Latest / Deep Transformation / The Call of the Cosmos: Aligning with Cosmic Evolution & Its Creative Impulse

Transcript

The Call of the Cosmos: Aligning with Cosmic Evolution & Its Creative Impulse · Deep Transformation

0:00
Welcome
0:00
to
0:00
a
0:00
profound
0:01
and
0:01
potentially
0:02
transformational
0:02
conversation
0:03
with
0:03
astronomer
0:04
and
0:04
cosmologist
0:05
Stephan
0:06
Martin.
0:06
Stephan
0:07
shares
0:07
powerful
0:08
knowledge
0:08
and
0:08
wisdom
0:09
that
0:09
helps
0:09
us
0:09
break
0:09
through
0:10
our
0:10
existential
0:11
loneliness
0:11
and
0:12
reconnect
0:12
with
0:13
the
0:13
mysterious,
0:14
beautiful
0:14
and
0:14
creative
0:15
universe
0:15
that
0:15
is
0:16
our
0:16
home
0:16
and
0:16
is
0:17
us.
0:22
Welcome
0:22
to
0:22
Deep
0:23
Transformation
0:23
-
0:24
Self,
0:24
Society,
0:25
Spirit,
0:26
life
0:26
enhancing,
0:27
paradigm
0:27
rattling
0:28
conversations
0:29
with
0:29
cutting
0:29
edge
0:30
thinkers,
0:30
contemplatives,
0:32
activists,
0:32
with
0:32
Dr.
0:33
Roger
0:33
Walsh
0:33
and
0:34
John
0:34
Dupuy.
0:37
My
0:38
name
0:38
is
0:38
John
0:38
Dupuy
0:39
and
0:39
this
0:39
is
0:39
Dr.
0:39
Roger
0:40
Walsh,
0:40
whom
0:41
you
0:41
know
0:42
probably
0:42
from
0:42
our
0:42
other
0:43
podcasts
0:44
and
0:44
our
0:44
times
0:44
together.
0:45
And
0:45
we
0:46
have
0:46
a
0:46
real,
0:47
not
0:47
a
0:47
cliche
0:48
delight,
0:48
but
0:48
a
0:48
real
0:49
personal
0:49
delight
0:50
to
0:50
have
0:50
with
0:50
us
0:50
Stephan
0:51
Martin,
0:51
who
0:52
is
0:53
an
0:53
astronomer,
0:53
a
0:54
cosmologist.
0:55
I'm
0:55
just
0:55
finding
0:56
out
0:56
we
0:56
haven't
0:56
talked
0:56
together
0:57
for
0:57
a
0:57
few
0:57
years.
0:58
I'm
0:58
also
0:58
very
0:59
close
0:59
to
1:00
his
1:00
brother,
1:00
who's
1:01
also
1:01
brilliant
1:02
and
1:02
a
1:02
therapist.
1:03
And
1:03
I
1:03
don't
1:04
know,
1:04
25
1:04
years
1:05
ago
1:05
we
1:05
invited
1:06
Stephan,
1:06
my
1:07
wife
1:07
and
1:07
I,
1:07
we
1:08
had
1:08
started
1:08
a
1:08
wilderness
1:09
program
1:09
dealing
1:09
with
1:10
young
1:10
people
1:12
over
1:12
18
1:13
having
1:14
issues
1:14
with
1:15
addiction
1:15
and
1:16
alcoholism
1:16
and
1:17
lots
1:17
of
1:17
other
1:17
issues
1:17
too.
1:18
And
1:18
we
1:18
brought
1:18
Stephan
1:19
out
1:19
there
1:19
to
1:19
teach
1:19
us
1:20
about
1:20
it
1:20
because
1:20
we
1:21
thought
1:21
that
1:22
when
1:22
we
1:23
could
1:23
kind
1:24
of
1:24
locate
1:24
ourselves
1:25
in
1:25
the
1:25
cosmos,
1:26
who
1:26
and
1:26
what's
1:27
going
1:27
on,
1:27
this
1:27
great
1:28
mystery
1:29
that
1:29
somehow
1:30
that
1:30
puts
1:31
our
1:31
own
1:31
little
1:32
struggles
1:32
and
1:32
our
1:33
own
1:33
issues
1:33
in
1:33
life
1:33
in
1:34
a
1:34
much
1:34
larger
1:34
perspective
1:35
and
1:35
can
1:36
be
1:36
very
1:36
liberating
1:36
and
1:37
very
1:37
inspiring.
1:37
So
1:38
I've
1:38
been
1:38
trying
1:39
to
1:39
get
1:39
Stephan
1:40
here
1:40
for
1:40
quite
1:40
a
1:40
while
1:41
and
1:41
he's
1:41
also
1:41
an
1:42
author
1:42
and
1:42
he's
1:42
got
1:43
books
1:43
coming
1:43
out.
1:43
We'll
1:43
talk
1:44
about
1:44
all
1:44
that
1:44
later.
1:45
But
1:45
Steve,
1:45
is
1:46
there
1:46
anything
1:46
else
1:46
you'd
1:46
like
1:47
to
1:47
let
1:47
people
1:48
know
1:48
about
1:48
who
1:49
you
1:49
are
1:49
and
1:49
what
1:49
you
1:49
do
1:50
before
1:50
we
1:50
get
1:50
into
1:51
this?
1:51
Well,
1:52
first
1:52
of
1:52
all,
1:52
John,
1:52
it's
1:53
great
1:53
to
1:53
be
1:53
with
1:54
you.
1:54
And
1:54
you
1:54
as
1:54
well,
1:54
Roger.
1:55
It's
1:56
great
1:56
that
1:56
we
1:56
have
1:56
this
1:57
long
1:57
history
1:57
together,
1:57
John,
1:58
and
1:59
I
1:59
love
1:59
that
1:59
we
1:59
started
1:59
with
2:00
kind
2:00
of
2:00
mental
2:00
health
2:01
because
2:01
mental
2:02
health
2:02
and
2:02
cosmology
2:02
are
2:03
interrelated.
2:04
How
2:04
we
2:05
kind
2:05
of
2:05
frame
2:05
ourselves
2:06
within
2:06
an
2:07
unfolding
2:07
universe
2:08
has
2:08
effects
2:09
on
2:10
society,
2:10
culture
2:11
and
2:11
our
2:12
mental
2:12
health.
2:12
So
2:12
that
2:13
could
2:13
be
2:13
something
2:13
we
2:13
could
2:13
touch
2:13
upon
2:14
in
2:14
our
2:14
time
2:14
together
2:15
as
2:15
well.
2:15
Absolutely.
2:16
Relationship
2:16
to
2:17
cosmology,
2:17
mental
2:17
health,
2:18
and
2:18
what.
2:18
We've
2:19
learned
2:19
about
2:19
the
2:19
cosmos
2:20
and
2:20
say,
2:20
the
2:20
last
2:20
hundred
2:21
years
2:22
is
2:22
just
2:23
extraordinary.
2:25
You
2:25
know,
2:25
I
2:25
mean,
2:26
it's
2:26
just
2:26
with
2:26
the
2:27
advent
2:27
of
2:28
astronomy
2:29
and
2:29
the
2:30
web
2:30
telescope
2:31
and
2:31
everything
2:31
that
2:31
we've
2:32
learned
2:32
and
2:32
the
2:33
information
2:33
that's
2:34
constantly
2:34
coming
2:34
in,
2:35
the
2:35
vision
2:35
is
2:36
constantly
2:36
expanding
2:37
and
2:37
constantly
2:38
affecting
2:38
me
2:38
deeply.
2:39
I
2:39
was
2:39
saying
2:39
before
2:39
we
2:40
started
2:40
that
2:40
I'm
2:40
amateur
2:41
when
2:42
it
2:42
comes
2:42
to
2:42
all
2:42
this
2:42
stuff,
2:43
which
2:43
means
2:43
from
2:44
the
2:44
original
2:44
Latin,
2:45
as
2:45
I'm
2:45
a
2:45
lover
2:46
of.
2:46
So
2:46
this
2:47
subject
2:47
matter
2:47
is
2:48
very
2:48
dear
2:48
to
2:48
me
2:48
in
2:49
my
2:49
own
2:49
way.
2:49
Been,
2:49
you
2:50
know,
2:51
putting
2:51
my
2:51
feet
2:52
or
2:52
jumping
2:52
in
2:52
the
2:52
river
2:53
and,
2:53
and
2:53
trying
2:54
to
2:54
absorb
2:54
as
2:54
much.
2:54
So,
2:55
Stephan,
2:55
very.
2:55
You're
2:56
so
2:56
very
2:56
welcome
2:56
here
2:57
and
2:57
it's,
2:57
it's
2:57
great
2:58
to
2:58
have
2:58
you.
2:58
And
2:59
oh,
3:00
and
3:00
one
3:00
thing
3:00
I
3:01
want
3:01
to
3:01
mention,
3:01
Stephan
3:02
has
3:02
also
3:02
been
3:03
as
3:03
a
3:03
part
3:03
of
3:04
the
3:04
Ridhwan
3:04
School
3:05
with,
3:06
A.
3:06
H.
3:06
Almaas
3:07
as
3:08
you.
3:08
You
3:08
who
3:09
are
3:09
familiar
3:09
with
3:09
our
3:09
podcast.
3:10
We've
3:10
had
3:10
this
3:10
ongoing
3:11
dialogue
3:12
with
3:12
Hameed
3:13
Ali,
3:13
his
3:14
other
3:14
name,
3:15
and
3:17
it
3:17
has
3:17
been
3:17
extraordinarily
3:18
impactful
3:19
for
3:19
both
3:19
Roger
3:20
and
3:20
myself
3:20
and
3:21
from
3:21
you
3:21
who've
3:22
been
3:22
listening
3:22
to,
3:22
from
3:23
what
3:23
we
3:23
hear
3:23
from
3:23
the
3:23
feedback.
3:24
So
3:25
it's
3:25
really
3:25
great
3:26
to
3:26
bring
3:26
these
3:26
two
3:27
parts
3:27
of
3:28
my
3:28
love
3:28
and
3:28
my
3:28
interest
3:29
and
3:30
for
3:30
all
3:30
you
3:30
are
3:30
listening
3:31
to
3:31
us
3:31
right
3:31
now,
3:32
this
3:32
should
3:32
be
3:32
fun.
3:33
Sounds
3:34
good,
3:34
John.
3:34
You
3:34
know,
3:34
and
3:34
for
3:35
many
3:35
years
3:35
I
3:35
taught
3:35
a
3:36
course
3:36
on
3:36
cosmos
3:37
and
3:37
consciousness.
3:38
Right.
3:38
Because
3:38
we
3:38
need
3:39
both
3:39
to
3:39
cover
3:39
the
3:40
immensity
3:41
and
3:41
the
3:41
mystery
3:41
of
3:41
the
3:41
universe
3:42
that
3:42
we
3:42
find
3:42
ourselves
3:42
involved
3:43
in.
3:43
We
3:43
need
3:43
to
3:44
cover
3:44
the
3:44
cosmos,
3:44
right.
3:45
Kind
3:45
of
3:45
the
3:45
outward
3:46
expansion
3:46
of
3:46
space
3:47
and
3:47
time,
3:48
but
3:48
we
3:48
need
3:48
to
3:48
cover
3:49
consciousness,
3:49
right,
3:49
which
3:50
is,
3:50
you
3:50
know,
3:50
the
3:50
subjectivity,
3:51
right.
3:51
The
3:52
inner
3:52
dimension,
3:53
that
3:53
which
3:54
is
3:54
also
3:54
the
3:55
mystery
3:55
around
3:55
us.
3:56
So
3:56
a
3:56
comprehensive
3:57
view
3:57
requires
3:57
both.
3:59
So
3:59
I'm
3:59
glad
3:59
you're
3:59
kind
3:59
of
4:00
pointing
4:00
to
4:00
that,
4:00
you
4:00
know,
4:01
inner
4:01
in
4:01
the
4:01
get
4:02
go.
4:02
So
4:02
these
4:03
are
4:03
all
4:03
things
4:03
we
4:03
can
4:03
springboard
4:04
on
4:04
in
4:04
our
4:04
conversation.
4:05
Yeah,
4:05
and
4:06
physics
4:06
and
4:06
science,
4:07
they
4:07
really
4:07
have
4:07
a
4:07
problem
4:08
with
4:08
bringing
4:08
consciousness
4:09
into
4:09
the
4:09
picture
4:10
because
4:11
it's
4:11
not
4:11
measurable,
4:12
as
4:12
far
4:12
as
4:12
I
4:12
know,
4:13
maybe
4:13
IQ
4:14
test,
4:14
but
4:14
that's
4:14
not
4:14
really
4:15
consciousness.
4:15
That's
4:15
something
4:16
else.
4:16
And
4:17
so
4:17
in
4:18
a
4:18
large
4:18
way,
4:18
in
4:19
looking
4:19
at
4:20
the
4:20
nature
4:20
of
4:21
things,
4:21
reality
4:21
through
4:22
materialistic,
4:23
scientific
4:24
realism,
4:25
we've
4:25
left
4:25
out
4:26
consciousness
4:26
because
4:27
it
4:27
just
4:27
doesn't
4:27
fit
4:27
into
4:28
the
4:28
equation.
4:29
Hameed
4:29
said
4:29
he
4:29
tried
4:30
to
4:30
work
4:30
it
4:30
out
4:30
mathematically
4:31
one
4:31
time
4:31
and
4:31
he
4:31
said
4:32
there
4:32
were
4:32
just
4:32
too
4:32
many
4:32
variables.
4:33
He
4:33
gave
4:33
up
4:34
on
4:34
it.
4:34
So
4:35
I
4:35
think
4:35
it's
4:35
very
4:35
important
4:37
to
4:37
not
4:38
only
4:38
what
4:38
we
4:38
know
4:39
about
4:39
the
4:39
universe,
4:40
but
4:40
what
4:41
do
4:41
we
4:41
know
4:41
about
4:42
the
4:42
fact
4:43
that
4:43
something
4:43
exists
4:44
and
4:45
the
4:45
fact
4:45
that
4:45
we're
4:45
here
4:46
and
4:46
the
4:46
fact
4:47
that
4:47
what
4:48
kind
4:48
of
4:48
ground
4:48
and
4:49
being
4:49
makes
4:49
it
4:50
possible
4:51
for
4:51
science
4:51
to
4:51
exist
4:52
and
4:52
for
4:52
us
4:52
to
4:53
be
4:53
here
4:53
talking
4:54
about
4:54
it
4:54
right
4:54
now.
4:55
So
4:56
take
4:56
it
4:56
away.
4:57
You
4:57
know,
4:58
these
4:58
are
4:58
all
4:58
fantastic
4:59
questions
4:59
that
4:59
are
4:59
really
5:00
leaving
5:00
questions
5:01
in
5:01
the
5:01
field
5:02
you
5:02
mentioned.
5:02
We're
5:02
in
5:03
a
5:03
transformational
5:04
time
5:05
of
5:05
understanding
5:06
consciousness
5:06
in
5:06
a
5:06
new
5:06
way
5:07
and
5:07
where
5:07
it
5:07
fits
5:08
into
5:08
our
5:08
theories.
5:09
We're
5:09
also
5:10
in
5:10
a
5:10
transformational
5:11
period
5:11
about
5:11
understanding
5:12
what
5:12
does
5:12
it
5:13
mean
5:13
to
5:13
be
5:13
in
5:14
a
5:14
evolving
5:15
dynamic
5:16
universe.
5:17
You
5:17
mentioned
5:17
the
5:17
past
5:17
a
5:18
hundred
5:18
years.
5:18
I
5:19
was
5:19
just
5:19
stargazing
5:20
with
5:20
a
5:20
group
5:20
a
5:21
few
5:21
nights
5:21
ago,
5:21
and
5:22
we
5:22
were
5:22
seeing
5:22
the
5:23
Andromeda
5:23
Galaxy
5:24
just
5:24
rising
5:25
over
5:25
the
5:25
northeastern
5:26
horizon.
5:27
It's
5:27
a
5:28
beautiful
5:28
thing
5:28
to
5:28
see
5:28
with
5:29
telescopes
5:29
or
5:30
binoculars
5:30
or
5:30
even
5:30
your
5:31
naked
5:31
eye
5:32
in
5:32
the
5:32
fall.
5:32
And
5:32
we're
5:33
just
5:33
starting
5:33
to
5:33
see
5:33
it
5:33
peek
5:33
over.
5:34
And
5:35
it's
5:35
a
5:35
very
5:35
significant
5:36
historical
5:37
phenomenon
5:37
because
5:38
it's
5:38
the
5:38
closest
5:38
galaxy
5:39
like
5:39
our
5:39
own
5:39
to
5:40
the
5:40
Milky
5:40
Way.
5:41
We
5:41
live
5:41
in
5:41
a
5:41
galaxy
5:41
called
5:42
the
5:42
Milky
5:42
Way,
5:43
which
5:43
consists
5:43
of
5:44
2
5:44
to
5:44
300
5:44
billion
5:45
stars
5:45
in
5:45
a
5:45
spiral
5:46
pattern.
5:47
And
5:47
in
5:48
1924,
5:49
so
5:49
just
5:50
over
5:50
100
5:50
years
5:50
from
5:50
now,
5:51
Edwin
5:52
Hubble
5:52
and
5:52
other
5:52
astronomers
5:54
made
5:54
the
5:54
first
5:54
measurements
5:55
to
5:55
the
5:55
Andromeda
5:56
Galaxy,
5:56
which
5:57
is
5:57
called
5:57
the
5:57
Andromeda
5:58
Nebula
5:59
at
5:59
the
5:59
time,
6:00
because
6:00
we
6:00
thought
6:00
there
6:00
was
6:01
one
6:01
galaxy
6:02
at
6:02
the
6:02
beginning
6:02
of
6:03
the
6:03
20th
6:03
century,
6:03
and
6:04
that
6:04
was
6:04
the
6:04
Milky
6:04
Way,
6:04
and
6:05
the
6:05
entire
6:05
universe
6:05
was
6:06
one
6:06
galaxy
6:07
which
6:07
had
6:07
always
6:08
been
6:09
present.
6:09
Right.
6:10
The
6:10
universe
6:10
was
6:10
static
6:11
and
6:11
eternal.
6:12
This
6:12
is
6:13
the
6:13
universe
6:13
that
6:13
Einstein
6:14
grew
6:14
up
6:14
in.
6:14
This
6:14
is
6:15
the
6:15
idea
6:15
that
6:15
he
6:16
had
6:16
in
6:16
his
6:16
mind
6:16
when
6:16
he
6:17
wrote
6:17
down
6:17
the
6:18
equations
6:18
of
6:18
general
6:19
relativity.
6:20
And
6:20
you
6:20
may
6:20
have
6:21
heard
6:21
about
6:22
Einstein's
6:22
greatest
6:22
blunder.
6:23
Have
6:23
you
6:23
all
6:23
talked
6:23
about
6:24
that
6:24
before?
6:24
I
6:24
believe
6:25
so.
6:25
Maybe
6:25
we'll
6:25
just
6:26
mention
6:26
it
6:26
briefly.
6:27
But
6:27
he
6:27
had
6:27
this
6:27
idea
6:28
about
6:29
the
6:29
universe
6:29
in
6:29
his
6:29
mind,
6:30
and
6:30
as
6:30
did
6:30
everyone
6:31
until
6:32
Edwin
6:32
Hubble
6:32
measured
6:33
the
6:33
distance
6:33
to
6:33
Andromeda
6:34
and
6:34
found
6:34
it
6:34
was
6:35
way
6:35
further
6:36
away
6:37
than
6:37
people
6:37
had
6:37
previously
6:38
thought,
6:38
far
6:39
enough
6:39
that
6:39
they
6:40
discovered
6:41
this
6:41
is
6:41
another
6:42
island
6:42
universe,
6:43
right?
6:43
What
6:44
they
6:44
call
6:44
galaxies
6:44
where
6:44
island
6:45
universes.
6:46
So
6:46
essentially,
6:46
100
6:47
years
6:47
ago,
6:48
the
6:48
size
6:48
of
6:48
the
6:48
universe
6:49
doubled.
6:49
We
6:50
went
6:50
from
6:50
one
6:50
galaxy
6:51
to
6:51
two.
6:52
And
6:52
then
6:52
astronomers
6:53
began
6:53
measuring
6:53
distances
6:54
and
6:54
velocities
6:55
and
6:55
found,
6:55
oh,
6:56
there's
6:56
more
6:56
than
6:56
that.
6:57
And
6:58
as
6:58
last
6:58
count,
6:59
you
6:59
know,
6:59
the
7:00
James
7:00
Webb
7:00
Deep
7:01
Field,
7:01
we
7:01
Now
7:02
estimate
7:02
there's
7:02
2
7:02
trillion
7:03
galaxies
7:03
out
7:04
there.
7:05
I
7:05
mean,
7:05
just
7:05
to
7:05
kind
7:05
of
7:06
take
7:06
that
7:06
number
7:06
in
7:06
2
7:07
trillion
7:07
galaxies
7:07
in
7:08
our
7:09
part
7:09
of
7:09
the
7:09
observable
7:10
universe.
7:11
And
7:11
up
7:11
till
7:11
the
7:11
time
7:11
of
7:12
Hubble,
7:13
they
7:13
looked
7:13
into
7:13
the
7:13
deepest
7:14
space
7:14
they
7:14
could,
7:14
and
7:15
they
7:15
saw
7:15
these
7:15
little
7:15
things,
7:16
and
7:16
they
7:16
thought
7:16
they
7:16
were
7:17
just
7:17
stars
7:17
out
7:17
there.
7:18
And
7:18
it
7:18
turned
7:18
out
7:18
they
7:18
were
7:19
galaxies,
7:19
you
7:20
know,
7:20
millions
7:20
of
7:20
galaxies.
7:21
Now
7:21
we're
7:22
talking
7:22
about
7:22
trillions
7:22
of
7:22
galaxies,.
7:23
That
7:23
is
7:24
trillions
7:24
of
7:24
galaxies.
7:25
And,
7:25
you
7:26
know,
7:26
one
7:26
thing
7:26
they
7:26
also
7:27
discovered
7:27
soon
7:27
after
7:27
that,
7:28
in
7:28
the
7:28
late
7:28
1920s,
7:29
was
7:29
that
7:30
the
7:30
galaxies
7:30
are
7:30
moving
7:31
away
7:31
from
7:31
each
7:31
other.
7:32
Well,
7:33
you
7:33
know,
7:33
if
7:33
you
7:33
have
7:33
this
7:34
model
7:34
of
7:34
the
7:34
universe
7:34
where
7:34
it's
7:34
expanding
7:35
and
7:35
this
7:35
came
7:35
from
7:35
George
7:36
Lemaitre
7:36
and
7:36
other
7:37
cosmologists.
7:38
You
7:38
run
7:38
the
7:39
tape
7:39
backwards,
7:39
and
7:39
it
7:40
points
7:40
to
7:40
an
7:41
initial
7:41
beginning
7:41
for
7:41
all
7:42
of
7:42
this,
7:42
right?
7:43
So
7:43
a
7:43
big
7:43
bang
7:44
in
7:44
the
7:44
night
7:45
sky.
7:45
We
7:45
see
7:45
the
7:45
evidence
7:46
through
7:46
our
7:47
telescopes
7:47
that
7:47
we
7:47
live
7:47
in
7:48
an
7:48
evolving,
7:48
dynamic
7:49
universe.
7:50
So
7:50
we
7:50
don't
7:50
live
7:50
in
7:50
a
7:51
cosmos,
7:51
right,
7:51
which
7:52
is
7:52
a
7:52
static,
7:52
fixed,
7:53
unchanging
7:54
whole.
7:55
We
7:55
live
7:55
in
7:55
a
7:55
cosmogenesis,
7:57
an
7:57
evolving,
7:58
dynamic
7:59
whole
8:00
process
8:00
that's
8:01
creative,
8:01
that's
8:01
emergent,
8:02
that's
8:03
abundant
8:03
around
8:04
us,
8:05
that
8:05
includes
8:06
everyone
8:06
and
8:06
everything.
8:07
So
8:07
it's
8:07
a
8:08
huge
8:08
transformation
8:08
in
8:09
our
8:09
framework
8:10
of
8:10
what
8:10
reality
8:11
is
8:11
to
8:11
go
8:12
from
8:12
being
8:12
in
8:12
a
8:12
cosmos
8:13
to
8:13
a
8:13
cosmogenesis.
8:14
And
8:14
we
8:15
can
8:15
unpack
8:15
that
8:15
further
8:16
because
8:16
there's
8:16
a
8:16
lot
8:17
to
8:17
imply
8:17
with
8:17
that.
8:18
But
8:18
even
8:19
that
8:19
was
8:19
too
8:19
much
8:19
for
8:19
Einstein.
8:20
I
8:20
mean,
8:20
just
8:20
to
8:21
kind
8:21
of
8:21
briefly
8:21
touch
8:21
on
8:22
Einstein's
8:23
greatest
8:23
blunder.
8:23
In
8:24
1915,
8:25
he
8:25
wrote
8:25
down
8:26
his
8:26
equations
8:26
of
8:26
general
8:26
relativity,
8:28
which
8:28
is
8:28
how
8:28
matter
8:29
shapes
8:29
space
8:29
and
8:29
time.
8:30
And
8:30
in
8:31
the
8:31
equations,
8:32
they
8:32
implied
8:33
that
8:34
one
8:34
solution
8:35
was
8:35
that
8:35
the
8:35
universe
8:36
was
8:36
expanding.
8:37
Well,
8:37
he
8:37
said,
8:37
no,
8:38
no,
8:38
everyone
8:38
knows
8:38
that
8:38
the
8:39
universe
8:39
is
8:39
expanding.
8:39
It's
8:40
always
8:40
been
8:40
the
8:40
way
8:40
it
8:40
is.
8:41
So
8:41
he
8:41
added
8:42
what
8:42
he
8:43
later
8:43
called
8:43
his
8:43
greatest
8:43
blunder,
8:44
which
8:44
was
8:44
a
8:44
fudge
8:45
factor,
8:45
another
8:45
term
8:46
that
8:46
actually
8:46
canceled
8:47
out
8:47
the
8:47
implied
8:48
expansion
8:48
of
8:48
the
8:49
universe,
8:49
so
8:49
that
8:50
what
8:50
the
8:51
equations
8:51
were
8:52
telling
8:52
him
8:53
fit
8:53
what
8:54
he
8:54
had
8:54
in
8:54
his
8:54
mind
8:54
about
8:55
the
8:55
universe.
8:56
So
8:56
he
8:56
thought
8:56
the
8:57
universe
8:57
was
8:57
not
8:57
expanding.
8:58
Is
8:58
that
8:58
right?
8:59
Therefore,
9:00
you
9:00
know,
9:00
a
9:00
solution
9:01
where
9:01
the
9:01
universe
9:02
was
9:02
expanding
9:02
couldn't
9:03
be
9:03
true.
9:03
And
9:03
so
9:04
he
9:04
added,
9:04
you
9:04
know,
9:04
a
9:05
mysterious
9:05
constant
9:05
to
9:05
kind
9:06
of
9:06
cancel
9:06
that
9:06
out
9:07
so
9:07
that
9:08
reality
9:08
would
9:08
fit
9:09
his
9:09
picture
9:09
of
9:09
it
9:10
inside
9:10
his
9:10
mind.
9:11
So
9:11
if
9:11
Einstein
9:12
could
9:12
do
9:12
that,
9:12
we're
9:13
all
9:13
guilty
9:13
of
9:13
it
9:13
to
9:14
some
9:14
extent.
9:14
Well,
9:15
absolutely.
9:15
We
9:15
might
9:16
be
9:16
still
9:16
doing
9:16
that
9:16
today.
9:17
Chances
9:18
are
9:18
we
9:18
almost
9:18
certainly
9:19
are.
9:20
But,
9:20
you
9:20
know,
9:20
within
9:21
10
9:21
years,
9:21
he
9:21
looked
9:22
to
9:22
Hubble's
9:23
telescope,
9:23
saw
9:24
the
9:24
evidence
9:24
that
9:24
the
9:24
universe
9:25
is
9:25
expanding,
9:25
later
9:26
called
9:26
it
9:26
his
9:26
greatest
9:27
blunder,
9:27
and
9:27
began
9:27
to
9:28
accept,
9:28
you
9:28
know,
9:29
Big
9:29
Bang
9:29
theory
9:29
and
9:30
evolutionary
9:30
model
9:31
as,
9:31
you
9:32
know,
9:32
the
9:32
way
9:32
things
9:32
are.
9:33
So,
9:33
Stephan,
9:34
that
9:34
you're
9:34
pointing
9:35
to
9:36
this
9:36
dramatic
9:36
shift
9:37
in
9:37
our
9:37
understanding
9:38
of
9:38
the
9:39
universe
9:40
from
9:40
a
9:41
static,
9:41
fixed
9:42
entity
9:42
to
9:43
this
9:43
not
9:44
only
9:44
dynamic
9:45
and
9:45
constantly
9:45
changing,
9:46
but
9:46
in
9:46
some
9:46
way
9:47
evolving.
9:47
And
9:48
what
9:49
are
9:49
we
9:49
to
9:49
make
9:49
of
9:51
this
9:51
evolution?
9:53
It
9:53
seems
9:54
like
9:54
it's
9:54
heading
9:55
towards
9:55
greater
9:56
complexity
9:56
and
9:57
that
9:57
there's,
9:58
at
9:58
least
9:58
in
9:58
that
9:59
sense,
9:59
a
9:59
directionality
10:00
to
10:00
it.
10:01
On
10:01
the
10:01
other
10:01
hand,
10:02
much
10:02
of
10:02
science
10:03
is
10:03
based
10:04
on
10:05
materialistic
10:05
reductionism,
10:06
which
10:06
assumes
10:07
that
10:08
chances
10:09
and
10:09
the
10:09
clashing
10:10
of
10:10
atoms
10:11
is
10:11
deterministic
10:12
with
10:12
no
10:13
foresight
10:14
or
10:14
plan
10:14
or
10:15
direction.
10:15
So
10:16
how
10:16
do
10:16
you
10:17
wrestle
10:17
with
10:17
that
10:19
conflict?
10:20
Well,
10:21
I
10:21
wouldn't
10:21
say
10:21
that
10:21
that
10:22
completely
10:22
describes
10:23
the
10:23
view
10:23
from
10:24
science
10:24
because
10:24
in
10:25
the
10:25
late
10:26
70s
10:26
and
10:26
80s
10:26
we
10:27
had
10:27
the
10:27
emergence
10:27
of
10:27
complexity
10:28
theory
10:28
of
10:28
non
10:29
linearity,
10:30
where
10:31
these
10:31
systems
10:32
that
10:32
are
10:33
completely
10:33
deterministic
10:34
but
10:34
yet
10:35
unpredictable
10:35
in
10:35
the
10:35
results.
10:36
You
10:36
could
10:37
begin
10:37
with
10:37
a
10:38
particular
10:38
set
10:38
of
10:38
parameters
10:39
and
10:40
let
10:40
it
10:40
run
10:40
through
10:41
and
10:41
you
10:41
get
10:41
a
10:41
completely
10:42
different
10:42
result
10:42
every
10:42
time.
10:43
So
10:43
it
10:43
shows
10:44
that
10:44
we're
10:44
in
10:44
this
10:45
knife
10:45
edge
10:46
in
10:46
this
10:47
universe
10:47
between
10:48
order
10:48
and
10:48
chaos.
10:49
Right?
10:49
Or
10:49
if
10:49
you
10:49
don't
10:50
want
10:50
to
10:50
use
10:50
the
10:50
word
10:50
chaos,
10:51
you
10:51
could
10:51
use
10:51
the
10:51
word
10:52
spontaneity,
10:53
right.
10:53
Some
10:54
people
10:54
are
10:54
putting
10:55
in
10:55
new
10:55
terms
10:56
rather
10:56
than
10:57
saying
10:57
random,
10:58
like
10:58
quantum
10:59
particles,
10:59
right?
10:59
Their
11:00
actions
11:00
are
11:00
random,
11:01
they're
11:01
unpredictable.
11:02
We
11:02
might
11:02
say
11:02
that
11:03
they're
11:03
spontaneous,
11:04
which
11:05
implies
11:05
a
11:05
certain
11:06
degree
11:06
of
11:06
freedom.
11:08
And
11:08
one
11:09
quantum
11:09
physicist
11:09
friend
11:10
I
11:10
have
11:10
who
11:11
says
11:11
that
11:11
the
11:11
particles
11:12
exhibit
11:12
a
11:13
quality
11:13
of
11:13
spiritedness,
11:14
right?
11:15
They
11:16
have
11:16
this
11:16
kind
11:16
of
11:17
capacity
11:17
to
11:18
make
11:18
their
11:19
own
11:19
choices
11:20
in
11:20
a
11:20
way
11:20
that's
11:20
completely
11:21
different
11:21
than
11:21
the
11:21
termistic
11:22
factors
11:22
of
11:22
the
11:23
past.
11:23
We're
11:23
in
11:23
this
11:23
period
11:24
where
11:24
we're
11:24
kind
11:24
of
11:25
questioning
11:25
the
11:25
terms
11:25
that
11:26
we're
11:26
using
11:26
because
11:26
they
11:26
imply
11:27
certain
11:27
things
11:27
that
11:27
don't
11:28
necessarily
11:28
apply
11:28
to
11:28
what
11:29
we're
11:29
discovering.
11:30
Now,
11:30
random
11:30
is
11:30
important
11:31
from
11:31
a
11:31
mathematical
11:31
distribution
11:32
perspective.
11:32
And
11:33
atoms
11:34
still
11:34
behave
11:34
in
11:35
deterministic
11:35
ways
11:36
and
11:36
large
11:36
assemblies
11:37
of
11:37
them,
11:38
right?
11:38
This
11:38
is
11:38
statistics
11:38
basically,
11:39
and
11:39
quantum
11:40
theory,
11:40
false
11:40
statistics.
11:42
But
11:42
the
11:43
individual
11:43
actions
11:44
of
11:44
the
11:44
atoms
11:44
you
11:45
could
11:45
say
11:45
is
11:45
spontaneous,
11:46
right?
