Genuine Conversation and the Intellectual Dark Web, Jordan Greenhall
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ต.ค. 2018
- The phenomenon of the Intellectual Dark Web has shown how desperate people are for genuine conversation. What does genuine conversation look like and how can we enter into a space of creative flow where the right answers emerge? Jordan Greenhall has spent many years thinking about this 'meta-conversation', and how, in these polarised and partisan times, it may just save the world.
He wrote the celebrated and viral 'Deep Code, Situational Assessment' post in the aftermath of the Trump election in 2017: medium.com/deep-code/situatio...
The first part of this interview, 'The Paradox of the Times' is here: • The Paradox of the Tim...
Rebel Wisdom is a new media platform asking the biggest questions: www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/
To discuss the ideas in our films, join our Discord: / discord
To see more great films, and to help us make more, please consider becoming a Patron: / rebelwisdom
[Part 2 of 2]
What practices build sovereignty?
1. The body is the basis of sovereignty. A 2 year old is not sovereign. You need to learn to parent yourself in the area of your body.
It's amazing how many people don't eat properly. It's a core metabolic necessity to eat properly to think. Stay hydrated. Get the right amount of sleep.
Learn to recognise when you son't have these things, and go sort yourself out.
2. Be aware of your own trauma. Be aware of your own defence mechanisms to that trauma. To the degree that you can work through this, the better you will be at good conversation.
Do work on your trauma beforehand - to either eliminate the trauma, or at least make yourself aware of it in the moment it crops up. Build techniques that you can deploy when you realise your trauma is coming up.
Recognise the fight or flight type responses.
You can train yourself to respond better, if you're seeking to.
A martial artist can train themselves to get up after being hit - as an auto response.
When you train yourself to really seek to notice when you're out of sovereignty/your trauma comes up, you can then do something about it.
Teach yourself to SEEK the state of happiness that you get when you realise your trauma is coming up. Seek this situation - rather than trying to avoid such a situation. You obviously don't seek to be hurt. But you can seek to get into experiences where you are triggered because of past trauma, and only then can get better and better at RECOGNISING that you've been triggered and dealing with it. The trauma isn't current. So by joyfully seeking [rather than avoiding] triggering trauma, the quicker you can train yourself to get over it.
3. At the psychological level, stop acting like a computer. Try to recognise when you're running as a COMPUTER does (in a learned-response way). Once you notice this, you can stop doing it and break the automatic learned programming.
These three are examples of "NOT THINKING":
Don't go into a situation thinking you know the answer.
Don't go in thinking you understand somebody else.
Don't seek to use communication to achieve power or domination over-someone else (i.e. wilful misinterpretation, or self righteousness).
THINKING looks like:
curiosity.
humility.
slowing down.
having a habit of responding to confusion with slowing down and being more careful [as opposed to speeding up and trying to skip over it.]
4. At the cognitive level, be aware of the concept of mapping. Everything is mapped to something else in your brain. The concept of "dog" links to your original fuzzy meshed concepts of "this thing drooling thing over me" and "I'm on the coach". As you get older, you map the thing more concisely, and your other old mappings get weaker.
Be aware however, that this still affects communication as adults. Different adults map concepts differently. And so you need to spell out your own mapping, saying what you believe the other person was talking about - to ensure that you've not got a mapping error.
Meditation is the act of "becoming exquisitely aware of awareness".
Meditation helps you to understand how show up as self.
One of the concepts of meditation is how to separate mind from self.
For example, it helps you to separate "computer type thinking" from your deeper thinking.
Meditation allows you to come into better clarity of self.
Meditation also helps you to come into ACCEPTANCE. That's to be available to, and open to, what is ACTUALLY conveying. As opposed to what many people do - endeavouring to CAUSE reality to what you want it to be.
Meditation helps with the notion of "integration". It helps you become better aware of the different aspects of mind, and self, and body, and hear how they're showing up in you - and what they're trying to say. To become compassionate and loving to everything that comes up in you.
To not be a tyrant to yourself. Don't try to avoid something coming up, and try to repress it.
Repressing your thoughts will create havoc, and will come to bite you on the arse at some point.
Repressing thoughts will also make you hugely vulnerable to a wide variety of blind spots in the sovereignty space.
-
"Self acceptance" - can be better viewed as "honouring" all the things that show up in your thoughts.
