Clif High - Complex understanding

July 8, 2024 - Clif High

38:38

Complex understanding

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit clifhigh.substack.com

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello humans, hello humans.
	July 8th.
	722 in the morning.
	Back on the road again.
	I've got a um a number of things I've got to be picking up over this next month.
	Uh out where we live, it's sometimes difficult to get deliveries.
	And so you gotta go fetch the shit.
	So that's what we're up to this morning.
	And uh drop off a bunch of stuff somewhere else, and then uh come back and start redoing things, and we're gonna do some uh remodeling here in the next month real quick, get some stuff changed around.
	Let me shut that off.
	There we go.
	Anyway, so um heading in, and what I wanted to talk about, so my main preoccupation at the moment, because we're working on some methodology and thinking about this stuff, is the um ontological model for physics.
	There's some things that people just don't really think about, I guess.
	Um so say there's two understandings for there, might be thousands, I don't know, but there's two understandings basically that humans have for our material reality, the matter, why the matter exists, why we exist as meat suits.
	And um, so you can think that oh well we exist as meat suits because all this grit came together and uh miracle happened and life uh began in the material.
	Eh, highly unlikely, right?
	Uh the grit doesn't exist.
	You can't prove the grit exists because if you get into the grit, you discover that it's mainly empty space, right?
	Just space between the electrons, the electrons are fundamentally illusionary.
	Um you don't know where they're at in any given time, etc.
	etc.
	They'll always appear to be where you want to find them, and there's all these weird things about them, but there's vast quantities of space.
	So in every single atom, um the you know uh 99.999% of the um uh hang on a second, uh um of the of the atom is simply empty.
	There's just nothing there.
	It's you know what they call the electron shell, or you know, the uh what they call it, the um I think it's the neutron or or a nucleus um wave space or something like that.
	It's where this space that the nucleus appears to vibrate back and forth.
	Anyway, though, so uh the turn the determination is that matter is illusionary, that all the green stuff we look at and see as trees, all the black stuff that we see is asphalt, you know, all the sort of gray stuff that we see as rocks, all the blue stuff is water, that kind of stuff, is all empty.
	It's all empty space, and what we're perceiving is solid, uh, we can prove to ourselves with the grit physics that what we see is solid is in fact not.
	It's it's just empty, and it presents this appearance to us.
	Okay, so uh that's from the grit perspective.
	We can prove that there's just emptiness everywhere, and then this brings up that particular idea.
	So say that you were uh ultimate consciousness, and you're everything everywhere, uh in existence constantly forever.
	And uh let's just postulate that you have some level of um uh emotion at the moment, some some um something that is prompting you to act, okay.
	Desire, let's just say that.
	And so your desire, whether it's emotionally driven or whatever, is to um is you want you're you're kind of bored.
	You want to see what uh see if it's possible to create novelty.
	Novelty itself isn't is a novel thought, it is it's self-defining.
	If your ultimate consciousness and you have a uh and you've never thought about it before, and then you think about novelty and the idea that there might be something that could exist that you don't know about and uh uh ahead of time, which would be really a staggering surprise kind of thing for you as the all-knowing,
	um then you'd say, Wow, you know, that the thought that I could maybe create conditions that would bring about novelty is itself novel and is worth pursuing simply because of that aspect of it, right?
	So then you have to set about so this is the ontological viewpoint, and we don't have a uh formalized methodology for studying physics, uh, this other physics from the ontological viewpoint.
	Okay, this is called the Z physics, by the way, uh, because of the zero point energy uh zero point technology stuff, okay, or the zero point really is their way of uh the gratologist's way of expressing um uh this infinite energy, uh, which they don't really know where it comes from and all of that, but guys, that infinite energy is consciousness.
	If it wasn't there to supply the energy, you would not have it.
	Um anyway, so here you are, your your infinite consciousness, you want to have something that's new, you want to have something that's novel.
	Well, how do you go about it?
	And there's all this, you know, all these various different potentials, but at some point you you decide, oh well, one of the ways to go about it would be I could split myself up into little chunks, and then let my little chunks interact in a constrained fashion and see if we can get novelty to emerge.
	In other words, it's the concept of sort of like making um a video game, right?
	And so your consciousness and you could decide, well, I want to do this, and that's when it starts getting difficult for uh the gratologist and everybody in their understanding, but for the ontological uh analyst, it becomes relatively simple,
	okay, because if you say to yourself, if you so in this examination uh we are not using reductionism, all right, and so I don't know that we're actually inventing a new form of a methodology here, but um it may be that I have yet to investigate the formalities that exist within the uh ontological examination world.