11:46
Which
11:47
implies
11:47
a
11:47
certain
11:47
kind
11:47
of
11:47
freedom.
11:48
And
11:48
you're
11:49
pointing
11:49
to
11:49
something
11:50
else
11:50
here,
11:51
even
11:51
as
11:51
a
11:51
possibility,
11:52
and
11:52
that
11:52
is
11:53
the.
11:53
There's
11:54
also
11:54
the
11:54
idea
11:55
which
11:55
is
11:55
associated
11:56
with
11:56
Eric
11:56
Johns
11:57
of
11:57
the.
11:57
And
11:58
his
11:58
book
11:58
title
11:58
was
11:59
the
11:59
Self
12:00
Organizing
12:00
Universe,
12:02
which
12:02
is
12:02
again,
12:03
seems
12:03
like
12:03
a
12:04
pretty
12:04
dramatic
12:04
shift
12:05
in
12:05
perspective.
12:06
How's
12:06
that
12:06
fit
12:07
in?
12:08
You
12:08
know,
12:08
it's
12:09
really,
12:09
really
12:09
interesting.
12:09
You
12:10
bring
12:10
in
12:10
the
12:10
idea
12:10
of
12:10
self
12:11
organizing,
12:12
right?
12:12
Because,
12:13
you
12:13
know,
12:13
I
12:13
just
12:13
went
12:14
to
12:14
a
12:14
seminar
12:14
a
12:14
couple
12:15
weeks
12:15
ago
12:16
about
12:16
Thomas
12:17
Berry.
12:17
Do
12:17
you
12:18
all
12:18
know
12:18
Thomas
12:18
Berry?
12:19
Thomas
12:19
Berry
12:19
was
12:20
a
12:20
theologian,
12:21
he
12:22
was
12:22
a
12:22
passionist
12:22
priest,
12:23
he
12:23
was
12:23
an
12:23
evolutionary
12:24
thinker.
12:25
He
12:25
was
12:25
very
12:26
foundational
12:27
in
12:27
kind
12:27
of
12:28
this
12:28
framework
12:28
that
12:28
we
12:28
now
12:28
call
12:29
the
12:29
new
12:29
cosmology.
12:31
And
12:31
this
12:31
presentation
12:32
was
12:32
on
12:32
the
12:32
seven
12:33
selves
12:34
of
12:34
what
12:34
Thomas
12:35
Berry
12:35
said
12:35
are
12:35
properties
12:36
of
12:36
the
12:36
universe
12:37
and
12:37
all
12:37
the
12:37
components
12:38
in
12:38
it,
12:39
right?
12:39
It's
12:39
self
12:40
fulfilling,
12:40
self
12:41
organizing,
12:42
self
12:42
determining.
12:44
Now,
12:44
in
12:44
the
12:44
west,
12:45
we
12:45
have
12:45
an
12:45
issue
12:45
with
12:46
the
12:46
idea
12:46
of
12:47
self,
12:47
right?
12:47
Because
12:47
we
12:48
think
12:48
there's
12:48
a
12:48
static
12:48
self
12:49
there
12:49
that's,
12:49
you
12:49
know,
12:50
kind
12:50
of
12:51
running
12:51
things
12:51
behind
12:51
the
12:52
scenes
12:52
and
12:52
making
12:52
determinate,
12:53
you
12:53
know,
12:53
determined
12:54
choices.
12:55
The
12:55
original
12:56
Greek
12:56
term
12:56
might
12:56
be
12:57
Autopoiesis.
12:58
Right.
12:58
Self
12:59
making.
12:59
But
12:59
they
13:00
understood
13:00
the
13:00
self
13:00
in
13:00
a
13:00
very
13:01
different
13:01
way.
13:02
But
13:02
in
13:02
other
13:02
words,
13:02
it's
13:02
not
13:03
happening
13:03
through
13:03
some
13:03
external
13:04
influence.
13:04
There's
13:05
no
13:06
outside
13:06
director
13:06
saying,
13:07
well,
13:07
you
13:07
go
13:07
there,
13:07
you
13:08
go
13:08
there.
13:09
It's
13:09
determining
13:10
its
13:10
own
13:10
creative
13:11
emergence
13:12
from
13:12
within
13:13
its
13:13
own
13:13
capacity.
13:14
So
13:15
the
13:15
idea
13:15
that
13:15
things
13:15
are
13:16
kind
13:16
of
13:16
self
13:17
organizing
13:17
and
13:18
Eric
13:18
Janss
13:18
showed,
13:19
you
13:19
know,
13:19
he
13:19
started
13:19
off
13:19
a
13:19
whole
13:20
revolution
13:20
and
13:21
is
13:21
thinking
13:21
about
13:21
this,
13:21
right?
13:22
Oh,
13:22
it's
13:22
like
13:23
the
13:23
whole
13:23
thing
13:23
is
13:24
organizing
13:24
itself.
13:25
Well,
13:25
how
13:26
does
13:26
that
13:26
happen?
13:26
We
13:27
don't
13:27
have
13:27
a
13:27
full
13:28
comprehensive
13:28
understanding
13:29
about
13:29
how
13:29
that
13:29
happens.
13:30
But
13:30
the
13:30
idea
13:30
here
13:31
is
13:31
that
13:31
the
13:31
universe
13:31
is
13:32
developing
13:33
in
13:33
every
13:34
aspect
13:34
of
13:34
itself,
13:35
from
13:35
every
13:36
place
13:37
within
13:37
itself,
13:38
from
13:38
its
13:38
own
13:39
self
13:39
determination,
13:41
self
13:41
making
13:42
capacity.
13:43
Yeah.
13:43
And
13:43
asides,
13:44
we
13:44
talk
13:44
about
13:45
entropy,
13:46
where
13:47
things
13:47
are
13:48
winding
13:48
down,
13:49
you
13:49
know,
13:49
and
13:49
losing
13:50
heat
13:50
and
13:50
going
13:50
back
13:51
to
13:51
just
13:51
the
13:52
basics.
13:52
But
13:52
in
13:53
complexity
13:53
theory,
13:54
we
13:55
find
13:55
things
13:55
moving
13:56
into
13:56
more
13:56
complex,
13:58
more
13:58
functional
13:59
new
13:59
properties,
14:00
more
14:01
beautiful,
14:01
if
14:01
you
14:02
will,
14:02
from
14:03
a
14:03
stage
14:04
that
14:04
prior
14:05
to
14:05
that
14:05
was
14:05
a
14:05
little
14:06
more
14:06
random
14:06
and
14:06
a
14:06
little
14:06
more
14:07
chaotic.
14:07
Is
14:07
that
14:08
in
14:08
the
14:08
ballpark?
14:09
You
14:10
could
14:10
say
14:10
that's
14:10
one
14:10
of
14:10
the
14:11
self
14:11
organizing
14:11
dynamics
14:12
of
14:12
the
14:12
universe
14:12
is
14:13
to
14:13
sort
14:13
of
14:13
take
14:13
energy
14:14
from
14:14
the
14:14
system,
14:15
use
14:15
it
14:15
to
14:15
organize
14:16
itself
14:16
in
14:16
a
14:16
way
14:17
that's
14:17
kind
14:17
of
14:17
negantropic.
14:18
Right.
14:18
It
14:19
goes
14:19
against
14:19
the
14:19
entropic
14:20
direction.
14:21
There
14:22
is,
14:22
it
14:22
does
14:22
seem
14:22
to
14:23
be
14:23
a
14:23
theme
14:23
in
14:23
the
14:23
universe
14:24
towards
14:25
greater
14:25
self
14:25
organization,
14:26
greater
14:26
complexity,
14:27
greater
14:27
interrelatedness.
14:29
In
14:29
fact,
14:30
just
14:30
to
14:30
touch
14:30
on
14:30
Thomas
14:30
Berry
14:31
again,
14:31
because
14:31
I
14:31
think
14:31
he's
14:31
good
14:32
about
14:32
these
14:32
broad
14:33
themes.
14:33
Thomas
14:34
Berry
14:34
said
14:35
there
14:35
are
14:36
three
14:36
great
14:36
governing
14:37
themes
14:37
that
14:37
determine
14:38
kind
14:38
of
14:38
the
14:38
patterning
14:39
of
14:39
the
14:39
universe
14:39
over
14:39
time
14:40
in
14:40
terms
14:40
of
14:40
how
14:41
it
14:41
expresses
14:41
its
14:41
wholeness.
14:42
And
14:43
we
14:43
can
14:43
go
14:43
into
14:43
them
14:43
individually,
14:44
but
14:44
I'll
14:44
just
14:45
say
14:45
them
14:45
in
14:46
broad
14:46
strokes,
14:47
right?
14:47
These
14:47
are
14:48
differentiation,
14:50
subjectivity
14:51
and
14:51
communion
14:53
and
14:54
just
14:54
to
14:54
kind
14:54
of
14:54
unpack
14:54
them
14:55
a
14:55
little
14:55
bit.
14:55
Differentiation
14:56
is
14:57
the
14:57
development
14:58
and
14:58
creation
14:58
of
14:59
unique
14:59
centers
14:59
of
14:59
experience.
15:00
Right.
15:00
You
15:01
begin
15:01
with
15:01
a
15:01
cloud
15:01
of
15:01
plasma
15:02
or
15:03
energy,
15:03
you
15:03
know,
15:03
early
15:04
on,
15:04
13.8
15:04
billion
15:05
years
15:05
ago.
15:06
Very
15:06
quickly
15:06
as
15:07
the
15:07
universe
15:07
expands
15:07
and
15:08
cools,
15:08
it
15:08
coalesces
15:09
into
15:09
particles
15:10
which
15:10
begin
15:11
to
15:11
bond
15:12
together
15:12
into
15:13
distinct
15:14
patterns
15:14
of
15:14
particles.
15:15
Molecules,
15:16
you
15:16
know,
15:16
bend
15:17
stars,
15:17
galaxies,
15:18
planets,
15:19
and
15:20
now
15:20
the
15:20
complexity
15:20
of
15:21
the
15:21
world
15:21
we
15:21
see
15:21
around
15:22
us,
15:22
right?
15:23
When
15:23
we
15:23
look
15:23
around,
15:23
we
15:24
see
15:24
a
15:24
highly
15:25
differentiated
15:26
reality.
15:27
It's
15:27
not
15:27
a
15:27
simple
15:28
reality
15:28
that's
15:28
uniform
15:29
and
15:29
homogeneous,
15:30
but
15:30
it's
15:31
differentiated.
15:32
Right.
15:32
We've
15:33
got
15:33
8
15:33
million,
15:33
you
15:34
know,
15:34
8
15:34
billion
15:34
different
15:35
humans
15:35
on
15:36
the
15:36
planet,
15:36
each
15:37
one
15:37
completely
15:38
unique.
15:39
So
15:39
there's
15:40
this
15:40
dynamism
15:41
in
15:41
the
15:41
universe
15:41
that
15:42
seeks
15:42
to
15:42
express
15:42
itself
15:43
through
15:44
Unique
15:44
centers
15:45
of
15:45
experience.
15:46
And
15:46
we
15:46
could
15:46
talk
15:46
more
15:47
about
15:47
what
15:47
that
15:47
means
15:47
to
15:48
be
15:48
a
15:48
unique
15:48
center
15:48
of
15:49
experience.
15:49
But
15:50
just
15:50
differentiation
15:51
is
15:51
kind
15:51
of
15:51
built
15:51
into
15:51
the
15:52
dynamism
15:52
of
15:52
the
15:52
universe,
15:53
which
15:53
means
15:53
increasing
15:54
complexity.
15:55
And
15:55
the
15:55
way
15:55
that
15:55
you're
15:56
speaking
15:56
about.
15:56
It
15:56
and
15:56
what
15:57
you
15:57
personally,
15:58
I'll
15:58
make
15:58
this
15:58
personal
15:59
infer
15:59
from
15:59
that,
16:00
philosophically,
16:01
what
16:01
does
16:01
that
16:01
tell
16:02
you
16:02
about
16:02
the
16:03
nature
16:03
of
16:03
things
16:03
and
16:04
the
16:04
nature
16:04
of
16:04
you
16:04
and
16:04
me
16:04
and
16:05
the
16:05
people
16:05
that
16:05
are
16:05
listening
16:06
here?
16:07
One
16:07
of
16:07
the
16:07
purposes
16:08
of
16:08
being
16:09
a
16:09
participant
16:09
in
16:09
the
16:09
evolutionary
16:10
universe
16:10
is
16:11
to
16:11
be
16:11
your
16:11
unique
16:12
self,
16:12
to
16:12
express
16:13
your
16:13
unique
16:14
gift,
16:15
to
16:16
express
16:16
your
16:16
unique
16:16
essence.
16:17
So
16:18
in
16:18
other
16:18
words,
16:18
it's
16:18
honoring
16:19
and
16:19
acknowledging
16:19
the
16:20
unique
16:21
expression
16:21
of
16:21
each
16:22
of
16:22
us
16:22
as
16:22
an
16:22
aspect
16:23
of
16:23
the
16:23
whole.
16:24
And
16:24
Thomas
16:25
Berry
16:26
referred
16:26
to
16:26
each
16:27
of
16:27
us,
16:27
every
16:28
being,
16:28
as
16:28
a
16:28
mode
16:29
of
16:29
the
16:29
universe,
16:31
a
16:31
particular
16:32
way.
16:32
The
16:32
universe
16:32
is
16:32
knowing
16:33
itself
16:34
and
16:34
expressing
16:34
itself
16:36
in
16:36
a
16:36
very
16:37
unique
16:37
way.
16:38
And
16:38
I
16:38
love
16:38
that.
16:38
To
16:39
be
16:39
a
16:39
mode
16:39
of
16:39
the
16:39
universe.
16:40
Right.
16:40
An
16:40
inflection
16:41
point
16:41
for
16:41
the
16:41
universe's
16:43
reflection
16:43
upon
16:43
itself,
16:44
its
16:44
expression,
16:44
its
16:45
creativity
16:46
itself,
16:46
organizing
16:47
dynamics.
16:48
It's
16:48
all
16:49
happening
16:49
right
16:50
here
16:50
in
16:50
a
16:50
unique
16:50
way.
16:51
Now,
16:51
it
16:52
also
16:52
means
16:52
that
16:53
each
16:53
person's
16:54
uniqueness
16:54
is
16:54
something
16:55
to
16:55
be
16:55
honored.
16:56
Every
16:56
redwood
16:57
tree,
16:57
every
16:58
plant,
16:58
flower,
16:59
and
16:59
bloom
17:00
is
17:00
unique
17:01
and
17:01
precious.
17:02
And
17:02
so
17:02
he
17:02
was
17:02
very
17:03
concerned
17:03
about
17:03
species
17:03
extinction,
17:04
as
17:04
I
17:04
am,
17:05
I.
17:05
Because
17:06
it's
17:06
the
17:06
loss
17:06
of
17:06
these
17:07
unique
17:08
modes
17:08
of
17:08
knowing
17:09
of
17:09
the
17:09
universe,
17:09
of
17:10
the
17:10
universe,
17:10
knowing
17:10
itself.
17:11
So
17:11
that's
17:12
a
17:12
dynamic.
17:13
Yeah.
17:13
And
17:13
I
17:13
wouldn't
17:13
say
17:14
in
17:14
music,
17:15
I
17:15
played
17:16
the
17:16
guitar,
17:16
you
17:16
have
17:16
modes
17:17
that
17:17
are
17:18
scales,
17:18
but
17:19
the
17:19
different
17:19
modes
17:19
had
17:19
a
17:20
different
17:20
flavor.
17:21
Exactly.
17:22
There's
17:22
a
17:22
certain
17:22
emotional
17:23
something
17:24
uniqueness
17:25
in
17:25
each
17:25
mode.
17:26
So
17:26
you
17:26
learn
17:26
those
17:27
to
17:27
be
17:27
able
17:27
to
17:27
explore
17:28
different
17:28
dimensions
17:29
in
17:29
the
17:29
neck
17:29
of
17:29
the
17:30
guitar
17:30
and
17:30
the
17:30
music
17:30
that
17:31
you
17:31
play.
17:32
I
17:32
love
17:32
that.
17:32
And,
17:33
you
17:33
know,
17:33
because
17:33
using
17:33
these.
17:33
These
17:34
musical.
17:34
Musical
17:34
metaphors,
17:35
you
17:35
could
17:35
say
17:35
each
17:35
one
17:35
of
17:36
us
17:36
is
17:36
a
17:36
note
17:36
in
17:36
a
17:37
cosmic
17:37
symphony,
17:37
which
17:38
other
17:38
people
17:38
have
17:38
used
17:38
as
17:38
well,
17:39
but
17:40
a
17:40
particular
17:40
voice
17:42
that
17:42
needs
17:42
to
17:42
be
17:43
heard
17:43
and
17:43
needs
17:43
to
17:43
be
17:43
recognized
17:44
and
17:44
acknowledged.
17:46
So
17:46
differentiation
17:47
is
17:47
this
17:47
dynamic
17:48
by
17:48
which
17:48
the
17:48
universe
17:49
creates
17:49
ever
17:49
more
17:50
complex
17:50
and
17:51
unique
17:51
centers
17:51
of
17:51
experience
17:52
over
17:52
time.
17:53
And
17:53
we're
17:53
now
17:53
touching
17:54
into
17:54
the
17:55
interface
17:56
of
17:56
cosmology
17:57
and
17:57
consciousness,
17:58
which
17:58
is
17:58
something
17:58
you
17:59
raised
17:59
earlier,
17:59
Stephan.
18:00
Yeah.
18:01
So
18:02
there
18:02
are
18:02
innumerable
18:03
questions
18:03
here,
18:04
but
18:04
let's
18:04
start
18:05
with
18:05
the
18:05
big
18:05
one.
18:06
And
18:07
one
18:07
question
18:08
is,
18:10
is
18:10
consciousness
18:11
an
18:11
emergent
18:12
out
18:12
of
18:13
the
18:13
universe?
18:13
Or
18:14
if
18:15
so,
18:15
when,
18:16
et
18:16
cetera.
18:16
Or
18:17
what's
18:17
the
18:17
relationship
18:18
here?
18:18
And
18:18
I'm
18:18
not.
18:19
And
18:20
there's
18:20
an
18:20
underlying
18:21
epistemological
18:22
question.
18:23
Is
18:23
it
18:23
even
18:23
possible
18:24
for
18:24
us
18:24
to
18:24
know?
18:27
And
18:28
I
18:28
have
18:28
to
18:28
be
18:28
honest
18:28
and
18:29
say,
18:29
you
18:29
know,
18:29
I
18:29
don't
18:30
know.
18:30
But
18:31
I
18:31
can
18:31
point
18:31
to
18:32
Thomas
18:32
Berry,
18:33
right,
18:34
his
18:34
second
18:35
dynamic.
18:35
We
18:35
have
18:35
differentiation,
18:37
we
18:37
have
18:38
subjectivity
18:38
and
18:38
communion.
18:39
By
18:39
subjectivity
18:41
he
18:41
means
18:42
the
18:42
subjectivity
18:43
of
18:43
the
18:43
whole
18:44
is
18:44
expressed
18:45
in
18:45
each
18:45
of
18:45
the
18:45
particular
18:46
part
18:46
or
18:46
in
18:46
each
18:47
particular
18:47
differentiated
18:48
center.
18:50
So
18:50
he
18:50
would
18:50
say
18:51
that
18:51
each
18:52
of
18:52
us
18:52
is
18:52
a
18:53
particular
18:53
expression
18:53
of
18:54
the
18:54
whole,
18:55
the
18:55
consciousness
18:55
of
18:56
the
18:56
whole
18:56
being
18:57
refracted
18:57
through
18:58
each
18:58
individual
19:00
center
19:00
of
19:00
awareness.
19:02
So
19:02
he's
19:02
pointing
19:02
to
19:03
more
19:03
of
19:03
a
19:03
panpsychist
19:04
approach,
19:05
you
19:05
might
19:05
say
19:05
monistic
19:06
idealism.
19:07
I
19:07
mean,
19:07
these
19:07
terms
19:08
are
19:08
kind
19:08
of
19:08
coming
19:08
back
19:08
into
19:08
favor
19:09
these
19:09
days
19:10
in
19:10
the
19:10
conscious
19:11
community.
19:12
Not
19:13
super
19:13
well
19:13
accepted
19:14
in
19:14
the
19:14
physical
19:15
sciences
19:15
at
19:15
this
19:15
point.
19:15
I
19:16
mean,
19:16
there's
19:16
still
19:16
much.
19:17
Can
19:17
you
19:17
explain
19:17
panpsychism
19:18
before
19:18
we
19:18
get
19:19
too
19:19
much
19:19
further?
19:19
Panpsychism
19:20
is
19:20
the
19:20
idea
19:21
that
19:21
everything
19:22
has
19:22
some
19:22
kind
19:22
of
19:22
psychic
19:23
capacity
19:23
or
19:24
some
19:24
expression
19:24
of
19:24
psychic,
19:25
psychic,
19:25
not
19:25
meaning
19:26
paranormal,
19:26
but
19:27
just
19:27
meaning
19:27
mental
19:28
or
19:28
consciousness.
19:28
I
19:29
mean,
19:29
you
19:29
guys
19:29
would
19:29
be
19:29
better
19:30
articulates
19:30
for
19:31
that.
19:31
But
19:31
the
19:31
idea
19:31
that
19:31
consciousness
19:32
is
19:32
a
19:32
pervasive
19:33
quality
19:33
that
19:34
exists
19:34
everywhere
19:34
and
19:35
whether
19:35
it's
19:35
emergent
19:36
in,
19:36
you
19:37
know,
19:37
nervous
19:38
systems
19:38
that
19:38
have
19:38
a
19:38
certain
19:38
level
19:39
of
19:39
complexity
19:39
brings
19:40
about
19:40
its
19:40
own
19:40
issues.
19:40
Right,
19:41
with
19:41
the
19:41
emergence
19:41
problem,
19:42
how
19:42
does
19:42
something
19:43
that
19:43
seems
19:43
so
19:44
mind
19:44
like,
19:44
you
19:44
know,
19:45
emerged
19:45
from
19:45
something
19:45
that's
19:46
material.
19:46
This
19:47
is
19:47
the
19:47
famous
19:47
mind
19:47
body
19:47
problem
19:48
that's
19:48
plagued
19:49
Western
19:49
culture
19:50
for,
19:50
you
19:50
know,
19:51
hundreds
19:51
of
19:51
years.
19:52
Many
19:52
people
19:53
are
19:53
solving
19:53
this
19:53
with
19:54
different
19:54
aspects
19:55
of
19:55
idealistic
19:56
monism.
19:57
Right.
19:57
The
19:57
idea
19:57
that
19:58
there
19:58
is
19:58
one
19:58
consciousness
19:59
that
19:59
expresses
19:59
itself
19:59
in
20:00
different
20:00
ways.
20:01
And
20:01
of
20:01
course,
20:01
integral
20:02
theory,
20:02
you
20:02
know,
20:03
John,
20:03
as
20:03
you
20:03
know,
20:03
is
20:04
very
20:04
good
20:04
about
20:05
this
20:05
and
20:06
partially
20:06
said
20:07
there's
20:07
consciousness
20:07
from
20:08
the
20:08
beginning
20:08
and
20:08
it's
20:09
all
20:09
aspects
20:09
of
20:09
consciousness.
20:10
But
20:11
I
20:11
would
20:11
appreciate
20:12
your
20:12
guys
20:12
input
20:13
as
20:13
well.
20:13
I
20:13
mean,
20:13
we
20:13
can
20:13
have
20:13
a
20:14
dialogue
20:14
about
20:14
this.
20:14
But
20:14
what
20:15
do
20:15
you
20:15
all
20:15
think?
20:16
Well,
20:17
there's
20:17
an
20:17
underlying
20:18
question
20:18
for
20:18
me,
20:19
Stephan,
20:19
and
20:19
that
20:19
is
20:20
how
20:20
would
20:20
one
20:21
even
20:21
decide?
20:23
And
20:23
it
20:24
seems
20:24
like
20:24
there
20:24
are
20:26
two
20:26
key
20:27
approaches
20:27
here.
20:27
One
20:28
is
20:29
science.
20:29
And
20:29
it
20:30
doesn't
20:30
seem
20:30
that
20:30
science
20:31
is
20:31
particularly
20:31
well
20:32
equipped,
20:32
as
20:33
John
20:33
was
20:33
saying
20:34
earlier,
20:34
to
20:35
investigate
20:36
consciousness
20:38
being
20:38
subjective
20:39
and
20:40
science
20:40
being
20:41
an
20:41
examination
20:41
of
20:42
the
20:43
properties
20:43
of
20:44
objective
20:44
phenomena.
20:45
But
20:45
then
20:46
there's
20:46
the
20:47
subjective,
20:48
the
20:49
contemplative
20:50
approach
20:52
of
20:52
investigating
20:53
one's
20:54
own
20:54
awareness
20:54
and
20:54
coming
20:55
to
20:56
some
20:56
understanding
20:57
of
20:57
that.
20:58
And
20:58
almost
20:58
anyone
20:59
who
20:59
does
20:59
deep
21:00
contemplative
21:01
practice
21:02
draws
21:02
some
21:03
understanding
21:04
about
21:05
the
21:05
nature
21:05
of
21:05
consciousness.
21:06
Many
21:07
of
21:07
whom
21:08
assume
21:09
that,
21:09
come
21:09
to
21:09
assume
21:10
that
21:10
it's
21:11
primordial
21:11
and
21:12
outside
21:12
space,
21:13
time
21:13
ever
21:13
present.
21:14
And
21:14
amid
21:15
Ali,
21:15
who's
21:16
been
21:16
one
21:17
of
21:17
our
21:17
ongoing
21:18
most
21:18
esteemed
21:19
guests,
21:19
has
21:20
certainly
21:21
come
21:21
to
21:21
that
21:22
conclusion
21:23
and
21:23
holds
21:23
it.
21:24
But
21:24
as
21:24
you
21:24
say,
21:25
it's
21:25
probably
21:25
not.
21:25
It's.
21:26
These
21:27
are
21:27
two
21:27
different
21:27
worlds
21:28
in
21:28
many
21:29
ways
21:29
which
21:29
haven't
21:30
been
21:30
brought
21:30
together
21:30
in
21:31
mainstream
21:32
thought.
21:32
So
21:33
anyway,
21:33
that's
21:33
just
21:34
a
21:34
starting
21:34
point
21:34
for
21:35
you
21:35
to
21:35
take
21:35
off.
21:36
Sure.
21:36
Well,
21:36
you
21:37
know,
21:37
and
21:37
I
21:37
think
21:37
we're
21:37
pointing
21:38
in
21:38
the
21:38
direction
21:38
of
21:38
maybe
21:38
21st,
21:39
22nd,
21:40
23rd
21:40
century
21:41
science
21:42
and
21:42
consciousness
21:43
studies.
21:43
Right.
21:43
So
21:44
the
21:44
consciousness
21:45
studies
21:45
needs
21:46
to
21:46
include
21:46
the
21:47
insights
21:47
of
21:47
science
21:48
as
21:48
part
21:48
of
21:48
what
21:48
it's
21:49
studying
21:49
as
21:49
well.
21:49
And
21:49
science
21:50
needs
21:50
to
21:50
include
21:51
consciousness
21:52
studies
21:52
to
21:52
include.
21:52
Or
21:53
the
21:53
results
21:53
of
21:53
consciousness
21:53
studies
21:54
to
21:54
have,
21:55
you
21:55
know,
21:55
a
21:55
kind
21:55
of
21:55
a
21:55
robust
21:56
theory
21:57
of
21:57
everything.
21:57
Right.
21:57
Which
21:58
has
21:58
been
21:58
the
21:58
goal
21:58
of
21:58
physics
21:59
for,
21:59
you
21:59
know,
21:59
decades.
22:00
Right.
22:00
If
22:00
you're
22:00
going
22:00
to
22:00
include
22:01
everything,
22:01
you
22:01
have
22:01
to
22:01
include
22:01
everything
22:02
as
22:02
part
22:03
of
22:03
that.
22:03
You
22:03
can't
22:03
just
22:04
say
22:04
it's
22:04
physical
22:05
stuff.
22:06
The
22:06
other
22:06
thing
22:07
that's
22:07
really
22:07
interesting
22:07
in
22:08
terms
22:08
of
22:08
what
22:08
we're
22:08
pointing
22:09
to
22:09
here
22:09
is
22:09
that
22:10
the
22:10
universe
22:11
is
22:11
participatory.
22:12
Right.
22:12
What
22:13
data
22:13
we
22:13
get
22:13
back
22:13
from
22:13
the
22:14
universe
22:14
depends
22:14
on
22:15
the
22:15
methods
22:15
that
22:15
we
22:16
interact
22:16
with
22:16
it
22:16
through.
22:17
So
22:17
if
22:17
you
22:18
look
22:18
at
22:18
the
22:18
universe
22:19
through
22:19
telescopes,
22:20
you
22:20
see
22:21
stars
22:21
and
22:21
galaxies,
22:22
you
22:22
don't
22:22
see
22:23
love
22:24
and
22:25
other
22:25
qualities.
22:26
However,
22:27
if
22:27
you
22:28
engage
22:29
with
22:29
a
22:29
relationship
22:29
with
22:29
the
22:30
universe
22:30
through,
22:31
say,
22:31
devotional
22:32
or
22:32
contemplative
22:32
practices,
22:33
you
22:33
discover
22:33
other
22:34
qualities.
22:35
So
22:35
isn't
22:35
it
22:36
interesting
22:36
that
22:36
the
22:36
universe
22:37
somehow
22:38
gives
22:38
us
22:38
back
22:39
in
22:39
some
22:39
way
22:41
information
22:41
or
22:41
experiences
22:42
that
22:42
involve
22:43
itself
22:44
through
22:44
the
22:44
method
22:45
that
22:45
we
22:45
interact
22:45
with
22:46
it?
22:47
And
22:47
I
22:47
think
22:47
that's
22:48
such
22:48
an
22:48
important
22:48
point
22:49
to
22:49
make,
22:49
Stephan,
22:49
because
22:50
it's
22:50
something
22:50
that
22:51
isn't
22:51
really
22:52
widely
22:53
appreciated
22:54
in
22:54
mainstream.
22:54
In,
22:55
say,
22:55
in
22:55
academia
22:56
and
22:56
in
22:57
mainstream
22:57
thought
22:58
that
22:58
what
22:59
we
22:59
find
22:59
is
22:59
a
23:00
function
23:01
of
23:01
the
23:02
way
23:02
we
23:02
look.
23:02
In
23:03
technical
23:03
terms,
23:03
it
23:04
would
23:04
be
23:04
that
23:05
our
23:05
way
23:06
of
23:06
looking,
23:07
our
23:07
epistemology,
23:09
determines
23:12
phenomenology.
23:13
What
23:13
we
23:13
see
23:13
or
23:14
experience
23:14
or
23:15
our
23:15
way
23:15
of
23:15
looking
23:16
enacts
23:18
or
23:18
calls
23:18
forth
23:19
a
23:20
particular
23:20
form
23:21
of
23:21
experience.
23:22
And
23:22
there
23:23
are
23:23
so
23:23
many
23:23
traps
23:24
here.
23:24
One
23:25
of
23:25
the
23:25
most
23:25
prevalent
23:26
among
23:27
very
23:27
smart
23:27
people.
23:28
I
23:29
see
23:29
it
23:29
raining
23:30
in
23:30
the
23:30
university
23:31
is
23:31
to
23:31
assume
23:32
that
23:33
if,
23:33
for
23:34
example,
23:35
a
23:35
phenomenon
23:36
does
23:36
not
23:36
appear
23:37
in
23:38
science,
23:38
then
23:38
it
23:39
doesn't
23:39
exist.
23:40
Or.
23:40
Or
23:40
it's,
23:41
quote,
23:41
unreal.
23:42
So
23:42
there's
23:43
a
23:43
real.
23:43
There's
23:44
an
23:44
issue
23:44
here.
23:45
You
23:45
mentioned
23:46
Ken
23:46
Wilber's
23:47
work
23:47
in
23:47
integral
23:47
theory.
23:48
One
23:48
of
23:48
the
23:48
great
23:48
gifts
23:49
it
23:49
brings
23:50
is
23:50
that
23:50
it
23:50
has
23:51
a
23:51
formal
23:52
system
23:52
it
23:52
calls
23:53
integral
23:53
methodological
23:54
pluralism.
23:55
And
23:56
that's
23:56
a
23:57
big
23:57
a
23:57
mouthful.
23:58
But
23:58
basically
23:58
what
23:58
it
23:59
says
23:59
is
24:00
that
24:00
to
24:00
get
24:01
the
24:01
fullest
24:01
appreciation
24:03
of
24:03
the
24:03
world,
24:04
of
24:04
ourselves,
24:05
a
24:05
reality,
24:06
we
24:06
need
24:06
to
24:06
adopt
24:07
multiple
24:08
ways
24:08
of
24:08
looking
24:09
and
24:10
to
24:11
integrate
24:11
them
24:11
in
24:11
some
24:12
systematic
24:12
way.
24:14
Absolutely,
24:15
absolutely.
24:15
You
24:15
know,
24:15
and
24:16
if
24:16
you
24:16
could,
24:16
that
24:16
is
24:17
the
24:17
work.
24:17
Yeah,
24:17
yeah.
24:18
Well,
24:18
John,
24:18
did
24:18
you
24:19
want
24:19
to
24:19
just
24:19
jump
24:19
in
24:19
there?
24:20
I
24:20
know
24:20
you've
24:20
got
24:20
a
24:20
lot
24:20
to
24:20
say.
24:21
Oh,
24:21
my
24:21
gosh,
24:21
you're
24:21
setting
24:22
off
24:22
so
24:22
many
24:22
light
24:23
bulbs
24:23
in
24:23
my
24:23
head.
24:24
It's
24:24
really
24:25
exciting.
24:26
I
24:26
think,
24:27
first
24:27
of
24:27
all,
24:27
I
24:27
think
24:28
we
24:28
have
24:28
to
24:28
acknowledge
24:28
science,
24:29
you
24:30
know,
24:30
materialistic,
24:30
reductionistic,
24:31
mathematical
24:32
science
24:32
and
24:33
all
24:33
it's
24:33
accomplished
24:34
and
24:34
how
24:35
far
24:35
it's
24:35
brought
24:36
us
24:36
and.
