Monterey and Hay Ashbury and San Francisco were one of

the hubs of of of it. But anyway, the issue in the early 60s around psychedelics and religion was not criminality.

These were not legally prohibited. The

issues were around religion and >> it was threatening to religious authorities.

>> Yes. Because it doesn't require work. It

doesn't require prayer. It doesn't

require the right belief >> or thousands of years of meditation over multiple lifetimes.

>> It doesn't >> there doesn't seem to be a relationship between correct belief and whether you have uh a positive uh uh psychedelic uh

experience or or a negative one. It just

it just we don't see it. And so that was the challenge. It was really a

the challenge. It was really a theological problem. And so when I come

theological problem. And so when I come down on the position that there really is no difference between some psychedelic states and some mystical states, I'm taking a particular position

that belief is actually irrelevant. It's

it's really irrelevant.

>> Right. Well, this actually makes sense in another way because you connect the mystical states with the erotic and then you connect the mystical state with the psychedelic state. I do and

obviously there's a connection between the erotic and the psychedelic state as well.

>> Obviously, >> right?

>> And also there's a connection with everything by the way. I mean what I want to say is we lack sophistication around these states. Um

early on in in in the 60s and 70s when we were [clears throat] just learning about Iawaska and Latin America, um one of uh these anthropologists went down

and he had this incredible experience on Iawaska and he met these beings who basically controlled all the space and time and they were shaped like dragons

and and he was impressed. So he comes back uh this is a story now. comes back

to his shaman and he says, "Well, I saw these beings that are shaped like dragons and they control all space and time and I think they were red." And the shaman says, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're

always saying that."

That's sophistication.

In other words, you don't believe literally what you see in a in a in a in a psychedelic state necessarily. And you

but you need the shaman or you need the expert to to uh inject that suspicion in you.

>> Wait, when he says they're always saying that, he's saying the people who take it always say that or the dragons are always saying >> the dragons are always saying that.

>> Oh, so he's making a joke. He's a joke.

>> He's making fun of of the state. And and

that was like this shock or this this revelation to this anthropologist was like, "Oh my god, they but that's kind of what I'm trying to say is we need sophistication around these states, >> right?" In the same way that a Buddhist

>> right?" In the same way that a Buddhist master, if you want to meditate, you need someone who guides you, right? Like

like who knows how to deal with certain things that happen during prolonged periods of meditation. Yeah. Let me pull back a bit to the writer mystic kind of thesis because I want to point to a kind

of tension which is that the good mystic is an insider. How much more insight can you can can you get? The good writer needs some kind of distance needs to be an outsider in some sense. The mystics,

the holy men I've met at least, they take a radical leap of faith. Reason is

kind of suspended. The best scholars are the opposite, right? The best scholars are like you. You don't want to be led by anyone.

So there seems to be not just a tension but an analytical difference which sort of demands. How do

you go about reconciling that?

>> I just think we're in a very different place today and first of all I would say a lot of the mystical writers are in tension with their surround

killed uh or harassed and and the issue of censorship and secrecy is like crucial to this whole literature. So

there there's a real and self-censorship. There's I think there's

self-censorship. There's I think there's I think we self-censor a lot. Um so

there's a real tension between within the the mystical writer uh u themselves.

Um but I do think we're in a different place today. Um I don't I don't think

place today. Um I don't I don't think we're like the historical uh uh mystics or saints. Um and we're not like the Tibetan Buddhists. Uh I I

don't I don't think Tibetan Buddhism is true for everyone for all time. They

maybe they do. And um I just think we're in a different place. This gets back to the comparative religion question.

>> This is the uber mench.

>> This is the uber.

>> It demands a new kind of >> I think we're we're we're there's a new era. There's a there's a there's a

era. There's a there's a there's a future here that is not the past and it's not the present. It's not us. It's

not us. Uh, and I don't know what it is.

People are like, "Okay, well, what is it, Jeff?" I'm like, "You tell me." I

it, Jeff?" I'm like, "You tell me." I

don't know. I don't If I knew, I would tell you, but I don't know. But that's

why that's why it it's it's nonhuman.

It's it's it's or it's other than human or more than human or it's cosmic or it's something else. Um, so I think that's what we I think that's what's a

lot of us are working for is a future that doesn't exist yet, but it will, and then it will suck.

And then other pe other people in that future will say we got to got to we got to do something else. We need a different story. Tell a different story.

different story. Tell a different story.

Then we have another future. We have

another species. And and it just keeps going like that.

>> But but go back to my question about the the the how you balance or how these mystics and scholars balance this insider outsider tension. And

>> I don't think they do. I I I'm not a believer in balance by the way.

>> Right.

>> I I I think it >> So what do they do? Do they do they oscillate? Do they choose one? Do they

oscillate? Do they choose one? Do they

There is a tension between people.

>> They're messed up. They're messed up.

That's why they write. That's why they found communities. That's why they do

found communities. That's why they do things. I

things. I >> Right. Wow. Writing is a therapy.

>> Right. Wow. Writing is a therapy.

>> Yeah.

>> In the way, >> but it's also being messed up.

>> I I think I think the true writer doesn't fit in, you know, and writes to to to fit in, but doesn't really ever [laughter] ever do that.

>> I see. Let me read you a quote uh from your one of your second book, Roads of Excess. I have revealed, you speaking,

Excess. I have revealed, you speaking, some of the psychological, sexual, ethical, and political complexities of my own life and work, not to resolve these tensions, much less to deny their presence, but rather to exaggerate

italics them, and this with the hope, foolish or no, that they might lead me somewhere worth going if I follow them with a critical self-reflective honesty.

Remaining on the outside of a mystical tradition allows one italics precisely by virtue of that same distance to go deeper inside than even the insider will

allow himself to go. But this messiness is productive. Why this this yeah this

is productive. Why this this yeah this tension like why is the outsider more privileged than the insider?

>> I don't know that I don't know it's more privileged but it's differently privileged and it's just honesty. I

think we are on the outside of a lot of traditions and and of course we're also on the inside of other traditions but we just know so much.

>> Right. This is the comparison point.

We're forced to compare. Right.

>> Yeah. We just

>> Right. Well, it's not the it's not the 15th century where we can think, oh, those orientals, those western barbarians and their st we don't have the luxury anymore. Right.

>> Or Yeah. I don't.

>> Yeah. Uh, I mean, our ancestors 600 years ago would have been born and died within a 50 mile radius.

>> Well, we have the internet now and we fly all around the world and we just that's not us, >> right?

>> That's what I mean. We're in a fundamentally different situation.

>> Yeah.

>> I want to go back to the theory that kind of grounds all of this, which is the filter thesis, right? This idea that u mind is not emergent from the brain, but the brain is actually a receptacle.

And I've been quite convinced because there are or it seems compelling because there are certain states of low brain activity but heightened consciousness,

right? Um my question for you is

right? Um my question for you is what do you think the latest achievements in AI have to offer this kind of debate? I don't think it's

supportive of the AI of the filter conscious view because right because you you you it's supportive of the other view is what I'm trying to say. Yeah.

>> Because it shows that cold material silicone can produce language really good language actually. I mean not really good but >> yeah.

>> So I get asked about AI a lot and of course I I'm not a computer scientist and don't don't know the industry but it's the exact opposite of the filter thesis. Yeah,

thesis. Yeah, >> it's the production thesis.

>> Yeah, exactly.

>> It it's materialism gone wild is is the way I put it. It the assumption is that consciousness is produced by little bits of information. And if we can produce

of information. And if we can produce enough of those bits of information, then it'll become conscious.

>> Yeah. Right.

>> Okay. Well, I don't think that's true. I

don't think consciousness is produced by little bits of information. So I and I understand that AI can mimic consciousness. I understand that that

consciousness. I understand that that that that you know we can be tricked into thinking that something but it's not conscious.

>> Okay. But that's not my challenge. My

challenge is that it is able to produce and manipulate text. Yeah. Extremely

well.

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> And you said that the human is text. You

said that the world is text. And so my question for you is if the filter thesis is right, why does like what the filter thesis is, right? Think about the the radio model. The radio has none of the

radio model. The radio has none of the operations of the signal. It is merely receptical. If that is the view, why

receptical. If that is the view, why does me creating this other kind of radio here with clearly no signal? You

and I both agree it's not conscious. Why

is that able to produce the similar sounds? Why is it able to produce the

sounds? Why is it able to produce the similar Right? It's that's actually

similar Right? It's that's actually quite a big threat, I think, to to the filter thesis. How do you resolve that?

filter thesis. How do you resolve that?