	Actually, they're very few and far between, and so it's a bitch to kind of go and hunt them up.
	But anyway, so here you are, your ultimate consciousness, you decide you want to have a novelty experience.
	How do you start?
	And then you decide, okay.
	Well, I'm gonna bust myself up into lots of little pieces.
	That's a first start, that's a novel thing to do, and then you start saying, Okay, how is that achieved?
	And and what would be the criteria that would would be required?
	Well, if we think about it logically, the first right uh criteria for uh that's that's required for the um uh uh the busting up of of conscience great ultimate consciousness into uh bazillions of um little tiny consciousness would be the ability to isolate them from each other, to separate them from each other, okay?
	And so you're sitting there as consciousness, and you say, hmm, now that's a cool idea.
	How do we go about this?
	Okay, so now bear in mind uh nothing exists except for you, and so you decide, okay, I know what will separate uh consciousness, and that is if I put consciousness into if I create uh matter and I put consciousness into matter, then consciousness is instantly separated by the conditions of matter.
	Okay, by the the mis, and so you say to yourself, well, I'm going to create this materium, and I'm going to create matter within that matter uh materium, and uh then I'm going to shove myself as consciousness in little chunks into that matter, into all those little meat suits, and see what happens.
	Um, so isolation from each other is the first requirement in the ontological model.
	All of physics has only all of what we consider physics, the materium, the the material world, uh our bodies, you know, the place your your butt sits on, all of this stuff only exists for the single goal of providing the isolation that is necessary for this experiment.
	So ponder that for a second, okay.
	You're isolating your uh yourself as consciousness so that you can have the illusion of separation such that you can have uh communications between these little chunks in this constrained fashion that may produce novelty.
	You don't know if it will or not.
	That's actually novel itself.
	That's a cool thing.
	Ambiguity, uh, uncertainty, all of this is an aspect of our novelty search, okay?
	Because if you know everything, then you're certain about every fucking thing.
	There's nothing you are uncertain about.
	Uh okay, yeah, there is the other aspect of that.
	You could also say, well, I'm uncertain about everything because of the nature of that, but we won't go down that particular understanding of this.
	But nonetheless, when you examine things on the ontological model, you are basically looking at um you we are constructing an analysis um protocol uh formality or a rigor uh that is um uh structured to examine complexity, okay.
	So if you're a gritologist, gritology is easy, but it yields nothing, okay, because gritology is a kid's game.
	Gritology's uh is reductionism, and in reductionism, you keep throwing out stuff, keep throwing out stuff, keep throwing out stuff.
	So you are basically limiting the ability of uh the limiting uh what you're going to think about, right?
	The range of things you can think about by this reductionism.
	And this is um, this is what they train all the scientists on.
	This is why all the gratologists are as stupid as they are, and how they um the way that they function and so on.
	And it is necessarily also extremely limiting uh of your ability to deal with complexity, because reductionism doesn't work with complexity, you cannot reduce complexity below the level that complexity appears.
	Uh so you can have something that's very simple, and you can have something that's complicated.
	But complications only arise from simplicity, from one simplicity plus another simplicity plus another simplicity plus another simplicity, etc.
	etc.
	Okay.
	Um, and and you can have reductionism because you can take the complication and you can separate into all of its little parts, and then you end up with simplicities.
	This is not the way complexity works, though, okay.
	Complexity is a whole unit at the level in which you discover it.
	So if you discover something complicated, it might take if you discover uh something lying in the road and you go on up and you poke it with a stick, and you say, Wow, that's a complicated piece of stuff, I think.
	Or it may be complex, okay.
	So, how do you tell?
	That's the problem.
	If and and you can examine everything in our material world from either perspective.
	Um, is it a complexity or is it a complication?
	And uh if it's complication, you can usually determine that fairly fast because uh you reduce uh because reductionism works uh very rapidly to separate it out in all these little parts.
	Okay, on complexity, you can do that as well with a complexity.
	You can come on in and you could separate an octopus out to all of its little subsystems and so on and so on, right?
	You know, the little suckers, the the arms, the little beak, and the whole thing.
	Uh, you know, its digestive system and all of these kind of things.