24:37
But
24:38
it
24:38
seems
24:38
at
24:38
a
24:38
certain
24:39
point.
24:39
Well,
24:39
here's
24:40
a
24:40
question
24:40
for
24:40
you
24:40
as,
24:41
as
24:41
a
24:41
scientist,
24:42
how
24:42
far
24:43
do
24:43
you
24:43
think
24:43
that
24:44
mathematics
24:45
can
24:45
take
24:45
us
24:46
as
24:46
far
24:46
as
24:46
understanding
24:48
the
24:48
true
24:49
nature
24:49
of
24:50
reality?
24:53
Great
24:53
question.
24:54
You
24:54
know,
24:54
first
24:54
of
24:54
all,
24:54
I
24:55
think
24:55
we
24:55
need
24:55
to
24:56
kind
24:56
of
24:56
assume
24:56
what
24:56
we're
24:56
talking
24:57
about
24:57
with
24:57
science,
24:57
Right.
24:57
Because
24:58
we're,
24:58
we're
24:58
necessarily
24:58
assuming
24:59
that
25:00
science
25:00
is
25:00
associated
25:00
with
25:01
materialism,
25:01
and
25:01
I
25:02
don't
25:02
think
25:02
that's
25:02
necessarily
25:03
has
25:03
to
25:03
be
25:04
true.
25:04
Right.
25:04
There
25:05
is
25:05
a
25:05
particular
25:06
flavor
25:07
of
25:07
how
25:07
people
25:07
interpret
25:08
science
25:08
that
25:08
we
25:08
might
25:09
call
25:09
scientism,
25:10
which
25:11
is
25:11
that
25:11
which
25:11
is
25:12
described
25:12
by
25:12
the
25:12
material
25:13
interaction
25:14
of
25:14
science
25:14
with
25:14
the
25:15
universe
25:15
is
25:15
the
25:15
way
25:15
things
25:16
are.
25:16
That's
25:17
a
25:17
particular
25:17
interpretation
25:18
of
25:18
science.
25:19
But
25:19
science
25:19
itself
25:20
is
25:20
a
25:20
mode
25:20
of
25:20
knowing,
25:21
Right.
25:21
It's
25:21
a
25:21
love
25:21
affair
25:21
with
25:21
the
25:22
universe.
25:22
It's
25:22
a
25:22
sense
25:23
of
25:23
wanting
25:23
to
25:23
know
25:24
more
25:25
about.
25:25
And
25:25
so
25:26
science
25:26
could
25:26
be
25:26
seen
25:27
as.
25:27
As
25:27
a
25:28
way
25:28
of
25:28
engaging
25:28
with
25:28
the
25:28
mystery.
25:30
I
25:30
love
25:30
that.
25:31
That's
25:31
a
25:31
beautiful.
25:32
That's
25:33
the
25:33
best.
25:33
I
25:34
mean,
25:34
that's
25:34
kind
25:34
of
25:34
my
25:34
attitude
25:35
as
25:35
a
25:35
science.
25:35
Right.
25:35
Because
25:36
I'm
25:36
a
25:36
lover
25:36
of
25:37
the
25:37
world.
25:37
That's
25:38
the
25:38
best
25:38
description
25:39
of
25:39
science
25:39
I've
25:40
ever
25:40
heard,
25:40
Stephan.
25:41
I
25:41
love
25:41
it.
25:42
Engaging
25:42
with
25:42
the
25:42
mystery.
25:43
And
25:43
I
25:43
just
25:44
want
25:44
to
25:44
emphasize
25:44
what
25:44
you
25:45
said
25:45
because
25:45
you
25:45
drew
25:46
a
25:46
distinction
25:47
which
25:47
isn't
25:47
often
25:48
appreciated
25:49
between
25:49
science
25:50
as
25:50
both
25:51
a
25:51
way
25:51
of
25:52
knowing
25:52
and
25:52
a
25:53
body
25:53
of
25:53
information,
25:54
as
25:54
opposed
25:55
to
25:55
scientism,
25:56
which
25:56
is
25:57
effectively
25:57
a
25:57
pseudo
25:58
philosophy
25:58
which
25:59
says
25:59
science
25:59
is
26:00
the
26:00
only
26:00
means
26:00
of
26:01
attaining
26:02
a
26:02
particular.
26:03
Obtaining
26:04
valid
26:04
information.
26:05
And
26:06
often,
26:06
as
26:07
you
26:07
implied,
26:08
associating
26:09
science
26:10
with
26:10
a
26:11
particular
26:11
ontology
26:12
or
26:13
assumption
26:13
about
26:13
the
26:14
way
26:14
reality
26:15
is,
26:16
which
26:16
is
26:17
a
26:17
big
26:17
speculative
26:18
jump.
26:19
It's
26:19
a
26:20
philosophical
26:20
position.
26:20
I
26:21
don't
26:21
think
26:21
that's
26:21
widely
26:22
appreciated.
26:23
And
26:23
as
26:23
a
26:23
philosophic
26:24
position,
26:24
it's
26:24
valid,
26:25
but
26:26
it
26:26
doesn't
26:26
really
26:26
address
26:27
all
26:27
the
26:28
phenomena
26:28
that
26:29
we
26:29
encounter
26:29
in,
26:30
you
26:30
know,
26:30
human
26:30
experience.
26:32
And
26:32
so,
26:32
like
26:32
any
26:33
theory
26:33
has
26:34
this
26:34
range
26:34
of
26:34
applicability,
26:35
but
26:36
there
26:36
are
26:36
also
26:36
other
26:36
aspects
26:37
that
26:37
kind
26:37
of
26:37
fall
26:37
through
26:37
the
26:38
cracks
26:38
as
26:38
well.
26:39
But
26:39
if
26:40
we
26:40
were
26:40
to
26:40
look
26:40
at
26:40
some
26:40
of
26:40
the
26:40
implications
26:41
from
26:41
science,
26:42
like
26:43
one
26:43
thing
26:43
if
26:44
you
26:44
could
26:44
sort
26:44
of
26:44
boil
26:45
down,
26:45
you
26:45
know,
26:45
100
26:45
years
26:46
in
26:46
quantum
26:46
theory
26:47
into
26:47
one
26:47
statement,
26:48
it's
26:48
essentially
26:48
that
26:49
reality
26:50
is
26:50
relational.
26:51
Right.
26:51
What
26:51
exists
26:52
fundamentally
26:52
in
26:52
reality
26:53
is
26:53
relationships,
26:54
not
26:54
objects.
26:56
Which
26:56
means
26:56
that
26:56
when
26:57
we're
26:57
interacting
26:57
with
26:57
the
26:58
universe,
26:59
we
26:59
are
26:59
interacting
27:00
in
27:00
a
27:00
relational
27:00
way.
27:01
So
27:02
we're
27:02
not
27:02
assuming
27:02
that
27:02
we're
27:03
a
27:03
separate
27:03
self
27:03
that's
27:04
separate
27:05
from
27:05
what
27:05
we're
27:05
relating
27:06
with.
27:07
We
27:07
are,
27:07
in
27:07
fact,
27:08
a
27:08
relationship
27:09
with
27:09
the
27:10
world
27:10
around
27:10
us.
27:10
I
27:10
mean,
27:11
Buddhism
27:11
is
27:11
very
27:11
good
27:11
about
27:12
this.
27:12
The
27:12
sense
27:12
of
27:12
interrelatedness
27:13
and
27:14
inter
27:14
being
27:15
aspect
27:15
of
27:15
everything.
27:17
So
27:17
part
27:17
of
27:17
what
27:17
this
27:17
undermines
27:18
is
27:18
the
27:19
assumption
27:19
that
27:19
we're
27:19
a
27:19
static
27:20
separate
27:20
self
27:21
that's
27:21
somehow
27:21
studying
27:22
the
27:22
world
27:22
out
27:22
there
27:23
as
27:23
if
27:24
it
27:24
exists
27:24
somehow
27:24
out
27:25
there
27:25
independent
27:25
of
27:25
us.
27:26
That's
27:27
really
27:27
what
27:27
quantum
27:28
theory
27:28
brings
27:28
crashing
27:29
down
27:30
as
27:30
well
27:30
as
27:30
this
27:30
idea
27:31
that
27:31
we
27:31
live
27:31
in
27:31
an
27:31
evolutionary
27:32
participatory
27:33
universe.
27:33
But
27:34
go
27:34
ahead,
27:34
Roger.
27:35
You
27:35
know,
27:35
I
27:35
just
27:36
wanted
27:36
to
27:36
probe
27:37
a
27:37
little
27:37
deeper
27:38
on
27:38
what
27:38
you
27:39
said
27:39
about
27:39
the
27:40
relational
27:40
interpretation
27:41
of
27:41
quantum
27:42
physics,
27:42
which.
27:43
What
27:44
you
27:44
said
27:44
was
27:45
that
27:45
quantum
27:45
physics
27:47
demonstrates
27:48
that
27:49
the
27:49
atomistic
27:50
view
27:50
of
27:51
the
27:51
universe
27:51
is
27:52
these
27:52
kind
27:52
of
27:52
separate
27:53
billiard
27:53
balls
27:55
doesn't
27:56
do
27:56
justice.
27:57
More
27:57
fundamentally,
27:59
the
27:59
nature
27:59
is
28:00
relational.
28:01
And
28:01
I
28:01
certainly
28:01
agree
28:02
with
28:02
inclusion.
28:02
But
28:03
I
28:03
had
28:03
thought
28:04
that
28:04
the
28:05
relational
28:05
view
28:06
of
28:06
quantum
28:06
physics
28:07
was
28:07
a
28:07
particular
28:07
interpretation
28:08
that.
28:08
For
28:09
example,
28:09
Carlo
28:09
Rovelli.
28:11
Yeah.
28:12
Necessarily
28:13
general
28:13
interpretation.
28:15
Well,
28:15
I
28:15
would
28:15
just
28:15
say,
28:15
if
28:16
you
28:16
could
28:16
sort
28:16
of
28:16
boil
28:16
down.
28:16
One
28:17
of
28:17
the
28:18
wisdom
28:18
insights
28:19
from
28:19
quantum.
28:19
Is
28:20
that
28:20
everything
28:20
is
28:20
relational.
28:22
So
28:22
even
28:22
if
28:23
you
28:23
use,
28:23
say,
28:23
the
28:23
Copenhagen
28:24
interpretation,
28:24
where
28:24
the
28:24
observer
28:25
interacts
28:25
with
28:26
the
28:26
phenomenon
28:27
to
28:27
cause
28:27
the
28:27
collapse
28:27
of
28:27
the
28:27
wave
28:28
function,
28:28
there's
28:29
a
28:29
relationality
28:30
there
28:30
that's
28:30
inherent
28:30
in
28:31
it.
28:31
But
28:32
you
28:32
point
28:32
to
28:32
something
28:32
really
28:32
important,
28:33
Roger,
28:33
that
28:34
we
28:34
actually
28:35
don't
28:35
know
28:35
what
28:35
the
28:36
proper
28:36
interpretation
28:36
of
28:36
quantum
28:37
physics
28:37
is.
28:38
I
28:38
mean,
28:38
they
28:38
did
28:38
a
28:38
survey
28:39
some
28:39
years
28:39
ago
28:40
among
28:40
physicists,
28:41
and
28:41
they
28:41
said,
28:41
well,
28:41
what's
28:41
your
28:41
favorite
28:42
interpretation
28:42
of
28:42
quantum
28:42
physics?
28:43
And
28:43
they
28:43
came
28:43
up
28:43
with
28:43
15
28:44
different
28:44
approaches
28:45
and
28:45
no
28:45
agreement
28:46
upon
28:46
any
28:46
of
28:46
them.
28:47
So
28:47
no
28:47
one
28:47
knows
28:47
what
28:48
quantum
28:48
physics
28:48
means.
28:48
We
28:49
know
28:49
how
28:49
to
28:49
use
28:49
it.
28:49
Well,
28:50
we
28:50
have
28:50
200
28:50
interpretations
28:51
of
28:51
consciousness.
28:53
We
28:53
know
28:54
how
28:54
to
28:54
use
28:54
it.
28:55
That's.
28:55
That's
28:55
me
28:55
on
28:56
a
28:56
good
28:56
morning
28:57
by
28:57
myself.
28:57
Yeah,
28:58
I
28:58
was
28:58
going
28:58
to
28:58
go
28:58
back
28:59
to
28:59
the
28:59
Copenhagen
29:00
theory.
29:00
Is
29:00
that
29:01
what
29:01
it's
29:01
called?
29:01
Or.
29:01
It's
29:01
not
29:01
a
29:02
theory.
29:02
It's.
29:02
It's
29:02
an
29:03
interpretation
29:03
of
29:03
quantum
29:03
physics
29:04
interpretation,.
29:05
And
29:06
which
29:06
basically
29:07
said
29:08
that
29:08
the
29:08
observer
29:10
affected
29:12
the
29:12
observed.
29:13
Which
29:13
is
29:13
like.
29:14
They
29:15
really
29:15
don't
29:15
like
29:15
that
29:16
too
29:16
much
29:16
in
29:16
science
29:16
because
29:17
that
29:17
brings
29:17
in
29:17
consciousness
29:18
as
29:18
being
29:18
necessary
29:19
and
29:19
we
29:19
can't
29:20
figure
29:20
it
29:20
out.
29:20
Can't
29:20
fit
29:21
into
29:21
our.
29:21
Our
29:21
formulas
29:22
and
29:22
our
29:23
equations.
29:24
So
29:24
it
29:24
just.
29:25
It
29:25
has
29:26
to
29:26
interact
29:26
with
29:26
something
29:27
in
29:28
order
29:28
to
29:28
become
29:29
something.
29:29
But
29:30
again,
29:30
that
29:31
even
29:31
if
29:31
you
29:31
want
29:31
to
29:31
take
29:32
a
29:32
conscious
29:32
observer
29:33
out
29:33
of
29:33
it
29:33
and
29:33
take
29:34
it
29:34
to
29:34
the
29:34
kind
29:34
of
29:34
more
29:35
simplified,
29:37
materialistic,
29:38
then
29:38
it
29:38
still
29:39
involves
29:40
interaction,
29:41
relational,
29:42
for
29:42
things
29:43
to
29:43
manifest.
29:44
Yeah,
29:45
and
29:45
this
29:45
is
29:46
kind
29:46
of
29:46
the
29:46
theme
29:46
that
29:46
I'm
29:47
really
29:47
developing
29:47
here
29:47
is
29:48
that
29:48
we
29:48
don't
29:49
live
29:49
in
29:49
a
29:49
static
29:49
universe,
29:50
but
29:50
we
29:50
live
29:50
in
29:50
a
29:50
static
29:51
universe
29:51
that
29:51
is
29:51
shaping
29:52
us
29:52
and
29:52
that
29:52
we
29:52
are
29:52
shaping
29:53
as
29:53
well.
29:54
So
29:54
we
29:54
are
29:54
participating
29:55
in
29:55
cosmic
29:55
evolution
29:57
and
29:57
in
29:58
some
29:58
sense
29:58
determining
29:59
it
29:59
through
29:59
the
30:00
choices
30:00
that
30:00
we
30:00
make.
30:02
Oh,
30:03
interesting.
30:03
Okay.
30:07
So
30:07
this
30:07
kind
30:07
of
30:07
brings
30:08
in.
30:08
We
30:08
can
30:09
go
30:09
on
30:09
this
30:09
jag
30:10
if
30:10
you
30:10
want,
30:10
but
30:10
this
30:10
brings
30:11
in
30:11
the
30:11
idea
30:11
of
30:11
cosmic
30:11
leadership,
30:12
which
30:12
I
30:13
want
30:13
to
30:13
talk
30:13
about
30:13
at
30:13
some
30:13
point
30:14
is
30:15
when
30:15
we
30:15
have
30:15
a
30:16
sense
30:16
of
30:17
feeling
30:17
led.
30:18
I
30:18
think,
30:18
oh,
30:19
I
30:19
really
30:19
have
30:19
to
30:19
go
30:19
and
30:19
do
30:20
that.
30:20
Right.
30:20
Well,
30:21
that's
30:21
some
30:22
larger
30:23
expression
30:23
of
30:24
the
30:24
whole
30:24
acting
30:24
through
30:25
us.
30:25
I
30:25
mean,
30:25
that's
30:25
kind
30:25
of
30:25
my
30:26
idea
30:26
of
30:26
it,
30:26
that
30:27
it's
30:27
the
30:27
cosmos
30:27
that's
30:27
really
30:28
the
30:28
leader.
30:29
And
30:29
so
30:29
when
30:29
you
30:29
experience
30:29
these
30:30
impulses
30:31
or
30:31
what
30:31
we
30:31
call
30:32
sometimes
30:33
allurements.
30:33
Right.
30:33
I'm
30:34
allure
30:34
towards
30:34
that.
30:35
That's
30:36
the
30:36
whole
30:36
acting
30:36
in
30:36
a
30:37
particular
30:37
way,
30:38
suggesting
30:38
a
30:38
particular
30:39
way
30:39
forward.
30:39
When
30:40
we
30:40
do
30:40
that,
30:41
we
30:41
are
30:41
responding
30:42
and
30:43
evolving
30:44
the
30:44
whole.
30:45
To
30:45
our
30:46
interaction
30:47
with
30:47
it.
30:48
And
30:49
you
30:49
might
30:49
call
30:49
it
30:49
a
30:49
calling.
30:50
Also
30:51
when
30:51
we
30:51
feel,
30:52
you
30:52
could
30:52
say
30:53
a
30:53
calling.
30:53
This
30:54
is
30:54
what
30:54
I'm
30:54
here
30:54
to
30:55
do.
30:55
All
30:55
of
30:55
a
30:56
sudden
30:56
it's
30:56
becoming
30:56
clear.
30:57
And
30:57
without
30:57
that
30:58
sense
30:58
of
30:58
directionality
30:59
and
31:00
calling,
31:00
oftentimes
31:01
human
31:01
beings
31:02
don't
31:02
function
31:02
very
31:02
well.
31:03
We
31:04
get
31:05
very
31:05
unhealthy
31:07
psychologically
31:07
and
31:08
spiritually,
31:08
and
31:09
we
31:09
just.
31:09
We
31:10
find
31:10
no
31:10
purpose,
31:10
we
31:11
find
31:11
no
31:11
direction,
31:11
and
31:12
we
31:12
just
31:12
get
31:13
lost
31:13
in.
31:14
Maybe
31:14
that
31:14
has
31:14
something
31:15
to
31:15
do
31:15
with
31:15
the
31:16
epidemic
31:17
of
31:17
drug
31:17
addiction
31:18
that
31:18
is
31:18
so
31:19
huge
31:19
on
31:19
our
31:19
planet
31:20
right
31:20
now.
31:20
That
31:21
lack
31:21
of
31:22
calling,
31:22
connection,
31:24
feeling
31:24
that
31:24
you're
31:25
part
31:25
of
31:25
it.
31:25
And
31:26
one
31:26
thing
31:26
I
31:26
know
31:26
about
31:27
addiction,
31:27
I
31:27
know
31:27
quite
31:28
a
31:28
bit
31:28
about
31:28
it.
31:29
But
31:29
as
31:29
the
31:30
disease
31:30
progresses,
31:31
you
31:31
feel
31:31
progressively
31:32
cut
31:32
off
31:32
from
31:33
everything.
31:34
Just,
31:34
you
31:34
know,
31:35
your
31:35
family,
31:35
even
31:36
yourself,
31:37
the
31:37
world
31:37
around
31:38
you.
31:38
You
31:38
can't
31:38
see
31:38
a
31:39
tree
31:39
and
31:39
go,
31:40
a
31:40
tree.
31:40
That
31:41
all
31:41
just
31:41
shrinks
31:42
down
31:42
into
31:42
just
31:42
a
31:43
little
31:43
note
31:43
of.
31:43
Of
31:44
suffering
31:45
and
31:45
isolation,
31:46
which
31:46
is
31:47
not
31:47
the
31:47
true
31:47
nature
31:47
of
31:48
things.
31:49
No,
31:49
it's
31:50
a
31:50
shell
31:50
or
31:50
it's.
31:50
It's
31:51
a,
31:51
you
31:51
know,
31:51
a
31:51
simulation
31:52
of,
31:52
you
31:52
know,
31:53
what
31:53
things
31:53
could
31:53
be.
31:54
And
31:55
when
31:55
we
31:55
look
31:55
around
31:55
at
31:56
contemporary
31:56
culture,
31:57
we
31:57
see
31:57
a
31:57
lot
31:57
of
31:57
aspects
31:58
of
31:58
dysfunctional
31:59
leadership
31:59
or
31:59
disconnected
32:00
leadership.
32:00
Leadership
32:01
that's
32:01
disconnected
32:01
from
32:02
the
32:02
dynamics
32:03
of
32:03
the
32:03
whole,
32:03
the
32:03
dynamics
32:03
of
32:04
the
32:04
universe,
32:04
the
32:04
dynamics
32:04
of,
32:05
you
32:05
know,
32:05
the
32:06
living
32:06
Earth
32:06
community
32:06
that
32:06
we're
32:07
part
32:07
of.
32:08
And
32:08
so
32:08
we
32:08
see
32:08
the
32:08
results
32:09
of
32:09
that
32:09
on
32:10
large
32:10
scales
32:11
in
32:11
terms
32:11
of
32:11
what
32:11
we
32:11
call
32:11
contemporary
32:12
culture
32:13
or
32:13
mainstream
32:13
culture.
32:14
So
32:15
we're
32:15
kind
32:15
of
32:15
suggesting.
32:16
Let's
32:16
widen
32:16
the
32:17
lens
32:17
here.
32:17
Let's
32:17
take
32:17
in
32:18
more
32:18
information
32:18
about
32:19
the
32:19
dynamics
32:19
of
32:19
reality.
32:20
Let's
32:21
start
32:21
to
32:21
align
32:21
with
32:21
that.
32:22
And
32:22
that
32:23
will
32:23
naturally
32:23
bring
32:23
us
32:24
towards
32:24
those
32:25
activities
32:25
and
32:25
perspectives
32:26
that
32:26
are
32:26
in
32:26
alignment
32:27
with
32:27
the
32:27
whole,
32:28
which
32:28
are
32:28
also
32:28
in
32:28
alignment
32:29
with
32:29
the
32:29
life
32:29
systems
32:29
of
32:30
the
32:30
planet.
32:30
Because
32:31
the
32:31
Earth
32:31
is
32:31
really
32:32
what's
32:32
in
32:32
charge
32:32
here,
32:33
and
32:33
by
32:34
extension,
32:34
the
32:34
cosmos
32:34
is
32:35
really
32:35
what's
32:35
in
32:35
charge.
32:36
Can
32:36
we
32:37
be
32:37
faithful
32:37
to
32:37
that
32:37
call
32:38
that's
32:39
coming
32:39
from
32:39
those
32:40
aspects?
32:40
Because
32:40
that's
32:41
to
32:41
the
32:41
benefit
32:41
of
32:41
a
32:41
whole.
32:42
And,
32:43
Stephan,
32:43
it's
32:43
interesting
32:44
that
32:44
you're
32:44
echoing
32:45
the
32:45
advice
32:46
quite
32:47
ancient,
32:47
for
32:47
example,
32:48
of
32:48
Greek
32:48
philosophers
32:49
too,
32:50
that
32:50
one,
32:51
as
32:51
they
32:52
had
32:52
developed
32:52
contemplations
32:53
in
32:53
which
32:54
one
32:54
literally
32:55
tried
32:55
to
32:56
experience
32:57
the
32:57
vastness
32:58
of
32:59
space
32:59
and
32:59
time
33:00
and
33:00
see
33:01
oneself
33:01
in
33:01
that
33:02
context
33:02
and
33:02
then
33:03
live
33:03
out
33:03
of
33:03
that.
33:04
You're
33:04
recapitulating
33:05
some
33:05
ancient
33:06
wisdom
33:06
here,
33:07
you
33:08
know,
33:08
and
33:08
it's.
33:08
Ancient
33:08
wisdom
33:09
is
33:09
coming
33:09
through
33:09
this
33:10
modern
33:10
lens
33:11
of
33:11
evolutionary
33:11
cosmology,
33:12
right?
33:13
Because
33:13
if
33:13
we
33:13
sort
33:14
of
33:14
take.
33:15
Let's
33:15
just
33:15
take,
33:15
you
33:15
know,
33:16
an
33:16
impulse,
33:16
right?
33:16
An
33:16
allurement,
33:17
right?
33:17
It's
33:18
like,
33:18
oh,
33:18
I'm
33:18
drawn
33:19
towards
33:19
this,
33:20
right?
33:20
Now,
33:20
what's
33:21
the
33:21
causal
33:21
chain
33:21
of
33:22
events
33:22
that
33:22
led
33:22
to
33:22
that
33:23
impulse?
33:24
Well,
33:24
we've
33:24
got
33:24
13.8
33:25
billion
33:25
years
33:26
of
33:26
cosmic
33:26
evolution
33:27
that
33:27
led
33:27
to
33:27
that
33:27
moment,
33:28
right?
33:28
The
33:29
universe
33:29
formed
33:29
and
33:29
the
33:29
stars,
33:30
then
33:30
galaxies
33:30
and
33:30
then
33:31
the
33:31
Earth,
33:32
and
33:32
then
33:32
the
33:32
particular
33:33
expression
33:33
of
33:34
cosmos
33:34
as
33:35
you
33:35
formed
33:36
along
33:36
with
33:37
this
33:37
impulse.
33:38
Well,
33:38
that
33:38
impulse
33:39
isn't
33:39
disconnected
33:40
from
33:40
the
33:40
entire
33:40
causal
33:41
chain
33:41
that
33:41
goes
33:41
back
33:41
to
33:42
the
33:42
birth
33:42
of
33:42
the
33:43
universe.
33:44
So
33:44
in
33:44
some
33:44
sense,
33:44
the
33:45
birth
33:45
of
33:45
the
33:45
universe
33:46
is
33:46
expressing
33:47
its
33:47
forward
33:47
direction
33:48
in
33:48
these
33:49
impulses
33:49
in
33:50
these
33:50
allurements.
33:52
Now,
33:53
we
33:53
live
33:54
in
33:54
a
33:54
culture
33:54
of
33:54
fascination
33:56
where
33:56
we're
33:56
trying
33:57
to
33:57
be
33:57
marketed
33:57
and
33:58
sold
33:58
and
33:58
told
33:59
what
33:59
we
33:59
should
33:59
believe,
33:59
what
34:00
we
34:00
should
34:00
like,
34:00
what
34:00
we
34:00
should
34:01
do.
34:02
And
34:03
so
34:03
I
34:03
would
34:03
call
34:03
those
34:04
false
34:04
allurements,
34:05
right?
34:06
Where,
34:06
you
34:06
know,
34:06
we.
34:07
We're
34:07
in
34:07
a
34:07
culture
34:08
of
34:08
distraction,
34:08
where
34:08
it's
34:09
designed
34:09
to
34:09
distract
34:10
us
34:10
towards,
34:12
you
34:12
know,
34:12
other
34:13
ideas.
34:14
But,
34:14
you
34:14
know,
34:14
Roger,
34:15
as
34:15
you
34:15
point
34:15
out,
34:15
when
34:16
we
34:16
have
34:16
a
34:16
sort
34:16
of
34:16
contemplative
34:17
stance,
34:17
when
34:18
we
34:18
have
34:18
a
34:18
sense
34:18
of
34:18
openness,
34:19
a
34:19
sense
34:20
of
34:20
allowing
34:21
ourselves
34:21
to
34:22
be
34:23
called,
34:24
or
34:24
if
34:24
we
34:24
begin
34:25
to
34:25
notice
34:25
what.
34:25
What
34:25
are
34:26
our
34:26
natural
34:26
impulses,
34:27
where
34:27
are
34:27
we
34:27
naturally
34:27
drawn
34:29
to
34:29
what
34:29
station
34:29
in
34:30
Life
34:30
am
34:30
I
34:30
naturally
34:31
gravitated
34:32
towards.
34:33
Then
34:34
we
34:34
begin
34:34
to
34:34
align
34:35
with
34:35
the
34:35
whole
34:35
and
34:36
we
34:36
align
34:36
with
34:36
this
34:37
evolutionary
34:38
dynamism
34:38
that
34:38
expresses
34:39
itself
34:39
through
34:39
our
34:40
particular
34:41
mode
34:41
of
34:41
being.
34:42
And
34:43
Stephan,
34:43
this
34:43
raises
34:44
an
34:44
absolutely
34:45
fascinating
34:46
question,
34:46
which
34:47
is
34:48
the
34:48
relationship
34:49
between
34:50
what
34:51
is
34:51
best
34:51
for
34:51
the
34:52
individual,
34:53
say
34:53
what
34:53
is
34:53
self
34:54
actualizing,
34:55
self
34:55
transcending,
34:56
and
34:58
the
34:58
question
34:59
of
35:00
what's
35:01
the
35:01
ground
35:01
of
35:02
that.
35:02
Usually,
35:03
for
35:03
example,
35:04
a
35:04
self
35:05
actualizing
35:05
drive,
35:06
an
35:06
allurement
35:07
as
35:07
you
35:07
call
35:07
it,
35:07
is
35:08
interpreted
35:08
purely
35:09
psychologically.
35:11
And
35:11
it's
35:12
an
35:12
expression
35:13
of
35:13
the
35:13
well
35:14
functioning
35:14
of
35:14
the
35:15
psyche.
35:15
A
35:15
healthy
35:16
psyche
35:16
looks
35:17
for
35:18
that
35:18
which
35:19
is
35:20
technically
35:20
called
35:20
eudaimonic,
35:21
that
35:21
which
35:22
brings
35:22
out
35:22
the
35:22
most,
35:23
the
35:23
deepest
35:24
values
35:24
and
35:24
the
35:25
best
35:25
in
35:25
our
35:25
being.
35:27
What
35:27
you're
35:27
doing
35:27
is
35:28
you're
35:29
setting
35:29
this
35:29
within
35:30
a
35:30
much
35:30
bigger
35:31
framework,
35:32
a
35:32
cosmological,
35:33
metaphysical
35:34
framework,
35:35
and
35:35
suggesting
35:36
that.
35:36
Well,
35:37
I'm
35:37
interpreting
35:38
and
35:38
I'll
35:38
ask.
35:38
And
35:39
so
35:39
I'm
35:39
going
35:39
to
35:40
present
35:40
as
35:40
a
35:40
statement,
35:40
then
35:41
I'll
35:41
ask
35:41
you
35:41
to
35:41
correct.
35:42
But
35:43
what
35:43
I
35:43
hear
35:43
you
35:44
doing
35:44
is
35:44
setting
35:44
this
35:44
in
35:45
a
35:45
vaster
35:46
framework
35:47
and
35:47
suggesting
35:47
that
35:49
what
35:49
is
35:49
eudaimonic,
35:50
what
35:50
is
35:50
self
35:51
actualizing
35:51
for
35:52
us
35:52
is
35:53
in
35:53
some
35:53
way
35:54
congruent
35:56
with
35:56
the
35:56
very
35:56
dynamics
35:57
and
35:57
evolution
35:58
of
35:58
the
35:58
cosmos.
35:59
Absolutely.
36:00
And
36:01
what
36:01
I'm
36:01
doing
36:01
here
36:01
as
36:02
well,
36:02
Roger,
36:02
is
36:02
I'm
36:03
expanding
36:03
the
36:03
definition
36:04
of
36:04
self.
36:04
Right.
36:05
Self
36:05
doesn't
36:05
mean
36:05
separate,
36:06
autonomous
36:07
individual
36:07
here.
36:08
Right.
36:08
There
36:08
are
36:08
different
36:08
layers
36:09
of
36:09
self.
36:09
Right.
36:09
There
36:09
is
36:10
kind
36:10
of
36:10
the
36:10
physical
36:10
self
36:11
or
36:11
the
36:11
body,
36:12
but
36:12
the
36:12
larger
36:12
sense
36:13
of
36:13
self
36:13
would
36:13
be
36:14
maybe
36:14
the
36:14
ecological
36:15
self,
36:15
the
36:15
self
36:15
that's
36:16
deeply
36:16
embedded,
36:17
interwoven
36:17
with
36:18
the
36:18
ecosystem,
36:19
or
36:19
maybe
36:20
a
36:20
planetary
36:20
self
36:21
which
36:21
embraces
36:21
the
36:21
dynamics
36:22
of
36:22
the
36:22
entire
36:22
planet.
36:24
I
36:24
love
36:24
how
36:24
Brian
36:24
Swim
36:25
says,
36:25
you
36:25
know,
36:26
in
36:26
the
36:26
being,
36:27
you
36:27
know,
36:27
Earth
36:27
was
36:28
lava
36:28
and
36:28
now
36:28
it
36:28
sings
36:29
opera.
36:29
Somehow
36:30
that
36:30
functioning
36:30
of
36:31
the
36:31
Earth
36:31
has
36:31
led
36:31
to
36:32
particular
36:33
beings
36:33
that
36:33
express
36:34
themselves
36:34
in
36:34
creative
36:35
ways.
36:35
And
36:36
you
36:36
could
36:36
expand
36:36
that
36:36
even
36:37
further
36:37
to
36:38
a
36:38
cosmic
36:38
dimension
36:39
of
36:39
self.
36:40
And
36:40
so
36:40
it
36:40
just
36:40
depends
36:41
where
36:41
you
36:41
draw
36:41
the
36:42
boundary
36:42
of
36:42
self.
36:42
I'm
36:42
drawing
36:43
it
36:43
very
36:43
wide,
36:43
but
36:44
you,
36:44
you
36:44
know,
36:44
embracing
36:45
a
36:45
much
36:45
larger
36:46
perspective
36:46
on
36:46
self.
