Never get tired listening to Jonathan Haidt. Have all his books 🙂

Just in, hearing the Babel metaphor and the fractal fighting on Twitter, and I hope this video gets more recognition for it’s work on insight and healing.

“Fractal pattern of fighting”. That’s brilliant and very descriptive

I took a month off of social media...I recommend it. So much more peace and I haven't returned to using it as frequently. The workbook called 30 Days Without Social Media was a great help. It goes well with Jonathan's book.

I've just discovered this wonderful channel, and what an inspiration Dr. Haidt is. This conversation brings to mind sociologist Dr. Arlie russell Hochschild interview, who wrote about climbing the empathy wall. I think collective action does require us to see each other with human dignity. Nothing is impossible when enough people can work together.

The question at around 1:16 really hit home: I feel like I'm being civil 'into the wind' and constantly being attacked for being moderate and empathetic

Being exposed to views and being open to understanding those views, are two completely different things. Being “correct” is more important to most people than understanding what is going on. I work with people, day in and day out with people who have the opposite views of myself. I grew up in an evangelical family where my parents eventually became Buddhist. The internet’s ability to fracture is making most people dumber. Random thoughts here…

@plmedici

2 ай бұрын

Random maybe. Valid definitely.

We clipped the delay out. It starts right away. Dr. Haidt joins us 5 minutes in.

Love Jonathan...Book pre-ordered!

I really like Jonathan Haidt's ideas ever since I read his book "The Righteous mind," a couple of years ago. However I do have a problem with his analysis, that "religion is a positive phenomenon if people do not take it literally..." While Jonathan is an atheist it is easy for him to not take religious beliefs literally, however, one should bear in mind that almost all followers of any particular religion do take their beliefs and myths literally, and as in the case of Islam, almost all Muslims insist on adherence to the rituals and conformity with the many behavioural requirements prescribe by Islam, for example.

Brilliant! Appreciate you!

Another part of the social media issue that needs to be addressed is how its integration into professional life makes it challenging to leave it behind even for those who want to. Especially since the economy has gotten worse, promotion of one's business on social media and interaction with potential customer base via social media is often a crucial tool to get the bills paid. The more social media accounts you have, and the more active you are on those accounts, the more you increase chances of bringing in business. I'd have quit social media by now if I didn't essentially have to use it for my work. The worst part is, from my perspective as a K-12 educator, schools are extremely complicit into getting kids into the mindset of using phones/internet as a crucial tool in being a more "successful and responsible" student. By the time these kids become working adults, they will see it as totally normal to be constantly connected 24/7. They won't even be able to conceptualize what it's like to be physically present and let their brain rest. If we start passing legislation to get the economy out of the shitter and make people less desperate for income - as well as legislation that restricts how phones can be used in the context of K-12 school assignments/communication - I believe that it will have a positive impact on reducing social media use/addiction and the resulting mental health impacts.

Sociology as a discipline has been almost completely engulfed with critical theory nonsense. Sigh you are a godsend, Jonathan. 😊

@Blastin7411

2 ай бұрын

I get the frustration… we aren’t all that way though, we have a long history of empiricism

"dont go selling yr house and moving to New Zealand" Waves from NZ. Its just as bad here 👋

@john83me14

2 ай бұрын

This is most common in the WESTERN countries.

@john83me14

2 ай бұрын

This is most common in WESTERN

"In 2011, the Internet became translateable into any language, so we solved the Babel problem" The Wokies are way ahead of you Jon, they're changing the definitions of words now.

The better to market to you, my dear.

It's not a Section 230 problem. It's Public Schools and the group think it inculcates. That's been true a long time. You cannot fix society with Law which is in shambles. No normal person can *afford* law which is full of errors and uncertainty. In many ways religion with it's simplicity and moral instructions is a better model and competitive in a local marketplace

Unless something serious is done at the university level to right the ship. Society will fall apart.

Your links for further listening don't seem to be working...

Sociologists have not abandoned their post They have opinions on what a better society should be News Flash -- most are on the far left political spectrum They are more concerned with left wing activism, power, and ideological hegemony - not good faith non partisan rulemaking

@user-hn7my8ow4s

2 ай бұрын

100% correct.