	But if you examine each and every one of those things individually as a complication, so its digestive system is complicated, but it's basically a you know, the simple acids and so on and so on and so on, then uh you end up thinking, oh, okay,
	I have understood this uh this animal here, this um this octopus, uh, I understand it because I can reduce it down To um a listing, a tabulation of all of these parts that I decide are part of the complication.
	Now, you cannot in that fashion uh discover its life, you won't discover its brains, you won't discover anything meaningful about its um uh movement or its function in its environment, and when you start examining it in its environment, you're going to say to yourself, Well, wait a second, there's shit that's more complex here than the complications might simply point to.
	And so, really, truly, we say that we understand the digestive process, and that's not true, okay.
	From a reductionist viewpoint, uh, we see acids dissolving certain things, but and we see these um the electron transfers that occur between an ionic transfers and protons, etc.
	etc.
	We see all of those occurring, we can analyze those, uh, we can um uh uh uh build up complex or complicated structures from them, we can write books about them, etc.
	etc.
	But we can't actually state uh with certainty that we understand how life functions off of matter in this regard.
	How does life, which the gratologist will not even acknowledge the that consciousness and life are um uh the same thing, right?
	If you've got life in any form, it is conscious, uh, whether or not it's as conscious as you are, as aware as you are, or as communicative as you are, is separate, uh is a separate issue entirely, and so uh we don't really know uh when you eat a um uh piece of chocolate, uh how the sugar in that chocolate transfers itself into energy within your body.
	Yeah, we say there's the ATP, the um adenine triphosphate uh separation there, we see that um phosphorus and um uh potassium, iron, zinc, uh, and these other minerals are used in the uh electron transfer process within the cells,
	but how does the electron transfer process itself provide you with the energy to your brain to have the motivation to lift that damn leg and get your ass out of bed, right?
	Uh we can't we can't describe that.
	We can't uh we've never analyzed that.
	Or there are people that analyze that, but they've never been given any um credence in our gritology world, which is 100% dominated by the Talmudonians, right?
	And um uh gritology, uh ritual, uh, all of this.
	So science is basically a whole series of rituals, and they get uh people get um uh demerits for not doing the rituals the same way, all the experiments, etc.
	Right, and so it's a um it's a funny uh kind of an approach to examining our reality, and in the end, it you only you think you understand some of the stuff that's going on with the um uh with people, but uh do you really?
	So here's here's aspects of this.
	So I'm I manipulate key force, okay?
	That's KI, like I keto, right?
	And so I manipulate key force in my body, I can express it outside of my body, other people can feel that expression um of that key force, you know.
	I can do these things with my hands, and you can put your hand in between my two hands, and you'll feel things as I move my key force around, and it'll freak people out and so on.
	So, how does gritology explain that?
	This is outside the grit, this is outside my body, right?
	Um, and so how does gritology explain uh well, I mean, there's just so much in which consciousness participates.
	Um why does one person survive a uh horrific uh medical condition and another does not?
	And it a lot of it comes down to the uh level of consciousness that they are expressing, and so this comes down to uh let me just say really let's put it the other way, that all of medicine, all of medicine validates the ontological um model, And it freaks out the doctors when you bring it up, right?
	But what is placebo effect?
	If I give you water and tell you it's LSD in a convincing manner, and you have a psychedelic trip there, and they say the doctors will say, Oh, well, that's just the placebo effect.
	It's a label, it's not an explanation.
	Okay, it does not explain how or why it occurs.
	And this is all part of the ontological model.
	So now you can understand that if you're ultimate consciousness, you've got this idea, you got a plan, you're gonna create novelty here, this could be cool as fuck.
	And the very first thing you have to do is to build a materium and start isolating the um the little chunks of consciousness.
	Alright, so given that as a premise, it's my understanding that the very first thing that that is used for isolation is time.
	All right, and so you construct your materium in such a way that that you uh build you're building a complexity, okay.
	So we cannot reduce the materium.
	We have to pick one element, one aspect of it.
	So uh this is our octopus, right?
	And uh, so we don't know what the fuck this thing is, we don't have any real fear about it, but we want to examine it, so we just grab one tentacle and uh you know get that squishy puppy in your hand, and then we start examining it to build up our understanding of the complexity that we're dealing with.
	And um, so so basically uh you can in this analysis, you can say, All right, uh within my uh understanding of building up an understanding of complexity of this particular complexity, this squishy um thing in my hand that goes to these other eight arms and this big bulbous head and that nasty looking beak.