36:48
So
36:48
when
36:48
we're
36:48
acting,
36:49
you
36:49
know,
36:49
in
36:49
alignment
36:50
with
36:50
our
36:50
deepest
36:50
self,
36:51
we're
36:52
also
36:52
align,
36:52
acting
36:53
in
36:53
align
36:53
with
36:53
the
36:53
deepest
36:54
needs
36:54
of
36:54
the
36:54
whole
36:54
as
36:55
expressed
36:55
through
36:55
our
36:56
particular
36:56
mode
36:57
of
36:57
being.
36:58
So
36:58
in
36:58
some
36:58
sense
36:58
we're
36:59
serving
36:59
the
36:59
whole
37:00
in
37:01
following
37:01
our
37:01
own
37:02
self
37:03
actualizing
37:03
potential.
37:04
Yeah,
37:05
I
37:05
would
37:05
say
37:05
lava
37:06
became
37:06
the
37:06
Beatles
37:07
in
37:08
my
37:08
book,
37:09
but.
37:09
Yeah,
37:10
absolutely
37:10
right.
37:11
It's
37:11
a
37:11
heck
37:11
of
37:11
a
37:11
story,
37:12
isn't
37:12
it?
37:13
It's,
37:13
isn't
37:13
it?
37:13
I
37:14
mean,
37:14
to
37:14
tell
37:14
the
37:14
whole
37:14
story
37:14
of
37:15
the
37:15
Beatles,
37:15
you
37:15
have
37:15
to
37:15
tell
37:15
the
37:16
history
37:16
of
37:16
the
37:16
earth.
37:17
I
37:17
mean,
37:17
that's
37:18
the
37:18
perspective
37:18
I'm
37:18
talking
37:19
about
37:19
here.
37:19
I
37:20
know
37:20
that
37:20
lava
37:20
became
37:21
this,
37:22
you
37:22
know,
37:22
just
37:23
in
37:23
this
37:23
specific
37:24
instance.
37:25
Yeah,
37:26
seriously,
37:27
this
37:27
is
37:27
random.
37:29
It's
37:30
really
37:31
gets
37:31
you
37:31
up
37:31
against
37:32
the
37:32
beingness,
37:33
ontology,
37:34
what's
37:34
going
37:34
on
37:35
here.
37:35
And
37:36
I
37:36
know
37:36
we
37:36
don't
37:36
want
37:37
to.
37:37
I
37:38
mean,
37:38
one
37:38
expression
37:38
of
37:39
one.
37:39
It
37:39
just.
37:39
God
37:40
did
37:40
it,
37:40
you
37:40
know,
37:40
so
37:41
shut
37:41
up
37:41
and,
37:42
you
37:42
know,
37:42
do
37:42
what
37:42
God
37:42
wants
37:43
you
37:43
to
37:43
do.
37:43
But
37:43
we.
37:45
At
37:45
one
37:45
time,
37:46
I
37:46
was
37:46
studying
37:46
Hameed's
37:47
work,
37:47
and
37:47
the
37:47
phrase
37:48
came
37:48
up
37:49
when
37:49
the
37:50
different.
37:50
The
37:50
boundaries
37:50
begin
37:51
to
37:51
break
37:51
down
37:51
in
37:51
these
37:52
different
37:52
dimensions
37:53
of
37:53
true
37:53
nature,
37:53
in
37:54
the
37:54
ground
37:54
of
37:54
being,
37:55
that
37:56
the
37:56
difference
37:57
between
37:57
the
37:57
creator,
37:59
the
37:59
created,
37:59
and
38:00
the
38:00
creating
38:02
all
38:02
becomes
38:03
one.
38:04
We
38:05
become
38:05
that.
38:05
And,
38:05
you
38:06
know,
38:06
you've
38:06
been
38:06
dealing
38:07
with
38:07
them
38:07
for
38:07
years.
38:08
We've
38:08
been
38:08
dealing
38:09
with
38:09
him
38:09
for
38:09
maybe
38:09
a
38:09
year
38:10
and
38:10
a
38:10
half
38:10
or
38:10
so.
38:11
And
38:11
he's
38:12
one
38:12
of
38:12
the.
38:12
Probably
38:13
one
38:13
of
38:13
the
38:13
great
38:14
sages,
38:15
as
38:15
Roger
38:15
would
38:16
say,
38:16
or
38:16
mystics
38:17
that
38:17
we've
38:17
ever
38:17
had
38:17
on
38:18
this
38:18
planet.
38:18
And
38:19
I'm
38:19
wondering
38:20
how
38:21
your
38:21
exposure
38:22
and
38:22
your
38:22
study
38:23
of
38:23
his
38:23
teachings
38:24
and
38:24
his
38:24
school
38:25
has
38:26
affected
38:26
you
38:27
as
38:27
a
38:27
cosmologist,
38:28
a
38:29
scientist,
38:29
and
38:29
an
38:29
astronomer.
38:31
I
38:31
wouldn't
38:31
talk
38:32
about
38:32
that,
38:32
but
38:32
I
38:32
want
38:32
to
38:32
touch
38:32
on
38:33
something
38:33
you
38:33
just
38:33
said
38:33
that's
38:34
really
38:34
important,
38:34
John.
38:35
This
38:35
idea
38:35
of
38:35
the
38:36
creator
38:37
and
38:37
the
38:37
created
38:39
and
38:39
the
38:40
creative.
38:40
We
38:41
mentioned
38:41
the
38:41
Beatles,
38:41
right?
38:42
What
38:42
a.
38:42
What
38:42
an
38:42
example
38:43
of
38:43
fundamental
38:44
creativity.
38:44
I
38:44
mean,
38:44
the
38:44
Beatles
38:45
and
38:45
their
38:45
music
38:45
is.
38:47
So
38:47
the
38:47
perspective
38:48
that's
38:48
coming
38:48
out
38:49
now
38:49
in
38:49
this
38:50
evolutionary
38:50
perspective
38:51
is
38:51
that
38:51
we
38:52
live
38:52
in
38:52
a
38:52
fundamental
38:53
creative
38:53
universe
38:54
where
38:54
the
38:54
fundamental
38:55
essence
38:55
of
38:55
the
38:55
universe
38:56
is
38:56
creativity
38:56
itself.
38:58
And
38:59
this
38:59
really
38:59
hit
38:59
home
39:00
to
39:00
me
39:00
when
39:00
I
39:00
studied
39:00
with
39:01
Brian
39:01
Swim
39:01
at
39:02
the
39:02
California
39:02
Institute
39:03
of
39:03
Integral
39:03
Studies,
39:03
and
39:03
he
39:04
said,
39:04
forget
39:05
your
39:05
meditation
39:05
practices
39:06
in
39:06
the
39:06
morning.
39:07
Wake
39:07
up
39:07
every
39:07
morning
39:07
and
39:08
be
39:08
creative.
39:09
Follow
39:09
your
39:09
deepest
39:09
creativity.
39:10
And
39:11
I.
39:11
You
39:11
know,
39:11
personally,
39:11
I
39:12
took.
39:12
I
39:12
took
39:12
offense
39:12
of
39:12
that
39:13
initially.
39:13
It's
39:13
like,
39:13
oh,
39:13
I've
39:13
got
39:14
my
39:14
practice,
39:14
and,
39:14
you
39:15
know,
39:15
this
39:15
is
39:15
what
39:15
I'd
39:15
like
39:15
to
39:16
do,
39:16
and
39:16
all
39:16
this
39:16
kind
39:16
of
39:16
stuff.
39:16
What
39:17
does
39:17
creativity
39:17
have
39:17
to
39:17
do
39:17
with
39:17
it?
39:18
Well,
39:18
everything
39:18
is
39:19
the
39:19
fundamental
39:19
nature
39:19
of
39:20
the
39:20
universe's
39:20
creativity.
39:21
Then
39:22
aligning
39:22
our
39:22
creativity
39:23
with
39:24
that
39:24
is
39:24
aligning
39:25
ourselves
39:25
with
39:25
the
39:25
deepest
39:25
nature
39:26
of
39:26
the
39:26
universe.
39:27
So,
39:27
I
39:27
mean,
39:29
talk
39:29
about,
39:29
follow
39:29
your
39:29
joy,
39:30
but
39:30
also
39:30
follow
39:31
your
39:31
creativity.
39:32
Well,
39:33
one
39:33
of
39:33
my
39:33
favorite
39:33
theologians,
39:34
Matthew
39:34
Fox,
39:35
wrote
39:35
a
39:36
book
39:36
called
39:36
Creativity,
39:37
interesting
39:37
enough.
39:38
And
39:39
I'm
39:39
a
39:39
musician,
39:39
I'm
39:40
a
39:40
songwriter,
39:42
I'm
39:42
a
39:42
creative.
39:43
And
39:44
he
39:44
says
39:44
in
39:44
the
39:44
book.
39:45
And
39:45
I
39:45
found
39:45
that
39:45
in
39:45
my
39:46
personal
39:46
experience,
39:47
when
39:47
I
39:47
engaged
39:48
in
39:48
a
39:49
creative
39:49
activity,
39:51
that's
39:52
the
39:52
times
39:53
when
39:53
I
39:53
feel
39:54
most
39:54
at
39:55
home
39:55
in
39:55
the
39:55
universe.
39:56
Well,
39:56
I
39:57
feel
39:57
closer
39:58
to
39:59
the
39:59
mystery
40:00
of
40:00
existence
40:01
or
40:02
God
40:02
or
40:02
spirit,
40:02
however
40:03
you
40:03
want
40:03
to
40:03
name
40:03
that
40:04
is
40:04
when
40:06
I'm
40:06
involved
40:07
in
40:07
that
40:07
and
40:07
being
40:08
a
40:08
songwriter,
40:09
I
40:09
mean,
40:10
they
40:10
asked
40:11
Bob
40:12
Dylan,
40:12
right,
40:13
won
40:13
the
40:13
Nobel
40:14
Prize
40:14
for
40:15
literature,
40:16
he's
40:16
written
40:17
a
40:17
song
40:17
or
40:17
two
40:17
and
40:17
he
40:17
said,
40:18
well,
40:18
how
40:18
do
40:18
you
40:18
do
40:18
it?
40:18
And
40:18
he
40:19
says,
40:19
I
40:19
don't
40:19
know,
40:21
it's
40:21
still
40:21
a
40:22
mystery.
40:22
I
40:22
mean,
40:22
we
40:22
can
40:23
practice
40:23
and
40:23
do
40:23
this
40:23
and
40:24
that,
40:24
but
40:24
what
40:24
comes
40:24
down
40:25
to
40:25
the
40:25
creative
40:25
moment?
40:26
There's
40:26
something
40:28
supernatural
40:29
beyond
40:29
our
40:30
normal
40:30
way
40:31
of
40:31
looking
40:31
things
40:31
that
40:32
happens.
40:32
And
40:32
it's
40:33
a
40:33
very
40:34
unitive,
40:36
life
40:37
enhancing.
40:38
Yes
40:39
to
40:40
existence.
40:42
Yeah.
40:43
And
40:43
John,
40:43
what
40:44
you're
40:44
pointing
40:44
to
40:44
is
40:44
data
40:45
about
40:45
the
40:45
universe
40:45
and
40:46
about
40:46
how
40:46
the
40:46
universe
40:46
works.
40:48
When
40:48
we're
40:48
in
40:49
that
40:49
creative
40:49
space,
40:49
we
40:50
are
40:50
closest
40:50
to
40:51
the
40:52
inherent
40:52
nature
40:52
of
40:53
the
40:53
universe
40:53
as
40:53
pure
40:54
creative
40:55
self
40:55
emergent
40:55
dynamism.
40:57
And
40:58
I
40:58
also
40:58
want
40:58
to
40:58
kind
40:58
of,
40:59
you
40:59
know,
40:59
open
40:59
up
40:59
this
41:00
idea
41:00
of
41:00
creativity
41:00
for
41:01
the
41:01
listeners
41:02
and
41:02
that
41:03
everything
41:03
and
41:03
every
41:04
one
41:05
is
41:05
inherently
41:05
creative
41:06
because
41:06
we
41:06
come
41:06
out
41:07
of
41:07
the
41:07
creativity
41:07
of
41:07
the
41:07
fireball
41:08
itself.
41:09
So
41:09
I
41:09
want
41:09
to
41:10
say,
41:10
well,
41:10
you
41:10
don't
41:10
have
41:10
to
41:10
be
41:10
an
41:10
artist,
41:11
you
41:11
don't
41:11
have
41:11
to
41:11
be,
41:11
you
41:12
know,
41:12
such
41:12
and
41:12
such
41:12
to
41:13
be
41:13
creative.
41:14
You
41:14
could
41:14
be
41:14
a
41:14
householder,
41:15
right?
41:15
You
41:15
could
41:16
be
41:16
a
41:16
cook,
41:16
you
41:16
could.
41:16
Be,
41:17
you
41:17
know,
41:17
a
41:17
taxi
41:17
driver.
41:18
Creativity
41:18
gets
41:19
inherent
41:20
in
41:20
your
41:20
being.
41:21
And
41:22
if
41:22
you
41:22
can
41:22
only
41:22
open
41:23
yourself
41:23
to
41:23
how
41:23
your
41:24
creative
41:24
expression
41:24
wants
41:25
to
41:25
express
41:25
itself,
41:26
then
41:27
you're
41:27
asking
41:27
to
41:28
align
41:28
yourself
41:28
with
41:28
the
41:29
fundamental
41:29
dynamics
41:29
of
41:30
the
41:30
universe.
41:31
And
41:31
so
41:31
this
41:32
goes
41:32
back
41:32
to
41:32
what
41:32
we
41:32
talked
41:32
about
41:33
before,
41:33
is
41:34
the
41:34
self
41:34
organizing
41:35
principles
41:35
of
41:35
the
41:35
universe.
41:36
The
41:36
creativity
41:37
of
41:37
the
41:38
impulse
41:39
of
41:39
the
41:39
universe
41:39
is
41:40
right
41:40
here,
41:40
right
41:40
now,
41:40
in
41:41
this
41:41
moment,
41:41
in
41:42
this
41:42
conversation.
41:42
This
41:43
is
41:43
the
41:43
universe
41:44
enacting,
41:45
you
41:45
know,
41:45
its
41:45
principles
41:46
through
41:46
our
41:47
conversation
41:47
and
41:47
through
41:48
touching
41:48
our
41:48
listeners
41:49
and
41:49
inspiring
41:50
them
41:50
to
41:50
be
41:50
creative
41:50
in
41:51
their
41:51
own
41:51
particular
41:51
way,
41:52
not
41:52
just
41:52
inspiring
41:53
them
41:54
by
41:54
giving
41:54
them
41:54
the
41:54
cosmic
41:55
imperative,
41:56
go
41:56
out
41:56
and
41:56
be
41:56
creative.
41:57
The
41:57
universe
41:58
says
41:59
that
41:59
is
41:59
being
41:59
aligned.
42:00
With
42:00
your
42:00
true
42:00
self
42:01
and
42:02
you
42:02
don't
42:02
always
42:02
have
42:02
to.
42:03
In
42:03
other
42:03
words,
42:03
every
42:03
time
42:03
I
42:04
sit
42:04
down
42:04
with
42:04
my
42:04
guitar
42:05
and
42:05
try
42:05
to
42:05
write
42:05
a
42:05
song,
42:07
sometimes
42:07
I
42:07
write
42:08
some
42:08
really
42:08
crummy
42:08
stuff.
42:09
You
42:09
know,
42:09
I
42:09
could
42:09
write
42:10
20
42:11
songs
42:11
that
42:11
are
42:12
just,
42:12
just
42:12
don't
42:13
work
42:13
to
42:14
get
42:14
to
42:14
the
42:14
1.
42:16
When
42:16
it
42:16
happens,
42:17
it's
42:17
a
42:17
moment
42:18
of
42:18
encounter
42:18
and
42:19
it
42:19
just,
42:21
just
42:21
almost
42:21
effortlessly
42:22
just
42:22
boom,
42:22
boom,
42:22
boom,
42:23
boom,
42:23
falls.
42:23
And
42:23
it's
42:24
like,
42:25
it
42:25
feels
42:25
like,
42:25
in
42:26
theological
42:26
terms,
42:26
feels
42:27
like
42:27
a
42:27
moment
42:27
of
42:28
grace.
42:28
I
42:28
mean,
42:29
something
42:29
larger
42:30
than
42:30
myself
42:30
is,
42:31
has
42:31
expressed
42:32
itself
42:32
through
42:32
myself.
42:33
Yeah,
42:34
I
42:34
was,
42:34
I
42:34
was
42:34
thinking
42:34
the
42:35
same
42:35
thing.
42:35
It's
42:35
a
42:35
moment
42:35
of
42:36
grace.
42:37
And
42:37
yet
42:37
you
42:37
were
42:37
doing
42:38
your
42:38
obligation.
42:39
You
42:39
were
42:39
simply
42:40
showing
42:40
up
42:40
for
42:40
creative
42:41
practice
42:41
or
42:41
being
42:42
open
42:42
to
42:42
the
42:42
creativity.
42:44
Indeed.
42:45
Yeah.
42:45
Stephan,
42:46
you're
42:47
drawing
42:47
a.
42:49
Drawing
42:50
a
42:50
congruence
42:51
here
42:51
between
42:53
individuals
42:54
and
42:54
cosmos
42:55
in
42:55
a
42:55
number
42:55
of
42:55
dimensions.
42:56
You've
42:57
mentioned
42:57
we've
42:58
been
42:58
particularly
42:58
focusing
42:59
on
42:59
creativity.
43:01
We've
43:01
talked
43:02
a
43:02
little
43:02
before
43:02
about
43:03
self
43:03
actualization
43:04
or
43:05
eudaimonia,
43:06
living
43:06
to
43:07
be
43:07
one's
43:07
fullest
43:08
self.
43:09
There's
43:09
another
43:10
more
43:11
perennial
43:12
question
43:13
here
43:13
that
43:13
I'd
43:14
love
43:14
to
43:14
have
43:14
you
43:14
comment
43:15
on.
43:16
Which
43:16
is
43:17
the
43:17
domain
43:17
of
43:17
ethics.
43:18
There's
43:19
long
43:19
been
43:19
a
43:19
debate
43:20
about
43:20
whether
43:20
ethics
43:21
living
43:22
in
43:22
a
43:23
way
43:23
which
43:23
truly
43:25
serves
43:25
the
43:25
well
43:25
being
43:26
of,
43:26
let's
43:26
make
43:27
it
43:27
simple,
43:27
serves
43:28
the
43:28
well
43:28
being
43:28
of
43:28
all,
43:29
or
43:29
at
43:29
least
43:29
all
43:29
who
43:30
will
43:30
be
43:30
touched
43:30
by
43:30
our
43:31
actions.
43:32
There's
43:32
been
43:32
a
43:32
debate
43:32
about
43:33
whether
43:33
their
43:33
ethics
43:34
is
43:34
just
43:35
a
43:35
mind
43:36
made
43:37
construction
43:38
or
43:39
whether
43:39
it
43:40
actually
43:40
taps
43:40
into
43:41
something
43:41
much
43:41
deeper
43:42
and
43:42
in
43:42
your
43:42
terms,
43:43
into
43:44
the
43:44
fundamental
43:45
alignment
43:46
with
43:46
the
43:47
nature
43:47
of
43:47
the
43:47
cosmos.
43:48
And
43:49
it's
43:49
interesting
43:49
that
43:50
no
43:50
ethical
43:51
system
43:51
has
43:51
ever
43:51
survived
43:53
that
43:53
didn't
43:53
have
43:54
some
43:54
grounding
43:55
in
43:56
something
43:56
larger,
43:56
in
43:57
a
43:57
metaphysical
43:57
ground,
43:58
in
43:58
a
43:58
theological
43:59
ground.
44:00
So
44:01
historically
44:01
we
44:02
see
44:02
that
44:02
ethical
44:03
systems
44:03
don't
44:03
survive
44:04
unless
44:04
they
44:04
have
44:05
the
44:05
kind
44:05
of
44:05
deeper
44:05
grounding
44:06
you're
44:06
pointing
44:06
to.
44:07
So
44:07
love
44:08
to
44:08
have
44:08
you
44:08
comment
44:08
on
44:09
this.
44:10
You
44:10
know,
44:10
we're
44:11
already
44:11
talking
44:11
about
44:11
it
44:12
and
44:12
I
44:12
think,
44:12
you
44:13
know,
44:13
I
44:13
would
44:13
just
44:13
touch
44:14
on
44:14
Thomas
44:15
Berry's
44:15
governing
44:15
themes
44:16
once
44:16
again,
44:16
because
44:17
these
44:17
are
44:17
not
44:18
only
44:18
dynamics,
44:18
but
44:18
they're
44:19
ethical
44:19
principles,
44:20
right?
44:20
So
44:20
if
44:20
the
44:21
universe
44:21
is
44:21
seeking
44:21
to
44:22
express
44:23
its
44:24
increasing
44:24
differentiation,
44:26
deepening
44:26
subjectivity
44:27
and
44:28
ever
44:28
greater
44:29
communion
44:29
over
44:29
time,
44:30
then
44:30
those
44:30
activities
44:31
and
44:32
processes
44:32
that
44:32
align
44:33
with
44:33
that
44:33
dynamic
44:34
are
44:34
those
44:34
which
44:34
are
44:35
congruent
44:35
with
44:35
the
44:35
whole.
44:36
So
44:36
does
44:37
the
44:37
choice,
44:38
what
44:38
you
44:38
said,.
44:38
Increasing
44:39
subjectivity
44:41
and
44:41
increasing
44:42
connectivity
44:43
in
44:44
the
44:44
same
44:44
sentence.
44:45
That's
44:45
amazing.
44:46
And
44:47
they're
44:47
all
44:47
related.
44:47
So
44:48
let
44:48
me
44:48
just
44:48
touch
44:48
on,
44:48
you
44:49
know,
44:49
his
44:49
third
44:49
dynamic
44:50
and
44:50
we'll
44:50
talk
44:50
about
44:50
the
44:50
themes.
44:51
Just
44:51
a
44:51
minute.
44:52
We
44:52
talked
44:52
about
44:52
differentiation,
44:53
the
44:54
development
44:54
or
44:55
creation
44:55
or
44:55
expression
44:55
of
44:56
unique
44:56
modes
44:56
of
44:56
experience.
44:58
We
44:58
talked
44:58
about
44:58
subjectivity,
44:59
which
44:59
is
45:00
each
45:00
being's
45:01
particular
45:01
perspective,
45:02
their
45:02
particular
45:03
avenue
45:03
of
45:03
deepening
45:04
of
45:04
the
45:04
whole
45:04
and
45:04
the
45:05
particular.
45:06
What
45:06
we
45:07
haven't
45:07
talked
45:07
about
45:07
so
45:08
much,
45:08
and
45:08
we
45:08
touch
45:09
on
45:09
it,
45:09
is
45:09
the
45:10
principle
45:10
of
45:10
communion,
45:11
right?
45:11
This
45:12
interweaving
45:13
through
45:13
relationality
45:14
of
45:15
ever
45:15
deeper
45:16
modes
45:16
of
45:16
experiencing
45:17
together.
45:18
So
45:18
the
45:18
universe
45:18
seeks
45:19
to
45:19
interweave
45:19
its
45:19
different
45:20
parts
45:20
into
45:20
greater
45:22
intimacy
45:22
with
45:22
each
45:23
part
45:23
and
45:23
with
45:23
itself.
45:25
So
45:25
communion
45:26
means
45:26
deepening
45:27
relationality.
45:29
So
45:29
does
45:29
this
45:29
course
45:30
of
45:30
action
45:31
increase
45:31
differentiation,
45:33
deepen
45:33
sensitivity
45:34
and
45:36
lead
45:36
to
45:36
greater
45:37
communion,
45:38
not
45:38
just
45:38
for
45:38
myself,
45:39
but
45:39
for
45:39
all
45:39
the
45:40
beings
45:40
who
45:40
are
45:40
involved.
45:42
So
45:42
if
45:42
I'm,
45:42
you
45:43
know,
45:43
thinking
45:43
about
45:44
cutting
45:44
down
45:44
a
45:44
forest,
45:45
is
45:45
that
45:45
an
45:45
ethical
45:46
decision?
45:47
Well,
45:47
does
45:47
it
45:47
lead
45:48
to
45:48
greater
45:48
differentiation,
45:49
more
45:49
species
45:50
of
45:50
life?
45:51
Does
45:51
it
45:51
lead
45:51
to
45:52
greater
45:52
subjectivity,
45:53
more
45:54
avenues
45:54
of
45:55
individual
45:56
experience?
45:57
Does
45:57
it
45:57
lead
45:58
to
45:58
greater
45:59
interrelatedness?
46:00
Probably
46:01
not.
46:01
Of
46:02
course,
46:02
there's
46:02
all
46:03
the
46:03
different
46:03
contexts
46:03
for
46:03
this,
46:04
but
46:04
it's
46:05
an
46:05
ethical
46:05
principle.
46:07
And
46:07
Thomas
46:07
Berry
46:08
had
46:08
a
46:08
very
46:09
powerful
46:09
experience.
46:10
You
46:10
know,
46:10
when
46:10
he
46:10
was
46:11
about
46:11
11
46:11
years
46:11
old,
46:11
growing
46:11
up
46:12
in
46:12
North
46:12
Carolina,
46:13
he
46:13
came
46:13
across
46:14
a
46:14
meadow,
46:14
a
46:15
meadow
46:15
of
46:15
lilies.
46:16
And
46:16
he
46:16
was
46:16
so
46:16
struck
46:16
by
46:17
that,
46:17
he
46:17
had
46:17
this
46:17
kind
46:17
of
46:17
cosmic
46:18
insight
46:19
that
46:19
that
46:20
which
46:20
is
46:20
good
46:20
for
46:21
the
46:21
whole
46:21
is
46:22
good
46:22
for
46:22
the
46:22
life
46:22
of
46:23
the
46:23
meadow.
46:24
That
46:24
which
46:25
diminishes
46:25
the
46:25
whole
46:26
diminishes
46:27
the
46:27
life
46:27
of
46:27
the
46:27
meadow.
46:28
So
46:28
just
46:28
by
46:28
going
46:29
outside
46:29
your
46:29
yard
46:30
and
46:30
saying,
46:31
does
46:31
this
46:31
activity
46:32
that
46:32
I
46:32
propose
46:33
benefit
46:33
or
46:34
diminish
46:34
the
46:35
benefits
46:35
for
46:36
this
46:36
particular
46:37
ecosystem?
46:38
Because
46:38
if
46:38
it's
46:39
in
46:39
alignment
46:39
with
46:39
the
46:39
whole,
46:40
it's
46:40
alignment
46:40
with
46:41
the
46:41
life
46:41
systems
46:41
of
46:41
the
46:41
planet,
46:42
which
46:42
is
46:42
naturally
46:43
in
46:43
alignment
46:43
with
46:43
the
46:44
cosmos,
46:44
because
46:44
that's
46:45
where
46:45
the
46:45
life
46:45
systems
46:45
of
46:46
the
46:46
planet
46:46
have
46:46
their
46:47
root
46:47
and
46:47
origin.
46:48
So
46:48
in
46:48
that
46:49
sense,
46:49
we
46:49
have
46:49
this
46:50
ethical
46:51
framework
46:51
that
46:52
is
46:52
aligned
46:53
with
46:53
the
46:53
dynamics
46:53
of
46:53
the
46:54
whole.
46:56
Does
46:56
that
46:56
get
46:56
at
46:57
what
46:57
you're
46:57
asking
46:57
about,
46:58
Roger?
46:59
Yeah,
46:59
I
47:00
think
47:00
it
47:00
does.
47:01
And.
47:02
And
47:02
I
47:03
guess
47:03
there's
47:04
a
47:05
Chinese
47:06
fundamental
47:07
concept
47:07
in
47:08
Chinese
47:09
philosophy
47:09
and
47:11
contemplative
47:12
life,
47:13
which
47:13
somehow
47:14
seems
47:14
like
47:14
it
47:14
should
47:15
be
47:15
brought
47:15
in
47:15
here,
47:15
which
47:16
is
47:16
the
47:16
dao.
47:17
And
47:17
the
47:17
dao
47:18
has
47:18
two
47:18
aspects.
47:19
There's
47:19
the
47:19
unmanifest
47:20
dao,
47:21
which
47:21
are
47:22
primordial
47:23
principles.
47:24
And
47:24
there's
47:24
the
47:25
manifest
47:25
dao
47:26
being
47:27
the
47:27
flow
47:28
and
47:28
dynamics
47:29
of
47:30
all
47:31
manifestation
47:31
of
47:32
life,
47:32
of
47:32
the
47:33
world,
47:33
of
47:33
the
47:33
universe.
47:34
And
47:34
somehow
47:35
this
47:35
feels
47:36
very
47:37
congruent
47:38
to
47:39
what
47:39
you're
47:39
saying.
47:41
I
47:42
think
47:42
so,
47:42
because
47:42
it's
47:42
about
47:43
kind
47:43
of
47:43
the
47:43
whole
47:44
and
47:44
the
47:44
particular
47:44
relating
47:45
with
47:45
each
47:45
other,
47:46
you
47:46
know,
47:46
in
47:47
a
47:47
way
47:47
that
47:48
acknowledges
47:49
the
47:49
integrity
47:49
of
47:49
both.
47:50
And
47:50
so
47:50
that
47:50
which
47:51
is
47:51
alignment
47:51
with.
47:51
And
47:52
relating
47:52
in
47:52
ways
47:53
which
47:54
imply
47:55
both
47:56
an
47:56
ethical
47:58
appropriateness
47:59
and
48:01
a
48:01
congruence
48:02
with
48:02
or
48:02
an
48:02
expression
48:04
of
48:04
the
48:05
whole.
48:07
Yeah.
48:08
And
48:08
one
48:08
reason
48:09
why
48:09
humans
48:09
need
48:10
ethical
48:10
systems
48:10
is
48:11
we've
48:11
somehow
48:11
become
48:12
separated
48:12
from
48:12
the
48:12
dynamics
48:13
of
48:13
nature.
48:13
If
48:14
we
48:14
were
48:14
just
48:14
simply
48:15
aligned
48:15
with
48:16
the
48:16
natural
48:16
occurrence
48:16
of
48:17
nature,
48:17
we
48:17
wouldn't
48:17
need
48:17
ethical
48:18
systems.
48:19
Right.
48:19
Because
48:19
we
48:19
would
48:19
naturally
48:20
be
48:20
responding
48:20
to
48:20
the
48:21
needs
48:21
of
48:21
the
48:21
ecosystem
48:23
and
48:23
that
48:23
are
48:23
congruent
48:24
with
48:24
the
48:24
ecosystem
48:24
as,
48:25
you
48:25
know,
48:25
as
48:25
the
48:25
whole.
48:26
There's
48:27
a
48:27
beautiful
48:28
statement
48:28
in
48:29
a
48:29
daoist
48:30
text,
48:31
which
48:31
I
48:31
can't
48:31
name
48:32
offhand,
48:32
but
48:33
says,
48:33
when
48:34
the
48:34
dao
48:34
Declines,
48:36
morality
48:37
appears.
48:38
When
48:38
morality
48:38
declines,
48:40
laws
48:40
appear
48:41
and.
48:43
Wow,
48:43
that
48:44
says
48:44
a
48:44
lot.
48:46
Doesn't
48:46
that
48:46
kind
48:46
of
48:46
describe
48:47
it?
48:47
Yeah,
48:49
yeah.
48:49
And
48:49
according
48:50
to,
48:50
ah,
48:51
Almas
48:51
and
48:52
Hameed,
48:52
which
48:52
I
48:53
keep
48:53
bringing
48:53
back
48:53
because
48:54
I've
48:54
been
48:54
so
48:54
engaged
48:54
in
48:55
his
48:55
work,
48:56
these
48:57
compassion,
48:59
love,
49:00
all
49:00
of
49:00
these
49:01
basic
49:02
goodnesses
49:04
are
49:05
essential
49:06
parts
49:06
of
49:06
true
49:07
nature.
49:08
So
49:09
these
49:09
things
49:09
are
49:09
not
49:09
just
49:10
invented
49:10
because
49:10
they're
49:11
good
49:11
ideas.
49:11
They
49:11
are
49:11
good
49:12
ideas
49:12
and
49:13
it's
49:13
okay
49:13
to
49:13
think
49:13
about
49:14
them
49:14
as
49:14
good
49:14
ideas
49:15
and
49:15
why
49:15
we
49:15
should
49:15
do
49:15
it,
49:16
but
49:16
they
49:17
actually
49:17
come
49:17
from
49:18
our
49:18
deepest
49:19
source
49:19
and
49:19
our
49:19
deepest
49:19
self
49:21
prior
49:21
to
49:22
our
49:22
ever
49:22
thinking
49:22
about
49:23
it.
49:24
It's
49:24
just
49:24
what
49:24
we
49:25
are
49:25
at
49:25
the
49:25
deepest
49:25
level.
49:27
Yeah,
49:27
yeah.
49:28
So
49:28
when
49:28
you're
49:28
aligned
49:29
with
49:29
the
49:29
whole,
49:29
when
49:29
you
49:30
feel
49:30
the
49:30
current
49:30
of
49:30
the
49:30
whole
49:31
flowing
49:31
through
49:31
you,
49:31
and
49:31
this
49:32
kind
49:32
of
49:32
touches
49:32
on
49:32
the
49:32
diamond
49:33
approach
49:33
work,
49:34
you
49:34
can't
49:34
but
49:35
be
49:35
loving,
49:36
right?
49:36
Because
49:36
you
49:36
are,
49:37
you
49:37
know,
49:37
kind
49:37
of
49:37
the
49:37
pure
49:38
container
49:39
or
49:40
channel
49:40
for
49:41
that
49:41
hole
49:41
to
49:42
express
49:42
itself
49:43
through
49:43
the
49:43
particular.
49:44
And
49:45
so
49:45
naturally
49:45
you
49:46
express
49:46
those
49:46
qualities
49:47
of
49:47
the
49:47
whole,
49:48
which,
49:48
you
49:48
know,
49:49
would
49:49
be
49:49
cause
49:49
of
49:49
essence,
49:50
could
49:50
be
49:50
curiosity,
49:51
it
49:51
could
49:51
be
49:52
love,
49:52
could
49:53
be,
49:53
you
49:54
know,
49:54
strength,
49:54
will,
49:55
whatever
49:55
is
49:55
needed
49:56
at
49:56
the
49:56
time
49:57
will
49:57
naturally
49:57
come
49:58
through.