Ensure you're honouring ALL those thoughts that you've been trying to repress and not think about.
If you honour them, recognise them being there, and just sit there with them - then you're allowing your thoughts to be. You can appreciate they're there. You'll eventually come into self acceptance.
In meditation - you get to allow things to "show up" without judgement. Your "computer mind" often automatically judges things, and labels them as bad.
Meditation allows thoughts to be revealed as the essence of what they are. Thoughts.
Meditation allows you grow to understand when your "computer brain" is auto programmed to think in a particular way. It helps you to break that programming.
The starting point to doing that, is to just honour the thoughts you're having. Honour the fact the thoughts [and thoughts on those thoughts] are there.
Not one mention of turning to a higher power. Like telling a doctor to operate on themselves to get the best result. Meditation isn't enough. The idea that spiritually, mysticism and religion are not connected is not rooted in reality.
Jordan's channel is the most wonderful thing ever. Every video is unique, and I've never felt such a strong need to pay close attention and listen carefully.
Each video has got barely a thousand views or so. I felt like I had stumbled upon a treasure chest.
You have :). More people should know it. The world deserves it..
I agree 100%. I've created my own (public) playlist of just his Deep Code videos which I return to regularly. He's made several appearances on Emerge podcast too, which are also great.
Awesome! I'll check those out
Why do you have 4 subscribers when your channel has zero content?
The volume makes the pattern more clear. And the media is
saturated.
3 minute in, and already absolute truth bombs dropping. ''I think there is something in the ambient environment that feels honesty as a bad thing in and of itself. Almost a complicity to always be soever slightly ironic.'' Def. going to follow Jordan Greenhall.
I know right? He's got hours of content on his little known youtube channel.
This is a conversation I will need to listen to at least several times. Thank you, so much. You are discussing something that has been intangible to me. Thank you!
A simple explanation of Harris vs Peterson's truth. Harris is trying to infer the road rules by studying the car, Peterson is inferring the road rules by studying people's driving behaviour... I know which one I think is most likely to succeed.
I think that isn't an accurate explanation.
You make it seem that Harris' truth (scientific truth), cannot address the roads and people's driving behavior.
Ironically we can only effectively study people's driving behavior irl with emperical testing.
I would say that practical truths most often have ingrained scientific truth inside it but is especially adapted to be understood emotionally by most humans without them being experts on the subject (see "practical").
And for the sake of being practical, Practical truth do not always need to be literally true, and can therefore use metaphors much mire easily (saving your father from the belly of the beast).
Scientific truth is much colder and not as relatable to many and is therefore harder to fit into a basic conversation.
Knowing the scientific truth, on average, will make people live better lives since it reflects reality, but does often carry tmi compared to practical truth.
Now on a societal level, practical truths have been the dominant force for the longest time of our evolutionary existence, so there is a clear advantage to that, but the problem is that since it has emotional attachment to it it can be more easily corrupted.
Social justice advocates, communist and religious zealot both run on their version of practical truth and there is no peer review on practical truths, so ironically Jordan Peterson has to use scientific truth to dismantle these stories.
Data produced by scientists is what Jordan cites when he dismantles the narrative of feminist.
I do think there are places for both kinds of truth, and I think that trying to throw one out of the window is only going to produce catastrophy.
Outstanding gents, can't believe there aren't a million hits on this! I'll share in my community now...thanks to you both
The sooner Greenhall gets fully integrated into the IDW group, the better.
Most of the IDW seems focused on debating "culture" whereas Greenhall has a more philosophical, deep-thinking and out-of-the-conventional-box perspective on things. Therefore I think he wouldn't fit into their general discursive frame. It's a shame, in a way. He is more complex in his thinking than most of them - and as a result more interesting, I'd say.
Morten Overgaard I think the differences between the styles of thinking is precisely why they need him. You’re right, a lot of the current IDW discourse deals with topical cultural concerns. I think Greenhall could really help to “level up” their discussions, so to speak.
I fully agree. However most social circles tend to be made up of people who think and reason in the same overarching way. As a result I think most of them would just be puzzled at how the mind of Greenhall works. David Fuller is probably one of the only ones in the IDW who has more openness on that front because he has a spiritual side to him.. Still though, would be nice to see mr. Greenhall there - on the Rubin Report and so on. But doubt that it will happen..
My dream podcast would be Eric, Bret, and Jordan Hall.