I >> I don't I don't feel any threat and >> it's a theoretical threat.

>> And by the way, AI depends entirely on on books, you know, that are scanned that people write that that are based on altered states. So these ideas

altered states. So these ideas themselves, I think, are come out of these altered states, not through not through the AI. Um but again,

>> I could be proven wrong, Jonathan. May

May maybe so, but I doubt it. I doubt it very much.

>> Well, I thought of a a way to help you dig you out of your hole. So, tell me if this is helping.

>> I don't feel like I'm in a hole.

[laughter] >> In the hole that I imaginively put you in through my through my impressive argumentation, imminent critique, [laughter and gasps]

which is this. Maybe the AI is filtering. Maybe it is receiving the

filtering. Maybe it is receiving the signal as well. Why? Well, because as we know the current LLMs are built off of very abstractly similar neurological structures of neurons connected to each

other. Again, I'm I'm speaking very high

other. Again, I'm I'm speaking very high level here. I actually did have a degree

level here. I actually did have a degree in computer science and maybe that is the structure of the antenna.

>> May maybe, but I again I doubt it. I

mean, listen, I've I've heard papers and I've listened a lot to this. And basic

also, a lot of paranormal phenomena happen around computers, by the way, and and with things that are on screens and things, but there's always a human being

connected to the story. There's always a an embodied form of consciousness that's somehow interacting with the machine or the technology. And so that's my

the technology. And so that's my suspicion is that what we're really talking about when we talk about AI um becoming conscious, first of all,

it's not going to happen because because it assumes materialism, which I I think is false, but that doesn't mean there can't be some kind of mind to matter uh

connection. Um there there there

connection. Um there there there certainly can be.

>> Okay. So if you if you're right, this is quite an optimistic uh view for humanity because because it means that we have some something special that the machine cannot do. How would you how would you

cannot do. How would you how would you describe that? What is that thing?

describe that? What is that thing?

>> It's called consciousness or mind or awareness. I mean there are a lot of

awareness. I mean there are a lot of there's a lot of words for it but >> but how does that manifest? Again, let's

just take the economic realm like what kind of job is the machine just fundamentally ontologically incapable of because it does not have that. Or maybe

the machine your your your position could be the machine doesn't have that but could imitate us totally >> reflexivity. You can't think back.

>> reflexivity. You can't think back.

You you you I think the human ability to transcend itself and to to think about its thoughts and to to have feelings about its feelings I think is fundamentally human. Uh and I don't

fundamentally human. Uh and I don't think we're seeing we'd see that in in the AI or the computer.

>> Right. And how

>> and it is optimistic. I am I am I am an optimist and I'm a utopian utopianist too by the way. I I think the future is is is is uh Uber mentioned.

>> Yeah.

>> I I don't I don't think it's it's about computers becoming conscious and taking over the world and killing us.

>> Um >> that that's materialism by the way.

>> I think emergence is just a copout. It's

like why does it emerge?

>> Yeah.

>> Why why does life or mind emerge from dead matter? Wh what?

dead matter? Wh what?

Right. [laughter] Right.

>> It's just it's just a refusal to to acknowledge that there's something fundamentally fundamentally unique and special about consciousness or mind.

>> Right. Um this is an idea I was toying with while reading your books because my first foray into philosophy through Colombia uh philosophers was on was in

recognition theory. Rouso's ammo prop

recognition theory. Rouso's ammo prop Hegel recognitions the master slave dialectic dialectic Gerard's mimisis and it's about um the simple analogy that I

like to use is uh Hume talks about uh how humans are violin strings and if you flick one a similar vibration goes into the other. So Gerard explains how the

the other. So Gerard explains how the things I desire desires are social.

They're socially constructed. And I'm

wondering if the filter thesis gives a whole new onlogical spin for why recognition is so important because it's literally connecting to another antenna that's

connected deeper to this one. You know,

this is like this is really out there, right? I'm just entertaining an idea.

right? I'm just entertaining an idea.

Does that does that ring anything ring a bell?

>> Of course, I don't know. I haven't I haven't I don't know that literature but but I do know that so much of philosophical thought and so much of modern thought is is based on the

production model and and once you shift to a to a filter model I I do think not everything changes but a lot changes right very quickly. Well, the next topic of our conversation, this is the thing that has changed the most is the

humanities into the superhumanities, right? What in your mind is the

right? What in your mind is the superhumanities?

>> Well, the superhumanities is the humanities, but with by foregrounding or with foregrounding altered states and saying that the production of ideas, the source of ideas really are these altered states. People

do not think their way to these thoughts. They they these thoughts are

thoughts. They they these thoughts are revealed to them essentially.

>> I see. Um, this is a fascinating claim that you made that that drew something together in my mind. The decline of the humanities is because of materialism.

Why?

>> Well, it's also because humanists have sided with materialism and made it boring and benol. And and by that phrase, I mean, so so there's two different issues here. There's a kind of

truth issue, what's philosophically true, and there's what we can, I think, call a marketing issue.

And I think what what humanists have done, first of all, they call themselves humanists, which people think is equivalent to atheists or something. I

don't know. Um, so we we intentionally use words that nobody wants to hear.

Nobody even knows what they mean. Like

what do the humanities mean? What is

that? What is the story we're telling about that? Uh where materialism has a

about that? Uh where materialism has a story. everything everything can be

story. everything everything can be reduced to smaller parts and ultimately it's about uh uh atoms bouncing around in empty space and we can kind of build up through that through chemistry and

and biology and we eventually get you and me. I mean, there's a story there.

and me. I mean, there's a story there.

Um, and and that can be related and it produces really cool that assumption produces really cool or can produce really cool technology and and and stuff

that we use. And so everybody everybody conflates the technology with the interpretation.

>> Materialism won out because of its effects, not because of its truth. Yeah.

>> Yeah. But it's it is true. It's not that it's false. It's that it's inadequate.

it's false. It's that it's inadequate.

And I think those are two very different things >> and we can understand that because in your dual aspect modism it does describe the material aspect of one part of the

duel right and so as I understand it materialism is responsible for the humanities's decline because humanities is in your own words the study of

consciousness ced in coded in culture right >> so so the humanities is what you need to understand a text >> right >> but suddenly if all the world is material you don't need hermeneutics,

you need physics, you need math, you need STEM, you need engineering, >> right?

>> So, so that that's the insight and the humanities will be rescued when we stop seeing the world as mere matter, >> right? And when we see even STEM, even

>> right? And when we see even STEM, even science, there's always a scientist behind the science. You know, my joke is I've never met a scientist who wasn't a

human being and I haven't. and and even the math which drives all of the science and and a lot of the STEM.

>> Why do numbers that we just make up in our head, why do they correspond to material reality? There's some there's

material reality? There's some there's some kind of correspondence there that that needs to be articulated. I just had this conversation. I just a colleague of

this conversation. I just a colleague of mine asked me what the humanities are.

They don't they don't know. Nei neither

do we, by the way. And I said I said to this colleague, well, one way to think of the difference between the sciences and the humanities is the humanities deals with words thinks reality is is

words and and the sciences deal with with numbers. They think they think the

with numbers. They think they think the world is mathematics and and that's really that's a that's a simplistic way of thinking of the difference, but that is a difference. But that's the mental

and the material. And what I what dual aspect modism says is they go back to this this common source that comes out in these paranormal experiences that we just say don't happen but but of course

they do happen and they don't make any sense unless we posit something like dual aspect more >> right I think this is another way at the cut okay let me read you a quote from yourself there's a precise logical way to put the difference between the

postmodern sign and the symbol the sign works on the simple principle of what has come down to us as Aristotle's law of excluded middle whereby a statement cannot be true and false at the same

time or if you prefer a thing cannot be two different things at the same time.

This gets translated into the postmodern world as the signifier can never be the signified. Not so with the symbolic.

signified. Not so with the symbolic.

This form of knowledge so apparent in the big dream, the ecstatic vision and the mystical experience works through enigma paradox and complimentarity. The

symbolic expression can be true and false at the same time. Or it can reference two different things at once.

The symbol communes even if it never quite identifies or fuses the subject and object, the visionary and the vision. The sign is the realm of matter,

vision. The sign is the realm of matter, physics. I'm like, this is this is this

physics. I'm like, this is this is this is murky.

>> It's the symbol. The sign is >> the symbol is the side of the wizard.