49:58
Right.
49:58
When
49:59
ego
49:59
is
49:59
being
49:59
cleared
50:00
out,
50:00
or
50:00
what
50:00
is
50:01
appropriate,
50:02
exactly.
50:02
The
50:02
appropriate
50:03
response,
50:03
appropriate
50:04
action.
50:04
That's.
50:05
Yes.
50:05
Deep.
50:06
Yeah,
50:07
yeah.
50:08
Thank
50:09
you
50:09
both,
50:09
both
50:09
of
50:10
you.
50:10
Because
50:10
that
50:10
really
50:10
does
50:11
bring
50:12
the
50:13
cosmological
50:14
perspective
50:14
you're
50:15
presenting,
50:16
Stephan,
50:17
together
50:17
with
50:18
the
50:19
contemplative
50:20
perspective
50:20
that
50:21
Mead
50:21
offers
50:22
in
50:22
a
50:22
rich
50:23
way
50:23
that
50:24
I
50:24
hadn't
50:24
appreciated
50:25
before,
50:25
that
50:26
these
50:26
values,
50:28
the
50:28
highest
50:29
values
50:29
that
50:30
we
50:30
as
50:30
a
50:30
species
50:31
espouse,
50:32
whether
50:33
they
50:33
be
50:33
love,
50:34
compassion,
50:34
altruism,
50:36
joy,
50:36
et
50:36
cetera,
50:37
both
50:38
in
50:38
one
50:39
sense
50:39
aligned
50:40
with
50:40
an
50:40
expression
50:41
of
50:41
cosmology
50:42
and
50:45
facets
50:46
and
50:46
expressions
50:47
of
50:47
our
50:48
deepest
50:48
nature.
50:49
Exactly.
50:50
And
50:50
I
50:50
think
50:50
that's
50:50
why
50:50
we
50:50
find
50:51
a
50:51
universality
50:52
of
50:52
these
50:52
values
50:52
around
50:52
the
50:53
world
50:53
from
50:53
different
50:53
traditions,
50:54
is
50:55
that
50:55
people
50:55
have
50:55
touched
50:56
on
50:56
kind
50:56
of
50:56
the
50:56
nature
50:57
of
50:57
the
50:57
whole
50:57
or
50:58
the
50:58
nature
50:58
of
50:58
the
50:58
larger
50:59
perspective
51:00
in
51:00
whatever
51:00
way
51:01
in
51:01
their
51:01
particular
51:02
situations.
51:02
And
51:03
so
51:03
they
51:03
have
51:03
similar
51:04
perspectives
51:04
because
51:05
these
51:05
are,
51:05
you
51:05
know,
51:06
kind
51:06
of
51:06
the
51:06
idealized
51:07
qualities
51:07
of
51:07
the
51:07
whole
51:08
that
51:08
express
51:08
themselves.
51:10
But,
51:10
you
51:10
know,
51:10
Roger,
51:10
you
51:11
point
51:11
out
51:11
something
51:11
as
51:11
well
51:12
in
51:12
that
51:13
what
51:13
we
51:13
call
51:13
the
51:14
ego
51:15
is
51:15
essentially
51:15
Newtonian,
51:16
static
51:16
cosmology,
51:17
internalized.
51:18
This
51:18
is
51:19
who
51:19
I
51:19
am.
51:19
This
51:19
is
51:19
my
51:20
relationship
51:20
with
51:20
the
51:20
world.
51:21
And
51:21
what
51:21
we
51:22
call,
51:22
you
51:23
know,
51:23
essence
51:24
or
51:24
you
51:24
call
51:24
the
51:24
nature
51:24
of
51:25
the
51:25
world
51:25
is
51:25
basically
51:27
postmodern
51:27
physics,
51:28
quantum
51:28
theory,
51:29
relativity
51:29
theory,
51:30
you
51:30
know,
51:30
the
51:30
evolutionary
51:31
cosmogenesis
51:32
perspective
51:34
that
51:34
shows
51:34
that
51:34
everything's
51:35
processed.
51:35
It's
51:36
not
51:36
static,
51:36
it's
51:36
all
51:37
changing.
51:37
Even
51:38
the
51:38
whole
51:39
is
51:39
not
51:39
a
51:39
Static,
51:40
whole.
51:40
It's
51:41
more
51:41
of
51:41
a
51:41
process,
51:42
more
51:42
hole.
51:42
Ing.
51:43
Right.
51:44
John
51:45
Ng,
51:45
Roger
51:45
Ng,
51:46
Stephan
51:46
is
51:47
happening
51:47
here.
51:47
It's
51:48
an
51:48
ing.
51:49
It's
51:49
a
51:49
dynamic,
51:50
ongoing
51:51
unfoldment
51:51
of
51:52
mystery.
51:52
Hmm.
51:54
Deep
51:54
breath.
51:55
I
51:55
mean,
51:56
that
51:56
just
51:56
occurred
51:56
to
51:56
me.
51:57
Oh,
51:57
this
51:57
is
51:58
like
51:58
ego
51:58
in
51:58
essence,
51:59
right?
51:59
It's
51:59
like,
51:59
you
51:59
know,
52:00
ego
52:01
is,
52:01
you
52:01
know,
52:01
the
52:02
cosmology
52:02
that,
52:02
you
52:03
know,
52:03
Einstein
52:03
had
52:04
internalized.
52:04
This
52:04
is
52:04
how
52:05
the
52:05
world
52:05
is.
52:05
And
52:05
I'm
52:06
acting
52:06
according
52:06
to
52:06
that
52:07
internal
52:07
structure
52:08
that's
52:08
fixed.
52:09
But
52:09
the
52:09
universe
52:09
is
52:10
telling
52:10
me,
52:10
the
52:10
world
52:10
is
52:10
telling
52:11
me
52:11
that
52:11
the
52:11
world
52:11
is
52:11
dynamic,
52:12
evolving,
52:13
growing
52:13
creative
52:14
process.
52:16
How
52:16
do
52:16
I
52:17
respond
52:17
to
52:17
that
52:17
in
52:17
an
52:18
authentic
52:18
way?
52:19
Well,
52:19
I
52:19
can't.
52:19
If
52:20
I,
52:20
you
52:20
know,
52:20
assume
52:21
that
52:21
I'm
52:21
a
52:21
fixed,
52:22
static
52:22
entity,
52:22
that's
52:23
the
52:23
same
52:23
as
52:23
I
52:23
was
52:23
yesterday.
52:25
But
52:25
what's
52:25
the
52:25
natural
52:26
response
52:26
that
52:26
wants
52:26
to
52:26
rise
52:27
in
52:27
the
52:27
situation?
52:28
And
52:28
as
52:28
we
52:28
respond
52:29
to
52:29
that,
52:30
that
52:30
appropriateness,
52:31
that
52:32
conforming
52:33
with
52:33
the
52:33
dao,
52:34
however
52:34
we
52:35
want
52:35
to
52:35
express
52:35
this,
52:35
that
52:36
it
52:37
seems
52:37
to
52:37
actualize
52:39
the
52:39
individual
52:40
self
52:41
becomes
52:41
closer,
52:42
what
52:43
its
52:43
potentials
52:43
and
52:44
possibilities
52:44
are.
52:45
And
52:45
I
52:45
like
52:46
that
52:46
about,
52:46
again,
52:46
about
52:47
Hameed's
52:47
teaching,
52:48
because
52:48
he
52:48
emphasizes
52:49
the
52:49
personal,
52:50
the
52:50
individual,
52:51
as
52:51
well
52:52
as
52:52
the
52:52
collective.
52:53
In
52:53
many
52:53
schools,
52:54
you
52:54
know,
52:54
the
52:55
individual
52:55
self
52:56
is
52:56
an
52:56
illusion
52:56
and
52:57
it
52:57
just
52:57
needs
52:57
to
52:57
be
52:57
done
52:57
away
52:58
with.
52:58
But
52:59
he
52:59
says,
53:00
he
53:00
calls
53:00
it
53:00
a
53:00
pearl
53:00
of
53:01
great
53:01
price.
53:01
And
53:02
it's
53:02
the
53:02
other
53:02
side
53:03
of
53:03
the
53:03
coin.
53:03
You
53:03
can't
53:04
have
53:04
the
53:04
individual
53:05
and
53:05
the
53:05
collective
53:05
one
53:06
without
53:06
the
53:06
other.
53:07
They
53:07
come
53:07
together
53:08
and,
53:09
yeah,
53:09
make
53:10
us
53:10
whatever
53:10
that
53:11
process
53:11
is
53:11
moving
53:12
us
53:12
to
53:12
it.
53:12
Well,
53:12
and
53:13
this
53:13
is
53:13
a
53:13
parallel
53:13
with
53:13
our
53:14
cosmological
53:15
discussion,
53:15
right?
53:15
Because
53:16
just
53:16
as
53:16
the
53:16
universe
53:16
creates
53:18
differentiated
53:18
modes
53:19
of
53:19
the
53:19
universe,
53:20
being
53:20
expresses
53:20
itself
53:21
in
53:21
differentiated
53:22
modes
53:22
of
53:22
being,
53:22
which
53:22
we
53:23
call
53:23
persons.
53:24
So
53:24
a
53:25
true
53:25
person
53:25
is
53:25
a
53:25
differentiated
53:26
mode
53:26
of
53:26
being,
53:27
of
53:27
being
53:28
expressing
53:28
itself
53:28
in
53:28
a
53:29
particular
53:29
way.
53:29
And
53:30
the
53:30
same
53:30
way
53:30
that
53:30
the
53:30
universe
53:31
seeks
53:31
to
53:32
create
53:32
ever
53:33
more
53:33
diverse
53:34
centers
53:34
of
53:34
experience.
53:35
So
53:36
they're
53:36
very,
53:36
very
53:36
much
53:36
in
53:37
alignment
53:37
that
53:37
way.
53:38
In
53:38
fact,
53:39
Khamid
53:39
would
53:39
probably
53:39
say
53:40
they're
53:40
congruent.
53:41
Right.
53:41
It's
53:41
the
53:42
universe
53:42
acting
53:43
as
53:43
being
53:43
or
53:43
being
53:44
acting
53:44
as
53:44
the
53:44
universe
53:45
through
53:45
those.
53:45
Two,
53:47
which
53:47
one
53:47
would
53:48
expect,
53:49
given
53:49
that
53:51
there
53:51
are
53:51
aspects
53:52
of
53:53
the
53:53
one
53:53
whole,
53:54
but
53:54
you're
53:55
bringing
53:55
them
53:55
together
53:56
in
53:56
a
53:56
more
53:56
coherent
53:57
way
53:57
than
53:58
I've
53:59
seen
53:59
before.
53:59
Stephan
54:00
and
54:00
I
54:00
do
54:00
appreciate
54:01
that
54:02
most
54:02
of
54:02
the
54:03
attempts
54:03
to
54:04
align
54:06
the
54:06
physical
54:07
universe
54:08
with
54:08
the
54:09
contemplative
54:10
and
54:11
draw
54:12
parallels
54:15
are
54:16
not
54:16
so.
54:16
So
54:16
effective.
54:18
Well,
54:18
you
54:19
know,
54:19
when
54:19
I
54:19
asked
54:19
Hameed
54:19
that
54:20
question
54:20
in
54:20
the
54:21
interview
54:21
with
54:21
him
54:21
in
54:21
my
54:22
first
54:22
book,
54:22
it's
54:22
like,
54:22
well,
54:22
what
54:23
happened
54:23
before
54:23
the
54:23
Big
54:23
Bang?
54:24
It's
54:24
like,
54:24
well,
54:24
just
54:24
the
54:24
big
54:24
Bang
54:25
wasn't
54:25
arising
54:25
at
54:25
the
54:26
time.
54:26
And
54:26
then
54:27
the
54:27
Big
54:27
Bang
54:27
arose
54:27
as
54:28
part
54:28
of
54:28
the
54:28
manifestation
54:29
of
54:29
being.
54:30
So
54:30
it's
54:30
very
54:31
seamless
54:31
in
54:31
terms
54:31
of
54:32
how
54:32
he's
54:32
integrated
54:33
them.
54:33
And
54:34
he
54:34
would
54:34
also
54:34
be
54:34
the
54:34
first
54:35
to
54:35
visit.
54:35
Well,
54:35
I
54:35
don't
54:35
know
54:35
what
54:35
happened
54:36
before
54:36
the
54:36
Big
54:36
Bang.
54:36
Just
54:37
maybe
54:37
nothing
54:38
was
54:38
arising.
54:38
We
54:38
just
54:39
simply
54:39
don't
54:39
know.
54:40
He's
54:40
very
54:40
comfortable
54:41
with
54:41
not
54:41
knowing.
54:42
Oh,
54:42
yeah.
54:43
We
54:43
can
54:44
all
54:44
go
54:44
with
54:44
not
54:44
knowing
54:45
as
54:45
a
54:45
fundamental
54:46
stance.
54:46
But
54:47
now
54:48
I'm
54:48
confused
54:48
because
54:49
I
54:49
thought
54:50
that
54:50
the
54:50
Big
54:51
Bang
54:52
originated
54:53
space
54:53
time
54:54
and
54:54
that
54:54
the
54:55
question
54:55
of
54:55
what
54:55
was
54:55
before
54:56
didn't
54:56
really
54:57
have
54:57
any
54:58
meaning.
54:59
Am
54:59
I
54:59
wrong?
55:00
Oh,
55:01
yeah.
55:01
So
55:01
we
55:01
could
55:01
say
55:02
in
55:02
modern
55:02
physical
55:02
theory,
55:03
we
55:03
would
55:03
say
55:03
the
55:03
Big
55:03
Bang
55:04
is
55:05
that
55:05
which
55:06
our
55:06
current
55:06
spacetime
55:07
experience
55:07
came
55:07
out
55:07
of.
55:09
But
55:09
if
55:09
we're
55:09
talking
55:10
about
55:10
everything
55:10
as
55:10
being,
55:11
you
55:11
know,
55:11
and
55:12
arising
55:12
out
55:12
of
55:13
endless
55:13
being,
55:14
okay,
55:14
then
55:15
we
55:15
might
55:15
postulate
55:15
that
55:16
the
55:16
Big
55:16
Bang
55:16
itself
55:16
was
55:17
an
55:17
arising
55:17
out
55:18
of
55:18
timeless,
55:19
spaceless,
55:20
endless
55:21
being,
55:21
if
55:21
we
55:22
want
55:22
to
55:22
sort
55:22
of
55:22
hold
55:22
that
55:22
view.
55:23
So
55:23
I'm
55:24
just
55:24
kind
55:24
of
55:24
offering
55:24
that
55:24
as
55:24
a
55:25
possibility.
55:25
Yeah.
55:26
Who
55:26
is
55:26
the
55:26
philosopher?
55:27
He
55:27
said,
55:27
science
55:28
says
55:28
if
55:28
you
55:28
give
55:28
us
55:28
just
55:29
one
55:29
free
55:30
miracle,
55:31
we
55:31
can
55:31
express
55:32
everything.
55:32
We
55:32
can
55:32
figure
55:33
out
55:33
everything
55:33
else.
55:34
Exactly.
55:35
Yeah.
55:36
Well,
55:36
and
55:36
that
55:36
was.
55:37
That
55:37
was
55:37
a
55:37
big
55:37
question
55:38
in
55:38
cosmological
55:39
theory
55:39
in
55:39
the
55:39
20th
55:39
century.
55:40
It's
55:40
like,
55:41
you
55:41
know,
55:41
was
55:41
it
55:41
the
55:41
Big
55:42
Bang
55:42
theory,
55:42
which,
55:43
you
55:43
know,
55:43
asked
55:43
for
55:43
one
55:44
miracle
55:44
for
55:44
everything
55:45
to
55:45
exist,
55:45
or
55:45
was
55:45
it
55:46
steady
55:46
state
55:46
theory,
55:47
which
55:47
said
55:47
that
55:47
the
55:47
universe
55:47
is
55:47
constantly
55:48
at
55:48
close,
55:49
pouring
55:49
newness
55:50
out
55:50
of
55:50
everywhere
55:51
and
55:52
evidence,
55:52
you
55:52
know,
55:52
pointed
55:53
towards
55:53
the
55:53
Big
55:53
Bang
55:53
theory?
55:54
It's
55:54
like,
55:54
but
55:54
do
55:54
you
55:54
prefer
55:55
one
55:55
miracle
55:55
or
55:55
an
55:55
infinity
55:56
of
55:56
miracles
55:57
for
55:57
explaining
55:58
everyday
55:58
life?
55:59
Well,
56:00
but.
56:01
And
56:01
I
56:01
think
56:02
the
56:02
implication
56:02
of
56:03
our
56:03
earlier
56:03
discussion
56:04
was
56:04
creativity
56:05
is
56:05
itself
56:07
kind
56:07
of
56:07
miracle.
56:08
I
56:08
mean,
56:08
people
56:08
have
56:08
been
56:08
trying
56:09
to
56:09
understand
56:09
it
56:09
for
56:10
millennia.
56:11
We
56:11
had
56:11
the
56:11
nine
56:12
Muses,
56:12
which
56:12
is
56:14
probably
56:14
not
56:14
us.
56:16
Not
56:16
bad.
56:16
Yeah.
56:17
Yeah,
56:18
exactly.
56:19
And,
56:19
you
56:19
know,
56:19
we
56:19
have
56:19
this
56:19
idea
56:20
or
56:20
this
56:20
experience
56:21
of
56:21
creative
56:22
inspiration
56:22
coming
56:23
from
56:23
nowhere
56:24
or
56:24
seemingly
56:24
out
56:25
of
56:25
the
56:25
blue.
56:25
Right.
56:26
It's
56:26
coming
56:26
from
56:26
something
56:27
larger
56:27
than
56:27
our
56:27
experience.
56:29
So
56:29
we're
56:29
not
56:29
the
56:29
source
56:30
of
56:30
the
56:30
creativity.
56:30
I
56:30
think
56:31
that's
56:31
the
56:31
important
56:31
aspect
56:32
of
56:32
it.
56:32
We're
56:32
the
56:33
agent
56:34
of
56:34
his
56:34
expression.
56:36
And
56:36
that's
56:36
what
56:36
it
56:36
feels
56:37
like
56:37
when
56:37
you're
56:38
being
56:38
creative.
56:39
It
56:39
feels
56:39
like
56:40
you're
56:40
being
56:41
an
56:41
instrument
56:41
or
56:41
being
56:42
a
56:42
channel.
56:42
It's
56:42
something
56:43
beyond
56:43
you
56:43
that's
56:43
coming
56:44
through.
56:44
And
56:44
that's
56:44
what
56:44
makes
56:44
it
56:45
so
56:45
amazingly
56:46
gratifying
56:47
and
56:47
humbling
56:48
and
56:49
just
56:49
awesome
56:50
and
56:51
powerful.
56:51
I
56:52
mean,
56:52
I
56:52
feel
56:52
like
56:53
an
56:53
evolutionary
56:54
impulse
56:54
of
56:54
life
56:54
coming
56:55
through
56:55
me
56:55
like
56:55
oh,
56:56
I've
56:56
got
56:56
to
56:56
write
56:56
this.
56:56
I've
56:56
got
56:57
to
56:57
express
56:57
this
56:57
in
56:57
a
56:57
particular
56:58
way.
56:58
It
56:59
has
56:59
almost
56:59
like
57:00
a
57:00
fervency
57:01
to
57:01
it
57:01
and
57:01
a
57:01
vivid,
57:02
vivifying
57:03
aspect
57:03
to
57:03
it.
57:03
I
57:04
mean,
57:04
I've
57:04
been
57:04
very
57:04
creative
57:05
this
57:05
summer,
57:05
you
57:06
know,
57:06
just
57:06
finishing
57:07
up,
57:07
you
57:07
know,
57:07
writing
57:08
projects
57:08
and
57:08
getting
57:08
things
57:08
out.
57:09
And
57:09
there's
57:10
just
57:10
like
57:10
this
57:10
momentum
57:11
behind
57:11
it
57:12
that
57:12
feels
57:13
really
57:14
important.
57:14
To
57:14
be
57:14
faithful
57:15
to.
57:15
It's
57:15
like
57:15
to
57:15
give
57:15
space
57:16
to.
57:16
To
57:16
give
57:16
voice
57:16
to
57:17
it.
57:18
Yeah,
57:19
to
57:19
be
57:19
faithful
57:19
to.
57:20
That's
57:20
very.
57:20
That's
57:20
very
57:21
well
57:21
said.
57:21
Very
57:21
true.
57:22
Yeah.
57:23
Because
57:23
we
57:23
live
57:23
in
57:23
a
57:23
culture
57:24
of
57:24
distraction.
57:24
We've
57:25
been
57:25
playing
57:25
with
57:26
a
57:27
really
57:27
big
57:28
context,
57:29
but
57:30
if
57:30
it
57:30
were.
57:31
Seems
57:31
impossible.
57:32
But
57:32
let's
57:33
expand
57:33
it
57:33
further.
57:35
What's
57:35
the
57:35
latest
57:36
on
57:36
the
57:36
idea
57:37
that
57:38
of.
57:38
That
57:39
we
57:39
live
57:39
not
57:39
only
57:40
in
57:40
a
57:40
universe,
57:41
but
57:41
a
57:41
multiverse?
57:42
You
57:43
know,
57:43
the
57:43
multiverse
57:44
is
57:44
an
57:44
interesting
57:44
idea,
57:45
and
57:45
I
57:45
would
57:46
say
57:46
there
57:46
isn't
57:46
really
57:46
good
57:47
evidence.
57:47
People
57:47
are
57:47
working
57:48
to
57:48
kind
57:48
of
57:48
find
57:49
physical
57:49
evidence
57:50
in
57:50
our
57:50
universe
57:51
that's
57:51
somehow
57:51
a
57:51
fingerprint
57:52
that
57:52
there
57:53
are
57:53
other
57:53
universes,
57:54
you
57:54
know,
57:54
affecting
57:55
us,
57:55
or
57:55
that
57:56
there's
57:56
a
57:56
multiverse
57:57
out
57:57
there.
57:58
I
57:58
haven't
57:59
found
57:59
good
57:59
observational
58:00
evidence
58:00
that's
58:01
been
58:01
reported
58:01
so
58:01
far
58:02
that
58:02
expresses
58:03
that.
58:04
But
58:04
if
58:04
we
58:05
look
58:05
at
58:05
this
58:05
principle
58:06
of
58:06
differentiation,
58:07
would
58:08
the
58:08
universe
58:08
would
58:09
be
58:09
satisfied
58:10
with
58:10
one
58:10
expression
58:10
of
58:11
itself
58:11
or
58:11
would
58:11
it
58:11
seek
58:12
to
58:12
differentiate
58:13
itself
58:13
into
58:13
multiple
58:13
universes?
58:14
So
58:15
if
58:15
we
58:15
take
58:15
an
58:15
even
58:15
wider
58:16
lens,
58:17
then
58:17
maybe
58:17
this
58:18
principle
58:18
of
58:18
differentiation
58:19
applies
58:19
on
58:19
even
58:20
larger
58:20
scales,
58:20
that
58:21
maybe
58:22
we're
58:22
not
58:22
satisfied
58:22
with
58:23
one
58:23
universe.
58:23
Maybe
58:23
we
58:23
need
58:23
an
58:23
infinity
58:24
of
58:24
universes
58:25
or
58:25
multiple
58:26
dimensions
58:26
or
58:26
all
58:27
kinds
58:27
of
58:27
diverse
58:28
expressions
58:28
of
58:29
ways
58:29
of
58:29
being.
58:31
So
58:31
I
58:31
don't
58:32
know,
58:32
but
58:32
I'm
58:33
open.
58:33
The
58:33
multiverse
58:34
thing,
58:34
I
58:34
think,
58:35
came
58:35
out
58:35
of
58:36
mathematics,
58:37
that
58:37
that
58:37
explanation
58:38
actually
58:38
helped
58:39
equations
58:40
to
58:40
work.
58:41
So
58:41
that
58:41
was
58:41
just.
58:42
When
58:43
you
58:43
follow
58:43
mathematics
58:44
long
58:44
enough,
58:44
you
58:45
come
58:45
up
58:45
with,
58:45
well,
58:46
there
58:46
has
58:47
to
58:47
be
58:47
dark
58:47
matter,
58:48
because
58:49
the.
58:49
Why
58:49
isn't
58:50
everything,
58:50
you
58:50
know,
58:50
coming
58:51
together
58:51
because
58:51
of
58:51
the
58:52
force
58:52
of
58:52
gravity?
58:53
What
58:53
is
58:53
it
58:53
pulling?
58:53
So
58:54
they
58:54
came
58:54
up
58:54
with
58:54
the
58:54
idea
58:55
of
58:56
dark
58:56
energy,
58:57
and
58:58
there'd
58:59
never
58:59
been
58:59
any
58:59
proof,
59:00
concrete
59:01
proof,
59:01
but
59:01
it
59:01
seems
59:02
to
59:02
make
59:03
the
59:03
language
59:04
fit
59:04
together
59:04
and
59:04
gives
59:05
an
59:05
explanation
59:06
for
59:06
what
59:07
otherwise
59:07
would
59:07
be
59:08
completely
59:08
inexplicable.
59:09
There's
59:10
partly
59:10
that.
59:10
And,
59:11
you
59:11
know,
59:12
one
59:12
particular
59:12
expression
59:13
of
59:13
the
59:13
multiverse
59:14
theory
59:14
came
59:14
out
59:14
of
59:15
the
59:15
cosmological
59:16
constants,
59:17
right?
59:17
There
59:17
are
59:17
very
59:18
particular
59:18
values
59:19
for
59:19
the
59:20
strength
59:20
of
59:20
electromagnetic
59:21
force,
59:21
the
59:21
strength
59:22
of
59:22
gravity,
59:22
the
59:22
strength
59:22
of
59:23
these
59:24
particular
59:24
constants
59:24
of
59:25
fundamental
59:25
reality
59:26
that
59:26
are
59:26
very,
59:26
very
59:27
precise.
59:27
If
59:28
they
59:28
were
59:28
different
59:29
by,
59:29
you
59:29
know,
59:30
one
59:30
in
59:30
a
59:30
factor
59:30
of
59:31
a
59:31
billion.
59:31
Billion,
59:32
we
59:32
live
59:33
in
59:33
an
59:33
uninhabitable
59:33
universe.
59:34
And
59:35
so
59:35
the
59:35
explanation
59:36
is
59:36
somehow
59:37
in
59:37
the
59:37
universe,
59:38
we've
59:38
won
59:38
the
59:38
cosmic
59:39
lottery.
59:39
We've
59:40
somehow
59:40
been
59:41
born
59:41
into
59:41
a
59:42
universe
59:42
that's
59:42
precisely
59:43
tuned
59:43
for
59:43
our
59:43
living
59:44
and
59:44
our
59:44
thriving
59:44
and
59:45
our
59:45
being
59:45
the
59:45
way
59:45
it
59:46
is.
59:46
And
59:47
maybe
59:47
in
59:47
a
59:47
multiverse,
59:48
there
59:48
were
59:48
lots
59:48
of
59:48
other
59:49
universes
59:49
out
59:49
there
59:49
that
59:50
have,
59:50
you
59:50
know,
59:50
different
59:50
constants
59:51
where
59:51
life
59:51
isn't
59:52
possible
59:52
in
59:52
one,
59:52
or
59:52
one
59:53
is
59:53
just
59:53
made
59:53
out
59:53
of
59:54
supernovae,
59:54
or
59:55
one
59:55
just
59:55
never
59:56
even
59:56
came
59:56
together
59:57
with
59:57
matter.
59:58
So
59:59
that's
59:59
kind
59:59
of
59:59
the
59:59
theoretical
1:00:00
framework,
1:00:01
because
1:00:01
people
1:00:01
don't
1:00:02
like
1:00:02
to.
1:00:02
Or
1:00:02
at
1:00:02
least
1:00:02
people
1:00:03
in
1:00:03
science
1:00:03
don't
1:00:03
like
1:00:03
to
1:00:03
say,
1:00:03
well,
1:00:04
it
1:00:04
must
1:00:05
be
1:00:05
evidence
1:00:05
for
1:00:05
God,
1:00:06
which,
1:00:06
you
1:00:06
know,
1:00:06
is
1:00:06
a
1:00:07
direction
1:00:07
some
1:00:07
people
1:00:07
go.
1:00:08
Or
1:00:08
it's
1:00:09
like,
1:00:09
well,
1:00:09
why
1:00:09
should
1:00:09
the
1:00:09
universe
1:00:10
shape
1:00:10
itself
1:00:10
around
1:00:11
our
1:00:11
existence?
1:00:12
So
1:00:12
they're
1:00:13
looking
1:00:13
for
1:00:13
alter
1:00:13
explanations
1:00:14
that
1:00:14
leads
1:00:14
to,
1:00:15
you
1:00:15
know,
1:00:15
things
1:00:16
like
1:00:16
the
1:00:16
multiverse.
1:00:16
I
1:00:17
would
1:00:17
say
1:00:17
hypothesis
1:00:17
rather
1:00:18
than
1:00:18
theory,
1:00:18
because
1:00:18
there
1:00:18
isn't
1:00:19
really.
1:00:19
And
1:00:19
Rupert
1:00:20
Sheldrake,
1:00:21
he
1:00:21
says
1:00:21
that
1:00:21
maybe
1:00:22
it's
1:00:22
not
1:00:22
universal
1:00:23
laws,
1:00:24
but
1:00:24
it's
1:00:24
universal
1:00:25
habits
1:00:26
that
1:00:26
the
1:00:26
laws
1:00:27
themselves
1:00:27
evolve
1:00:28
with
1:00:29
the
1:00:29
evolution
1:00:30
of
1:00:31
the
1:00:31
universe.
1:00:33
Exactly.
1:00:34
And
1:00:34
you
1:00:34
know,
1:00:34
which
1:00:35
goes
1:00:35
back
1:00:35
to
1:00:35
this
1:00:35
old
1:00:36
Greek
1:00:36
idea
1:00:36
that
1:00:36
the
1:00:36
universe
1:00:37
itself
1:00:37
is
1:00:37
a
1:00:37
living
1:00:38
being
1:00:38
or
1:00:38
a
1:00:38
living
1:00:38
developing
1:00:40
phenomenon.
1:00:42
Now,
1:00:42
people
1:00:43
have
1:00:43
tried
1:00:43
to
1:00:43
make
1:00:43
careful
1:00:44
observations
1:00:45
to
1:00:45
see
1:00:46
are
1:00:46
the
1:00:46
laws
1:00:47
of
1:00:47
physics
1:00:47
changing
1:00:48
over
1:00:48
time,
1:00:48
over
1:00:48
evolutionary
1:00:49
history?
1:00:50
And
1:00:51
there
1:00:51
isn't
1:00:51
good
1:00:51
evidence
1:00:52
for
1:00:52
that.
1:00:52
There's
1:00:52
evidence
1:00:52
that
1:00:53
they
1:00:53
are
1:00:53
relatively
1:00:54
fixed,
1:00:54
but
1:00:54
doesn't
1:00:54
mean
1:00:54
that
1:00:55
they're
1:00:55
not
1:00:55
dynamic
1:00:55
and
1:00:55
changing
1:00:56
and
1:00:56
also
1:00:57
emergent
1:00:58
in
1:00:58
particular
1:00:58
ways.
1:00:59
We
1:00:59
have.
1:00:59
Yeah,
1:00:59
emphasis
1:01:00
on
1:01:00
relatively
1:01:01
stable.
1:01:01
That's
1:01:02
a
1:01:02
big
1:01:02
word.
1:01:02
Well,
1:01:03
you
1:01:03
know,
1:01:03
we
1:01:03
are
1:01:04
tiny
1:01:04
humans
1:01:04
on
1:01:04
a
1:01:05
tiny
1:01:05
rock
1:01:05
in
1:01:05
a
1:01:05
vast
1:01:06
universe,
1:01:06
trying
1:01:06
to
1:01:07
understand
1:01:07
it
1:01:07
all
1:01:07
with
1:01:07
our
1:01:08
limited
1:01:08
equipment.
1:01:08
So
1:01:09
there's
1:01:09
a
1:01:09
lot
1:01:09
we
1:01:09
still
1:01:09
don't
1:01:10
know.
1:01:10
Oh,
1:01:10
gosh,
1:01:11
yes.
1:01:11
Yeah,
1:01:12
yeah,
1:01:12
yeah.
1:01:13
And
1:01:13
yet
1:01:14
we've
1:01:14
got
1:01:14
a
1:01:14
lot.
1:01:14
Right.
1:01:15
It
1:01:15
does
1:01:15
change
1:01:15
the
1:01:15
picture.
1:01:16
If
1:01:16
you
1:01:16
start
1:01:16
thinking
1:01:17
of
1:01:17
it
1:01:17
in
1:01:17
terms
1:01:17
of
1:01:18
habits
1:01:18
rather
1:01:19
than
1:01:20
universal
1:01:20
constants
1:01:21
and
1:01:21
givens,
1:01:21
that's
1:01:22
just
1:01:22
like,
1:01:23
no,
1:01:23
we're
1:01:23
not
1:01:23
going
1:01:23
to
1:01:23
let
1:01:24
that
1:01:24
one
1:01:24
in
1:01:24
the
1:01:24
door.
1:01:25
That's
1:01:25
just,
1:01:26
you
1:01:26
know,
1:01:26
that
1:01:27
would
1:01:27
be
1:01:27
ridiculous.
1:01:28
We'd
1:01:28
have
1:01:28
to
1:01:28
change
1:01:28
everything.
1:01:29
So.
1:01:29
But
1:01:30
it's
1:01:30
a
1:01:30
very
1:01:30
compelling,
1:01:31
interesting
1:01:31
idea.