"When older people first tried a web browser, they said 'You mean we can get all the information in the world within seconds?' we were like gods" Some of us are old enough to remember when the Internet was exclusively Star Wars fan sites and p**nography. Information wasn't on the web unless someone bothered to put it on a computer that was attached to the Web. There's still an awful lot of information from decades before about 2010, that you simply can't access because no one bothered to digitize it.

47:09 America is flailing. Looking for an easy enemy to defeat. There aren't any left.

❤🔥💯

"One of the things that binds us together is sacredness" .... Which only Conservatives can access, according to your _Righteous Mind._ So Conservatives are required for social cohesion. Sure, that sounds about right.

"The president tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power" No. The motive there was that the election had a lot of shenanigans associated with it, and those questions were summarily dismissed rather than transparently adjudicated.

We have become a society of sheep and lemmings. Individual space for critical thinking, reflection, and the experience of the sublime has been breached by the unceasing onslaught of external noises. Higher education, which had been the bulwark against this malaise throughout history, has been the first to succumb. Institutions which had been entrusted with the moral authority to hold the society together are also crumbling, and in fact, fanning the disintegration, now reaching the level of wide distrust even of the US Supreme Court. - - We all need to join your effort to create Walden Pond in our communities, schools and work places.

@davidsmind

2 ай бұрын

If you are listening to this guy you are no less a lemming.

"Why did someone born in 1993 have such different health outcomes from someone born in 1997?" Is there some significant role of parental anxiety that affects kids 4 years old and younger? 9/11 caused a LOT of safetyism.

Whatever happened to the Asteroids Club? I joined that right away and can't remember hearing anything about it in a long time.

@TheVillageSquare

2 ай бұрын

We cannot tell you how much we love that you remember The Asteroids Club. We have to say we love it and love the basic intellectual concept behind it. But just like so much in this challenging environment, we couldn't quite get it up to warp speed for it to sustain itself. Ping us at asteroidsclub@villagesquare.us though and we can chat about why we love it so much and how we think the concept should rule the world. ;)

@16:00 - you Freudian Slip "Brave New World" - and I see speaker is from "NYU’s Stern School of Business." - Did NYU Neil Postman's 1985 "Amusing Ourselves to Death" come up about Brave New World vs 1984 book? Andrew Postman's 2017 story about it being proven true?

I think Professor Haight can be trusted to drink a beer. He is a grown up.

"It's not like someone can just call Obama an epithet" Nope, it's that someone can call out Obama for saying something that just isn't true.

Haidt seems to focus on Gen Z but I wonder how much confluence there is with political talk shows such as Stephen Colbert or John Stewart.

"Most people are reasonable, most people are decent" Most people have enough common ground with you and are willing enough to focus on that in face-to-face meetings, that you can peaceably interact with them. Introduce more people in to the mix, though, and you won't have near as much overlap in common ground. Those who are excluded will have less incentive to get along. When that pool of disenfranchised people gets too big, you have trouble. Why we're sacrificing the worldview and interests of 50% of the population for the sake of the delusions of 0.5% of the population, is a mistake that will cause historians of the future to shake their heads in bafflement.

"Would a Martian invasion bring us together?" No. Rallying around the basic foundation of our way of life so that we could win a new Cold War, would be much better.

19:14 Haidt gets on

One major problem is that the younger generation we would want involved in molding the future is affected so negatively by social media and brain rewiring.

At about 48:35 Mr. Haidt calls for sociologists to be part of the conversation...surely he is joking. Sociologists, especially the academic variety, are at origin of most of our divisions (at least on the left). Does Mr. Haidt really think we can learn something from them or that they would have something important to say?

Starts at 13:50

"From the tension of opposites all good things arise" Yup. And we've generally solved the question of Cold War 1, how to optimize the production and distribution of industrial output (Market-driven capitalist welfare state, than you and good night.) We're now in a NEW Cold War, between the Authoritarian Bureaucrats (the mandarins of China and the deep state of America) against Fukuyaman Liberty-minded Democracy. The antithesis of Fukuyama arose very quickly, mostly because it was there already. The Internet gives us the tools to democratize expertise. Individuals can bring up their experiences with things like the coof v*x, and Jay Bhattacharya can get the truth of it faster and better than the likes of Fauci can.