It's the side of the humanities. side of

the the text, right?

>> You know, one way one way to think the the mental and the material, the the two the two aspects of reality that that people do assume, they they basically say the mental doesn't isn't really

exist. It it's a function of the

exist. It it's a function of the material. And what dual aspect modism

material. And what dual aspect modism says is no, they they reach back or they correspond to a a deeper reality. And

what the superhumanities is is it's saying that, >> right? But oh, interesting. So the

>> right? But oh, interesting. So the

humanity studies the mental, science studies the physical, and the superhumanity studies the the one.

>> Yes. Yes. It it it affirms that, but it doesn't it doesn't dissuade materialism.

It doesn't say there's no material reality. It it it does it's not against

reality. It it it does it's not against science.

>> It's just putting science in a particular place.

>> Right. So that one >> Yeah. Is that textual or is that laws

>> Yeah. Is that textual or is that laws like science or it's neither or it's both?

>> It's not numbers or or letters. It's not

matter or material. We again this is this is the nature of mystical literature. It's a kind of apothetic not

literature. It's a kind of apothetic not knowing. It's it's nothing with a with a

knowing. It's it's nothing with a with a capital N. You know, it's it's

capital N. You know, it's it's >> right, >> but it's great.

[laughter] >> It is good. You can

>> it's not neither in the Buddhist sense. It's like the ultimate goal, >> right? Let's move on from the

>> right? Let's move on from the superhumanities to this is not your word. I'm being playful here. The super

word. I'm being playful here. The super

science >> because one of the things that is most frustrating about materialism is that it seems to be based on >> 19th century kind of kind of science, right? It's not even the latest kind of

right? It's not even the latest kind of So, so tell us about the latest science and yeah, and and the insight, the philosophical conclusions there.

I mean, I'm not I'm not, of course, an expert on the latest science, but certainly where I think physics is is pushing is to a a

kind of a kind of world where there is no matter, you know, it's it's mathematics all the way down, >> waves and particles at the same time.

It's non-locality and >> there's just thingness is gone. You

know, as the quantum physicists say that the atom is not even a thing. It's it's

a mathematical equation and and but math again comes from the mind. It comes from the human mind. And so what what is the relationship between mind and and

physical reality? I think that that's

physical reality? I think that that's kind of the deeper question. There

hasn't been matter for a hundred years in in physics, right?

>> But we keep talking about materialism.

>> Hold on. So why aren't you still a dual aspect uh monus? Like there is no dual aspect. You're an idealist. No. Like,

aspect. You're an idealist. No. Like,

well, why aren't you an idealist? If

there's no matter and if it's all math and it matters from the brain, you're an idealist. No,

idealist. No, >> no, because math is over here and the material world, the physics is studying over here. And they do correspond, but

over here. And they do correspond, but they're not the same.

>> Hold on. But there is there matter or is there no there's no matter, right?

>> The math is all in the heads. It's all

in the me mental realm of the physicists and the material realm is the the the physics, the the the stuff that they're studying.

And I do think it all goes back down to to a deeper reality. But I don't think we have any any way of articulating that deeper realm with science now because I think science is set up to study this

material realm.

>> Right. But but but is there matter or is there sorry science shows us that there's no matter for 100 years?

>> Well, again there's matter. Clearly

there's matter in in this mental material world. But but

material world. But but >> but no but but but but I'm saying even in the material world you're telling me science has shown that this is really an

illusion that this is not what it >> the particles no this Yeah. Yes. It's

it's an illusion but >> right but so is the mind ultimately an illusion that that's what you want to say right because it all collapses into the one.

>> Yeah. Because it all goes back down to one. Now again I'm I'm struggling here

one. Now again I'm I'm struggling here because there is no language here by the way. There is no math down here that can

way. There is no math down here that can articulate this this zone.

>> I mean, math, let's stick with the with the dual part of the dual aspect.

>> That's where we at. That's where we're at, by the way.

>> Certainly me.

>> That's where I'm at. That's where I'm at. But I think that's where all of

at. But I think that's where all of science is at. I think that's where all of social experience is at. I think

that's where it's at. That's the first floor, >> right? But not mythical experiences.

>> right? But not mythical experiences.

That that for some reason >> that's the second floor. That's that's

down here. That's the the one world.

>> Okay, I want to investigate math because in the first floor, math seems like this weird liinal space, right? Unlike the

humanities, it is a sign. It's not

symbol. It's there's one clear answer to each equation. Uh I'm speaking kind of

each equation. Uh I'm speaking kind of loosely here, but unlike the sciences, it is like a text, right? So tell me about this this

>> I think math is the place you go to talk philosophically about um the limitations of science but also the humanities. I

mean the truth is is that mathematics is is a is a symbolic code that that human beings made up in their head and it tends it it it turned out that it

corresponded almost perfectly to the material world. And again, that

material world. And again, that correspondence has been talked about philosophically for for 2500 years at least. And and but scientists themselves

least. And and but scientists themselves don't don't think about that, >> right? Because they're not philosophers.

>> right? Because they're not philosophers.

>> They're not philosophers. But

philosophers think about endlessly.

>> Yeah. And if you if you talk particularly if you talk to mathematicians um you know a lot of mathematicians will say well I think numbers exist you know

in some other space and and that ultimate reality is numbers well that's a platonic view >> right >> they don't know that >> yeah but but so there there are a way to

talk about some of these issues and I think science forces our hand to to do this >> tell us about just briefly I think the fascinating history of mysticism and math because a lot of these

mathematicians they they were mystics too right?

>> Well, this is Pythagoras. This is Plato where where numbers are this liinal space for for Plato, you know, you studied mathematics to get to the the good or the beautiful. But mathematics

itself was not the good or the beautiful. It was it was sort of this

beautiful. It was it was sort of this liinal or inner space. Um so the origins of mathematics at least in the Greek world are very much in that Pythagorean

or platonic system in which um you have the human here and math is this this way to to truth as it were but it's not

truth and I think that's where we get hung up a bit is we we think that math is the truth of things and we don't we don't get to the good or the beautiful we just stop there with the math

>> right but this is also true for modern day mathematicians right so so there's a story of a I can't remember an Indian math

>> yeah uh yeah I mean Rammanagan was his name I mean what there's some really weird things [laughter] in the history of math which

you learn about really quickly um mathematicians just know they just know these equations are true >> like na like you they are given

>> they just know but they can't prove it.

They don't they don't have the math to show that it's right, but they know it's right. And

right. And >> but they're only mathematicians by figuring out how to show what they already know.

>> And Roman is a perfect a perfect example because he was shown hundreds of equations by a Hindu goddess, by the way, who who spoke to him in dreams and

visions. And

visions. And >> man, I'm really getting there's really no way for me to compete with that.

>> I know. I know. I know. And this British mathematician named Alistister Hardy um he was completely flumxed by this as well. And and you know Roman would say

well. And and you know Roman would say to him things like um well if I tell you actually where I get my equations you'll think I'm crazy and of course he would but he's not right. But but what makes

him a mathematician is that he just didn't he didn't just state he he proved or he showed right like he >> Well these were later later shown by others to be correct. Yeah.

>> Oh really? So he was literally just like Oracle of Deli like >> he didn't know he he couldn't prove them. Now he had some mathemat he had a

them. Now he had some mathemat he had a lot of mathematics training. He was a real mathematician but he didn't prove these equations. They were later proven

these equations. They were later proven by others.

>> I see. Uh here's something quite interesting in in this discussion of humanities and the heart sciences.

Christian fundamentalists tend to come from computer science and engineering backgrounds. Why? The reason is I think

backgrounds. Why? The reason is I think that if you talk to fundamentalists, they're essentially flatlanders. They're

literalists and and if you think about computer code or you think about engineering, there's binary >> there's only one way to build the bridge or there there might be different ways to build it, but once you build the bridge, if you make a mistake,

>> right, the thing either works or it doesn't work. It's it's very fall. It's

doesn't work. It's it's very fall. It's

going to fall or the computer code if you make one mistake in the code, it it's not going to work, >> right? one one like wrong place

>> right? one one like wrong place semicolon destroys the entire codebase from compiling.

>> Totally.

>> And so that's why they need to defend the Bible as there's nothing wrong at all with it.

>> Totally. Totally. And what I realized about the study of religion in particular, what we're saying is well this text it actually means a hundred things all at once.

>> It's a symbol. It means many things.