1:01:32
Well,
1:01:32
and
1:01:32
it
1:01:33
goes
1:01:33
back
1:01:33
to
1:01:33
what
1:01:33
Thomas
1:01:33
Berry
1:01:34
said
1:01:34
is
1:01:34
we're
1:01:34
in
1:01:35
a
1:01:35
time
1:01:35
now
1:01:35
when
1:01:36
the
1:01:36
words
1:01:36
we
1:01:37
used
1:01:37
to
1:01:37
describe
1:01:37
the
1:01:37
universe
1:01:38
are
1:01:38
inadequate
1:01:39
to
1:01:40
fit
1:01:40
our
1:01:40
discoveries.
1:01:41
Right.
1:01:42
We're
1:01:42
stuck
1:01:42
in
1:01:43
a
1:01:43
Newtonian,
1:01:44
a
1:01:44
static
1:01:44
cosmology
1:01:45
that
1:01:45
assumes
1:01:45
the
1:01:45
world
1:01:46
is
1:01:46
made
1:01:46
out
1:01:46
of
1:01:46
things.
1:01:47
And
1:01:48
one
1:01:48
example
1:01:49
he
1:01:49
uses
1:01:49
is
1:01:50
the
1:01:50
idea
1:01:50
of
1:01:50
desire.
1:01:51
Well,
1:01:51
what
1:01:52
does
1:01:52
the
1:01:52
universe
1:01:52
desire.
1:01:53
What
1:01:53
is
1:01:53
the
1:01:53
universe
1:01:54
desiring
1:01:54
through
1:01:54
my
1:01:55
life
1:01:55
or
1:01:55
through
1:01:56
the
1:01:56
biosphere?
1:01:57
And
1:01:58
he
1:01:58
says,
1:01:58
well,
1:01:58
we've
1:01:59
kind
1:01:59
of
1:02:00
captured
1:02:00
the
1:02:00
word
1:02:00
desire
1:02:01
by
1:02:01
just
1:02:01
assuming
1:02:02
it's
1:02:02
only
1:02:03
applicable
1:02:03
to
1:02:03
human
1:02:04
context.
1:02:05
Desire
1:02:05
reflects
1:02:06
the
1:02:06
entire
1:02:06
evolutionary
1:02:07
process
1:02:07
of
1:02:07
the
1:02:07
universe
1:02:08
towards
1:02:09
particular
1:02:09
choices
1:02:10
and
1:02:10
tendencies
1:02:11
that
1:02:12
might
1:02:12
feel
1:02:12
like
1:02:13
desire
1:02:13
in
1:02:14
our
1:02:14
nervous
1:02:15
systems.
1:02:16
But
1:02:16
maybe
1:02:16
we
1:02:16
need
1:02:16
to
1:02:16
kind
1:02:17
of
1:02:17
reframe
1:02:17
this
1:02:17
idea
1:02:18
of
1:02:18
desire.
1:02:19
Not
1:02:19
that
1:02:20
we're
1:02:20
anthropomorphic
1:02:20
by
1:02:20
the
1:02:21
universe,
1:02:21
but
1:02:21
we're
1:02:21
just
1:02:21
saying
1:02:21
that
1:02:22
the
1:02:22
words
1:02:22
we're
1:02:22
using
1:02:23
are
1:02:23
limited
1:02:24
and
1:02:24
inadequate
1:02:25
to
1:02:25
describe
1:02:26
what
1:02:26
it
1:02:26
means
1:02:26
to
1:02:26
be
1:02:26
an
1:02:27
evolving
1:02:28
cosmic
1:02:28
creative
1:02:29
plenum.
1:02:31
Even
1:02:31
the
1:02:31
word
1:02:31
universe
1:02:32
involves
1:02:32
suggests
1:02:33
something
1:02:33
fixed,
1:02:34
like
1:02:34
a
1:02:34
place
1:02:34
where
1:02:34
things
1:02:34
happen
1:02:35
versus
1:02:36
a
1:02:36
phenomenon
1:02:37
that's
1:02:37
always
1:02:37
in
1:02:38
process.
1:02:38
Right.
1:02:39
Always
1:02:39
evolving
1:02:39
and
1:02:39
becoming
1:02:40
something
1:02:40
different.
1:02:42
So
1:02:42
we're
1:02:42
trapped
1:02:42
in
1:02:43
language.
1:02:43
Our
1:02:44
ideas
1:02:44
of
1:02:44
what
1:02:44
the
1:02:44
universe
1:02:45
is,
1:02:46
as
1:02:46
we
1:02:46
mentioned
1:02:47
in
1:02:47
the
1:02:47
beginning,
1:02:47
have
1:02:48
just
1:02:48
radically,
1:02:49
radically
1:02:49
expanded
1:02:50
and
1:02:50
changed
1:02:51
in
1:02:51
the
1:02:51
last
1:02:51
century.
1:02:53
Absolutely.
1:02:54
And
1:02:55
yet
1:02:55
we're
1:02:55
still
1:02:55
using,
1:02:56
you
1:02:56
know,
1:02:57
16th
1:02:57
and
1:02:57
17th
1:02:57
century
1:02:58
English
1:02:58
words
1:02:58
to
1:02:58
describe
1:02:59
it.
1:02:59
It's
1:02:59
like
1:03:00
nouns
1:03:00
and
1:03:00
verbs
1:03:01
and
1:03:01
things
1:03:01
like
1:03:01
that.
1:03:02
If
1:03:02
the
1:03:03
whole
1:03:03
thing's
1:03:03
process,
1:03:03
then
1:03:04
you
1:03:04
can't
1:03:04
describe
1:03:04
with
1:03:05
nouns.
1:03:06
You
1:03:06
have
1:03:07
to
1:03:07
use
1:03:07
verbs.
1:03:07
Right.
1:03:08
We're
1:03:08
all
1:03:08
verbs,
1:03:08
you
1:03:09
know,
1:03:09
verbing.
1:03:10
So
1:03:11
indigenous
1:03:11
languages,
1:03:12
indigenous
1:03:12
cultures
1:03:13
really
1:03:13
get
1:03:13
this
1:03:13
much
1:03:14
more
1:03:14
than
1:03:14
western
1:03:14
culture
1:03:15
does,
1:03:15
because
1:03:15
they
1:03:15
have
1:03:15
these
1:03:16
languages
1:03:16
which
1:03:17
are
1:03:17
process
1:03:17
oriented
1:03:18
and
1:03:18
are
1:03:18
much
1:03:18
more
1:03:19
descriptive
1:03:20
and
1:03:20
based
1:03:20
on
1:03:20
a
1:03:20
larger
1:03:21
context.
1:03:23
Yeah,
1:03:23
I
1:03:23
think
1:03:23
when
1:03:23
you're
1:03:23
closer
1:03:24
to
1:03:24
nature,
1:03:24
you
1:03:25
tend
1:03:25
toward
1:03:25
that.
1:03:26
You
1:03:26
know,
1:03:26
we
1:03:26
live
1:03:26
in
1:03:27
structures
1:03:27
that
1:03:27
we
1:03:28
don't
1:03:28
see
1:03:28
the
1:03:28
sky
1:03:28
at
1:03:29
night.
1:03:29
We,
1:03:29
you
1:03:29
know,
1:03:30
we
1:03:30
don't
1:03:30
feel
1:03:30
the
1:03:30
wind.
1:03:31
I
1:03:31
spent
1:03:31
a
1:03:31
lot
1:03:31
of
1:03:31
years
1:03:32
as
1:03:32
a
1:03:32
wilderness
1:03:32
guide,
1:03:33
and
1:03:33
that
1:03:33
whole
1:03:33
idea
1:03:34
of
1:03:34
process
1:03:34
advurbing
1:03:35
comes
1:03:35
quite
1:03:36
naturally
1:03:37
to
1:03:37
the
1:03:37
fore.
1:03:37
When
1:03:38
you
1:03:38
do
1:03:39
extended
1:03:40
visits
1:03:41
or
1:03:42
being
1:03:42
part
1:03:43
of
1:03:43
the
1:03:43
natural
1:03:43
world
1:03:44
in
1:03:44
the
1:03:44
wilderness,
1:03:44
it
1:03:46
becomes
1:03:46
very
1:03:47
believable
1:03:47
and
1:03:48
really
1:03:48
obvious,
1:03:49
I
1:03:49
would
1:03:49
say.
1:03:49
Yes,
1:03:50
of
1:03:50
course,
1:03:50
of
1:03:50
course.
1:03:51
Yeah.
1:03:53
When
1:03:53
you
1:03:53
and
1:03:53
you
1:03:54
point
1:03:54
to
1:03:54
something,
1:03:54
I
1:03:54
think
1:03:54
that's
1:03:55
really
1:03:55
important.
1:03:55
And
1:03:55
just
1:03:55
to
1:03:56
bring
1:03:56
back
1:03:56
Thomas
1:03:56
Berry,
1:03:56
because
1:03:56
he's
1:03:57
such
1:03:57
a
1:03:57
sage
1:03:57
on
1:03:57
this,
1:03:58
he
1:03:59
says
1:03:59
that
1:03:59
in
1:03:59
order
1:03:59
to
1:04:00
move
1:04:00
into
1:04:00
a
1:04:00
flourishing
1:04:01
future
1:04:01
in
1:04:02
alignment
1:04:02
with
1:04:02
the
1:04:03
biosphere
1:04:03
and
1:04:03
the
1:04:03
Earth
1:04:03
community,
1:04:05
we
1:04:05
need
1:04:05
a
1:04:05
fourfold
1:04:06
path
1:04:06
of
1:04:06
wisdom.
1:04:07
We
1:04:07
need
1:04:07
four
1:04:08
different
1:04:08
wisdom
1:04:08
streams.
1:04:09
Right.
1:04:09
So
1:04:10
we
1:04:10
need
1:04:10
the
1:04:11
wisdom
1:04:11
of
1:04:11
science,
1:04:12
which
1:04:12
are
1:04:13
these
1:04:13
tremendous
1:04:13
insights
1:04:14
about
1:04:14
the
1:04:14
nature
1:04:14
of
1:04:14
reality
1:04:14
that
1:04:15
come
1:04:15
to
1:04:15
us
1:04:15
through
1:04:16
the
1:04:16
scientific
1:04:17
process.
1:04:19
We
1:04:19
need
1:04:20
the
1:04:20
wisdom
1:04:20
of
1:04:20
indigenous
1:04:20
peoples,
1:04:21
the
1:04:21
traditional
1:04:22
peoples
1:04:22
that
1:04:22
have
1:04:22
lived
1:04:22
on
1:04:23
the
1:04:23
planet
1:04:23
for
1:04:23
tens
1:04:24
of
1:04:24
thousands
1:04:24
of
1:04:24
years
1:04:24
that
1:04:25
know
1:04:25
how
1:04:25
to
1:04:25
live
1:04:25
in
1:04:26
alignment
1:04:26
with
1:04:27
the
1:04:27
dynamics
1:04:27
of
1:04:27
life.
1:04:28
We
1:04:28
need
1:04:28
their
1:04:28
wisdom.
1:04:30
We
1:04:30
need
1:04:30
the
1:04:30
wisdom
1:04:31
of
1:04:31
women.
1:04:32
Right.
1:04:32
Which
1:04:32
has
1:04:32
largely
1:04:33
been
1:04:33
unrepresented,
1:04:33
I
1:04:34
would
1:04:34
say,
1:04:35
in
1:04:36
modern
1:04:36
culture.
1:04:37
And
1:04:38
we
1:04:38
need
1:04:38
the
1:04:38
wisdom
1:04:38
of
1:04:39
the
1:04:39
classical
1:04:40
and
1:04:41
religious
1:04:41
spiritual
1:04:42
traditions.
1:04:42
We
1:04:42
need
1:04:42
the
1:04:43
insights
1:04:43
of
1:04:43
the
1:04:43
great
1:04:43
sages,
1:04:44
the
1:04:44
mystical
1:04:46
traditions
1:04:46
of
1:04:46
the
1:04:46
world.
1:04:47
We
1:04:47
did
1:04:48
all
1:04:48
these
1:04:48
kind
1:04:49
of
1:04:49
standing
1:04:49
shoulder,
1:04:49
you
1:04:50
know,
1:04:50
shoulder
1:04:50
to
1:04:50
shoulder
1:04:50
with
1:04:51
each
1:04:51
other.
1:04:52
Not
1:04:52
one
1:04:52
over
1:04:52
the
1:04:52
other,
1:04:53
but
1:04:53
just
1:04:53
together.
1:04:54
We
1:04:54
did
1:04:54
all
1:04:55
them
1:04:55
towards
1:04:55
a
1:04:55
flourishing
1:04:56
future
1:04:56
that
1:04:56
works
1:04:56
for
1:04:56
everyone.
1:04:58
We
1:04:58
have
1:04:59
been
1:04:59
taking
1:04:59
a.
1:05:00
A
1:05:00
huge
1:05:01
perspective,
1:05:01
namely
1:05:02
the
1:05:02
cosmos,
1:05:03
into
1:05:03
an
1:05:04
even
1:05:04
larger
1:05:04
one,
1:05:04
from
1:05:05
a
1:05:05
universe
1:05:05
to
1:05:05
a
1:05:05
multiverse.
1:05:06
But
1:05:07
then
1:05:07
there's
1:05:07
another
1:05:07
way
1:05:08
we
1:05:08
can
1:05:08
also
1:05:09
expand
1:05:09
this,
1:05:10
and
1:05:10
that
1:05:10
is
1:05:11
the
1:05:11
current
1:05:12
fascination
1:05:12
with
1:05:13
the
1:05:13
idea
1:05:13
that
1:05:14
perhaps
1:05:14
we're
1:05:14
living
1:05:14
in
1:05:15
an
1:05:15
AI
1:05:15
simulation.
1:05:17
Is
1:05:17
there,
1:05:19
you
1:05:19
know,
1:05:19
this
1:05:20
looked
1:05:20
like
1:05:21
science
1:05:21
fiction
1:05:21
a
1:05:21
while
1:05:22
ago.
1:05:22
Now
1:05:22
it's
1:05:22
maybe
1:05:23
like,
1:05:23
okay,
1:05:24
so
1:05:25
what's
1:05:26
the
1:05:26
data
1:05:27
showing
1:05:27
or
1:05:28
not
1:05:28
showing
1:05:28
here?
1:05:30
It's
1:05:31
a
1:05:31
great
1:05:31
question.
1:05:31
I
1:05:31
don't
1:05:32
know
1:05:32
much
1:05:32
about
1:05:32
that,
1:05:32
but
1:05:32
it's
1:05:33
one
1:05:33
of
1:05:33
these
1:05:33
theories
1:05:33
that's
1:05:34
been
1:05:34
proposed
1:05:34
to
1:05:34
kind
1:05:35
of
1:05:35
explain
1:05:36
particular
1:05:37
aspects
1:05:37
of
1:05:37
the
1:05:37
universe
1:05:38
we
1:05:38
live
1:05:38
in.
1:05:39
You
1:05:39
know,
1:05:39
one
1:05:40
would
1:05:41
be.
1:05:42
A
1:05:42
lot
1:05:42
of
1:05:42
people
1:05:42
think,
1:05:43
well,
1:05:43
is
1:05:43
our
1:05:43
universe
1:05:44
a
1:05:44
hologram?
1:05:45
Right.
1:05:45
Or
1:05:45
is
1:05:45
it,
1:05:45
you
1:05:46
know,
1:05:46
the
1:05:46
ancient
1:05:46
term
1:05:46
would
1:05:46
be.
1:05:47
Would
1:05:47
it
1:05:47
be
1:05:47
Maya
1:05:47
or
1:05:47
illusion
1:05:48
in
1:05:48
some
1:05:48
way?
1:05:49
Is
1:05:49
it
1:05:49
some
1:05:49
kind
1:05:50
of
1:05:50
simulation?
1:05:51
So
1:05:51
it's
1:05:52
a
1:05:52
great
1:05:52
question.
1:05:52
It's
1:05:53
a
1:05:53
very
1:05:53
technological
1:05:53
question
1:05:54
because
1:05:54
we're
1:05:54
coming
1:05:54
out
1:05:54
of
1:05:54
a
1:05:55
technological
1:05:55
age.
1:05:56
But
1:05:56
it's
1:05:56
also
1:05:57
an
1:05:57
ancient
1:05:57
question
1:05:57
too.
1:05:57
It's
1:05:58
like,
1:05:58
is
1:05:58
the
1:05:58
universe
1:05:59
real
1:05:59
or
1:05:59
is
1:05:59
it
1:05:59
an
1:05:59
illusion?
1:06:00
Or
1:06:00
is
1:06:00
it
1:06:00
both
1:06:01
in
1:06:01
some
1:06:01
way?
1:06:01
Are
1:06:02
we,
1:06:02
you
1:06:03
know,
1:06:03
are
1:06:03
we
1:06:03
made
1:06:03
up
1:06:04
of,
1:06:04
you
1:06:04
know,
1:06:04
are
1:06:04
we
1:06:04
made
1:06:05
up
1:06:05
of
1:06:05
information?
1:06:05
Are
1:06:05
we
1:06:06
essentially
1:06:06
data?
1:06:07
Which
1:06:07
is
1:06:07
one
1:06:08
current
1:06:09
idea
1:06:09
is
1:06:09
like,
1:06:09
well,
1:06:09
the
1:06:09
universe
1:06:10
is
1:06:10
made
1:06:10
of
1:06:10
information,
1:06:11
and
1:06:11
therefore
1:06:11
we're
1:06:12
made
1:06:12
of
1:06:12
information
1:06:12
more
1:06:12
than
1:06:12
anything
1:06:13
else.
1:06:13
Energy
1:06:14
is
1:06:14
information
1:06:15
organized.
1:06:16
So
1:06:17
that's
1:06:17
one
1:06:18
possibility.
1:06:20
What
1:06:20
do
1:06:20
you
1:06:20
all
1:06:20
think?
1:06:21
Do
1:06:21
you
1:06:21
have
1:06:21
a
1:06:21
preference
1:06:22
around
1:06:22
this
1:06:22
perspective?
1:06:23
Holograms
1:06:24
are
1:06:24
fascinating.
1:06:25
One
1:06:25
of
1:06:25
the
1:06:25
things
1:06:26
being
1:06:26
that
1:06:26
each
1:06:26
bit
1:06:27
of
1:06:27
the
1:06:27
hologram
1:06:28
contains
1:06:29
a
1:06:29
picture
1:06:29
of
1:06:29
the
1:06:29
whole.
1:06:30
So
1:06:30
if
1:06:30
I
1:06:31
get
1:06:31
a
1:06:31
holographic
1:06:32
image
1:06:32
of
1:06:32
you
1:06:32
and
1:06:32
I
1:06:32
take
1:06:33
off
1:06:33
just
1:06:33
a
1:06:33
little
1:06:33
bit
1:06:33
of
1:06:33
your
1:06:34
nose
1:06:34
and
1:06:34
I
1:06:34
shine
1:06:34
the
1:06:34
light
1:06:35
through
1:06:35
it,
1:06:35
it
1:06:35
creates
1:06:36
the
1:06:36
whole
1:06:37
picture
1:06:37
of
1:06:37
you.
1:06:37
Maybe
1:06:38
not
1:06:38
in
1:06:38
quite
1:06:38
much
1:06:38
detail,
1:06:39
but
1:06:39
each
1:06:40
part
1:06:40
contains
1:06:40
a
1:06:41
whole.
1:06:41
And
1:06:42
that
1:06:42
seems
1:06:42
to
1:06:43
be
1:06:43
very.
1:06:45
A
1:06:45
spiritual
1:06:46
perspective.
1:06:47
But
1:06:47
having
1:06:47
holograms
1:06:48
give
1:06:49
us
1:06:50
a
1:06:51
metaphor
1:06:52
for
1:06:52
how
1:06:53
something
1:06:53
that
1:06:53
amazing
1:06:54
could
1:06:54
possibly
1:06:54
be
1:06:55
a
1:06:56
reality.
1:06:56
That's
1:06:57
what
1:06:57
I
1:06:57
think
1:06:57
of
1:06:57
when
1:06:57
I
1:06:57
think
1:06:58
a
1:06:58
holographic
1:06:58
universe.
1:06:59
It's
1:06:59
like
1:06:59
every
1:07:00
bit
1:07:00
contains
1:07:03
everything
1:07:03
thou
1:07:04
art
1:07:04
that.
1:07:06
Yeah.
1:07:06
Well,
1:07:06
it's
1:07:06
interesting
1:07:07
that
1:07:07
our
1:07:07
understanding
1:07:08
of
1:07:09
perhaps
1:07:10
everything,
1:07:10
including
1:07:11
the
1:07:11
cosmos,
1:07:12
tends
1:07:13
to
1:07:14
be
1:07:14
run
1:07:15
through
1:07:16
our
1:07:16
most
1:07:16
advanced
1:07:17
technology.
1:07:18
So,
1:07:19
you
1:07:19
know,
1:07:20
a
1:07:20
few
1:07:20
centuries
1:07:21
ago,
1:07:22
people
1:07:22
were
1:07:22
trying
1:07:22
to
1:07:22
understand
1:07:23
the
1:07:23
brain
1:07:23
in
1:07:24
terms
1:07:24
of
1:07:25
flow
1:07:25
of
1:07:25
currents,
1:07:26
flow
1:07:26
of
1:07:27
fluid
1:07:27
dynamics.
1:07:28
Then
1:07:28
it
1:07:29
was
1:07:29
a
1:07:29
telephone
1:07:29
switchboard,
1:07:30
now
1:07:30
it's
1:07:31
a
1:07:31
computer.
1:07:32
Now
1:07:33
the
1:07:33
cosmos
1:07:34
is
1:07:34
maybe
1:07:34
not,
1:07:35
you
1:07:35
know,
1:07:35
a
1:07:36
simulation,
1:07:37
an
1:07:37
AI
1:07:37
simulation.
1:07:38
So,
1:07:39
you
1:07:39
know,
1:07:40
50
1:07:40
years
1:07:40
from
1:07:41
now,
1:07:41
if
1:07:41
technology
1:07:42
improves,
1:07:43
if
1:07:43
we
1:07:43
keep
1:07:43
our
1:07:43
species
1:07:44
and
1:07:44
our
1:07:44
planet
1:07:44
together,
1:07:45
who
1:07:45
knows
1:07:46
what
1:07:46
metaphor
1:07:46
will
1:07:46
be
1:07:47
trying
1:07:47
to
1:07:47
interpret
1:07:48
both
1:07:49
ourselves
1:07:49
and
1:07:49
the
1:07:49
cosmos
1:07:50
through.
1:07:51
That's
1:07:51
true.
1:07:52
I
1:07:52
mean,
1:07:52
it
1:07:52
reminds
1:07:52
me
1:07:53
of,
1:07:53
you
1:07:53
know,
1:07:53
Jung's
1:07:54
insight
1:07:54
that
1:07:54
people
1:07:54
didn't
1:07:55
see
1:07:55
flying
1:07:55
saucers
1:07:55
until
1:07:56
they
1:07:56
were
1:07:56
actually,
1:07:56
you
1:07:57
know,
1:07:57
technological
1:07:57
flying
1:07:58
machines
1:07:58
in
1:07:58
the
1:07:58
skies
1:07:59
in
1:07:59
the
1:07:59
19th
1:08:00
century.
1:08:00
That's
1:08:01
not
1:08:01
quite
1:08:01
true.
1:08:02
There
1:08:02
are
1:08:02
records
1:08:03
that
1:08:04
can
1:08:04
be
1:08:04
interpreted,
1:08:06
unidentified
1:08:07
flying
1:08:07
objects
1:08:08
from
1:08:09
millennia
1:08:09
ago.
1:08:10
So
1:08:10
I
1:08:11
don't
1:08:11
think
1:08:11
you
1:08:11
might
1:08:11
got
1:08:12
that
1:08:12
right.
1:08:13
I
1:08:14
thought
1:08:14
they
1:08:14
saw
1:08:14
balloons
1:08:14
in
1:08:14
the
1:08:14
19th
1:08:15
century
1:08:15
and
1:08:15
they
1:08:15
saw
1:08:15
other
1:08:16
spaceships
1:08:16
that
1:08:17
were
1:08:17
kind
1:08:17
of
1:08:17
more
1:08:17
incongruent
1:08:18
with
1:08:18
their
1:08:19
particular
1:08:20
technology
1:08:20
at
1:08:20
times.
1:08:21
So
1:08:21
I
1:08:21
don't
1:08:21
know.
1:08:22
But
1:08:22
yeah,
1:08:22
Exactly.
1:08:23
Not
1:08:23
that
1:08:23
UFOs
1:08:23
are
1:08:24
something
1:08:24
that's
1:08:24
only
1:08:24
recent
1:08:25
phenomenon,
1:08:25
but
1:08:26
phenomenon
1:08:27
tend
1:08:27
to
1:08:27
take
1:08:27
the
1:08:27
package
1:08:28
of
1:08:28
the
1:08:29
culture
1:08:29
that
1:08:30
experiencing
1:08:30
them.
1:08:31
Sure.
1:08:31
What
1:08:32
might
1:08:32
be
1:08:32
seen
1:08:32
as
1:08:33
spirits
1:08:33
or
1:08:33
angels
1:08:34
are
1:08:34
now
1:08:34
seen
1:08:35
as
1:08:35
UFOs.
1:08:36
I
1:08:36
mean,
1:08:36
things
1:08:36
that
1:08:36
are,
1:08:37
that
1:08:37
are
1:08:37
unaccounted
1:08:38
for,
1:08:38
that
1:08:38
we'd
1:08:38
understand,
1:08:39
we
1:08:39
use
1:08:40
scientific
1:08:41
terminology,
1:08:41
but
1:08:41
they're
1:08:42
still
1:08:42
basically
1:08:42
mysteries,
1:08:43
who
1:08:43
knows?
1:08:44
But
1:08:44
it
1:08:44
is
1:08:44
an
1:08:44
interesting
1:08:46
speculation
1:08:46
which
1:08:47
is
1:08:48
that
1:08:49
given
1:08:50
the
1:08:50
possibilities
1:08:51
of
1:08:52
creating
1:08:53
artificial
1:08:53
realities
1:08:54
of
1:08:54
one
1:08:54
kind
1:08:55
or
1:08:55
another,
1:08:55
or
1:08:56
creating
1:08:57
simulations,
1:08:58
how
1:08:58
far
1:08:59
can
1:08:59
this
1:09:00
go?
1:09:01
And
1:09:02
you
1:09:02
know,
1:09:02
certain
1:09:03
people,
1:09:04
like
1:09:04
philosopher
1:09:05
Douglas
1:09:05
Chalmers,
1:09:06
who's
1:09:06
a
1:09:06
very
1:09:06
smart
1:09:07
character,
1:09:07
has
1:09:08
written
1:09:08
a
1:09:08
massive
1:09:09
500
1:09:09
page
1:09:10
book
1:09:10
on
1:09:10
philosophical
1:09:11
implications
1:09:12
of
1:09:13
the
1:09:14
possibility
1:09:14
that
1:09:15
this
1:09:15
is
1:09:15
a
1:09:15
simulation.
1:09:16
Well,
1:09:17
yeah,
1:09:17
it
1:09:18
sounds
1:09:18
like,
1:09:18
you
1:09:18
know,
1:09:19
maybe
1:09:19
it's
1:09:19
a
1:09:19
question
1:09:19
of
1:09:20
how
1:09:20
many
1:09:20
angels
1:09:20
dance
1:09:21
on
1:09:21
a
1:09:21
pinhead.
1:09:22
Is
1:09:22
there
1:09:22
any
1:09:22
way
1:09:22
we
1:09:23
can
1:09:23
know
1:09:23
and
1:09:24
that
1:09:24
will.
1:09:24
Maybe
1:09:25
that's
1:09:25
what
1:09:25
it
1:09:25
comes
1:09:25
down
1:09:25
to.
1:09:26
Is
1:09:26
there
1:09:26
any
1:09:26
way
1:09:27
that
1:09:28
we
1:09:28
could
1:09:28
even
1:09:28
decide
1:09:29
this
1:09:29
question?
1:09:30
Is
1:09:30
it
1:09:30
pure
1:09:30
speculation?
1:09:31
But
1:09:31
at
1:09:31
least
1:09:33
it's
1:09:34
a
1:09:34
mind
1:09:34
boggling
1:09:34
one
1:09:35
at
1:09:35
the
1:09:35
very
1:09:35
least.
1:09:36
And
1:09:36
I
1:09:36
guess
1:09:36
one
1:09:37
implication
1:09:37
on
1:09:37
what
1:09:38
you're
1:09:38
saying,
1:09:38
you
1:09:38
mean.
1:09:39
I
1:09:39
love
1:09:39
what
1:09:39
you've
1:09:39
done,
1:09:40
Stephan,
1:09:40
as
1:09:40
you
1:09:41
brought
1:09:42
out
1:09:42
the
1:09:42
cosmological
1:09:43
data
1:09:43
and
1:09:44
latest
1:09:44
findings
1:09:44
and
1:09:45
implications,
1:09:46
you're
1:09:46
very
1:09:47
good
1:09:47
at
1:09:47
bringing
1:09:47
out
1:09:48
implications
1:09:49
for
1:09:50
our
1:09:50
lives
1:09:51
and
1:09:51
our
1:09:51
thinking
1:09:52
and
1:09:52
our
1:09:53
way
1:09:53
of
1:09:53
framing
1:09:54
understandings,
1:09:55
et
1:09:55
cetera,
1:09:56
which
1:09:56
are
1:09:56
very
1:09:56
helpful.
1:09:57
And
1:09:57
maybe
1:09:57
this
1:09:58
simulation
1:09:59
hypothesis
1:10:00
is
1:10:01
another
1:10:02
way
1:10:02
of
1:10:02
stimulating
1:10:03
your
1:10:03
thinking.
1:10:05
It
1:10:05
could
1:10:05
be.
1:10:05
And
1:10:05
also
1:10:06
the,
1:10:06
you
1:10:06
know,
1:10:06
the
1:10:07
idea
1:10:07
is,
1:10:07
does
1:10:07
the
1:10:08
AI
1:10:08
hypothesis
1:10:09
add
1:10:09
any
1:10:09
new
1:10:10
explanatory
1:10:10
power?
1:10:11
Are
1:10:11
there
1:10:11
phenomena
1:10:12
that
1:10:12
are
1:10:12
unexplained
1:10:13
in
1:10:13
the
1:10:13
current
1:10:13
paradigm
1:10:14
that
1:10:14
would
1:10:15
be
1:10:15
included
1:10:15
in
1:10:15
this
1:10:15
AI
1:10:16
hypothesis
1:10:17
as
1:10:17
part
1:10:18
of,
1:10:18
you
1:10:18
know,
1:10:19
part
1:10:19
of
1:10:19
its
1:10:19
explanatory
1:10:20
framework.
1:10:21
So
1:10:21
I
1:10:21
wonder
1:10:21
if
1:10:21
you
1:10:21
all
1:10:22
are
1:10:22
aware
1:10:22
anything
1:10:23
with
1:10:23
that.
1:10:25
Hundred
1:10:25
years
1:10:25
ago,
1:10:25
philosophers
1:10:26
wouldn't
1:10:26
thought
1:10:27
to
1:10:27
think
1:10:27
about
1:10:28
this
1:10:28
being
1:10:28
a
1:10:28
simulation
1:10:29
because
1:10:30
we
1:10:30
hadn't
1:10:30
created
1:10:31
the
1:10:31
technology
1:10:31
yet
1:10:32
to
1:10:32
even
1:10:33
conceive
1:10:33
of
1:10:33
such
1:10:33
an
1:10:34
idea.
1:10:34
But
1:10:35
now
1:10:35
that
1:10:36
we're
1:10:36
right
1:10:36
on
1:10:37
the
1:10:37
cutting
1:10:37
edge,
1:10:37
we
1:10:37
can
1:10:38
actually
1:10:38
think
1:10:38
in
1:10:38
that
1:10:39
way.
1:10:39
So
1:10:40
in
1:10:40
one
1:10:40
sense,
1:10:40
we're
1:10:40
the
1:10:41
universe
1:10:41
thinking
1:10:41
about
1:10:42
these
1:10:42
new
1:10:42
possibilities
1:10:43
because
1:10:44
we've
1:10:44
evolved
1:10:45
our
1:10:45
technology
1:10:45
and
1:10:45
our
1:10:46
thoughts
1:10:46
to
1:10:47
such
1:10:47
a
1:10:47
place
1:10:47
or
1:10:47
such
1:10:48
a
1:10:48
process
1:10:48
that
1:10:48
we
1:10:49
can
1:10:49
actually
1:10:49
conceive
1:10:49
of
1:10:50
ideas
1:10:50
like
1:10:50
that,
1:10:51
which
1:10:51
is.
1:10:53
Okay,
1:10:54
there's
1:10:54
a
1:10:54
story
1:10:55
there
1:10:55
also.
1:10:57
Well,
1:10:57
and
1:10:58
you
1:10:58
know,
1:10:58
you're
1:10:58
also
1:10:58
pointing
1:10:59
to
1:10:59
like
1:10:59
the
1:10:59
universe
1:11:00
seems
1:11:00
to
1:11:00
sound
1:11:01
like
1:11:01
a
1:11:01
story,
1:11:01
right.
1:11:02
It's
1:11:02
like,
1:11:02
oh,
1:11:02
well,
1:11:02
this
1:11:03
happened
1:11:03
and
1:11:03
this
1:11:03
happened,
1:11:03
this
1:11:04
happened.
1:11:04
And
1:11:04
we're
1:11:04
like
1:11:04
characters
1:11:05
showing
1:11:05
for
1:11:05
the
1:11:05
story,
1:11:06
almost
1:11:06
like
1:11:06
characters
1:11:07
in
1:11:07
a
1:11:07
simulation
1:11:08
that's,
1:11:08
you
1:11:08
know,
1:11:09
developing
1:11:09
and
1:11:09
progressing
1:11:10
and
1:11:10
running
1:11:11
some
1:11:11
kind
1:11:11
of
1:11:11
reality
1:11:12
that
1:11:12
has
1:11:13
avatars.
1:11:14
Right.
1:11:15
Interacting
1:11:15
in
1:11:15
it.
1:11:16
Right,
1:11:16
but
1:11:16
who's
1:11:17
behind
1:11:17
the
1:11:17
avatar?