Jordan seems to like all the members: He's shown appreciation for Peterson's work, is friends with Bret, likes Rubin and Rogan (specifically, and generally as a part of decentralized media)
Bret Weinstein's got some amazing content on his channel. I'd love to see Jordan and Bret discuss the 'fourth frontier'.
I've gotta thank David Fuller for bringing him to my attention. The last week has been a total joy, listening to his channel.
Bret and Jordan in a 'roundtable' discussion from 2013;
th-cam.com/video/rmJA8EPySNs/w-d-xo.html
Loved listen to Jordan, particular watching him look upwards, seeing the threads of ideas to pull through. He is correct about Sovereignty , and in holding space for ones self, and even at times for another. Observing one's own reactions, being aware of our physical responses, ( which may even be in response and received from the other person conversing with- ie not even our own ) and yet not responding emotionally. That gives us a different way of navigating through ideas. The best conversations, happen with open hearts, in that their is acceptance of each other, being in allowance for the flow of ideas that come from each other and outside of us. In some ways we make a channel, because we find that something new is created Between people,, in the middle. Creation, the act of pulling through the ideas to weave into something new. Yes that kind of conversation is definitely a feast :-) x Wonderful podcast
I really enjoy this channel and the way it's willing to take risks in extremis. To get to truth you have to take ideas and feelings out to the edges and talk about them with this sometimes clumsy yet powerful tool of language that we have and these videos really go there.
It warms my hearth to see more and more people find the recipe for anarchism.
I see you.
This is THE best channel on TH-cam.
Thank you for talking about and showing a dialogue as a collaborative we-space where we put 'the question' in the middle, creating a joint focus of a we-'circle' or we-'field' with not only 1 speaker only talking to listeners only.....
Trying to do and practice that in the pocketproject.org with finding joint ways of collective trauma integration.
Great guest, interesting as always, thank you
Splendid Conversation
You guys are really getting into the MIND. Good for you. The mind CREATES. Next, you should venture into the arenas of FEELINGS. Emotions are the power necessary for the FULL equation
Some new and helpful insights and articulations of our contemporary experience.
Rebel Wisdom is the resource for resetting how we look at the world and enter into a dialogue with the "deplorables". JG sets the bar for how we prepare ourselves for this critical next step in reconciling the extreme polarization that infects our society. Kudos to RW for presenting sane ways to address the chaos that is at our doorstep.
Yes!!
We need Jordan in the mainstream.
Plus clarity of focus. Concentration...
7:50 Bertrand Russel wrote an interesting/important essay on that... ways of thinking, Self assertion vs. enlightened
Greenhall had indeed taken the glorious pill
[Part 1 of 2]
I thought this conversation was really useful to listen to, and I touch typed my own notes as I listened to the conversation.... [I personally learn and remember best, when I'm making notes.] So in case my synopsis of the video is of interest to others, I post what I wrote here. [Note: This is my view of what was important, and In several places, I've intertwined my own views and understanding, to that presented in the video.]
The vid discusses How to have "Genuine Conversation"
Genuine conversation is said to be when people listen to the other, rather than being keen to jump in and say their prefabricated comments...
To speak honestly requires courage..
It allows collaboration on questions..
One should try not be the authority on a subject, but always seek to explore a subject.
"Simulated thinking" is like the computer brain,, which acts from rote. When in a poor state - you don't relate to the world as it actually is, but you continually try to reframe reality to the thought you already had.
When hearing someone else speak, always seek to understand the essence of the message - this is much more important than the words said themselves. It doesn't matter when people can't remember exact quotes, or who said what. For the message underneath what's being said is the important thing. To express oneself in the best way, it doesn't matter if you use the best language. One might describe using similar sounds, or references to shapes. It doesn't matter if you don't have a clean way of expressing your thought. It's suggested that interesting thoughts are mostly likely to be new thoughts - and in that case, it is more likely that you won't have a clean way of expressing it. A few words said, will make that concept just a little more real and shareable.
The idea of "inquiry" is to acknowledge that you don't know the answer. Inquiry is about entering a space when you're listening to yourself as you're speaking, just as much as you're listening to another person. It's a form of meditation where you need to feel into what wants to emerge. You need to learn the sensitivity to yourself.
Jordan Peterson says pay attention to how your own words make you feel. Do they make you feel stronger or weaker? You need to listen to yourself as you enter into this space.