	Um you can say to yourself, okay, as I go along on this, uh just squishing the the critter's uh uh tentacle here in my hand, certain things come to mind, and so I'm gonna note these, and then uh you know, as observations is like a um uh practical field uh scientist might do in an ecological setting, right?
	And also, like in an ecological setting where you're examining a complexity, which is the complete ecology that you're dealing with, not just the critter, but everything that allows that critter to exist and how that critter in impacts those things that allow it to exist, right?
	So it's very there's always other layers to complexity, so uh just with as with the grit, if you keep as long the the lar um large hadron collider at CERN uh is being supported by giant ultimate consciousness because giant ultimate consciousness doesn't give a crap, it's quite happy to allow them to find smaller and smaller and smaller particles, it just creates it ahead of them, right?
	And so, in our um uh examination here of complexity and building up an understanding of our complexity, we we come to this understanding that um we have to examine ourselves, examining the complexity,
	in the understanding that we are part of that complexity, cannot separate ourselves from that complexity, contribute to that complexity, and even the analysis of it forms part of the complexity.
	It's tricky shit, okay, but it's not complicated, and it in terms of the individual understandings of the complexity, uh, each layer is itself simple, and just for the examination purpose.
	And so, in our protocol, what we do is we come across, we grab that octopus by the tentacle, and we say, Ooh, look, it's a little sort of I don't know, let's call this slimy, okay?
	And so then we can make a note.
	Ooh, there's a slime component to this complexity.
	And so then we can come back later after we've uh, you know, uh, because we become attracted to the little sucker parts, right?
	We want to examine the little sucker parts for a while, and then we then we examine the beak of the octopus for a while, and then we say, Oh, oh, let's go back to this other aspect.
	And we've noted all of these various different axe aspects of the complexity as we go into it.
	And so in reductionism, you're going down in complexity analysis, you're going in and out.
	Okay, so there's you can examine it at an outer layer or an inner layer, right?
	And you're never going to Find an ultimate uh small uh primary stopping point.
	That's the goal of all the reductionists, they never ever ever find it.
	That's why they're a bunch of frustrated fuckers.
	Um, you know, and this is like why Eric Weinstein's understanding of physics is bogus, uh, is because he thinks physics is there as an as an after effect of grit coming together, when in fact, all of physics only exists to isolate consciousness from itself, so that uh it could see if novelty can be produced.
	Now, here's another effect, another side effect of that, right?
	In our practical world, this is not uh uh our materium and this isolation that is being provided uh to all of the meat sacks is not total, complete, and absolute.
	All right, we have all right.
	So, if you were thinking about this, and you just imagine ultimate consciousness, and then like a cookie cutter, and you go and you cut off all of these little little little round bits, okay.
	And those little round bits are all of us guys, the consciousness in our meat suits.
	When you do this, you're not actually physically separating, physics doesn't exist, physical matter doesn't exist at that level, so you are in no way actually um altering consciousness.
	This is simply a perception, and given this perception, you can see how such things as uh psychicness might arise, because really uh all of ultimate consciousness is trying to create isolation between us, but of course, we are all of it, and therefore, even you know the fact that it's not absolute tells me a whole lot, but I don't want to go down there right it now.
	But let's just say that that basically psychic effects are um a natural uh occurring high-level thing within this model because we are all constant consciousness,
	and the psychic effect is just us reaching uh uh our consciousness reaching um into itself to talk, so to speak, to itself in another layer, um as you go along, and the and it's it's not physically separated, the or it is physically separated, but it does not that does not separate us at the consciousness level, does not separate us at the what we'll call the psychic level.
	The psychic level is an understanding of our individual consciousnesses in our little meat suits, but we're fact in fact really just consciousness uh being diluted into thinking that we're into these meat suits, so it's rather natural that at that level that one would expect a spillover effect, so to speak, and that spillover effect is what we term as psychic ability.
	Same thing is true of uh pressions, okay, of the ability to see uh ahead or back.
	This is why I'm very blown away by Dick Algyre, okay, because the guy is his little meat meat sack is really tuned with his consciousness, and this guy can look forward and back into the larger mass of consciousness and come back with details.
	Really cool dudes.
	So, anyway, but you can also see that you know, a psychicness is no big deal, it's a natural uh part of our uh being conscious and being consciousness and being shoved into the material.
	What we call uh psychicness is in fact the bleed over uh around our isolation of thought of impression, right?
	So we're just picking up waves of greater consciousness, and uh their impacts or uh emergence from some other isolated bit of consciousness, and and there is a great complexity to the materium, but it is not very complicated.