1:11:18
Right,
1:11:18
so
1:11:19
who's,
1:11:19
who's
1:11:19
running
1:11:19
the
1:11:19
simulation
1:11:20
or
1:11:20
who's
1:11:21
the
1:11:21
character
1:11:21
that
1:11:22
is
1:11:22
being
1:11:22
expressed
1:11:22
as
1:11:23
the
1:11:23
avatars
1:11:23
that
1:11:23
are
1:11:24
on
1:11:24
the,
1:11:24
on
1:11:24
the
1:11:24
screen
1:11:25
or,
1:11:25
you
1:11:26
know,
1:11:26
in
1:11:26
the
1:11:26
model?
1:11:28
Again,
1:11:28
the
1:11:28
mystery.
1:11:29
Yes,
1:11:29
again
1:11:30
we
1:11:30
run
1:11:30
into
1:11:30
that.
1:11:31
That
1:11:31
mystery.
1:11:32
Yeah.
1:11:34
And
1:11:34
Stephan,
1:11:34
one
1:11:34
thing
1:11:35
we
1:11:35
haven't
1:11:35
touched
1:11:35
on
1:11:36
here
1:11:36
is
1:11:38
general
1:11:38
implications
1:11:39
and
1:11:39
possibilities
1:11:40
of
1:11:40
life.
1:11:42
The
1:11:42
idea
1:11:42
that
1:11:43
which
1:11:43
is
1:11:44
entertain
1:11:44
humans
1:11:45
for
1:11:46
a
1:11:46
long
1:11:46
time
1:11:47
is
1:11:47
their
1:11:47
life
1:11:47
on
1:11:49
other
1:11:49
planets
1:11:50
or
1:11:51
places
1:11:52
in
1:11:52
this
1:11:52
vast
1:11:53
mysterious
1:11:53
universe.
1:11:54
And
1:11:54
I
1:11:54
guess
1:11:55
they're
1:11:55
discovering
1:11:55
exoplanets
1:11:56
at
1:11:57
a
1:11:57
more
1:11:57
and
1:11:57
more
1:11:58
rapid
1:11:58
rate.
1:11:59
But
1:12:00
what's
1:12:00
the
1:12:00
latest
1:12:00
thinking
1:12:01
on
1:12:02
those
1:12:02
possibilities?
1:12:05
I
1:12:05
think
1:12:05
the
1:12:05
latest
1:12:06
thinking
1:12:06
is
1:12:06
we
1:12:06
have
1:12:06
to
1:12:06
think
1:12:06
very
1:12:07
openly
1:12:07
and
1:12:07
broadly
1:12:08
about
1:12:08
what
1:12:08
is
1:12:09
life,
1:12:09
given
1:12:10
what
1:12:10
we've
1:12:11
discovered
1:12:11
so
1:12:11
far.
1:12:11
Now
1:12:12
we're
1:12:12
just
1:12:12
really
1:12:12
starting
1:12:13
this
1:12:13
search
1:12:13
right,
1:12:14
as
1:12:14
a
1:12:14
species.
1:12:16
But
1:12:16
the
1:12:16
latest
1:12:16
estimates,
1:12:18
we
1:12:18
said
1:12:18
2
1:12:18
trillion
1:12:19
galaxies,
1:12:20
but
1:12:20
the
1:12:20
latest
1:12:20
estimates
1:12:21
from
1:12:21
exoplanet
1:12:22
research
1:12:22
is
1:12:22
we
1:12:22
might
1:12:22
have
1:12:22
as
1:12:23
many
1:12:23
as
1:12:23
10
1:12:23
billion
1:12:24
other
1:12:25
Earth
1:12:25
like
1:12:25
planets
1:12:25
in
1:12:26
our
1:12:26
galaxy
1:12:26
alone.
1:12:27
I
1:12:27
mean,
1:12:28
10
1:12:28
billion,
1:12:29
that's
1:12:29
a
1:12:29
tremendous
1:12:30
number,
1:12:30
you
1:12:30
know,
1:12:30
in
1:12:31
hundreds
1:12:32
of
1:12:32
billions
1:12:32
of
1:12:33
planets
1:12:33
of
1:12:33
all
1:12:33
sizes.
1:12:34
But
1:12:35
10
1:12:35
billion
1:12:35
earth
1:12:36
like
1:12:36
planets
1:12:37
out
1:12:37
there.
1:12:38
Now,
1:12:38
whether
1:12:38
at
1:12:38
the
1:12:38
right
1:12:39
distance
1:12:39
for
1:12:39
the
1:12:39
Goldilocks
1:12:40
zone
1:12:41
or
1:12:41
to
1:12:41
be
1:12:41
life
1:12:42
friendly,
1:12:43
we
1:12:43
don't
1:12:43
know
1:12:43
because
1:12:43
we
1:12:44
really
1:12:44
don't
1:12:44
know
1:12:44
the
1:12:45
requirements
1:12:45
for
1:12:45
life.
1:12:45
We
1:12:46
don't
1:12:46
know
1:12:46
the
1:12:47
actual
1:12:48
conditions
1:12:48
under
1:12:49
which
1:12:49
life
1:12:49
originates.
1:12:50
So
1:12:50
we
1:12:51
have
1:12:51
to
1:12:51
think
1:12:51
very
1:12:51
broadly
1:12:51
about
1:12:52
life
1:12:52
itself.
1:12:53
What
1:12:53
is
1:12:53
life?
1:12:54
What
1:12:54
are
1:12:54
the
1:12:54
Conditions
1:12:54
for
1:12:54
life.
1:12:55
How
1:12:55
does
1:12:55
life
1:12:56
express
1:12:56
itself?
1:12:57
It's
1:12:57
not
1:12:57
just
1:12:57
in
1:12:58
human,
1:12:59
you
1:12:59
know,
1:12:59
or
1:12:59
Earth
1:13:00
forms,
1:13:01
but
1:13:01
I've
1:13:01
actually
1:13:01
seen
1:13:01
serious
1:13:02
papers
1:13:02
in
1:13:02
the
1:13:02
past
1:13:03
couple
1:13:03
decades
1:13:03
that
1:13:04
there
1:13:04
might
1:13:04
be
1:13:04
plasma
1:13:05
life
1:13:05
inside
1:13:05
the
1:13:06
sun.
1:13:06
Just
1:13:06
speculating
1:13:07
here,
1:13:08
you
1:13:08
know,
1:13:08
thinking
1:13:08
very
1:13:08
broadly.
1:13:10
So
1:13:10
when
1:13:10
we
1:13:10
go
1:13:10
roaming
1:13:11
around
1:13:11
the
1:13:11
solar
1:13:11
system,
1:13:12
you
1:13:12
know,
1:13:12
sending
1:13:12
probes
1:13:13
to
1:13:13
other
1:13:13
planets,
1:13:13
looking
1:13:13
for
1:13:14
life,
1:13:15
we
1:13:15
just
1:13:15
have
1:13:15
to
1:13:15
be
1:13:16
aware
1:13:16
of
1:13:16
kind
1:13:17
of
1:13:17
what
1:13:17
we're
1:13:17
looking
1:13:18
for,
1:13:18
what
1:13:18
we
1:13:18
can
1:13:18
detect
1:13:18
and
1:13:19
what
1:13:19
we
1:13:19
can't
1:13:19
detect.
1:13:20
And
1:13:20
so
1:13:20
I
1:13:21
think
1:13:21
the
1:13:21
whole
1:13:21
field
1:13:21
of
1:13:22
exobiology
1:13:23
has
1:13:23
really
1:13:23
brought
1:13:23
us
1:13:24
to
1:13:24
this
1:13:24
point
1:13:24
of
1:13:24
asking,
1:13:25
well,
1:13:25
what
1:13:25
is
1:13:25
life?
1:13:26
How
1:13:26
does
1:13:26
it
1:13:26
express
1:13:26
itself?
1:13:27
What
1:13:28
are
1:13:28
the
1:13:28
possibilities
1:13:28
for
1:13:29
life
1:13:29
that
1:13:29
we
1:13:29
haven't
1:13:29
considered
1:13:30
yet.
1:13:31
And
1:13:31
we
1:13:31
haven't
1:13:32
been
1:13:32
able
1:13:32
to
1:13:32
create
1:13:33
life
1:13:33
in
1:13:35
a
1:13:36
scientific
1:13:36
experiment,
1:13:37
have
1:13:37
we?
1:13:37
Or
1:13:38
anything
1:13:38
close
1:13:38
to
1:13:38
it.
1:13:39
How
1:13:40
close
1:13:40
have
1:13:40
we
1:13:40
been
1:13:41
able
1:13:41
to,
1:13:41
you
1:13:42
know,
1:13:42
you
1:13:42
think
1:13:42
the
1:13:42
Miller
1:13:42
Yuri
1:13:43
experiment,
1:13:43
where
1:13:43
they
1:13:44
replicated
1:13:44
what
1:13:45
they
1:13:45
thought
1:13:45
were
1:13:45
the
1:13:45
original
1:13:47
molecular
1:13:48
conditions
1:13:48
for
1:13:48
early
1:13:49
Earth.
1:13:50
But
1:13:50
that's
1:13:50
very
1:13:50
different
1:13:51
than
1:13:51
creating
1:13:51
life,
1:13:52
right?
1:13:53
What
1:13:53
did
1:13:53
it
1:13:53
create?
1:13:54
Just
1:13:54
the
1:13:54
conditions
1:13:55
where
1:13:55
life
1:13:55
could
1:13:55
possibly
1:13:56
begin?
1:13:58
Yeah,
1:13:58
it
1:13:59
showed
1:13:59
that,
1:13:59
you
1:13:59
know,
1:14:00
under
1:14:00
these
1:14:00
conditions,
1:14:00
they
1:14:01
had
1:14:01
gases
1:14:01
in
1:14:02
a
1:14:02
sealed
1:14:02
container
1:14:03
and
1:14:03
they
1:14:03
shocked
1:14:03
it,
1:14:03
you
1:14:04
know,
1:14:04
to
1:14:04
simulate
1:14:04
lightning
1:14:04
in
1:14:05
the
1:14:05
early
1:14:05
atmosphere.
1:14:06
And
1:14:06
they
1:14:06
show
1:14:06
the
1:14:07
development
1:14:07
of
1:14:07
amino
1:14:08
acids.
1:14:09
Now,
1:14:09
nothing,
1:14:10
nothing
1:14:10
showed
1:14:10
up
1:14:10
and
1:14:10
started
1:14:10
waving
1:14:11
hello
1:14:11
in
1:14:11
that
1:14:12
process,
1:14:12
but
1:14:12
it
1:14:12
was
1:14:12
the
1:14:12
building
1:14:13
blocks
1:14:13
of
1:14:13
life.
1:14:15
But
1:14:16
what's
1:14:16
interesting
1:14:16
is
1:14:16
we
1:14:17
found
1:14:17
amino
1:14:17
acids
1:14:18
and
1:14:18
some
1:14:18
of
1:14:18
the
1:14:18
amino
1:14:18
acids
1:14:19
needed
1:14:19
for
1:14:19
life
1:14:19
in
1:14:20
comets
1:14:20
and
1:14:21
in
1:14:21
interstellar
1:14:21
material.
1:14:22
So
1:14:22
it
1:14:22
shows
1:14:23
that
1:14:23
the
1:14:23
universe
1:14:23
naturally
1:14:24
creates
1:14:25
the
1:14:25
building
1:14:25
blocks
1:14:26
and
1:14:26
the
1:14:26
compounds
1:14:27
necessary
1:14:27
for
1:14:27
life.
1:14:28
But
1:14:29
we
1:14:29
don't
1:14:29
know
1:14:29
what
1:14:30
actually
1:14:30
leads
1:14:30
from
1:14:31
inorganic
1:14:31
to
1:14:31
organic
1:14:32
chemistry,
1:14:32
you
1:14:33
know,
1:14:33
non
1:14:33
living
1:14:33
to
1:14:33
living,
1:14:34
or
1:14:34
even,
1:14:35
you
1:14:35
know,
1:14:35
are
1:14:36
we
1:14:36
just
1:14:36
thinking
1:14:36
of
1:14:36
life
1:14:36
in
1:14:37
a
1:14:37
too
1:14:37
constrained
1:14:37
way
1:14:38
by
1:14:38
assuming
1:14:39
it
1:14:39
has
1:14:39
to
1:14:39
be
1:14:39
something
1:14:39
that
1:14:40
has
1:14:40
properties
1:14:40
like
1:14:40
us?
1:14:41
And
1:14:42
anyway,
1:14:43
a
1:14:44
short
1:14:44
time
1:14:44
ago
1:14:44
in
1:14:44
our
1:14:45
history,
1:14:45
we
1:14:45
thought
1:14:46
we
1:14:46
were
1:14:46
the
1:14:46
center
1:14:46
of
1:14:47
the
1:14:47
universe,
1:14:48
the
1:14:48
Earth
1:14:48
was.
1:14:49
And
1:14:49
now
1:14:49
we're
1:14:50
talking
1:14:50
about
1:14:50
trillions
1:14:50
of
1:14:51
galaxies
1:14:51
and
1:14:51
billions
1:14:52
within
1:14:52
our
1:14:52
own
1:14:52
galaxy.
1:14:54
It
1:14:54
seems
1:14:54
that
1:14:55
we
1:14:55
are
1:14:55
the
1:14:55
own.
1:14:55
I
1:14:56
mean,
1:14:56
just
1:14:56
mathematically
1:14:57
probabilities,
1:14:58
it
1:14:58
would
1:14:59
just
1:14:59
seem
1:14:59
that.
1:15:00
And
1:15:01
we're
1:15:01
finding
1:15:01
that
1:15:01
planets
1:15:02
are
1:15:02
not
1:15:03
similar
1:15:03
to
1:15:03
the
1:15:04
Earth
1:15:04
or
1:15:05
not
1:15:05
the
1:15:05
exception,
1:15:06
but
1:15:06
they're
1:15:06
the
1:15:07
rule.
1:15:07
I
1:15:07
mean,
1:15:07
that
1:15:07
we're
1:15:07
finding
1:15:08
more
1:15:08
and
1:15:08
more
1:15:08
we
1:15:08
look,
1:15:08
the
1:15:09
more
1:15:09
we
1:15:09
find
1:15:09
them.
1:15:10
To
1:15:10
think
1:15:10
that
1:15:10
we're
1:15:11
the
1:15:11
only
1:15:11
place
1:15:11
in
1:15:12
this
1:15:12
huge
1:15:12
thing
1:15:13
where
1:15:14
this
1:15:15
happened,
1:15:16
looking
1:15:16
at
1:15:17
it
1:15:17
through
1:15:18
scientific
1:15:18
terms
1:15:18
would
1:15:19
seem
1:15:20
almost
1:15:21
beyond
1:15:21
comprehension,
1:15:22
that
1:15:22
it
1:15:22
couldn't
1:15:23
have
1:15:23
happened
1:15:23
someplace
1:15:24
else,
1:15:24
or
1:15:24
that
1:15:24
it's
1:15:24
not
1:15:24
happened.
1:15:25
I
1:15:25
don't
1:15:25
know.
1:15:25
Those
1:15:26
are
1:15:26
my
1:15:26
thoughts.
1:15:28
Yeah.
1:15:28
And
1:15:28
it
1:15:28
seems
1:15:29
like
1:15:29
an
1:15:29
act
1:15:29
of
1:15:29
cosmic
1:15:29
hubris
1:15:30
to
1:15:30
assume
1:15:30
like,
1:15:31
oh,
1:15:31
we
1:15:31
must
1:15:31
be
1:15:31
it,
1:15:32
right?
1:15:32
This
1:15:32
whole
1:15:33
thing
1:15:33
is
1:15:33
here
1:15:33
for
1:15:33
us,
1:15:34
which
1:15:34
is
1:15:34
a
1:15:34
tendency
1:15:35
humans,
1:15:35
you
1:15:35
know,
1:15:35
tend
1:15:36
to
1:15:36
have.
1:15:37
So,
1:15:37
yeah,
1:15:38
it
1:15:38
can
1:15:38
certainly
1:15:38
correct
1:15:39
that
1:15:39
kind
1:15:39
of
1:15:40
monocular
1:15:41
perspective
1:15:42
that,
1:15:42
oh,
1:15:42
it
1:15:42
must
1:15:42
be
1:15:43
like
1:15:43
Earth
1:15:43
or
1:15:43
it
1:15:43
must
1:15:43
be
1:15:44
like
1:15:44
us
1:15:44
and
1:15:44
we
1:15:45
must
1:15:45
be
1:15:45
it.
1:15:46
So
1:15:46
life
1:15:46
is
1:15:47
probably
1:15:47
a
1:15:47
prevalent
1:15:47
dimension
1:15:48
of
1:15:48
the
1:15:48
universe
1:15:48
that
1:15:48
we've
1:15:48
just
1:15:49
barely
1:15:49
begun
1:15:50
to
1:15:50
explore
1:15:50
at
1:15:50
this
1:15:50
point.
1:15:52
And
1:15:52
there's
1:15:52
a
1:15:53
paradox
1:15:53
famously
1:15:54
put
1:15:54
out
1:15:55
by
1:15:55
the,
1:15:56
I
1:15:56
think,
1:15:56
Nobel
1:15:56
Prize
1:15:57
winning
1:15:57
physicist
1:15:58
Enrico
1:15:59
Fermi.
1:15:59
Well,
1:16:00
you
1:16:00
know,
1:16:00
for
1:16:00
all
1:16:01
these
1:16:01
intelligent
1:16:01
beings
1:16:02
out
1:16:02
there,
1:16:02
how
1:16:03
come
1:16:03
they
1:16:03
haven't
1:16:03
shown
1:16:04
up?
1:16:05
And
1:16:06
one
1:16:07
of
1:16:07
the,
1:16:08
one
1:16:09
interpretation
1:16:10
of
1:16:10
that
1:16:10
or
1:16:10
explanation
1:16:11
of
1:16:11
the
1:16:11
fact
1:16:11
that
1:16:12
we've
1:16:12
never
1:16:12
had
1:16:12
any
1:16:13
contact
1:16:13
by
1:16:14
intelligent
1:16:14
beings,
1:16:15
because
1:16:15
as
1:16:15
you
1:16:15
say,
1:16:15
the
1:16:15
math,
1:16:16
if
1:16:17
there
1:16:17
are
1:16:17
so
1:16:17
many
1:16:17
billion
1:16:18
potentially
1:16:19
life
1:16:19
bearing
1:16:19
planets,
1:16:20
surely
1:16:21
some
1:16:21
of
1:16:21
them
1:16:22
would
1:16:22
reach
1:16:22
a
1:16:22
civilizational
1:16:23
stage
1:16:23
where
1:16:24
they'd
1:16:24
have
1:16:24
radio,
1:16:25
et
1:16:25
cetera,
1:16:25
et
1:16:25
cetera.
1:16:26
And
1:16:26
one
1:16:26
of
1:16:26
the
1:16:27
interpretations,
1:16:27
a
1:16:28
very
1:16:28
uncomfortable
1:16:28
one,
1:16:29
is
1:16:29
that
1:16:29
perhaps
1:16:30
quotes
1:16:31
intelligent,
1:16:31
unquote
1:16:32
life,
1:16:33
such
1:16:33
as
1:16:33
humans
1:16:34
destroy
1:16:34
themselves
1:16:35
pretty
1:16:35
quickly.
1:16:36
So
1:16:36
there's
1:16:36
a
1:16:37
very
1:16:37
good
1:16:37
chance
1:16:37
it
1:16:37
looks
1:16:37
like
1:16:38
we
1:16:38
may
1:16:38
do
1:16:39
so.
1:16:40
That's
1:16:40
a
1:16:40
rather
1:16:41
painful
1:16:41
implication
1:16:42
of
1:16:42
the
1:16:42
fact
1:16:42
we've
1:16:42
had
1:16:43
no
1:16:43
contact.
1:16:45
It
1:16:45
could
1:16:45
be,
1:16:46
and,
1:16:46
you
1:16:46
know,
1:16:46
we
1:16:46
don't
1:16:47
know
1:16:47
exactly
1:16:48
in
1:16:48
the,
1:16:48
you
1:16:48
know,
1:16:49
the
1:16:49
Fermi
1:16:49
paradox
1:16:50
is.
1:16:50
What
1:16:50
you're
1:16:50
referring
1:16:50
to
1:16:51
is,
1:16:51
you
1:16:51
know,
1:16:51
if
1:16:51
life
1:16:52
is
1:16:52
out
1:16:52
there,
1:16:52
then
1:16:52
it
1:16:52
should
1:16:53
have
1:16:53
developed
1:16:53
by
1:16:53
now
1:16:53
and
1:16:53
it
1:16:53
should
1:16:54
have
1:16:54
made
1:16:54
contact.
1:16:56
But
1:16:56
those
1:16:56
who
1:16:56
are
1:16:56
searching
1:16:57
for
1:16:57
extraterrestrial
1:16:57
intelligence
1:16:58
say,
1:16:58
you
1:16:59
know,
1:16:59
there
1:16:59
hasn't
1:16:59
been
1:17:00
enough
1:17:00
time.
1:17:00
It's
1:17:01
a
1:17:01
vast
1:17:01
galaxy
1:17:01
we
1:17:02
live
1:17:02
in,
1:17:02
and
1:17:03
if
1:17:03
they
1:17:03
have
1:17:04
to
1:17:04
develop
1:17:04
technology
1:17:05
to
1:17:05
travel
1:17:05
in
1:17:05
between
1:17:05
the
1:17:06
stars
1:17:06
and
1:17:06
these
1:17:06
ships,
1:17:07
and
1:17:07
that
1:17:07
could
1:17:08
take
1:17:08
a
1:17:08
tremendous
1:17:08
amount
1:17:08
of
1:17:09
time,
1:17:09
then
1:17:09
there
1:17:10
just
1:17:10
hasn't
1:17:10
been
1:17:10
long
1:17:10
enough
1:17:12
for
1:17:12
them
1:17:12
to
1:17:12
come
1:17:12
see
1:17:13
us
1:17:13
or
1:17:13
to
1:17:13
detect
1:17:14
signals
1:17:14
from
1:17:14
them.
1:17:14
So
1:17:15
they're
1:17:15
just
1:17:15
explaining
1:17:16
that
1:17:16
by
1:17:16
the
1:17:16
vastness
1:17:16
of
1:17:17
the
1:17:17
galaxy
1:17:17
and
1:17:18
extreme
1:17:18
difficulty
1:17:18
in
1:17:19
traveling
1:17:19
in
1:17:19
between
1:17:20
planets,
1:17:20
in
1:17:21
between
1:17:21
stars.
1:17:22
Now,
1:17:23
the
1:17:23
other
1:17:23
theory
1:17:23
that
1:17:23
I've
1:17:23
heard
1:17:24
lately
1:17:24
that
1:17:24
goes
1:17:25
along
1:17:25
with
1:17:25
the
1:17:25
AI
1:17:26
simulation
1:17:26
hypothesis
1:17:27
is
1:17:27
that,
1:17:28
you
1:17:28
know,
1:17:28
maybe
1:17:29
there's
1:17:30
something
1:17:30
in
1:17:30
the
1:17:30
simulation
1:17:31
that's
1:17:31
preventing
1:17:32
us
1:17:32
from
1:17:33
experiencing
1:17:33
the
1:17:33
experience
1:17:34
of
1:17:34
contact.
1:17:35
I
1:17:35
don't
1:17:35
know.
1:17:36
I
1:17:36
mean,
1:17:36
maybe
1:17:36
it's
1:17:36
an
1:17:36
aspect
1:17:37
of
1:17:37
the
1:17:37
simulation
1:17:37
that
1:17:39
we're
1:17:39
in
1:17:39
a
1:17:39
cosmic
1:17:39
zoo
1:17:40
or
1:17:40
we're
1:17:40
in
1:17:40
some
1:17:41
particular
1:17:41
frame
1:17:42
of
1:17:42
space
1:17:42
where
1:17:43
this
1:17:43
isn't
1:17:43
allowed
1:17:44
under
1:17:44
the
1:17:44
parameters.
1:17:46
I
1:17:46
don't
1:17:46
know.
1:17:48
I
1:17:48
can't
1:17:48
say
1:17:48
what
1:17:48
I,
1:17:48
you
1:17:49
know,
1:17:49
what's
1:17:49
happening
1:17:49
here,
1:17:49
Roger?
1:17:50
One
1:17:50
of
1:17:50
your
1:17:51
first
1:17:51
statements
1:17:52
when
1:17:52
we
1:17:52
started
1:17:52
this
1:17:52
journey
1:17:53
together
1:17:54
was
1:17:54
that
1:17:54
in
1:17:54
classical
1:17:55
times,
1:17:56
they
1:17:56
said
1:17:56
the
1:17:56
whole
1:17:57
universe
1:17:57
was
1:17:57
alive,
1:17:58
you
1:17:59
know,
1:17:59
and.
1:17:59
And
1:17:59
if
1:17:59
we
1:18:00
just
1:18:00
reduce
1:18:02
our
1:18:02
biosphere
1:18:03
for
1:18:03
the
1:18:03
only
1:18:03
thing
1:18:04
that's
1:18:04
alive
1:18:04
in
1:18:04
the
1:18:04
universe
1:18:04
and
1:18:05
everything
1:18:05
is
1:18:05
dead
1:18:06
matter.
1:18:06
Well,
1:18:07
that's
1:18:07
not
1:18:07
what
1:18:08
our
1:18:08
ancestors
1:18:09
thought.
1:18:09
They
1:18:09
thought
1:18:09
it
1:18:10
was
1:18:10
all
1:18:10
alive.
1:18:11
So
1:18:12
there's
1:18:12
that
1:18:12
perspective
1:18:13
also,
1:18:13
which
1:18:13
I
1:18:13
tend
1:18:14
to.
1:18:14
To
1:18:15
kind
1:18:15
of
1:18:16
just
1:18:16
intuitively,
1:18:17
with
1:18:17
no
1:18:18
evidence
1:18:18
other
1:18:18
than
1:18:19
what
1:18:19
my
1:18:19
heart
1:18:19
and
1:18:20
experiences
1:18:20
I've
1:18:21
had,
1:18:21
seems
1:18:21
to
1:18:22
move
1:18:22
in
1:18:22
that
1:18:23
direction.
1:18:24
So
1:18:25
we're
1:18:26
not
1:18:26
a
1:18:26
lonely
1:18:26
planet.
1:18:27
There's.
1:18:27
It's,
1:18:28
you
1:18:28
know,.
1:18:31
And
1:18:31
as,
1:18:31
you
1:18:32
know,
1:18:32
Native
1:18:32
Americans
1:18:33
would
1:18:33
say,
1:18:33
you
1:18:33
know,
1:18:33
we
1:18:34
feel
1:18:34
lonely
1:18:35
because
1:18:35
we
1:18:35
haven't
1:18:35
recognized
1:18:36
all
1:18:36
the
1:18:36
living
1:18:36
beings
1:18:36
around
1:18:37
us
1:18:37
that
1:18:38
are
1:18:38
part
1:18:38
of
1:18:38
our
1:18:38
community.
1:18:40
That's
1:18:40
for
1:18:40
sure.
1:18:41
How
1:18:41
can
1:18:41
you
1:18:41
be
1:18:41
alone
1:18:41
when
1:18:42
there's
1:18:42
trees,
1:18:42
you
1:18:43
know,
1:18:43
and
1:18:43
other
1:18:43
ancestors
1:18:44
and
1:18:44
family
1:18:45
around
1:18:45
to
1:18:45
talk
1:18:45
to?
1:18:47
So
1:18:48
people
1:18:48
talk
1:18:48
about,
1:18:48
you
1:18:48
know,
1:18:49
this
1:18:49
era
1:18:49
of
1:18:49
cosmic
1:18:49
loneliness.
1:18:50
Right.
1:18:51
But
1:18:51
it's
1:18:51
just
1:18:51
humans
1:18:51
are
1:18:51
just
1:18:52
looking
1:18:52
for
1:18:52
other
1:18:52
humans
1:18:52
to
1:18:52
talk
1:18:53
to,
1:18:53
like
1:18:53
Star
1:18:54
Trek.
1:18:54
We
1:18:55
forget
1:18:55
that,
1:18:55
you
1:18:56
know,
1:18:56
the
1:18:56
whole
1:18:57
natural
1:18:57
world
1:18:57
is
1:18:58
already
1:18:58
in
1:18:58
conversation
1:18:59
with
1:18:59
us.
1:18:59
We
1:18:59
just
1:19:00
have
1:19:00
to
1:19:00
start
1:19:00
listening
1:19:00
and,
1:19:01
you
1:19:01
know,
1:19:01
recognize
1:19:02
that
1:19:02
there's
1:19:02
a
1:19:03
conversation
1:19:03
that
1:19:03
we're
1:19:03
part
1:19:04
of.
1:19:05
Yeah.
1:19:05
I
1:19:05
had
1:19:05
a
1:19:05
teacher
1:19:06
and
1:19:06
a
1:19:06
friend,
1:19:06
Wallace
1:19:06
Black
1:19:07
Elk,
1:19:07
who
1:19:07
was
1:19:08
a
1:19:08
Lakota
1:19:09
medicine
1:19:09
man
1:19:09
and
1:19:10
in
1:19:11
his
1:19:11
presence,
1:19:11
and
1:19:12
I
1:19:12
traveled
1:19:12
with
1:19:12
him
1:19:12
quite
1:19:12
a
1:19:13
bit
1:19:13
because
1:19:13
I
1:19:13
take
1:19:13
care
1:19:14
of
1:19:14
him.
1:19:14
When
1:19:14
he
1:19:14
came
1:19:14
to
1:19:14
the
1:19:14
West
1:19:15
Coast,
1:19:16
a
1:19:16
lot
1:19:16
of
1:19:16
my
1:19:16
existential
1:19:17
darkness
1:19:18
began
1:19:18
to
1:19:18
evaporate.
1:19:20
I
1:19:21
felt
1:19:21
I
1:19:21
was
1:19:21
part
1:19:21
of
1:19:21
a
1:19:22
family
1:19:22
metaqueous
1:19:23
in
1:19:23
all
1:19:23
my
1:19:23
relations.
1:19:24
And
1:19:24
it
1:19:24
just
1:19:25
more
1:19:26
than
1:19:26
an
1:19:26
intellectual
1:19:27
sense,
1:19:27
I
1:19:27
began
1:19:28
to
1:19:28
feel
1:19:29
connected
1:19:30
to
1:19:30
life
1:19:30
in
1:19:31
a
1:19:31
way
1:19:31
where
1:19:31
I'd
1:19:31
feel
1:19:32
very,
1:19:32
very
1:19:33
lonely
1:19:33
before.
1:19:34
Existentially
1:19:35
lonely.
1:19:36
That's
1:19:37
beautiful.
1:19:38
Yeah.
1:19:39
Well,
1:19:39
I
1:19:39
mean,
1:19:39
I
1:19:39
think
1:19:39
it
1:19:40
really
1:19:40
shows
1:19:40
the
1:19:40
impulse,
1:19:41
you
1:19:41
know,
1:19:41
behind
1:19:42
the
1:19:42
search
1:19:42
for
1:19:42
life
1:19:43
beyond
1:19:44
Earth
1:19:45
is
1:19:45
that
1:19:45
humans,
1:19:46
we
1:19:46
want
1:19:46
to
1:19:46
belong.
1:19:46
We
1:19:47
want
1:19:47
to
1:19:47
belong
1:19:47
to
1:19:47
something
1:19:48
larger
1:19:48
than
1:19:48
ourselves.
1:19:49
We
1:19:49
want
1:19:49
to
1:19:49
be
1:19:49
part
1:19:49
of
1:19:49
a
1:19:50
larger
1:19:50
family.
1:19:51
And,
1:19:52
you
1:19:52
know,
1:19:52
if
1:19:52
we're
1:19:52
it,
1:19:53
then
1:19:53
that's
1:19:53
very
1:19:53
lonely.
1:19:54
That's
1:19:54
very
1:19:54
depressing.
1:19:55
It
1:19:55
is.
1:19:56
Of
1:19:56
course,
1:19:56
you
1:19:57
know,
1:19:57
we're
1:19:57
also
1:19:58
sharing
1:19:58
the
1:19:58
planet
1:19:58
with
1:19:58
10
1:19:58
million
1:19:59
other
1:19:59
species,
1:19:59
so
1:19:59
there's
1:19:59
plenty,
1:20:00
plenty
1:20:00
of
1:20:00
other
1:20:00
beings
1:20:00
to
1:20:01
kind
1:20:01
of
1:20:01
be
1:20:01
with.
1:20:02
We
1:20:02
want
1:20:02
to
1:20:02
belong
1:20:02
in
1:20:03
a
1:20:03
larger
1:20:03
sense,
1:20:03
in
1:20:03
a
1:20:03
cosmic
1:20:04
sense.
1:20:04
And
1:20:04
I
1:20:04
think
1:20:04
that's
1:20:05
what
1:20:05
the
1:20:05
search
1:20:05
for
1:20:06
life
1:20:06
beyond
1:20:06
the
1:20:07
Earth
1:20:07
is
1:20:07
really
1:20:07
motivated
1:20:08
by.
1:20:09
I
1:20:09
mean,
1:20:09
scientific
1:20:10
curiosity,
1:20:10
but
1:20:10
also
1:20:11
a
1:20:11
deep
1:20:11
desire
1:20:11
to
1:20:11
belong
1:20:12
to
1:20:12
something
1:20:12
larger.
1:20:16
So,
1:20:16
Stephan,
1:20:16
what
1:20:17
are
1:20:17
the
1:20:17
big
1:20:17
questions
1:20:18
of
1:20:19
our
1:20:19
time
1:20:19
in
1:20:20
cosmology?
1:20:20
What's
1:20:21
really
1:20:21
on
1:20:22
the
1:20:22
cutting
1:20:22
edge?
1:20:22
What's
1:20:23
shaking
1:20:24
people
1:20:24
up,
1:20:25
making
1:20:25
the
1:20:25
cosmologists
1:20:26
really
1:20:27
question.
1:20:29
Or
1:20:30
shaking
1:20:30
you
1:20:30
personally
1:20:31
up.