They can only work with >> just blew the circuits. This just blew the circuits circuits. of of the of the engineers and the they're like no. So

the there is this kind of literal flatlandish notion that that I think is really dominant in particularly computer science and engineering and is not at

all the case in the humanities or history or the study of text. The

opposite.

>> Well, that's why you say the Christian fundamentalists actually hate the humanities because it is this mushy one thing can mean two things. Um, what I

want to do now is take a brief tour of the western cannon at least with you and just to look at how much in your opinion we've mis misread these superhumanists

as mere humanists. Yeah.

>> Right. Nicho was obviously the one we spent the most time with.

>> Yeah.

>> Plato, myth of uh ring of gaises.

Fadris, the story of the cherry and the faded. We were told that these are

faded. We were told that these are thought experiments, stories, noble eyes maybe some of them. Do you think that's what they are?

>> I don't think so. And like the Republic, which I read over the break, it literally ends with we call it the myth of By the way, that phrase never appears.

>> It's the story of of for sure, right?

>> We call it a myth because we want to dis but it that's actually the climax of the this very big book.

>> Uh, and it's a story about a soldier who has a near-death experience. And it's a story of reincarnation. It's a story of the afterlife in the other world. And

it's very clear why why why the the text climaxes or ends with this, but it just gets dismissed. And in and

gets dismissed. And in and >> that's so funny. You know what I just realized?

>> What?

>> When I was taught The Republic, I was taught this was a low point. The ending

was a low point. Hey, if you're too stupid, okay, to understand the actual philosophy I've taught you, here's a silly child's tale to kind of get the the vibe across. But you're saying

that's exactly the opposite.

>> Yeah. Why did they say that? I mean, it doesn't say that. That's like a total interpretation. That's a that's a first

interpretation. That's a that's a first floor takedown of the second floor is what I would say. Or the sky.

>> Right. Right. And and you know, looking back, Socrates is don constantly constantly talking to him. Like, what's

that about?

>> The the Don is is is telling Socrates what not to do. Yeah.

>> Constantly. That's his muse. And daimon

gets translated into Latin as genius by the way.

>> Oh, as a humanist kind of reducing it.

>> And the humanists reduce it to oh this is just intuition or this is what I'm like just that. That that's silly.

You know, I I actually think uh one of the greatest um revolutions in the 20th century was Strauss, of course, right?

Because he had this idea that all writers have to write very simply to protect themselves. And so that became a

protect themselves. And so that became a license to reread the entire cannon.

You're almost engendering a similar or you want to engender a similar kind of revolution right?

>> I don't want to I don't want to reread the cannon. I want us to read it the way

the cannon. I want us to read it the way I think it was written.

>> That's what I'm saying. You are you want to create the intellectual environment to reread these texts in the mystical way that you think they were intended >> because I want and the reason I talk

about the superhumanities I want us to start talking about what we do is cool this is cool we are not boring uh >> look at this chair right [laughter]

>> I mean this is the superhumanities this is and I'll tell you what it is I'll tell you what the superhumanities are here's the story and it involves the Uberman bench, by the way, it involves the superhuman and and they're coming

and and this is how we prepare. This is

how we this is how we engender the the the the coming superhuman. I mean,

they'll get that story. That story will like be Whoa, that's that's amazing.

>> Right. Here's the second uh set of thinkers here to rereadnosticism.

Tell us about this tradition, what its core tenants are, and how it got demolished basically.

Well, first of all, these were uh Christians who who described themselves as Gnostics

and Nosis was a direct knowledge of of divinity and and immortality. And we had this spark of of Nosis in us. And so we

shared in this divinity and this just gets crushed and Jesus was >> Na or before >> this is like first second century.

>> Okay. Before Nika. Yeah. Yeah. And and

this gets just crushed by Christian orthodoxy because they don't want Christians running around saying they're one with God and and and you you can

have a direct experience of divinity.

>> Yeah. So, so that's another way, by the way, to interpret the John statements. I

and the father are one. The Gnostics

would say me too. All right.

>> Well, >> and then that's the threat. That's the

threat.

>> Yeah. the Gnostic currents run through the Gospel of John like crazy. I mean,

it's just that's clearly gnostic. Um, so

that's what I mean by nosis. And the way Nosis gets picked up in the in the 20th century is it just becomes this anti-body heresy that gets that gets

thankfully uh uh uh uh eliminated by Christian orthodoxy in the third or fourth century.

>> Okay. But

I feel like here here here's probably the other reason maybe even the greater reason than the nosis as threatening that it was eliminated. The snake is the good guy.

>> God is the bad guy.

>> Sex is good.

>> Right.

>> Eating the the the treere's fruit is good.

>> Yeah.

>> Tell us how the Gnostics got to that reading.

>> Yeah.

>> First of all, you know, I I honestly I think like why are we even talking about these stories anymore? Why? Why? Why do

we give so much authority to the Bible?

I don't get it. I'm just like, it's just a bunch of stories of texts from from the early centuries. Okay. So, that's

that's just me complaining. But the

Gnostics were not there. They clearly

they clearly understood these texts in a in a kind of uh >> revelatory divine.

>> Yeah. Kind of divine or revelatory way.

But the story of that there's that this the snake is a devil and that there's a fall and original sin and all this none of that's in the text. None of that that

comes that's an interpretation that that that that takes over the second third century and and and becomes dominant.

>> Hold on. But God is good is in the text, right?

>> Not really.

>> Okay, hold on.

>> I mean, not really. Do the Gnostics have to say the Jews are also evil because they follow a evil god in the Gnostic?

>> No. A lot of the Gnostics are Jews?

>> But but what do you call a people who follow the evil god?

>> They're dumb.

They're they're >> they've been tricked.

>> Yeah. They're they're wrong.

>> Interesting.

>> You know, so so the Gnostic this Gnostic interpretation of the text is an interpretation of the text, but so is everything else. There's no the text

everything else. There's no the text doesn't give you its interpretation.

>> I mean, and if you read it, just read it. Read it. Read it naively. Read it.

it. Read it. Read it naively. Read it.

Read it not as a Christian or or or or a Jew or a Muslim, but just read it.

God's not so good in it.

>> Yeah. By the way, obviously everyone has some kind of assumptions already because how dominant Christianity is, but I came to a relatively fresh eyes and I'm like, why is why is God seeming to be the

envious one here? And and like what's bad with eating the tree of evil or sorry, what's bad about eating knowledge and eternal life? So what the Gnostics did is they're like they had this

experience I think of of divinity and immortality and they read that text and they're like well obviously >> God is God is like jealous here of of what's happening

>> and that would also explain why um >> it explains a lot.

>> God is kind of mean in the Old Testament.

>> Yeah. So what the >> kill these people genocide these people uh changes his mind. Abraham like Job I'm going to mess with them. What the

Gnostics say who are both Jews and Christians by the way. They say that's just a lower debate.

>> Oh, there's there's there's Gnostic Jews too.

>> Oh, yeah. These are Jews and Christians.

>> Hold on. These Jews do not believe in Christ. They don't affirm Christ's

Christ. They don't affirm Christ's >> Well, Jesus, by the way, was a Jew Jewish rabbi. So, so not Nassics is a

Jewish rabbi. So, so not Nassics is a very broad, it's a very broad category.

There are lots of different communities here. That's what I was talking about.

here. That's what I was talking about.

There there are probably dozens if not hundreds of >> and I'm asking you there are strands within Judaism itself that take this gnostic reading that hey we guys we've been tricked since like the beginning

there not Christian not Jewish ethnic people within Christian communities there are Jewish traditions of this reading >> yeah of of they're Jewish gnostics yeah

>> I mean look this is a position that was definitely in in the in the works in the that that the god of of these texts is a

lower god you know a demi urge to use the platonic language and that the higher god you could access the higher god we were part of the higher god you could have direct knowledge of the higher god

>> and that's Jesus's god according to >> that's the god of jesus jesus is like a you know he didn't die for your sins here he he he he's a messenger he teaches

>> and he didn't say he died for our sins even according to No, theics are like, "No, that's a bad story. That that's

bad."

>> And um so but they get eliminated. They

get eliminated because they don't believe the the things that that uh they lost the culture wars to use to use a modern language. Um I describe myself

modern language. Um I describe myself often as a Gnostic intellectual.

>> That's why one of your books is called Serpent's Gifts. Yeah. And you say you

Serpent's Gifts. Yeah. And you say you hiss. I mean, so one of my my position

hiss. I mean, so one of my my position in the in the serpent's gift is that the Gnostics are some of the first real critics, scholars of religion.

