#891 - John Vervaeke - The Psychology Of Finding Meaning In Life

Given that we are biological creatures, why do we need meaning? Why do humans need to do all this extra work in order to be satisfied with life? Well, I have to tell you that I've been going through a, since the publication of the book, I've been going through a serious reflection on this question again, and going deeper into it. There's many levels of answering that question.
At one level, meaning has to do with sense-making. It has to do with how we properly pay attention to the right kind of information that can allow us to reliably solve a wide variety of problems in a wide variety of domains.
And that's one aspect of meaning, that sort of agentic aspect. But consonant with that is we need to be connected to other people because most of our problem solving is done in connection with other people.
So there's an initial sense-making dimension. This is often talked about as sort of coherence in the meaning in life literature.
It's as your world, sort of, is your sense-making making sense to you, is how I sometimes put it. Like, the sense-making is what you're doing sort of automatically, and when you reflect on it, you go, yeah, that makes sense.
My world isn't absurd or things like that. And then we need to feel connected to other people because most of our problem- is done via other people.
That's our great superpower individually, biologically, as you framed it. We're pretty pathetic animals.
A really angry dog can take us out. And so our superpower is we can coordinate together and train some of those dogs and sharpen some of those sticks and

then kill anything on the planet. And so we need to be connected to other people.
And that brings

with it its own special problem that my friend Greg Enriquez made sort of prevalent. We developed

the superpower of connecting and coordinating called language. And language is something really,

really powerful in helping us coordinate, but it also does something really novel. It makes

Thank you. and coordinating called language.
And language is something really, really powerful in helping us coordinate, but it also does something really novel. It makes the content of our minds accessible.
We're sort of exposed to each other in a way in which no other organism is exposed to its fellow creatures. And so we have to also develop this way of balancing between coordinating with other people, but not being overexposed.
So we have to develop relationships of trust and forgiveness and belonging, and we have to balance between being individuals and having an individual identity and a group identity. So that's all central to meaning.
And then beyond that, we fall prey in both of those domains to massive self-deception. I don't pay attention to the right things.
I misframe you. I'm biased in my attitude towards you.
And so we have to do a lot to correct that. We have to try and ameliorate that.
And what that means is we also have to be connected to standards by which we can correct ourselves, standards about what is most real, what is best, what is most beautiful. And that's a deeper kind of connectedness.
That's kind of a connectedness to what we consider ultimacy. So I've tried to show you how all of these things are all important dimensions in why we have to pursue meaning in life.
I've become increasingly dissatisfied with the standard psychological construct called meaning in life to measure and talk about all those dimensions in a coordinated fashion.

Can you talk to me about the sort of established body of work when it comes to meaning and how you diverge from that or what you would suggest as an improvement?

Yeah, so the standard metrics are around sort of four dimensions, really three.

One is coherence, which I mentioned, which is, does your sense-making make sense to you? Another one is purpose. That's not well posed, because if you think standardly of how people think of purpose, purpose is you're working towards some ultimate goal.
That's a very dangerous way of framing meaning, because if you never reach a goal, your life was meaningless. And if you reach it going forward, you're pretty meaningless.
And I discovered that way back in high school, and that sort of really bothered me. And so I think what they're talking about more is orientation.
And then orientation is a more important way. People have to feel not disoriented, but oriented in the world.
And then the next one they talk about is significance, that you have things in your life that aren't transitory, ephemeral, shallow. But that seems to be just sort of one side of this deeper thing, which is called mattering.
You need to feel connected to something. People typically use the metaphor bigger than yourself.
I want to be connected to something larger than myself, right? They don't mean that literally, because that would be ridiculous. Attaching you to a locomotive engine doesn't give you a profound sense of meaning in life so what's going on there is i would argue something like this there's a deep connection between the sense of bigger and more real and let me try to give you an everyday example of this when you're in a dream world you're in this little world and it seems so real to you and then you wake up notice we have all these waking up metaphors and enlightenment metaphors.
You wake up, and from that larger world, you can see how the earlier world, the smaller world, is limited in biasing you and warping and thwarting you in you trying to get a flourishing life. And I think that's what people are really struggling

with when they're talking about mattering, about being connected to something larger than themselves. And it's this sense of realness, which I don't think is properly captured just by the psychological notion of mattering.
And here's the fundamental thing. I mentioned that meaning has to do with being connected to something that's more real than yourself in some important ways because it helps make you feel more real to yourself.
now that's a problematic notion to think of as just purely i'm just describing something like a