1:20:32
Well,
1:20:32
I
1:20:33
mean,
1:20:33
you
1:20:33
know,
1:20:33
you
1:20:34
mentioned
1:20:34
this
1:20:34
earlier,
1:20:34
right?
1:20:35
There's
1:20:35
this
1:20:35
question
1:20:35
of,
1:20:35
well,
1:20:36
what
1:20:36
is
1:20:36
dark
1:20:36
energy
1:20:36
and
1:20:36
what
1:20:37
is
1:20:37
dark
1:20:37
matter,
1:20:37
right.
1:20:38
These
1:20:38
two
1:20:38
fundamental
1:20:39
constituents
1:20:39
that
1:20:40
together
1:20:40
make
1:20:40
up
1:20:41
96%
1:20:42
of
1:20:42
the
1:20:42
universe
1:20:43
and
1:20:43
we
1:20:43
have
1:20:43
no
1:20:43
idea
1:20:44
what
1:20:44
they
1:20:44
are.
1:20:46
So
1:20:46
those
1:20:46
are
1:20:46
two
1:20:46
leading
1:20:47
questions,
1:20:47
like
1:20:47
what
1:20:48
is
1:20:48
that?
1:20:48
If
1:20:48
it's
1:20:48
all
1:20:49
around
1:20:49
us,
1:20:50
how
1:20:50
are
1:20:50
we
1:20:50
not
1:20:50
perceiving
1:20:51
it
1:20:51
or
1:20:51
interacting
1:20:52
with
1:20:52
it?
1:20:52
If
1:20:52
it's
1:20:52
guiding
1:20:53
the
1:20:53
development
1:20:53
and
1:20:54
destiny
1:20:54
of
1:20:54
the
1:20:54
universe,
1:20:55
what
1:20:55
is
1:20:56
the
1:20:56
nature
1:20:56
of
1:20:56
that?
1:20:56
We're
1:20:57
missing
1:20:57
something
1:20:57
big
1:20:58
here.
1:20:58
Clearly,
1:20:59
if
1:21:00
our
1:21:00
results
1:21:00
are
1:21:00
correct
1:21:01
and
1:21:01
it's
1:21:01
96%
1:21:02
of
1:21:03
the
1:21:03
universe,
1:21:04
I
1:21:04
think
1:21:04
that's.
1:21:05
Those
1:21:05
are
1:21:06
two
1:21:06
big
1:21:06
ones.
1:21:07
And
1:21:08
of
1:21:08
course
1:21:08
we
1:21:08
can
1:21:08
go
1:21:08
into
1:21:08
that
1:21:09
for
1:21:09
a
1:21:09
while.
1:21:09
But
1:21:09
there's
1:21:10
also.
1:21:11
Do
1:21:11
we
1:21:11
have
1:21:11
this
1:21:11
whole
1:21:12
evolutionary
1:21:12
story,
1:21:12
right,
1:21:13
because
1:21:14
there's
1:21:14
something
1:21:14
called
1:21:14
the
1:21:15
Hubble
1:21:15
tension,
1:21:15
where
1:21:16
our
1:21:16
predicted
1:21:16
values
1:21:17
for
1:21:17
the
1:21:17
expansion
1:21:17
of
1:21:17
the
1:21:17
universe
1:21:18
don't
1:21:19
exactly
1:21:19
match
1:21:20
up
1:21:21
with
1:21:21
our
1:21:21
theory.
1:21:22
Right.
1:21:23
There's
1:21:23
this
1:21:23
kind
1:21:23
of
1:21:23
tension
1:21:24
between
1:21:24
theory
1:21:25
and
1:21:25
observation
1:21:25
that's
1:21:26
come
1:21:26
out
1:21:26
recently
1:21:27
past,
1:21:28
you
1:21:28
know,
1:21:28
past
1:21:28
10
1:21:28
years
1:21:29
or
1:21:29
so.
1:21:30
And
1:21:30
the
1:21:30
idea
1:21:30
here
1:21:31
is,
1:21:31
well,
1:21:31
maybe
1:21:31
there's
1:21:32
something
1:21:32
that
1:21:32
we're
1:21:32
not
1:21:32
understanding
1:21:33
that's
1:21:33
fundamentally
1:21:33
different
1:21:34
than
1:21:34
the
1:21:34
way
1:21:35
things
1:21:35
are
1:21:35
different.
1:21:36
You
1:21:36
know,
1:21:37
different
1:21:37
observations
1:21:37
are
1:21:37
leading
1:21:38
to
1:21:38
slightly
1:21:38
different
1:21:38
results
1:21:39
by
1:21:40
greater
1:21:40
than
1:21:40
the.
1:21:40
The
1:21:41
error
1:21:41
factor
1:21:41
should
1:21:42
be.
1:21:43
So
1:21:43
it's
1:21:43
a
1:21:43
curious
1:21:44
time,
1:21:44
right?
1:21:44
So
1:21:44
which
1:21:45
means
1:21:45
it's
1:21:45
an
1:21:45
exciting
1:21:45
time.
1:21:46
There's
1:21:46
something
1:21:46
fundamentally
1:21:47
we
1:21:47
don't
1:21:47
know.
1:21:48
So
1:21:48
rather
1:21:48
than
1:21:49
getting
1:21:49
upset
1:21:49
about
1:21:49
it,
1:21:49
I
1:21:49
think
1:21:50
it's
1:21:50
just
1:21:50
a
1:21:51
tremendous
1:21:52
opportunity
1:21:52
for
1:21:53
21st
1:21:53
century
1:21:54
physics
1:21:54
and
1:21:54
astronomy
1:21:55
and
1:21:55
astrophysics
1:21:56
to
1:21:56
learn
1:21:56
something
1:21:56
new
1:21:57
and
1:21:57
fundamental
1:21:57
about
1:21:57
the
1:21:58
universe.
1:21:58
It's
1:21:58
certainly
1:21:59
not
1:21:59
over
1:21:59
by
1:21:59
any
1:21:59
means
1:22:00
story.
1:22:00
There's
1:22:01
still
1:22:01
so
1:22:01
much
1:22:01
to
1:22:02
discover.
1:22:03
And
1:22:03
John,
1:22:03
you
1:22:03
pointed
1:22:04
to
1:22:04
is
1:22:05
even
1:22:05
in
1:22:05
21st
1:22:06
century
1:22:06
biology,
1:22:07
we
1:22:07
still
1:22:07
don't
1:22:07
know
1:22:07
what
1:22:08
life
1:22:08
is
1:22:10
fundamental.
1:22:10
I
1:22:11
mean,
1:22:11
especially
1:22:11
if
1:22:11
we
1:22:11
are
1:22:12
life,
1:22:12
we
1:22:12
don't
1:22:13
know
1:22:13
what
1:22:13
that
1:22:13
is.
1:22:16
I
1:22:16
mean,
1:22:16
and
1:22:16
pointing
1:22:16
to
1:22:17
neuroscience,
1:22:17
know
1:22:17
what
1:22:18
consciousness
1:22:18
is,
1:22:18
These
1:22:18
are
1:22:19
fundamental
1:22:19
questions.
1:22:20
And
1:22:20
how
1:22:21
about
1:22:21
the
1:22:21
unified
1:22:21
field
1:22:21
theory?
1:22:22
They've
1:22:22
been
1:22:22
working
1:22:22
on
1:22:23
that
1:22:23
for
1:22:23
how
1:22:23
many
1:22:24
decades
1:22:24
now,
1:22:25
since
1:22:25
Einstein's
1:22:26
time
1:22:26
or.
1:22:27
Maybe
1:22:27
before,
1:22:28
since
1:22:28
Einstein
1:22:29
time.
1:22:29
And
1:22:29
you
1:22:30
know,
1:22:30
physicists
1:22:31
are
1:22:31
really
1:22:31
starting
1:22:31
to
1:22:31
say
1:22:32
it's
1:22:32
like
1:22:32
maybe
1:22:32
there
1:22:32
isn't
1:22:33
a
1:22:33
unified,
1:22:34
there
1:22:34
isn't
1:22:35
a
1:22:35
unified
1:22:35
theory
1:22:35
of
1:22:35
everything.
1:22:36
Maybe
1:22:36
this
1:22:36
kind
1:22:37
of
1:22:37
desire
1:22:37
for
1:22:37
unification
1:22:39
isn't
1:22:39
how
1:22:39
the
1:22:39
universe
1:22:40
works.
1:22:40
Maybe
1:22:40
the
1:22:40
universe
1:22:41
has
1:22:41
more
1:22:41
diversity,
1:22:43
you
1:22:43
know,
1:22:43
on
1:22:43
local
1:22:44
scales
1:22:44
than
1:22:44
on
1:22:45
global
1:22:45
scales.
1:22:46
So
1:22:47
we
1:22:47
don't
1:22:48
know.
1:22:49
Then
1:22:49
it
1:22:49
raises
1:22:49
the
1:22:50
question,
1:22:50
how
1:22:50
does
1:22:50
it
1:22:51
work
1:22:51
if
1:22:51
we
1:22:52
can't
1:22:52
get
1:22:52
it
1:22:52
to
1:22:52
work?
1:22:52
Something's
1:22:53
working,
1:22:54
you
1:22:54
know,
1:22:55
you
1:22:55
get
1:22:55
back.
1:22:55
To
1:22:56
the
1:22:56
same
1:22:56
questions,
1:22:57
and
1:22:57
are
1:22:58
we
1:22:58
even
1:22:58
capable
1:22:58
as
1:22:59
humans
1:22:59
of
1:22:59
figuring
1:22:59
it
1:22:59
out,
1:23:00
of
1:23:00
having
1:23:00
some
1:23:00
kind
1:23:01
of
1:23:01
coherent,
1:23:02
you
1:23:02
know,
1:23:02
framework?
1:23:03
Or
1:23:03
are
1:23:04
we
1:23:04
just.
1:23:04
We're
1:23:05
not
1:23:05
at
1:23:05
the
1:23:05
cognitive
1:23:05
level
1:23:06
to
1:23:06
actually
1:23:06
understand
1:23:06
it
1:23:07
fundamentally,
1:23:09
but
1:23:09
we
1:23:09
want.
1:23:10
To
1:23:10
know
1:23:10
so
1:23:10
badly.
1:23:11
There
1:23:11
has
1:23:11
to
1:23:11
be
1:23:12
something
1:23:12
fundamental
1:23:13
about
1:23:13
human
1:23:13
beings
1:23:13
that
1:23:13
are
1:23:14
asking
1:23:14
all
1:23:14
these
1:23:14
questions
1:23:15
that's
1:23:16
built
1:23:16
into
1:23:16
us.
1:23:17
Exactly.
1:23:18
We
1:23:18
have
1:23:18
this
1:23:18
yearning
1:23:19
to
1:23:19
know.
1:23:19
We
1:23:19
have
1:23:19
this
1:23:19
desire,
1:23:20
we
1:23:20
have
1:23:20
this
1:23:20
unstoppable
1:23:21
curiosity.
1:23:23
And
1:23:23
those
1:23:24
are
1:23:24
qualities
1:23:25
that
1:23:25
we
1:23:25
can
1:23:25
really
1:23:25
embrace.
1:23:26
Let
1:23:27
them
1:23:27
infuse
1:23:27
us.
1:23:27
Let
1:23:28
that
1:23:28
give
1:23:28
us
1:23:28
life
1:23:29
to
1:23:29
us,
1:23:30
and
1:23:30
see
1:23:30
where
1:23:30
they
1:23:30
go.
1:23:31
Not
1:23:31
looking
1:23:32
for
1:23:32
answers,
1:23:32
but
1:23:33
just
1:23:33
participating
1:23:33
in
1:23:34
the
1:23:34
experience
1:23:34
of
1:23:34
learning
1:23:35
what
1:23:35
it's
1:23:35
all
1:23:35
about.
1:23:36
That's
1:23:36
the
1:23:36
joy.
1:23:37
Like
1:23:37
string
1:23:38
theory.
1:23:38
Like,
1:23:38
people
1:23:38
follow
1:23:39
string
1:23:39
theory
1:23:39
for
1:23:39
many,
1:23:40
many
1:23:40
years.
1:23:40
That's
1:23:41
right.
1:23:41
And,
1:23:41
you
1:23:41
know,
1:23:41
they
1:23:41
asked
1:23:42
Brian
1:23:42
Greene,
1:23:42
well,
1:23:42
what
1:23:43
would
1:23:43
happen
1:23:43
one
1:23:43
day
1:23:43
if
1:23:44
they
1:23:44
discovered
1:23:45
that
1:23:45
string
1:23:45
theory
1:23:45
doesn't
1:23:45
even
1:23:46
exist?
1:23:46
That
1:23:46
is
1:23:46
totally
1:23:47
wrong.
1:23:47
And
1:23:48
he
1:23:48
said
1:23:48
there
1:23:48
was
1:23:48
still
1:23:48
the
1:23:48
joy
1:23:49
of
1:23:49
trying
1:23:49
to
1:23:49
find
1:23:49
it
1:23:50
out,
1:23:50
find
1:23:50
it
1:23:50
out,
1:23:51
of
1:23:51
just
1:23:51
being
1:23:51
a
1:23:52
part
1:23:52
of
1:23:52
it
1:23:52
all
1:23:52
and,
1:23:53
you
1:23:53
know,.
1:23:54
Wondering,
1:23:55
maybe
1:23:56
to
1:23:56
nuance
1:23:56
what
1:23:57
you
1:23:57
said,
1:23:57
Stephan,
1:23:57
we
1:23:58
can't
1:23:58
find
1:23:59
answers.
1:24:00
I
1:24:00
think
1:24:00
probably
1:24:02
you
1:24:02
want
1:24:02
to
1:24:02
imply
1:24:02
we
1:24:03
can't
1:24:03
find
1:24:03
final
1:24:04
answers.
1:24:05
And
1:24:06
one
1:24:06
of
1:24:06
the
1:24:07
things
1:24:07
we
1:24:07
take
1:24:08
away
1:24:08
from
1:24:08
this,
1:24:08
it
1:24:09
seems
1:24:09
like,
1:24:10
is
1:24:11
ineluctable
1:24:12
mystery,
1:24:13
that
1:24:13
every
1:24:14
question
1:24:14
takes
1:24:15
us
1:24:15
deeper
1:24:15
into
1:24:15
the
1:24:16
mystery,
1:24:16
but
1:24:16
always
1:24:17
leaves
1:24:17
mystery.
1:24:17
And
1:24:18
Houston
1:24:18
Smith,
1:24:19
the
1:24:19
theologian,
1:24:20
had
1:24:20
a
1:24:20
wonderful
1:24:21
image
1:24:22
for
1:24:23
knowledge
1:24:23
and
1:24:23
mystery.
1:24:24
He
1:24:24
said,
1:24:24
knowledge
1:24:25
is
1:24:25
like
1:24:25
an
1:24:25
island,
1:24:26
and
1:24:27
mystery
1:24:28
is
1:24:28
what
1:24:28
surrounds
1:24:29
it.
1:24:29
And
1:24:30
the
1:24:30
larger
1:24:31
you
1:24:31
grow
1:24:32
the
1:24:32
island,
1:24:33
the
1:24:34
greater
1:24:34
the
1:24:34
shoreline
1:24:35
of
1:24:35
recognition
1:24:36
of
1:24:36
the
1:24:36
mystery
1:24:37
grows.
1:24:37
That
1:24:38
was
1:24:38
a
1:24:38
wonderful,
1:24:39
wonderful.
1:24:39
I
1:24:40
love
1:24:40
that.
1:24:40
I
1:24:40
love
1:24:40
that.
1:24:41
Yeah.
1:24:42
There's
1:24:43
a
1:24:43
beautiful
1:24:44
statement
1:24:44
by
1:24:46
Newton
1:24:46
at
1:24:46
the
1:24:47
end
1:24:47
of
1:24:47
his
1:24:47
life,
1:24:47
which
1:24:48
just
1:24:48
touches
1:24:49
me
1:24:49
so
1:24:49
much.
1:24:50
You
1:24:50
know,
1:24:50
here's
1:24:50
the
1:24:50
greatest
1:24:51
scientist
1:24:51
who
1:24:51
ever
1:24:51
lived,
1:24:52
and
1:24:53
towards
1:24:53
the
1:24:53
end
1:24:53
of
1:24:53
his
1:24:53
life,
1:24:54
he
1:24:54
said,
1:24:54
I
1:24:54
do
1:24:54
not
1:24:55
know
1:24:55
how
1:24:55
I
1:24:55
may
1:24:55
appear
1:24:55
to
1:24:56
others,
1:24:57
but
1:24:57
as
1:24:57
to
1:24:57
myself,
1:24:58
I
1:24:58
have
1:24:58
been
1:24:58
as
1:24:59
a
1:24:59
little
1:24:59
boy
1:24:59
playing
1:24:59
on
1:25:00
the
1:25:00
seashore
1:25:01
every
1:25:01
now
1:25:01
and
1:25:02
then,
1:25:02
finding
1:25:02
a
1:25:02
brighter
1:25:03
pebble
1:25:03
or
1:25:03
a
1:25:03
prettier
1:25:04
shell,
1:25:05
while
1:25:05
all
1:25:05
around
1:25:06
me
1:25:06
a
1:25:06
great
1:25:07
ocean
1:25:07
of
1:25:07
truth
1:25:07
lay
1:25:08
undiscovered.
1:25:10
Yeah,
1:25:11
beautiful.
1:25:13
Well,
1:25:13
I
1:25:13
think
1:25:13
we
1:25:14
can
1:25:14
say
1:25:14
that
1:25:14
it
1:25:14
is
1:25:15
amazing,
1:25:16
awesome,
1:25:17
and
1:25:18
an
1:25:18
inexplicable
1:25:19
at
1:25:19
this
1:25:20
point.
1:25:20
Wonderful
1:25:21
that
1:25:21
we're
1:25:22
here
1:25:22
and
1:25:23
the
1:25:23
more
1:25:23
we
1:25:23
look,
1:25:25
the
1:25:25
just
1:25:25
more
1:25:26
mysterious
1:25:27
and
1:25:27
deeper
1:25:29
it
1:25:29
becomes.
1:25:32
That's
1:25:32
probably
1:25:33
a
1:25:33
beautiful
1:25:34
place
1:25:34
to
1:25:34
end
1:25:35
on,
1:25:36
Stephan.
1:25:36
This
1:25:37
has
1:25:37
been
1:25:37
a
1:25:37
real
1:25:37
gift.
1:25:38
It's
1:25:38
been
1:25:39
really
1:25:39
stimulating
1:25:40
to
1:25:41
reflect
1:25:42
on
1:25:42
these
1:25:42
topics,
1:25:43
both
1:25:43
in
1:25:43
preparation
1:25:44
with
1:25:44
you,
1:25:44
but
1:25:44
even
1:25:45
more
1:25:45
so
1:25:46
in
1:25:46
dialogue.
1:25:47
And
1:25:47
I.
1:25:48
I
1:25:48
have
1:25:48
a
1:25:48
Couple
1:25:48
of
1:25:48
pages
1:25:49
of
1:25:49
notes
1:25:49
I'd
1:25:50
been
1:25:51
scribbling
1:25:52
away
1:25:52
here
1:25:53
in
1:25:53
the
1:25:53
midst
1:25:54
of
1:25:54
our
1:25:54
dialogue,
1:25:54
things
1:25:55
I
1:25:55
want
1:25:55
to
1:25:55
think
1:25:55
about
1:25:56
more
1:25:56
and
1:25:56
use.
1:25:57
So
1:25:57
it's
1:25:58
been
1:25:58
very
1:25:58
rich.
1:25:59
And
1:25:59
thank
1:25:59
you
1:25:59
so
1:26:00
much.
1:26:01
Yes,
1:26:01
thank
1:26:01
you,
1:26:01
Roger.
1:26:02
And
1:26:02
thank
1:26:02
you,
1:26:02
John.
1:26:02
I
1:26:02
mean,
1:26:03
it's
1:26:03
been,
1:26:03
it's
1:26:03
really
1:26:03
been
1:26:04
a
1:26:04
trialogue.
1:26:04
I
1:26:04
mean,
1:26:04
just,
1:26:05
you
1:26:05
know,
1:26:05
a
1:26:05
conversation
1:26:06
that
1:26:06
has
1:26:06
kind
1:26:06
of
1:26:07
led
1:26:07
to
1:26:07
further
1:26:07
questions.
1:26:09
So
1:26:09
in
1:26:09
that
1:26:09
sense,
1:26:10
we've
1:26:11
really
1:26:11
been
1:26:11
doing
1:26:11
the
1:26:11
universe's
1:26:12
work,
1:26:12
asking
1:26:13
questions,
1:26:13
expressing
1:26:14
differentiation,
1:26:16
subjectivity
1:26:16
and
1:26:16
communion,
1:26:17
but
1:26:18
really
1:26:18
coming
1:26:18
to
1:26:18
a
1:26:18
place
1:26:18
of
1:26:19
greater
1:26:19
humility,
1:26:20
interconnectedness,
1:26:21
but
1:26:21
also
1:26:21
not
1:26:21
knowing.
1:26:22
So
1:26:23
I
1:26:23
love
1:26:23
the
1:26:23
process
1:26:24
of
1:26:25
being
1:26:25
in
1:26:25
dialogue
1:26:26
with
1:26:26
all
1:26:26
of
1:26:26
you,
1:26:26
but
1:26:26
also
1:26:27
where
1:26:27
it's
1:26:27
led
1:26:27
to
1:26:27
as
1:26:27
well,
1:26:28
you
1:26:28
know,
1:26:28
personally,
1:26:29
but
1:26:29
also
1:26:29
in,
1:26:29
you
1:26:30
know,
1:26:30
our
1:26:30
field
1:26:30
of
1:26:30
relationality.
1:26:31
And
1:26:32
Steve,
1:26:32
the
1:26:33
universe
1:26:33
hasn't
1:26:34
finished
1:26:34
its
1:26:34
work
1:26:35
yet
1:26:35
and
1:26:35
you
1:26:36
mentioned
1:26:36
you
1:26:36
were
1:26:37
working
1:26:37
on
1:26:37
some
1:26:38
new
1:26:38
books.
1:26:38
So
1:26:39
would
1:26:39
you
1:26:39
like
1:26:39
to
1:26:39
tell
1:26:40
us
1:26:40
the
1:26:40
titles
1:26:41
of
1:26:41
those
1:26:41
so
1:26:41
we
1:26:41
can
1:26:42
look
1:26:42
for
1:26:42
them?
1:26:43
Sure.
1:26:43
There's
1:26:43
two
1:26:43
books
1:26:44
coming
1:26:44
out
1:26:44
in
1:26:44
2026.
1:26:46
One
1:26:46
is
1:26:46
with
1:26:46
my
1:26:47
colleague
1:26:47
Carol
1:26:48
Kilby,
1:26:48
who's
1:26:49
a
1:26:49
wonderful
1:26:50
evolutionary
1:26:51
theologian.
1:26:52
And
1:26:52
this
1:26:53
is
1:26:53
a
1:26:53
book
1:26:53
called
1:26:54
Becoming
1:26:54
the
1:26:54
Change,
1:26:55
about
1:26:56
evolutionary
1:26:57
rituals
1:26:57
and
1:26:57
practices.
1:26:58
And
1:26:59
the
1:26:59
idea
1:26:59
behind
1:26:59
this
1:26:59
book
1:27:00
is,
1:27:00
you
1:27:00
know,
1:27:00
many
1:27:01
of
1:27:01
the
1:27:01
rituals
1:27:01
and
1:27:02
ways
1:27:03
of
1:27:03
practicing
1:27:05
sacred
1:27:06
ceremony
1:27:07
come
1:27:07
from
1:27:09
traditions
1:27:10
that
1:27:10
have
1:27:10
static
1:27:11
cosmologies.
1:27:11
How
1:27:12
do
1:27:12
we
1:27:12
kind
1:27:12
of
1:27:12
reinvent
1:27:12
those
1:27:13
for
1:27:13
an
1:27:13
evolutionary
1:27:14
time?
1:27:15
And
1:27:15
so
1:27:16
she's
1:27:16
a
1:27:16
genius
1:27:16
at
1:27:17
writing
1:27:17
rituals
1:27:17
and
1:27:18
she
1:27:18
asked
1:27:18
me
1:27:18
to
1:27:18
provide
1:27:19
a
1:27:19
cosmic
1:27:19
perspective
1:27:20
and
1:27:20
commentary
1:27:20
on
1:27:21
them,
1:27:21
and
1:27:22
so
1:27:22
I
1:27:22
did.
1:27:22
So
1:27:22
it's
1:27:22
a
1:27:23
shared
1:27:23
book,
1:27:23
but
1:27:23
she's
1:27:24
brought
1:27:24
in
1:27:24
new
1:27:24
rituals,
1:27:25
such
1:27:25
as
1:27:26
a
1:27:26
new
1:27:26
form
1:27:26
of
1:27:27
baptism,
1:27:27
which
1:27:27
is
1:27:27
a
1:27:28
form
1:27:28
of
1:27:28
cosmic
1:27:28
welcoming.
1:27:29
So
1:27:29
we
1:27:29
welcome
1:27:30
this
1:27:30
being
1:27:31
who
1:27:31
we're
1:27:31
naming
1:27:32
this
1:27:32
baptism.
1:27:32
But
1:27:32
we're
1:27:33
also
1:27:33
acknowledging
1:27:33
that
1:27:34
stars
1:27:34
exploded,
1:27:35
that
1:27:35
there
1:27:35
was
1:27:35
13.8
1:27:36
billion
1:27:36
years
1:27:36
of
1:27:36
evolutionary
1:27:37
process
1:27:38
that
1:27:38
led
1:27:38
to
1:27:38
this
1:27:38
being's
1:27:39
emergence
1:27:40
as
1:27:40
something
1:27:40
new.
1:27:40
It
1:27:41
was
1:27:41
an
1:27:41
evolutionary
1:27:42
theological
1:27:44
journey.
1:27:46
It's,
1:27:46
you
1:27:46
know,
1:27:46
really
1:27:47
great
1:27:47
book.
1:27:47
It's
1:27:47
a
1:27:47
narrative.
1:27:48
You
1:27:48
know,
1:27:48
I'm
1:27:49
being
1:27:49
much
1:27:49
more
1:27:50
vulnerable
1:27:50
and
1:27:50
reflective
1:27:51
as
1:27:51
a
1:27:51
scientist.
1:27:52
I
1:27:52
also
1:27:52
took
1:27:52
it
1:27:53
with
1:27:53
my
1:27:53
son
1:27:53
too.
1:27:53
So
1:27:53
there's
1:27:54
a
1:27:54
father
1:27:54
son
1:27:54
dimension
1:27:55
to
1:27:55
the
1:27:55
journey
1:27:55
as
1:27:55
well.
1:27:56
That's
1:27:56
just
1:27:57
a
1:27:57
lovely
1:27:57
story
1:27:57
in
1:27:57
itself.
1:27:58
So
1:27:59
that's
1:27:59
also
1:27:59
like,
1:27:59
you
1:27:59
know,
1:28:00
a
1:28:00
mini,
1:28:01
a
1:28:01
mini
1:28:01
story
1:28:01
about
1:28:02
the
1:28:02
universe
1:28:02
having
1:28:02
a
1:28:03
particular
1:28:03
set
1:28:03
of
1:28:03
experiences
1:28:04
in
1:28:04
this
1:28:04
week
1:28:05
long
1:28:05
adventure
1:28:06
in
1:28:06
Baja.
1:28:07
So
1:28:07
that's
1:28:07
a
1:28:07
lot
1:28:07
of
1:28:08
fun.
1:28:08
That'll
1:28:08
come
1:28:08
out
1:28:09
next
1:28:09
year
1:28:09
as
1:28:09
well.
1:28:09
And
1:28:10
I'm
1:28:10
very
1:28:10
close
1:28:11
to
1:28:11
sealing
1:28:11
a
1:28:11
deal
1:28:12
with
1:28:12
a
1:28:12
publisher
1:28:12
right
1:28:12
now.
1:28:13
So
1:28:13
I
1:28:14
was
1:28:14
on
1:28:14
a
1:28:14
mesa
1:28:15
in
1:28:15
southern
1:28:15
Utah
1:28:16
near
1:28:16
our
1:28:17
home
1:28:17
in
1:28:17
Teesdale
1:28:17
when
1:28:18
that
1:28:18
happened
1:28:18
and
1:28:19
just
1:28:20
a
1:28:20
peak.
1:28:21
Amazing,
1:28:22
amazing
1:28:22
experience.
1:28:23
Looking
1:28:23
forward
1:28:23
to
1:28:23
reading
1:28:24
your
1:28:24
book.
1:28:25
Yeah,
1:28:25
yeah,
1:28:26
yeah.
1:28:26
It's
1:28:26
really
1:28:26
great.
1:28:26
I'm
1:28:27
really
1:28:27
happy
1:28:27
with
1:28:27
it.
1:28:27
The
1:28:28
universe
1:28:28
is
1:28:28
not
1:28:29
finished
1:28:29
yet,
1:28:29
so.
1:28:30
Not
1:28:31
by
1:28:31
any
1:28:31
means.
1:28:32
It's
1:28:32
also
1:28:32
on
1:28:32
a
1:28:32
journey.
1:28:33
Stephan,
1:28:33
what
1:28:33
a
1:28:33
gift.
1:28:34
Thank
1:28:34
you
1:28:34
so
1:28:34
much
1:28:35
and
1:28:36
all
1:28:36
best
1:28:36
for
1:28:37
your
1:28:37
good
1:28:37
work
1:28:37
and
1:28:37
thank
1:28:38
you
1:28:38
for
1:28:38
this
1:28:38
wonderful
1:28:39
cosmic
1:28:40
perspective
1:28:40
you're
1:28:41
bringing
1:28:41
to
1:28:41
us.
1:28:41
You've
1:28:42
certainly
1:28:42
expanded
1:28:42
my
1:28:43
thinking
1:28:43
and
1:28:44
I
1:28:44
have
1:28:44
much
1:28:44
to
1:28:44
take
1:28:45
away
1:28:45
and
1:28:45
reflect
1:28:46
on.
1:28:46
Thanks
1:28:46
so
1:28:46
much.
1:28:47
Thanks,
1:28:47
everybody.
1:28:48
Well,
1:28:48
thank
1:28:48
you
1:28:48
and
1:28:48
thank
1:28:49
to
1:28:49
you
1:28:49
for
1:28:49
the
1:28:49
work
1:28:49
that
1:28:50
you
1:28:50
do
1:28:50
because
1:28:51
it's
1:28:51
evolutionary
1:28:51
work,
1:28:52
is
1:28:52
cosmic
1:28:52
work
1:28:53
and
1:28:53
is
1:28:53
benefiting
1:28:54
the
1:28:54
planet.
1:28:55
So
1:28:56
I'm
1:28:56
just
1:28:56
acknowledging
1:28:57
and
1:28:57
appreciating
1:28:57
the
1:28:58
work
1:28:58
that
1:28:58
you're
1:28:58
doing.
1:29:00
Thank
1:29:00
you
1:29:00
very
1:29:00
much
1:29:01
for
1:29:01
being
1:29:01
a
1:29:01
part
1:29:02
of
1:29:02
this
1:29:02
conversation.
1:29:03
We
1:29:03
hope
1:29:03
that
1:29:04
you
1:29:04
were
1:29:04
moved
1:29:04
as
1:29:05
we
1:29:05
are
1:29:05
moved,
1:29:06
being
1:29:06
part
1:29:06
of
1:29:06
it
1:29:06
ourselves.
1:29:07
We'd
1:29:08
also
1:29:08
like
1:29:08
to
1:29:08
say
1:29:08
that
1:29:09
this
1:29:09
is
1:29:09
being
1:29:09
funded
1:29:10
by
1:29:10
Roger
1:29:11
and
1:29:11
myself.
1:29:11
It
1:29:11
comes
1:29:11
out
1:29:11
of
1:29:12
our
1:29:12
pockets.
1:29:12
So
1:29:12
if
1:29:12
you
1:29:13
would
1:29:13
like
1:29:13
to
1:29:13
help
1:29:13
us
1:29:14
to
1:29:14
mainly
1:29:15
to
1:29:15
get
1:29:15
this
1:29:15
podcast
1:29:16
out
1:29:16
to
1:29:16
more
1:29:16
people
1:29:17
because
1:29:17
the
1:29:17
bigger
1:29:18
audience
1:29:18
have
1:29:18
which
1:29:18
is
1:29:18
steadily
1:29:19
growing,
1:29:19
but
1:29:19
the
1:29:20
more
1:29:20
people
1:29:20
we
1:29:20
can
1:29:20
reach
1:29:21
and
1:29:21
the
1:29:21
more
1:29:21
marketing
1:29:22
we
1:29:22
can
1:29:22
do,
1:29:22
the
1:29:22
more
1:29:23
positive
1:29:23
effect
1:29:23
we
1:29:24
can
1:29:24
have
1:29:24
on
1:29:24
the
1:29:24
world.
1:29:25
So
1:29:25
we've
1:29:25
done
1:29:25
a
1:29:26
couple
1:29:26
of
1:29:26
ways.
1:29:26
But
1:29:26
we'd
1:29:27
like
1:29:27
you
1:29:27
to
1:29:27
buy
1:29:27
us
1:29:28
a
1:29:28
cup
1:29:28
of
1:29:28
coffee.
1:29:28
Very
1:29:29
simple.
1:29:29
And
1:29:29
I
1:29:29
do
1:29:30
that
1:29:30
with
1:29:30
podcasts
1:29:31
that
1:29:31
I
1:29:31
support
1:29:32
and
1:29:32
I
1:29:33
find
1:29:33
it's
1:29:33
very
1:29:33
satisfying.
1:29:34
So
1:29:34
thank
1:29:35
you
1:29:35
for
1:29:35
your
1:29:35
help,
1:29:35
thank
1:29:36
you
1:29:36
for
1:29:36
your
1:29:36
presence
1:29:36
and
1:29:37
thank
1:29:37
you
1:29:37
for
1:29:37
all
1:29:38
you
1:29:38
are
1:29:38
and
1:29:38
all
1:29:38
you
1:29:39
do.
1:29:39
We
1:29:39
love
1:29:39
you.