If you really want to know what criticism looks like, read the Gnostics because they're severe. You you think n is severe, you should read some of the Gnostic texts.

>> Give an example.

>> Well, the story we just told, this is a lower god who's who's preventing the nosis of of the young couple. I mean,

that's a radical that's a radical kind of reading.

>> How did the Gnostics affirm sexuality and how do they use sexual experience to harmonize the world?

>> Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. I mean, it's complicated,

didn't. I mean, it's complicated, >> right? But when they did, what was the

>> right? But when they did, what was the was it like >> through something they called the bridal chamber? And and they saw sexual

chamber? And and they saw sexual intercourse as a sacrament, basically as a way to access access divinity. And so

they were sacriizing um sexual practice um and and and and sacramentalizing really um parenthood as

well. Um but they saw it as as as a

well. Um but they saw it as as as a reenactment of divinity. You know,

divinity was both male and female here.

>> That sounds an awfully like tantra, right?

>> It does. It does. And you make the claim how you interpret narcissism uh as transgression to orthodox Judeo-Christian tradition in the same

way that tantra is a transgression towards Hinduism. Yeah, I do. The

towards Hinduism. Yeah, I do. The

obvious difference is that tantra survives and gets integrated in some some way even though but but how why did one survive and is it because they're monotheists or you know

>> it's it's why it's why I love India and love Hinduism is is it integrated these traditions in a way that the Christian west did not it crushed them

you know um >> so it is that monotheistic kind of impulse you you read that I have the truth I >> I I don't know why. I think there's a lot of complicated social and political and historical reasons why it got

crushed. But but you know and

crushed. But but you know and andnosticism survives in the west but mostly through heresy. There's all these heretical movements that pop up. And

it's not that human beings stop being gnostic. They there's always gnostic

gnostic. They there's always gnostic individuals but they tend to be heterodox or heretical.

>> I see. But let's move on uh in time a bit. uh the Renaissance, tell us how

bit. uh the Renaissance, tell us how that was engendered by the uncovering of myth mythical texts.

>> The Renaissance was, you know, we look back we look back on on these centuries and we we call it the Renaissance, the rebirth, and and it's a return to Latin and Greek, as as you probably know, and

and a kind of a kind of magical model of what the human being is. um basically reading

Plato uh and and and the human is this again this transitional species between um basically entities like demons and

angels and God and and the human can change. So I think the Renaissance is

change. So I think the Renaissance is kind of a beginning of this affirmation of the of of the human um that that then becomes what we call much later the

humanities and and it's now debased as the humanities essentially but it has these magical mystical origins in the Renaissance for sure.

>> Interesting. Um

Berbach is not conceived of as a mystic by many people. Uh he's most famous obviously Markx takes him up he's most famous for the idea that we have attributed all our good attributes to

God and we've alienated them away from ourselves >> which I think was true.

>> Yeah. But you take a mystical spin reading on him. Tell us about that.

>> So basically what said is that everything that we think about God is in fact a projection of of the human. You

know so it's not that God made man in his own image. is that humans made God in their own image or or or actually man made God in his own image. I mean

because we imagine God as male and so it's just this reversal. It's a series of reversals of basic religious or Christian teachings really that that

reverses and and returns as projections of the human. And I I just think that's correct. Um I I think that that humans

correct. Um I I think that that humans do project um humanity or or what they consider to be humanity into a divinity.

But there's this there's this stream in furbach and this gets into the superhumanities question. There's this

superhumanities question. There's this stream where why do we do that? Why why do we why do we experience or or believe in a god

that looks very human? Well, it's

because there's something godlike or or divine-like about our humanity, >> right?

>> You know, so I think there's a there's a very easy way to use a foyerbachian method that that essentially is Gnostic, >> right? But but you're saying that is the

>> right? But but you're saying that is the right reading of Foyerbach or you're saying that is your development of Foyerbach?

>> Well, it's certainly my own development or reading of Foyerbach, but I'm not at all convinced that that isn't there in Ferbach.

>> I see. I I suspect that he had those convictions or those experiences and that he encodes it in a way that was that was was relevant to his place in

time. But I'm not I'm not convinced that

time. But I'm not I'm not convinced that that it's that this this method doesn't actually reveal something.

>> William James, he's just a pragmatist.

We're told what are we missing? Not he's

clearly I mean so so when I again when I went to to to graduate school I you know it was just a pragmatist kind of line and it was a muggle line and we read the varieties but what we were never told

was that William James spent his whole life really uh studying psychics and mediums and and by the way ingesting a lot of psychedelics.

>> In fact William James said he could only understand Hegel high >> right which tells you a lot about both Hegel and James. Yeah

>> makes sense. Yeah.

>> I mean, I love that story because I think Hegel probably was high when he wrote a lot of that stuff and and and that that James could only understand Hegel on an altered state actually is is

is the superhumanities method I think in another code. But my point is that you

another code. But my point is that you can't understand William James without thinking about uh the mystical and spiritualism and

psychical research and and frankly what later becomes the new age. I mean he's studying all of this in in the 19th century early early 20th.

>> What's even more exciting about James and how much he's been truncated is that his pragmatism is derivative of his mysticism. Is that right? like he's just

mysticism. Is that right? like he's just so confused by all these weird ontologies in the way that you and I are and he's like all right let me tread lightly hence pragmatism right like or

or let me be an onlogical minimalist or something like that I >> I think his pragmatism really was a function of by pragmatism we mean that

that truth is is really what works >> that there isn't some uh objective this is very nichian in some ways there's not an objective uh truth to

which we're striving. It's not about the good and the beautiful, but but it's it's about what works. And I think I think James was led to this primarily

through studying psychics and and mediums and spiritualists that he realized that they were accessing something but that there wasn't some

objective uh truth at the end of of the tunnel as it were that that that it was really about what works on the on the ground. Um so I do think that and you

ground. Um so I do think that and you know he ends >> but you you disagree with that right because you have your dual aspect motive. So James ends his life basically

motive. So James ends his life basically on this monism is correct but so is pluralism. It's like a kind of a both

pluralism. It's like a kind of a both and >> but hold on how how is that a pragmatist view because >> it's not a pragmatist view. I don't

think he ends with pragmatism.

>> I see.

>> I mean he writes this book called the pluralistic universe and if you read it I don't see how you get pragmatism out of it.

>> Right. So pragmatism was a stepping stone for him. So, and I think it was >> it was his early attempt to deal with the complexity of the religious experiences.

>> Yeah. And I think that's again we misread people because we read a book by them or we read an idea and we think, "Oh, that's what they thought at the end of No, it's not what they thought at the end of their life.

>> It's not what they thought in their maturity." And if you read a pluralistic

maturity." And if you read a pluralistic universe, you get it's a very non-aristilian worldview. It's a very

non-aristilian worldview. It's a very pansychic worldview.

>> Let's move on from the canon to something more contemporary. And let's

begin with I think where a lot of this started which is mediumship and spiritualism. Tell us about that. Just

spiritualism. Tell us about that. Just

give a brief history there. What is that movement? How did it start?

movement? How did it start?

>> Yeah.

>> Well, spiritualism starts really um in the late 1840s in the US and it it really peaks in the post civil war uh

era where lots of unfortunately lots of men died. Um, and spiritualism was about

men died. Um, and spiritualism was about contacting the dead through what they called mediums, mostly women who who acted as channels essentially for these

spirits.

>> But this is a historical practice, right? In Leviticus, it bans mediumship.

right? In Leviticus, it bans mediumship.

So, we know that it's been practiced like >> Leviticus. Yeah, Leviticus certainly

>> Leviticus. Yeah, Leviticus certainly says some really awful things about it, but it's a very human, very ancient practice of contacting the dead. Um, and

it and it's very controversial in the US because a lot of the pastors, by the way, hate it. Um, because a

uh it it authorizes women and b it's not in the church. It's in the home. And c

it's not biblical. It's not it's not about the Bible at all. It's about but it's about contacting the other world.

And there they had a lot of successes and there was a lot of fraud as well. I

mean, it was all kind of mixed together.

And out of this tradition, it hops the ocean and it becomes very prominent in England and Europe. And then it hops the ocean again. It becomes very prominent

ocean again. It becomes very prominent in Latin America as spiritism. And then

British psychical research develops out of this in the 1870s and 1880s. And it's

basically looking at spiritualism and mediums. And then you get parasychology later in the 1930s and 40s in the US around Duke and it kind of develops from there. But spiritualism is really kind

there. But spiritualism is really kind of the the the data as it were.