There are very different meanings of the concept of "true". You can true an instrument. Ones aims can be true. And a statement can be true.
There's a distinction between a thought or model, and a truth which is lived and experienced.
A thought or model is true - to the degree to which it corresponds to reality.
A lived truth - is a very different thing. This is personal and practical.
[Arguments may stem from you arguing on different types of "truth". Each person may arguing on a different type of truth. Be aware of this if you're arguing.]
Jordan Peterson says that scientific truth is a subset of the "truth". Whereas the truth is a thriving practical thing.
However, whilst Jordan Greenhill agrees that "lived truth" is different to scientific truth - he sees it as distinct, and doesn't it as a subset.
To form a collective intelligence, Jordan Greenhill believes there are two basic moves needed:
1. Escape the matrix. Free your mind from the legacy environment. Get out of the "blue church".
2. Become "sovereign". Find others that are sovereign, and gather with people who are also seeking the truth. If it's truly seeking truth, it has a huge level of wisdom. More wisdom will emerge.
We can unlearn biases, and habits - but we won't get far.
[Evolution got us to 150 people in a coherent tribe. It's called the Dunbar limit of a tribe!]
A precursor in future civilisation Greenhill says will require at the basis "sovereignty".
---
In the concept of sovereignty [control of self], you need to take responsibility for steps in your own thought process:
1. Be able to slow down and say why something is off in a discussion. Realise you might misunderstand what the other person is talking about.
What one person means by a sound / word is often different to what others may mean by it. So CHECK your vocabulary when you sense a possibility of difference.
2. You need to be balanced / centred in yourself, in many areas.
[When you are sober, you are capable of standing. But if you carry on drinking, eventually you will lose your sovereignty in standing.]
You can be sovereign in one domain, but not sovereign in others. Seek a GENERAL SOVEREIGNTY in your life. To be sovereign in all key areas.
You need an ability to LISTEN, DISCERN, and then EXPRESS.
It's important to be sovereign in the area of self-awareness.
When you realise you're getting angry, you need to be aware of that - to be sure to bring yourself back to balance - and ensure you're providing a suitable response.
If you have capacity to receive messages clearly from the world, and you're GENERALLY SOVEREIGN, you can then respond with your own best personal choice.
This allows you to function well in a better future civilisation.
You can break sovereignty by doing things like:
* overloading yourself (i.e. reading Facebook for 10 hours means you're probably overloading yourself with dopamine!).
* not eating. Everyone needs food.
Build practices which help you collaborate with others.
Meaningful conversation with others, where you collaborate well, can only happen when you're sovereign.
You need to be present to what's happening around you - without being moved out of your own balance.
In all collaborations with others, you must be able to understand and hold good conversation.
You need to be able to hear something that you disagree with, and not flip our [That is something he says the blue church" snowflakes often do.]
A well functioning, coherent, group will be able to call out acts of others in conversations - when they realise the ones speaking are out of sovereignty.
For a group to achieve coherence, ALL it's members should learn to be able to recognise in themselves, and be able to freely point out when another person is coming out of sovereignty.
Each person needs to recognise when others are saying this to them, and then regulate and bring themselves back in to sovereignty.
Thank you for the notes - greatly appreciated
Mr Greenhall can often get a little bit incomprehensible.
Its not him (quite the contrsdry imo)...its the complexity of the subject matter
Yes! 40:15 First time I've heard an "intellectual" stating that the dichotomy between Collectivism and Individualism is FALSE. In fact, I see this as the top priority, when it comes to fighting the psyops that keep the public from uniting on agreed solutions. Thank you! +1
"Individuation" in its deep usage here originally comes from Carl Jung, and a synonym of what Jung meant is "flowering". In psychological terms, the process of full individuation entails a death-rebirth experience where the ego contacts and reorganizes around its deeper center - the archetype of the Self, or integral totality of the psyche. In spiritual or religious terms, this would be described as "awakening to your divine mission", where omni-aware insight flows from the Self through the container of the ego to act in the world in a purposeful way.
It's only the surface layers of "individuation" where it means to become a distinct individual.
Those words "sovereign" and "integrate" come together in this... Whatever it is. I've been wrestling with these "angels" (my Self) for years
Oh, you DO. Watching and listening MORE... My bad
"When two or more are gathered together in my name...I'll be There..." Think about the connections here: New Testament, Hegel, Whitman, Steinbeck, Buber, etc...Creative Evolution, Absolute Spirit - Mind, The Holy Ghost (Heilege Giest) Tanks Guys!