like a standard psychological phenomenon. This is actually, if you'll allow me one technical term, this is a normative term.
Meaning is, a meaningful life is not, when I say your life is meaningful, I'm not just describing it, I'm praising it. I'm saying there's something fundamentally good to it.
It's meeting some standards of evaluation. But those standards of evaluation are completely absent from the standard psychological model.
That would be the crux. That's one of my two main criticisms.
And so in a very deep sense, the standard meaning in life psychological model is completely divorced from the cultivation of wisdom and virtue. And if you look across all the religion and philosophical traditions, that's not the case.
They're deeply wound together, bound together, right? The cultivation of meaning and the cultivation of virtue and the cultivation of wisdom are profoundly intertwined. Stoicism, in fact, said they're exactly identical, which tells you how strong some positions have been on this.
And the psychological model is missing all that. The second one is the psychological model, and this is ironic because it's talking a lot about connectedness, but it doesn't talk about the connectedness.
What I mean by that is it only talks about the individual agent's attitudes. It doesn't talk about how the world is showing up for them.
So let me give you an example of how this can go wrong. You can ask somebody, and you ask them the standard sort of questions on meaning in life.
And they have friends and they have family and they have work projects. So their life is pretty meaningful, above average.
But you ask them, do you think your world's very coherent? Do you think the world makes a lot of sense? Do you have a lot of trust in the world? Is the world presenting itself with a lot of beauty and depth to you

you'll get no you'll get people saying exactly the opposite and see and then if you ask people is your meaning in life actually bringing you a lot of peace is it really integrating you well as a person is it reciprocally opening you to reality is it no because people are experiencing a lot of burnout, a lot of

bullshit, and a lot of betrayal.

They're losing trust and faithfulness in their institutions and in fellow people, right? And so there's a famine of people being able to get into the flow state and able to have that basic trust and forgiveness with others, fellowship, and a sense of faithfulness is massively diminishing. I just saw a report that Americans' trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time historical low.
It has never been so low. And of course, that is only prescient, I think,

of what's happening all throughout the Western world.

And so the meaning in life construct

is leaving out all of this

that's really bedeviling people

in a very, very powerful way.

And so I think the meaning in life construct

gets a little bit about how our agency works

and contributes to meaning in life,

but it's leaving out a lot. Let me put it one last sentence and then I'll stop.
The issue isn't just about finding information relevant. It's about, can you enter into resonance? This is what Rosa calls this relationship that is so centrally lacking in most of our life.
Does your meaning in life allow you to reciprocally open? Does it take you into the depths of the psyche and align them? Does it take you into the depths of reality so you feel you're meeting standards that allow you to correct yourself according to what is true and good and beautiful? Is it doing any of that? That's resonance. And then resonance also needs to be transmuted into reverence.
Are you ultimately oriented to what you consider ultimately most real? Because that's the judge behind everything else that we're evaluating. So sorry, that was a long question.
Not at all, not at all. The realness point i think is very interesting i maybe it's a contemporary problem because of how much people are mediated by their screens maybe this is worsened by the fact that we're atomized and isolated into our little droid boxes and we spend a lot of our time on our own maybe it's because of a lack of connection to nature and or and dread or whatever it might be but But I would guess that a lot of people have this sense that their life is surreal and not surreal in the, I can't believe how amazing it is.
I'm so blessed. Everything's going right.
But I don't necessarily feel fully connected and grounded to the experiences that I have day to day. My mind and my feet don't

rest in the same location all that much. You could maybe call it presence.
But it's more than just presence. Presence is necessary but not sufficient.
It's the connection to it. It's being able to feel like I can reach out and grab it, like things are happening and the things that are happening uh uh they're important

and i have some sort of agency and they affect me and and that they're actually going on as opposed to kind of like everything being a sitcom and it all just sort of playing out in front of our eyes so i want to i want to really dig into sort of things becoming really real and and sort of where that comes from?

I think that's important.