"You guys are doing the work and getting real people to talk to each other" 343 subscribers, 13K views, it's been out for 3 weeks.... Jonathan is flattering you guys.

Unfortunately, the instititions of this time are deeply deceptive. Each side reacts in different ways. The common thread is declining trust in these institutions.

When a culture rejects the cultus (Latin for religion) upon which it was founded and which informed its moral sense, that culture must inevitably change and decay. Many of us feel that we are now living in a post-Christian society although the neo-liberal order seems predisposed to its own quasi-religious zealotry. And this explains the cultural divide in the USA which is as deep and wide as the Grand Canyon. So what does the most powerful nation in the West now stand for? What appeal can a nation undergoing a soft civil war have for the rest of the world? What is it that we will die for in order to defend? America seems hell-bent on exporting its own brand of post-Christian neo-liberal democracy across the globe. This surely is hubris and hypocrisy. Professor Haidt talks about 'sacredness.' What is or should be regarded as sacred? Human life one would think. Might that include the child in the womb? The civilians in Gaza? The proxy soldiers in Ukraine? How many more must die in order that Lady Liberty hold her torch high above the heads of the newly liberated?

@EyeByBrian

2 ай бұрын

Keep in mind that you’re tilting at a very old and stalwart windmill-it’s generally called ‘modernity’ and it’s been gathering speed for at least 350 years. The rise of (post-Cartesian) science, the subject-object split (indeed the rise of ‘subjectivity’), the veneration of abstract reason above all other forms of being in the world….all culminating in the pervasive watershed in the organization of labour and markets that is capitalism. All of these tore the theological fabric of ‘the west’ asunder even if the rhetoric of their originators-most of them-professed (and likely believed) that their advancements were contributing to the ‘glory of God’. How little did they know. And the downstream effects of all of these phenomena that I mention above were already well under way by the mid 18thC. Despite the indisputable advancements that modernity (or capital ‘E’ Enlightenment) wrought, emanations of its collateral damage to the collective psyche were evident, at least to many intellectuals, even then (e.g. Rousseau, Adam Ferguson, Friedrich Schiller, et al).

@SlickSimulacrum

2 ай бұрын

@@EyeByBrian , You are the perfect example of why Haidt's constant use of false equivalence is dangerous and wrong. So much that I already know in this extreme literacy disparity between the (actual) sides, stands counter to Haidt's model of society. He holds up ideas that are fundamentally defunct in modern conservatism, as qualities of conservatism. And maybe he see's the breakdown as a breakdown of their competency, but he certainly doesn't make a pointed argument as such. But otherwise blames the whole without any serious consideration. This all curious as the Democratic Party has far more in common with the conservatism Haidt was referring to. And that their opposition is highly destructive and completely unhinged. To pretend that the actual left which hasn't changed much at all in these years. (I was there before, and I am here now, and the only change that seems relevant is that we had a shot at power that was a pipe dream, and it is now once again a pipe dream) The representation that seems louder, is that of the educated elite coming from higher institutions. Who cannot see class conflict, or economy in these issues, and must see that which does not challenge their place in the world. It seems as though Haidt is too close to that level of academia activism, and disconnected from the real heartbeat.

47:44 Will Martians bring us together? The whole history of the world is those of tribal societies that could not group together to fight off a greater threat. It does happen, but more often than not it doesn't. Look at the history of colonialism. Very few kingdoms, tribes, or city-states united to fend off the invaders. Some joined the colonists, others rebelled.