>> I see. Um, jumping forward a bit more, new age. Tell us about how this how this

new age. Tell us about how this how this began.

>> So the new age is a phrase that develops in the 1980s, by the way. It's fairly

late.

This current has existed in certainly American history for hundreds of years that isn't part of the churches but sees itself as sort of connecting to the land

or connecting um outside the religious traditions. Transcendentalism for

traditions. Transcendentalism for example in the middle of the 19th century is very much about this um new thought uh is something that that James

was involved in and and a lot of black communities were involved in as well. So

there are ways of being spiritual but not religious way before what we call the new age. Um the counterculture

develops in the 60s and 70s. It's really

not called the counterculture until the late 60s. By the way, the new age, the

late 60s. By the way, the new age, the new age develops in the 80s. Today, new

age is used as a as a bad word um to make fun of people basically. But but

basically what that movement was about was what we might call a pansychic worldview where where you're you're you you the human being has

access to this larger world where these spirits and entities uh exist. Um

psychedelics is very much a part of this. We could talk about psychedelics

this. We could talk about psychedelics here. Um

here. Um >> Timothy Liry and Yeah.

>> Yeah. I think that's that's one of the reasons that the new age develops in the 1980s, by the way, >> is chemical >> is because of psychedelics and because of how many people have had these experiences and how convincing they

were.

>> When I meet someone who I think is an heir of the new age, the equivalent today, I'm always terribly disappointed.

Whereas when I read about those original people who who who founded them, I'm always somewhat admiring. Um, and and is that just me? Because when I meet these people, I'll describe you a stereotype.

It's some uh wealthy white. Usually it's

a girl who does yoga and believes, oh, we're all one. She went to Brown. She

studied art, you know, she art history.

She's more bgeoa than she's bohemian.

It's become an aesthetic. And I I've just been so But there's nothing there.

There's nothing there. They don't even take the psychedelics anymore.

>> Well, see, but that's the point. They

don't have the altered states and they didn't.

>> It's just cool now. It's cool. cool,

>> but you agree with my reading.

>> It's just something to market. Uh, and I understand I understand the stereotype and I understand that that personality.

Um, but I don't think that's what was happening >> right >> in the 60s and 70s and 80s. I think

people were very genuine about this was also formed around a rejection of Christianity and Judaism and uh an attempt to integrate science by the way

integrate physics, integrate biology, integrate uh they were really looking for a new worldview. That's why they called it the new age and it was called the new age because of this astrological

shift from the age of Pisces to the age of Aquarius.

But it failed in some or at least it didn't continue.

>> Did it fail? I don't know. Here's what I really think. And and um I don't even

really think. And and um I don't even know why I'm saying this. I think people stopped reading to be really honest. Uh

if you look at the counterculture and the intensity that they were reading a ton, >> right?

>> Uh and I don't >> they were scholars. They were scholars.

>> They and they were literary figures.

There were a lot of literary figures that were involved in their lenics for example. They were basically poets and

example. They were basically poets and writers and I think your your stereotype of the the Brown graduate I they're not reading.

They're just wearing yoga pants and going to yoga class, >> right? Getting mocha.

>> right? Getting mocha.

>> They're not reading. Trust me, they are not reading. They're they're doing this

not reading. They're they're doing this on their phone, you know. Um so I I really this is comes back to the to the the paranormal writing us, you know. We're reading.

know. We're reading.

>> It has to be a text. It has to be it has for it to be deep. It has to be rig.

>> I think so. I really that sounds nerdy of me or or professorial.

>> You're preaching to the choir here. So

there's no resistance.

>> I think it really is about that >> interesting.

>> And you know, I'll just say just to kind of put this out here, the the best the best articulation of the filter thesis was Aldis Huxley's another writer, the

doors of perception in 1954.

And basically it's a little bitty book and basically what Huxley does is he takes masculine outside of LA and he thinks it's going to be his brain on drugs and he's going to see a lot of

colors and shapes and none of that happens. What actually happens is a kind

happens. What actually happens is a kind of direct non-llinguistic access to reality. And he makes this argument that actually what masculine

probably does is shut down the brain.

And that book then becomes a kind of uh te scriptural text for the counterculture. Everybody reads it.

counterculture. Everybody reads it.

>> Yeah. Um

one interesting part about the counterculture uh the new age that I think is different from a lot of these other mystical movements tantra maybe narcissism you tell me is that it's

quite egalitarian.

Whereas these other mythical movements that I've more I'm more familiar with they are it's not necessarily a pride or arrogance but they're like hey the people might not be ready for this right

like most people might not be ready for this do you agree with that distinction and if so I'm just thinking out loud here does it have to do with the chemicals because before you need to be

a realized master meditate a thousand hours and now and you can have it. What

do you think about that idea? There

there's some there's there's there's some ump there. I I think the two generators of this egalitarianism are um

you know, as they said, drugs and rock and roll. I I really do believe that. I

and roll. I I really do believe that. I

I do think it's about psychedelics and and and music and how those are accessible, you know, pretty much to everyone. uh and they have their

everyone. uh and they have their problematic features and they you know they destroy lives too and I I don't want to romanticize those social movements but there's something to that

and remember the 60s is also the time of the civil rights movement it's also >> but there already is progressive >> gay the gay rights movement the women's move everything is happening everything is changing so there's this profound

social >> development that's going on with the spiritual development and I think part of your again your shar stereotype of

the the brown the brown yoga pant person. Um there's no social movement.

person. Um there's no social movement.

There's no there's no social transformation.

>> Yeah. Right.

>> There's also no books by the way.

>> Right. Right. Right. Interesting. I I

want to talk about another kind of new age how you described we're we're in a new time. Niche uses this metaphor.

new time. Niche uses this metaphor.

We're like >> sailing something leaving a shore. I

can't remember the exact quote here, but I think we can answer the religious question better than the great saints and theologians.

>> Yeah, I do too.

>> And when I told my religious friends this, they think I'm crazy.

>> That's because they believe backwards.

>> You You think you can answer better than a Garina or Al Gazali or Augustine. And

I said, "Yes."

>> Yes.

>> Not because I'm smarter.

>> Yes.

>> But we just have much more. We know

more. You had a great point in your book. Every single scholar today, every

book. Every single scholar today, every person with an iPhone today has more access to any tradition than the great scholars than Augustine only read the

Tmus and the Greek. That blows my mind.

He's the guy who combined platonism and Christianity. He's only read according

Christianity. He's only read according to many scholars the Tmus and the Greek.

And not only do we have better access to one tradition, we have so many different traditions. Now we have the latest

traditions. Now we have the latest science. We have a somewhat liberal in

science. We have a somewhat liberal in different parts of the world academic community to address these questions.

>> I know.

>> So do do you agree like we we can make >> of course better.

>> Yeah.

>> And we also have things like um anthropological genetics and astrophysics and I mean we just know stuff >> right

>> that nobody else knew in our past. So

why we keep looking to the past for answer is beyond me. I just don't get it. And I think that's what religion is.

it. And I think that's what religion is.

You're believing backwards. You're

affirming someone else's altered state.

I'm like, "Stop it. Just turn around and go to the future." Now,

>> how are the ancients more privileged if at all compared to us, for example?

They're less distracted by they probably were.

>> They probably are better meditators because of that, right? So, so

>> it's not that we can't learn from from our past or from our ancestors. We

clearly can and and intelligence existed as far back as we can see. So Neargina

knew things maybe that you and I can't know. I I don't question that for a

know. I I don't question that for a second. We should read Nagarjuna, you

second. We should read Nagarjuna, you know, but the truth is we >> don't stop in Nagara.

>> Don't stop with Nagarina. And we have lots of people who have translated Nagarjuna now and we can read in translation. We couldn't we couldn't do

translation. We couldn't we couldn't do that a 100 years ago by the way.

>> Right. I do feel like the moment we're in right now is similar to the moment right before Origin of Species came out where there was so much data there was

data about half man half ape skulls already but no one knew how to make sense of it right and it took it took a theory it took an origin of species to >> and the thing to remember is it's still

resisted origin of species is still to this day reject but for religious reasons Right.