	Uh, at least from an ontological model perspective.
	And the grit approach is ultimate complications and and very few complexities, and whenever they run into a complexity, they try and reduce it down to a complication and then ultimately down into simplicity.
	And it doesn't work very well because you only get so far, and then you're you're hamstrung because you don't understand Really, the transference mechanism at the very what you think of is the very lower levels uh uh of energy from uh from one aspect of matter to another aspect of matter and how that affects consciousness itself.
	This is because you think that that energy is separate from the consciousness and that the matter is separate from the consciousness.
	If you deal with it as a complexity, you can't do reductionism, and so we don't have science as we have now.
	Um, and so this is like um uh okay, so I like um Brett Weinstein.
	I really uh I'm very um favorably disposed towards his mind and his um uh personality in many regards, the personality being the the uh way in which he operates his mind, okay.
	Now he's got a brother, Eric Weinstein.
	Um not so much I don't favor that guy so much.
	I think he's a stupid goof, okay.
	Uh you know, and he's he's a stupid goof because he's a gritologist.
	He's a very good gritologist, but but he's also very unsuccessful as a gritologist.
	So he thinks he's he's unified uh Einstein's geometry, which is fine, but Einstein was full of shit and and had nothing, and uh was dealing with complications uh when in fact it is a complexity, and so all of his complications will get you so far, and then you're stuck, and that's where we are now.
	That's why our science has been stuck for a hundred and some odd years, is because we got into this Einsteinian mess, uh, and letting well it's actually the ultimate uh gritology uh expression.
	Gritology comes into existence in the 1600s with the liberal uh education mindset, okay.
	Uh I won't go into any of the details there, but going getting back to Eric Weinstein, this is this guy is uh an elitist prick, okay.
	He's got a bad attitude, he he's blocked me on Twitter from way the fuck back when I must have said something that offended him.
	Uh and I once heard that he says that he's got like a mental condition that so he he doesn't like contention, right?
	It's like, well, dude, no one likes contention, you dumbfuck.
	So, you know, we all have that mental condition, and he's just I personally I think he's a coward.
	I think he's an intellectual coward, and uh, you know, he only gets up there, and like that poor guy, um Terence Howard, I've only seen a few of those clips, gets the absolute shit beat out of him by uh Weinstein, and you know, uh, and Weinstein is wrong on so many of these different things.
	I I've got to get some time and watch the whole four fucking hours to see if they get into the Keeley um deliberate deception stuff.
	You know, I'd like to talk to Terence Howard, he's not stupid at all, he just needs to have a few things pointed out to him, and then he can get around a few of these uh obstacles that he's run into because of the same fucking obstacles we all run into, and he too is looking towards uh he's trying to find an ontological model from which to uh examine our reality.
	So, anyway, so Eric Weinstein, he's a deep, deep, deep, deep gratologist.
	The deep, deep, deep gratologists you'll find are the uh theoretical physicists and the mathematicians, and they're real mostly they're really fucked arts because they're gratologists and they think that grit can glom together and that they're close and that they'll understand it and so on.
	It doesn't work that way.
	Anyway, so in doing our isolation, okay.
	So, in doing our ontological examination, we discover that isolation is a key.
	Okay, well, this is cool.
	Um, and you can obviously in the materium itself is designed to provide isolation for consciousness.
	Now, uh it's also obvious, or if you think about it, how could you easily do um or what would be one of the best ways to uh separate consciousness, right?
	And and this is an idea that a lot of people, you know, it'll just go over their heads, I think, because they don't really understand how how fundamental it all is, but you can easily, and we find this in the materium itself, we you can easily separate things with space and time, okay.
	So those two aspects of of the creation of the materium are designed only for Separation, and they prove that the ontological model, their existence proves the way that they are, that they were created, and so on, proves that the ontological model is much more valid than the grit the gritology.
	Um, time can isolate consciousness as space can isolate it.
	If we're separated by a thousand miles, we're physically separated.
	Physics comes in, matter comes in.
	But time is also an aspect of matter, okay.
	And it has, as Cozy Rev had um uh examined it.
	Uh so Cozy Rev, all scientists, even if they're really fucking brilliant, they've all come up through this in the last 150 years, they've all come up through this um Einsteinian uh uh mind fuck, okay, by going to schools.
	And so um Cozy Rev and all these people were astrophysicists, they had ultimate fucking degrees and so on.
	So they were as mind controlled as anybody else.