My then Father in Law, a Chair of Political Science department at Canisius College, gave me Fukuyama's book. I read it and asked him how anyone could actually believe such tripe? Arrogance and moral certainty blind even the brightest minds.

largely empty civility and respectability politics are sly status-quo apologist methods. why would we be cute moderates and kindly, calmly discuss how actually race realism is good actually, or dominance hierarchies are good actually bc sg sg it's been like that for ages and it took a long time to create? lmao. debates also don't effectively change minds. empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that. street epistemology, deep canvassing, thorough and sustained critical thinking education, enabling effective error correction, intellectual honesty & humility do. the deluded strawmanning and misrepresentation, as if there's a "the left" as a group who hold all the outrageous, extreme, statistically fringe frameworks, is harmful and bad faith. all the examples he brought up about "conservative" values, like structure, order.. are also parts of serious leftist thought. structure and power is just organized differently, eg. power distributed horizontally, dominance hierarchies opposed and resisted (which anyway has always been the case due to ~97% of our species' evolutionary history happening as fiercely egalitarian, nomadic hunter-gatherers. softcore status-quo apologism with lack of honest engagement with revolutionary / abolitionist / anti-status-quo thought.

I thought this guy was a psychologist? Anyway, he fails to mention the financial collapse of 08 as a cause that exacerbated the depression, which if you are not a university professor had a profound impact on your income and your familial life..... Not to mention outsourcing and what it did to the middle class.

The centrifugal forces are growing. The only question is when they will prevail and how you can plan for where you will land physically.

@emilymiller1792

2 ай бұрын

And then a societal version of Stuxnet happens. I fear that could happen in the midst of the societal centrifuge being spun up.

"His unique journey from Judaism to born-again Christianity" Eh, it's not all that unique. A lot of figures, both public and private, have taken this road before. The idea that it is supposedly unusual is more propaganda than truth.

The ultimate fragmentation is secession.

So believing a non truth is esential to saveing our society/culture

@HansBBJJ

2 ай бұрын

Sure

@gnlout7403

2 ай бұрын

huh?

@jacobjorgenson9285

2 ай бұрын

No, reading the stories and drawing meaning like you would Hans Christian Andersen can inspire

@ribbonsofnight

2 ай бұрын

Which non-truth?

[Framing the problem + path to victory]: Both sides in the Religion vs Science debates use the Materialism/Empiricism version of logic, math and physics which say 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D are "locally real" and 0D is "not locally real". The problem is that quantum physics proved the observable universe is actually "not locally real" a year ago (Oct 2022 was the earliest article i found). Well over 300 years ago Leibniz vs Newton competed for the title of "Universal Genius". We chose Newton, obviously, but an interesting point is that nobody ever proved Materialism/Empiricism... we simply thought it "ought" to be true. The only proof that happened was a year ago when quantum physics flat-out disproved Materialism/Empiricism. The observable universe is not locally real and that proves we chose the wrong guy, full stop 🛑. Zero vs nonzero numbers are what we assign "locally real" and "not locally real" to. If zero is one thing then nonzero is the other. The "absolute" version of the observable universe proposed by Newton simply does not exist and it never has (was never proven). Leibniz said 0D is necessary and more real; having no predecessor and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are contingent and less real; all having an immediate predecessor. Necessary and more real = locally real Contingent and less real = not locally real Leibniz was correct and that means we're all taught contradictory logic, math and physics. [What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus]? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. Study zero (not-natural) vs nonzero (natural) numbers since the difference between 0 (zero) and 1 (nonzero) changed a year ago. Then: 0 = not locally real 1 = locally real Now: 0 = locally real 1 = not locally real It's about time the same old Religion vs Science arguments we've heard for over 300 years can be updated (on both sides).

@NotNecessarily-ip4vc

2 ай бұрын

Contradictory: *impossible to be true.* Non-contradictory: *possible to be true.* ❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good; functions; limit built into every operation)❌️: 1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are the exact same character (knowing good). 2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus). 3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics). ⬆️ this is what we're all taught. Materialist/Empiricist version of reality.⬆️ ✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good from evil; relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️: 1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are polar opposite characters (knowing good from evil). 2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus). 3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics). ⬆️ this is what quantum physics proved a year ago and if Theology doesn't match Math and Physics then you're doing it wrong. Realist version of reality.⬆️ [🦄Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]: Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍 [🦤Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]: The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers. Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago. (Yes, Leibniz was correct after all.) 🦧 [Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]: locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary") not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent") [Closing arguments]: The Materialism/Empiricism package contains within itself all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level? Legitimate question 🙋. If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" (contradictory for a year) and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" (non-contradictory for a year) they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙).