>> And I'm like, why why why do you do that? It's just

that? It's just >> Yeah. Um, okay. Your thesis, if I

>> Yeah. Um, okay. Your thesis, if I understand it correctly, is that the energy now in in today's day and age where a lot of this mystical writing is channeled. It's no longer through the

channeled. It's no longer through the new age stuff. Um, it's no longer through these great books.

It's through superheroes. It's through

movies.

is your claim that I mean clearly it's not X-Men are real but your claim is that the comic book writers are inspired they have yeah what's the strongest version of your

>> so there there are multiple arguments there one is first of all entertainment and and superhero movies are uh I'm very critical of them as well because I think

it's a kind of an arms length you can you can treat these ideas as long as you think it's entertainment >> right It's safe as

>> it's safe and I'm it's not safe. Uh

people are telepathic. People do have precognitive experiences. People do have

precognitive experiences. People do have these. And so I wrote this book called

these. And so I wrote this book called Mutants and Mystics. And I showed I think convincingly that a lot of the writers and artists who created these characters actually had paranormal

paranormal experiences and they wrote about them and they this is why they came up with these stories. you know

that there's a direct relationship between altered states again or or or psychical abilities and these superhero narratives. So I think there is a direct

narratives. So I think there is a direct relationship there in terms of creativity. Having said that I don't

creativity. Having said that I don't think for two seconds that um the superhero narrative uh is is

necessary. You know, I I think Nietze

necessary. You know, I I think Nietze had all this, right?

>> You know, and more, but we don't People don't read Nijse anymore, but they do go to the movies and they watch Marvel film. So, it's like it's it's kind of

film. So, it's like it's it's kind of where it's meeting people where they're at. It's not

at. It's not >> Yeah, it it's it's a kind of pra practical or pragmatic solution. Correct

me if I'm wrong, but uh I think the Planet of the Apes writer was writing a scene about one of the protagonists whose wife gets kidnapped by by by some

evil antagonist >> by Brutus. And then after he writes it, his wife gets kidnapped in exactly the same way, right?

>> Yeah. He clearly Doug clearly had a precognitive hit while he's writing the story.

>> Oh. Oh, hold on. Hold on. You think that was a precognition? I read it as he literally wrote the future.

>> I know that's that's certainly what Doug thinks, but I think he was having a pre-cognitive experience.

>> Do you think the other thing ever happens where you write something and that becomes >> I think that's how precognition camouflages itself.

>> I see. Interesting. I I personally think precognition camouflages itself a lot as a lot of these a lot of these experiences uh and this you know go it goes back to

a friend and writer Eric Wargo who basically thinks the same way he thinks precognition is essentially the uh ability that human beings all have and that a lot of things that we

consider psychical or religious or spiritual are actually precognition hide hiding in different forms. But but why why do you prefer that explanation versus >> because it makes sense to me. It makes a

lot of sense of I mean I take Doug's experience. Doug Mch is the writer. Um I

experience. Doug Mch is the writer. Um I

think he's getting a a pre-cognitive experience and he's writing it out as a fantasy of of Planet of the >> So he's getting a vision and he's not pushing it to his unconscious. He's

literally getting a vision of his wife getting kidnapped.

>> No, he's not actually. He's writing out Brutus holding a gun to this woman's head and and and engaged in this essentially this kidnapping. And then he

hears his wife from the kitchen call out to him and he goes and he sees his wife with a with a man with a gun to her head. The exact scene that he had just

head. The exact scene that he had just >> so so so the two interpretations is one he manifested that into reality. Two

precognition. In the precognition view, the claim is he didn't have a conscious precognition.

>> Correct.

>> Right.

>> He he it manifested as what he does. He

writes stories. And

>> I see. So precognition doesn't have to be conscious.

>> No, it seldom is. And you don't even know it's precognition until after it happens. And then you're like, "Oh

happens. And then you're like, "Oh I had a pre-cognitive hit." And and remember, it's fantasy. So Doug is is writing fantasy. He's writing Planet of

writing fantasy. He's writing Planet of the Apes, which allows this this precognition to come through because it's it's fantasy. So, I think there's this link between fantasy and science

fiction and and and these experiences that's more than just >> see because it's more right brain. It's

more it's less literal. It's less

analytical. It's

>> and it involves inspiration and involves writing. And I mean, it's there's a

writing. And I mean, it's there's a whole slew of things happening here.

>> Why? Wow. Wow. Wow. Okay. Um, the

superpowers of superheroes are inversely proportional to the sex appeal.

>> Yeah, >> tell us about that.

>> Well, I mean, Superman is basically infinitely powerful and completely celibate until Lois Lane. I get that.

Batman is super sexual. He's literally a playboy. He has no superpowers.

playboy. He has no superpowers.

>> Yeah, he's [laughter] rich. He's he's

just rich and has really cool gadgets and he's like really good at the martial arts. But generally you do get this this

arts. But generally you do get this this relationship or this inverse relationship between sexual expression and and uh nons superpowers which I think is very faithful to religion by

the way.

>> Okay. So few ways to read it. One is the hydraulic view right like by not channeling it to sex they channel it to their powers. One is the compensation

their powers. One is the compensation view. [laughter and gasps] Okay. like

view. [laughter and gasps] Okay. like

because he's not as sexually attractive, we better make him interesting some way.

What What's the mechanism you're gesturing at here?

>> I think it's the hydraulic view. I mean,

the hydraulic view, the the Freudian view that that if you express >> sexuality in a in a normal kind of socially adaptive way, you don't develop

superpowers. You don't have these

superpowers. You don't have these religious experiences. But if you if you

religious experiences. But if you if you um are celibate, this again this gets back to the same sex argument. I think

this is why the same one of the reasons same sex is so powerful is it tends to be repressed in different social situations and then these these these

energies can manifest in other ways.

>> Um tell us about your story of seeing the X twice. Yeah.

>> And how you decided to to to write uh about a comic book.

>> I mean this this goes back to the dual aspect monism. I I I think a lot of

aspect monism. I I I think a lot of times something mental and something material correspond because they go back to some other other super source as it

were. I you know

were. I you know I was finishing the the book in about 2006 or 2005 or something and I I found

myself becoming obsessed with the X-Men.

And I mean obsessed. And which was really odd because um the X-Men were not they were like a B-level or C-level comic. I mean when I was a kid it was it

comic. I mean when I was a kid it was it was the Hulk and Spider-Man and Doctor Strange and the X-Men were like nothing.

They were like completely reinvented in 75 and then they became something but that was later. Um and then I realized that the Elin the the basic the basic

idea of the Elin Institute the human potential movement is that there are buds evolutionary buds that are in every human being and that these can be accessed and and turned into practices

and they result in in special abilities or powers. And I I was like that's the

or powers. And I I was like that's the X-Men, right? And I realized that the human

right? And I realized that the human potential or the eslinist starts on the west coast at the exact same time basically as the X-Men are embedded on

the east coast really within a couple months of each other. So there's clearly something's in the air. There's some

kind of there's some kind of relationship between what the the the East Coast is clearly thinking of as a fantasy for adolescence and for young

boys, but the West Coast is taking very seriously and is creating a series of movements around. So, I'm having these

movements around. So, I'm having these thoughts >> and I'm watching this X-Men movie. I'm

literally watching an X-Men movie, even theater, by the way. And I go out into the parking lot. It was my our minivan and right at the minivan there's a

freaking X on on the parking lot and I pick it up and I'm like, "Oh, it's an X." And of course, I just watched this

X." And of course, I just watched this X. So all of these all of these things

X. So all of these all of these things were floating or zipping around in my mind. And um

mind. And um so I I I just thought that's that's fun.

That's that's a fun synchronicity or or or an element in this story. Um, and I'm I'm going to I'm just going to hold on to that. And then this ex also the exes

to that. And then this ex also the exes kept appearing at at very significant moments and and and I decided to run with that. I started to to

with that. I started to to run essentially work with that.

>> Right.

>> And so there's this relationship is what I'm trying to say. Right.

>> You kept encountering exes and right when these critical moments about this idea.

>> Yeah.

>> And I'm not I'm not that it's a playful kind of thing. I'm not I'm not >> You're not necessarily saying there's something Yeah. metaphysical,

something Yeah. metaphysical, >> but I'm also not saying there isn't anything there because I don't know. I'm

not trying to be clever.

>> You're just telling the telling the story. So, your ex story actually in

story. So, your ex story actually in exactly the way you're saying gave me some confidence to rethink one of the episodes that happened with me. So, I'll

tell you that story now.

>> So, you're a mutant.