What do you mean with creative evolution?
@@Chronically_ChiII Creative Evolution was a book by French philosopher, Henri Bergson. I first heard of it reading Tropic of Capricorn...or maybe it was The Rosey Crucifixion by Henry Miller. Miller turned me on to Whitman, Dante, Dosteovsky...to name only a few. He was the first to make me realize the intimate connection between the Christian notion of the Holy Ghost and all creativity. To me, people like Shakespeare, Whitman and a Rumi
are every bit divinely inspired as the Jahwist or St. Paul say. Anyway, Bergson was a big influence on a lot of big thinkers, and Creative Evolution is his great- statement work.
@@thomassimmons1950 I do think we can form a lot of connection with well-made art with something greater, I do not think that those connection have to be true even if we feel like they should be.
It reminds me of how conspiracy theorists work with the same pattern-finding abilities that we all have but cranked to max without combating their underlying proposition.
@@Chronically_ChiII Then don't ask!
@@thomassimmons1950 Why not? I was curious.
Cool guy
Listening while I work, then suddenly look up and see AKIRA THE DON!!!
so what is the IDW view on Roland Chrisjohn?
The baffle-garb is strong with this one
23:00. They're entering Rupert Sheldrake territory here
39:27
Learn to recognize when you've been knocked out of Sovereignty and go towards that with your awareness instead of away.
That's what people are doing when they say they are "triggered".
Calling them "snowflakes" is not making the situation better.
Please give the phenomenon some recognition and become curious about it.
🤐
21:20 Jordan mentions the need 2 scale coherence. In the Peterson Harris framework would Jordan say that Peterson's notion of Truth is more scaleable? it seems to me to be the opposite.any notion of truth that is too metaphorical is by definition not as scalable? Just thinking out loud
Seems like Jordan is an introverted feeler in MBPI. He also appears to be a type of master of wisdom.
wisdom is as wisdom does
I wonder if Jordan noticed his energy change when he invoked the word sovereign? Anyone else notice?
Yes do you think he became more sovereign while talking about sovereignty?
@30:45
"Failing to eat for 10 hrs"
Not, fasting for ~16 hrs is a legitimate form of self-care. Baring individual variability, you won't harmed.
When he close is eyes it remind a medium channeling , he aim rational prophecy
I was initially impressed by Greenhall, but then I felt, on closer inspection, he was too aware of his ego to talk honestly and easily. I will have to try to listen to more, if I can handle it.
Can we have an official list of people on the IDW?
I know JBP, Joe Rogan, Sargon, Rubin, and Shapiro.
Who else should I subscribe to?
Stefan Molyneux, Sam Harris, Michael Malice, Owen Benjamin, Thaddeus Russel, Jesse Lee Peterson, Rollo Tomassi, Weinstein Brothers, Tom Woods, the list goes on...
A Normal Lobster Paul vanderklay, node in a network
c3bhm I agree that Molyneux has contributed a lot but there’s something in the way he goes about it that rubs me up the wrong way. I’ve seen him get very preachy and accusatory with some people he’s interviewed and for me that comes across a bit too arrogant for my liking.
@@tracik1277 I thought the same thing about Stefan. I realized after a while that those critiques are not critiques at all--just negative emotional assumptions. Shooting the messenger and not accepting the message. It does not matter if I don't like his delivery if he has the better argument.
Maccelerate, it's just a feeling. I listen to him sometimes, as you say to hear his argument, I just don't often find it a pleasant experience. So not meant to be a critique or judgement, just a personal reaction like not liking green bananas.
Lost the will to keep listening at 26.00 ... sound and fury signifying what I'm not quite sure. Reminded me of rambling drunks and Bob Dylan interiews.
Jonathan - it actually signifies a lot but this guy has a major need to establish his intellectual bona fides and so all the sound and fury. this is not just a guy talking the way the guy talks.
makes me furious!
15:45 I'm noticing Jordans use of the word Thrive there it seems a bit superficial in reference to Peterson's notion of Truth a type of truth that leads to thriving in my opinion obviously theyre situations where thriving for an individual might not be the thriving of the world ecosystem Etc I just feel like Jordan's equivocating there a bit
Guys, “Two or more in my name” is from Jesus. Jesus was recorded in scripture as the Logos, and when people to worship, yes worship his as creator/ God , gather to seek him, truth, He is there. What you experience humanly is but a taste of his presence.