	Their premises were wrong.
	What they discovered and so on, uh uh was basically it as an aspect of them busting out as an aspect of them breaking out of the mind control that had been put on them uh by the schooling.
	So it's not education, it's schooling.
	You're schooled like a fish, you're told where to swim, you know, what area to go to.
	Um, so um cozy Rev discovers all these as active aspects of time and sees time, and even then sees time as a separate uh part that can be reduced in its examination uh of this complication that is the materium.
	Only it's not a uh complication, it's a complexity, and so he missed so much about time that he would have been able to see had he had the ontological model uh from which to um uh propel his thoughts, and uh you know, so I don't give anybody shit in the past for what they've discovered.
	Uh so Buckminster Fuller was a great thinker, and he busted out of the paradigm in many, many, many regards.
	Uh Cozy Rev did, so on and so on.
	And these luminaries, uh Walter Russell and all these kind of things, I actually think Terrence Howard will become one of these guys, right?
	That over his lifetime, and he's like only in his 50s, so he's probably got at least another 10 or 20 or 30 years of thinking about shit.
	I don't know what his health is like, but anyway, um, so I think he'll become one of these people.
	He's a very smart guy.
	Um Eric Weinstein, he's not so smart.
	Okay, maybe he could have been smart had he not been schooled.
	Uh but he's he's trapped in the uh milieu that he has uh built around himself from uh his choices.
	Okay, so so he's a gritologist, and he won't uh uh easily acknowledge the ontological uh approach to things because it invalidates everything he's ever done and and basically puts him at uh right back at the beginning.
	Personally, okay, so let me just inject a little bit of stuff there.
	I'm a Zen meditator, right?
	And if you go into Zen, you don't have to go very far before you discover something.
	Zen mind is beginner's mind.
	So here I am at 70, approaching 71, and uh I love being a beginner, I love it, I love it.
	I cannot find anything better than to I so I'm like consciousness, I love novelty, right?
	And there's nothing more novel than trying to uh begin something in order to achieve it or master it or or so on, right?
	Uh so in that regard, you know, I'm harmonizing with ultimate consciousness in its hunt for uh novelty.
	And here, this is the point that I'm gonna wrap it up because I gotta make a couple of turns and go and deal with some people here.
	Um but uh here's the point of this, right?
	That if you were to understand that you are part of the complexity, right?
	And that whatever you do in the complexity promotes the complexity, participates in it, enhances it, enlarges it, makes it more complex, and so on.
	If you understand that, then you can say to yourself, hmm, you know, There's like uh waves and forces in this complexity, and some of them aren't so good.
	So if I go and like walk into a volcano, it hurts my feet, right?
	And I don't want to do that.
	So I won't do that.
	So I will harmonize with the complexity by not walking in fire.
	Okay, and so the idea is oh look, my feet don't hurt because I didn't walk in fire.
	So this was a successful harmonization.
	This is a trivial kind of an example, but you get the point.
	That you can in fact put your energy, your little subset of energy that you as individualized consciousness in a meat suit have, and you can use that to harmonize with the larger waves to resonate with the larger waves that roll through the materium through consciousness, because the materium is an illusion.
	Um you can harmonize with these waves of energy that are going through the consciousness, and you will be rewarded by that because your efforts will be magnified by the resonance by the the um the pumping out of the uh uh additional energy into uh the direction that you want to go down here in the materium because you're harmonizing with a larger wave that is external to the material, right?
	So the larger waves and consciousness don't exist in the material, yet you can harmonize with these larger waves, and you get benefit from them.
	Uh, I can provide you with all kinds of trivial examples.
	I've got to stop here real quick, so I'm not gonna bother.
	But you see, here in our in our ontological uh complexity um examination, right?
	Because we're not doing a reduction, we're we want to understand this, and if we reduce, then we're eliminating things that we need in our understanding.
	So um, anyway, so you can see that this is the way that uh uh this would be a decent approach uh to the understanding of a great complex thing in in terms of taking it not as a reductionist aspect, but taking it in in its particulars, understanding each one to a certain extent, finding all of the uh various different other aspects of it, and then uh you know, going on to the next one and putting them all together, right?
	Anyway, so uh gotta go, guys.
	Oh, this early in the morning, they're not a lot of fighting for the parking spots.
	This is cool.
	Okay, I gotta get back, I gotta meet people.
	We got deliveries today.
	So this is rush rush rush.
	Okay, I'll do another one of these on the way back, I think.

▲