>> I'll tell you the story and then and we can decide. I'll tell you all these

can decide. I'll tell you all these different stories that I that I have. Um

the first story related to your ex is uh I was praying to God. I was

struggling with a religious question. I

was praying to God in a Latin mass around Easter on Easter for God to reveal himself. Okay? And like a few

reveal himself. Okay? And like a few days go by or a day goes by and I was writing intellectual history on the word innovation. Okay? And I separated into

innovation. Okay? And I separated into the classical, the Greek view and the modern view. And then I I'm a huge video

modern view. And then I I'm a huge video game guy. Okay? So I love uh God of War.

game guy. Okay? So I love uh God of War.

I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's it's about uh Son of Zeus basically killing the Pantheon and and it's it's a violent video game >> that was reimagined and it became like a

fatherly tale. And I was thinking about

fatherly tale. And I was thinking about that and I instantly hit my keyboard and then an omega appears next to the Greek section with a classical view like right

next to the title, the Greek section and the omega is the symbol of Kratos, the protagonist and the god of war. And if

you look at what it takes to hit the keyboard to type out I don't know if you accidentally typed out a Greek letter before. I never have actually.

before. I never have actually.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I I haven't either. And I'm

like, well, that's odd.

It's It's also really odd. I asked my Christian friends. I'm like, you know, I

Christian friends. I'm like, you know, I just asked God this. Why would he show himself in the form of a 21st century video game character? And of course, they gave me a Christian explanation.

Well, it's the alpha and the omega. and

Kratos has become this uh more he's been Christianized. He was pagan before. But

Christianized. He was pagan before. But

I before reading your books, I was like this is just a coincidence.

>> Help me unpack that. Yeah.

>> So I think those those moments are you know that generally are called synchronicity are are pretty much omnipresent in human life and we we tend to ignore them because we

lack a model to to make sense of them.

And I think again the dual aspect monism it makes perfect sense within that model. It's like yeah these things

model. It's like yeah these things happen and they happen I think to guide us. I think we're guiding ourselves. Um

us. I think we're guiding ourselves. Um

I think we're inspiring ourselves. Um

and it's always some material event that corresponds to some mental event. Right.

I mean the material event being the the omega that appears on your keyboard. You

you had to >> on the screen after hitting the keyboard.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So there's a material event there, but there's also a mental uh uh attraction to the to the video game. And

um >> right, this is this is why it makes sense. It's me trying to communicate

sense. It's me trying to communicate with me, right? It's not it's not the Christian God coming through a video game character.

>> No, it's it's you, Jonathan. But it's

big you. It's like, wow, that's that's something, >> right? And so what does that

>> right? And so what does that >> what does that mean?

>> Yeah. What what does that mean?

>> It means that you're bigger than you think you are. And there's more of you than it means super the superhuman. It

means you're super human. You're not

you're not restricted to to to this social physical identity, >> right? And and it's also weird. Here's

>> right? And and it's also weird. Here's

some other things that happened ever since reading your books actually. So

maybe maybe it has already which is weird we weird things just happen again this kind of coincidence and stuff. I'm

not a very uh I'm going to use a bad term superstitious kind of person but you know I was I'm going to Utah right after this. They have Sundance Festival.

after this. They have Sundance Festival.

Right after I searched that up, I read your books. One of your I can't remember

your books. One of your I can't remember what it is. And it literally says Sundance like some kind of pagan ritual you're talking about.

>> And I was reading your book on Khali and then I ran into like this internet thing. Khali, like these weird

thing. Khali, like these weird coincidences. Here, here's my question,

coincidences. Here, here's my question, which is >> there's an extreme form of this that's become schizophrenia, right? You're

seeing connections where there are none.

How does one decide?

>> Well, again, I think you're play I think being playful about it. I don't I >> I see not taking it too seriously. This

is this is your ex thing. This is

>> Yeah, this is this is the the my own my own take on it is and I you know I use it for inspiration

and to guide my writing for sure, but I'm happy to be persuaded not to do that. You know, that's what I mean by

that. You know, that's what I mean by not taking it too seriously or literally because sometimes these are just coincidences and and there isn't but sometimes they're not, you know, right.

>> And I think we do have to listen. But

what my point is the point of my books and the point of the superanities is listen.

>> Yeah.

>> Just listen. Don't don't shut yourself off to this. Don't don't call this superstition or don't do you the Christian thing and think it's the omega

all that bl all that stuff. Just listen.

>> Um because you're you're you're inspiring yourself and you're talking to yourself. So why won't you listen to

yourself. So why won't you listen to yourself?

>> Right? This is um this is the only traumatic kind of experience I've like really traumatic experience that I've had. Although it

doesn't result in any mystical kind of experience. So, I'm curious how one can

experience. So, I'm curious how one can use this. Uh, this is as close to being

use this. Uh, this is as close to being a superhero as I as I'll ever be. So,

when I was born, I was, it was a very difficult birth, traumatic birth. Me and

my mother both almost died. I don't

remember any of this, of course, although she might have told me about a near-death experience anyway. And, uh,

they gave us penicellin and we found out then we were deathly deadly allergic to penicellin. Okay. So, so I was in the

penicellin. Okay. So, so I was in the ICU. I don't remember any of this,

ICU. I don't remember any of this, right? and

right? and they misread my brain scans and they thought I was going to be clinically and so they injected me with

this mega dose of cerebral ly which is this like insane like brain stimulant.

Um >> wow they really they really did a number on you.

>> Yeah, [laughter] exactly. So I guess my question is h can I leverage that in any way to to to h how can I let let a good crisis not go to waste is what I'm

trying to ask. Yeah.

>> I don't know. One of the thoughts I had listening to your story is no wonder you're a seeker. I mean you came into the world just totally messed up.

>> But but but >> I mean >> but but but that didn't carry on. Like I

I don't Well, maybe I'm compulsive in certain ways as you can tell. And I'm

very different from other people. There

are people there are people who think your birth experience is is all defining. I I mean again I don't know

defining. I I mean again I don't know Jonathan um you know I I I study UFOs as you know

and I had this experience with um my my mother and we were watching u of all things American Idol and this corny uh

commercial came on and it had this UFO dangling on a string and my mom turns to me and she says do you remember the time we saw one of I was like, "No, it was no memory of

this." And she told me this wild UFO

this." And she told me this wild UFO story of this square object in the sky and how big it was and they stopped the car and all this stuff, but I was like five, you know, or something and so I

had no memory of it either. But I can't help thinking that that had something to do with my later interest in it.

>> So maybe this is like your >> latent kind.

>> Yeah. There's a kind of kind of latency. Yeah. This is where a freight helps me too. I mean, I really do think that there's unconscious dynamics that that that control a lot of

us, a lot of our decisions.

>> Yeah. Um,

this is the final question I'm going to ask for this interview on writing, which is what is coming next for you? You had

this early trajectory of three books on the homoerotic and mystical thesis and then you had superhuman superhumanities, how to think impossibly, this whole

genre of writing.

What what is the next part of the URA?

>> Well, the next part is is what I call the superstory and it it's this history of the relationship between science, technology, and and and the esoteric.

>> But you've you covered that already in >> No, I didn't. I mean, the first book is called The Physics of Mystics, and it it's not out. It's it's I'm just finishing it right now. And the second

volume is called Biological Gods. It's

on evolution and and esotericism.

>> So, in the same way you reread the humanities, now you're going to reread >> Yes.

>> the history of science.

>> Yeah. That's the idea. And the third volume's on technology, and it's called The Soul is a UFO.

>> Wow.

>> Yeah. So, and it's very much here's the story we're living in now. Here's here's

what it actually is doing. And and we actually do know more than our than our ancestors knew. But but here's here

ancestors knew. But but here's here here's the story we're telling.

>> I see. Well, Jeeoff, uh thank you so much for the time and I can't wait to read those future books.

>> Well, I got to write them first, so I'll have to >> You have the hard work. Yeah. [laughter]

>> Great. Thank you.

>> All right. Thank you.

>> Thanks for watching my interview. If

[music] you want to go even deeper into these ideas, then please join my email list at jonathanb.com.

You'll not only get full length episodes, but also transcripts, booknotes, and invitations to future lectures. Now, if you like this

lectures. Now, if you like this interview, be sure to check out my other ones that I filmed with Jeff Krial as well. You can find links to those

well. You can find links to those episodes and everything else we discuss in the description and on my website, jonathanb.com. Thank you.

jonathanb.com. Thank you.