Pseud's corner?
Jordan Hall*
He's so much more insightful than Jordan Redhall. But still not as insightful as Jordan Yellowhall.
7:46 Ever heard of the General Purpose Machine or Turing-completeness? Information theory + encoding, anyone?
8:26 and 8:55 Oh my...
10:04 No, you're bad at expressing, so how are you ever going to express the "something that is here"? That means you have no tools/means to externalize the internal.
14:39 Who cares about their disagreement? In fact, it's trivial to synthesize those, so why bother? They'll figure it out eventually, or not. The world will not go down if they don't.
16:45 I mean, who doesn't know (except believers in the atheism religion) that science has many pre-assumptions and is somewhat limited as an instrument/tool, even less so to serve as a world view?
17:06 Just because Darwin said something doesn't make it any more true.
23:53 Yeaah...but you go with the standard definition of the dictionary, and then evolve if something more specific was meant and explore contexts, otherwise talking/conversation would become a horrible semantics game. Also, misinterpretation can sometimes be of some value. Language lives and isn't a formalism like mathematical notation. Nobody estalbishes the general or specific meaning of the word "and" explicitly for every single conversation.
30:52 Yes, that's what religion is all about. Totally.
32:48 So if it is this complex and specific, how great are the chances that anyone in the field can find another collaborator who shares a somewhat aligned opinion to "deeply collaborate"? If it is all fluid and fast, it can't be very deep in terms of discussing the potential meanings of "sovereignty" or the word "and".
Terence McKenna is the brightest diamond in the intellectual dark web. Next come Joe Rogan Jordan Peterson and Lex fridman.
Do you realize that you are trying to figure out the old meaning of Academia? Socrates, Plato... They already solved this problem, as far as it is possible. Academia has betrayed itself... again. Nothing new under the Sun.
This notion that harris's truth isnt practical seems wrong
Or isnt as practical as petersons
Not clear to me how ur grounding that claim
i endured through 50 min of ... word salad. I can probably extract more meaning from a white noise generator.
No dislike though, it is what it is.
You are wrong that it is meaningless. This is actually (r)evolutionary for the plebeian masses (see the many comments). The vast majority are actually below this level of cognitive integrity and courage. He is talking about how to commune with another sentient entity. He is talking at a sophomoric level, which is just above the low integrity, fearful masses. That makes him less frightening to them. He is obviously flawed so they can relate. In that way, he may be better suited to getting then to start actually practicing integrity and sentience. Like he says "what if I am not that good at expressing myself...we will have to work together [listening]..." Because the plebeian can relate to him they are willing to work with him and listen.
Know what I mean?
i know what you mean. A very simple message lost in a 50 min disjointed rambling : be aware of yourself and others. Integrate your rationality with your spirituality. Job done. Total time - 30s.
It’s more fun when Greenhall says it ;)
Abstract, discursive, and jargon-heavy, but absolutely not "word salad".
@@michealcherrington6531 Your post reminds me of an Argentinian joke: how does an Argentinian commit suicide? He climbs on his ego and then jumps. Are you aware of how big that thing comes across in your post?
I like Peterson, Rogan, Brett Weinstein. Some of the others give me the creeps....Jordan Greenhall has a very unusual conversational style that he is modelling - highly improvisatory.
Interesting that someone below (Farodaktyl) described this discussion as a word salad. Apparently in his opinion the essential truth of it boiled down could be condensed into 30 seconds. It feels incredibly dismissive not only of the speaker but also those plebeian masses which I assume are myself and those who listen to the whole discussion. This is the kind of personality that will not advance meaningful dialogue and help our involvement as a species in truly addressing and solving our collective problems. If he can dismiss this discussion so casually with an overused metaphor like "word salad" I wonder what he can claim to have done for humanity. I would certainly not waste my time entertaining a conversation with an arrogant blatherer such as him.
Norman- I agree that there is a tremendous lack of patience when ideas that require deep explanation are presented to the plebes. that is why we are easy to defeat and deserve our fate.
however, in this case the ideas are so important and the intellectual fluff so great that what is truly evolutionary in the discussion is lost.
the problem in general is with us as you suggest. but the problem that is specifically here in this discussion I believe is with the priorities of presenter.