@NotNecessarily-ip4vc

2 ай бұрын

[Infinity and zero, theology, soul]: in·fin·i·ty MATHEMATICS a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞). (In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects). What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary? a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity. b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers. Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)? Well, 0D is outside of space and time: 0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless 1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions 4D (natural) = temporal dimension Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language. Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1. Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them. In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension). "Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)". A) The postulated soul, 👻, has 1. no spatial extension 2. zero size 3. exact location only B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension. Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.

@NotNecessarily-ip4vc

2 ай бұрын

[Important point 👉 (dont forget)]: 0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions. 0D monad (Creator event horizon) 1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions 1D line 2D width 3D height 4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions 4D length 5D breadth 6D depth 7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions 7D continuous 8D emission 9D absorption 10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon) It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side. The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God. The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God. Anything we know about black holes (Destroyer) we know the opposite of that is true for monads (Creator), and we know some crazy sci-fi stuff about black holes. It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real). The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity (Deity; possessive; God's) in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity (Deity; plural; gods) in Genesis 2-3 who messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷‍♂️). Elohim was "syncretized" to just mean El during the Babylonian captivity. To avoid this simply use the Latin, "unsyncretized", counterpart Deity for possessive (God's) and plural (gods) context. (Septuagint and Vulgate use Post-Babylonian captivity "syncretized" meaning of Elohim so mistranslate as Theos and Deus, respectively). Gen 2-3 introduces the placeholder Elohim (not locally real) and their blind, foolish chief running amok. Plurality of bad guy that 'are' each other and 'are not' God. Nephilim are sons of the false Elohim associated with Yahweh (the BAAL, or LORD, of the gods).

@NotNecessarily-ip4vc

2 ай бұрын

[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]: Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. [Monad in mathematics, science and technology]: Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point

@NotNecessarily-ip4vc

2 ай бұрын

"Some first follow the true Savior but then turn away to worship a dead man." - the revelation of Peter THE WORLD RULER TRIES TO KILL ME And then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: “I am god and there is no other god but me.” But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit. But he went on to say, “Who is the human?” And the entire host of his angels who had seen Adam and his dwelling were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their thought come to be removed outside the majesty of the heavens, away from the human of truth, whose name they saw, since he is in a small dwelling place. They are foolish and senseless in their empty thought, namely, their laughter, and it was contagion for them. The whole greatness of the fatherhood of the spirit was at rest in its places. And I was with him, since I have a thought of a single emanation from the eternal ones and the unknowable ones, undefiled and immeasurable. I placed the small thought in the world, having disturbed them and frightened the whole multitude of the angels and their ruler. And I was visiting them all with fire and flame because of my thought. And everything pertaining to them was brought about because of me. And there came about a disturbance and a fight around the seraphim and cherubim, since their glory will fade, and there was confusion around Adonaios on both sides and around their dwelling, up to the world ruler and the one who said, “Let us seize him.” Others again said, “The plan will certainly not materialize.” For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And as for the plan that they devised about me to release their error and their senselessness, I did not succumb to them as they had planned. And I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me, and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I suffered merely according to their sight and thought so that no word might ever be found to speak about them. For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

new york-based liberals with a common mindset. i tried to follow this through to the end, but is was just too much. at least for talking heads, none of them wore baseball caps ("whud-up Bro?"), and no visible tattoos.

@jacobjorgenson9285

2 ай бұрын

A good dictionary should help you understand what was said

@Lobishomem

2 ай бұрын

Yes how refreshing not to see baseball hats and tatoos . Also no f-bombs loosely scattered for effect.

@levcimac

2 ай бұрын

There are many western democracies where politics is not so black and white.. not a two horse race. A Blue and Red reality is not necessarily a given, or optimal.

the 'american idea' has no future, youre done.

@asumazilla

2 ай бұрын

Lol.

So conservatives are conservative, and progressives are progressive... what a surprise!

@gnlout7403

2 ай бұрын

huh?

The preacher is really annoying.