I think that is the thing that's quintessentially missing from the psychological construct. That's the sort of ultimate norm within the normative dimension.
Because you can undermine any of this if, like, any of these relationships that are giving people meaning in life can be immediately undermined if there's a sense of betrayal or that that was an illusion or they were being deceived. Can you think of an example of that? So there's a standard one I use.
And I've done this multiple, multiple times and it's never failed to work. So it's not quite a scientific study, but it's pretty good.
So I asked my students, how many of you are in really deeply satisfying romantic relationships? Romantic relationships are the culture's current surrogate, or at least one of its surrogate, idolatrous surrogates for God, and culture, and virtue. You're supposed to find the, and they're supposed to do everything, and you're supposed to transcend yourself and find familiar fulfillment, which of course leads to the weird thing that people value romantic relationships sort of most of all right now, except maybe with their kids, yet romantic relationships are the source of most suffering and a lot of mental health disorders.
And so that tells you we're treating something, we're putting too much pressure on something. Okay, so let's take that.
We've got this thing. This is like our culture tells you this is where it is at.
This is where you find it. I ask them, okay, how many of you are in such really satisfying romantic relationships? They put up their hands.
They say, okay, now I'm only addressing the people who are in relationships. So the rest of you, sorry, you're not in this now.
But for those of you who put up your hands, how many of you would want to know if your partner was cheating on you, if that meant the absolute dissolution of the relationship? And almost all of them, like somewhere between 95 and 100% reliably put up their hands. And I say, well, why? Like you could continue to go on and enjoy the relationship and get all the pleasures out of it and all the companionship and all the sexual gratification.
Like what? Like why? And here's my students and they're at the university. So they're hard bitten with cynicism and postmodern nihilism and everything and all this sort of stuff.
And they, without a beat, say to me, well, because it wouldn't be real.

It wouldn't be real.

And then that removes all of the other ways in which it is contributing to meaning in

life for them.

That's the example of what I mean.

So good.

So good.

And intuitively, everybody knows that there is this sort of sense of honesty the

honesta that you need to that you expect and uh you know who was the experience machine who did

the experience machine nozick robert nozick yeah it's not too dissimilar i guess to the experience

machine but it's a much more salient example that everybody knows um yeah would you

Thank you. Yeah, it's not too dissimilar, I guess, to the experience machine, but it's a much more salient example that everybody knows.
Yeah, how would your experience change? You know, The Truman Show might be another example of that, where you're going around living a good life and everything seems fine, but what if everybody else was an actor? Well, I wouldn't want that. Why? To you, this sort of felt sense, nothing would have changed.
It's the exact same. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but there's something about sort of intention.
There's something deeper. There's something beyond not just the sort of utilitarian, what do I get out of this situation? It's what is the intention behind that? What's the meaning? Exactly.
And notice his name, which is really central, true man. It's about truth.
And it's not about just conceptual truth. It's about like being true to, right? True to his humanity, true to reality.
And of course, he's willing to break through the wall, right? Remember, he's sailing on the little sea to break through the wall. And the same thing was offered in The Matrix when Morpheus says, all I'm offering you is the truth, right? And the villain, of course, Cypher, which means a symbol without any depth, right? He wants to go back to The Matrix.
And we know that's why he's a villainous person, because he's betraying the commitment to reality and to his own humanity. Just lingering on what you said before about the difference, a lot of people, I think, will use purpose and meaning almost interchangeably, even though when you think about it, it's not quite, but the two kind of come as a package pair.
They're a twin pack of values that a lot of people talk about. When you were mentioning about how, if you use the word purpose, if you don't achieve it, your life is worthless.
And once you do achieve it, if you do achieve it, what do you do next? It seems to me the difference between purpose and orientation is the same as between destination and journey.

Yes.

That one is moving you in a direction and it's kind of an endless game.

It's an infinite game.

Whereas the other, by design, the purpose is this thing.

Unless you do some jiggery-pokery with your purpose and create some sort of instrumental purpose.

My purpose is to show up every day in a manner that's like, yeah, whatever, don't litigate me out of what most people mean by purpose. Yeah, it feels like that attachment, attachment to outcome.
Yeah, and I think when you, as soon as you talk, I think that's exactly right, journey rather than destination. I think, and playing the infinite game rather than the finite game, Kars' notion, I think that's exactly what I'm trying to convey.
What also comes up when you get back to the notion of orientation, you start to connect what can be isolated by the term purpose. You start to connect back to, well, what ultimately orients you is what's true, what is good, what is beautiful.
Whereas purpose can be very egocentric. It can be what I most want to have.
Whereas orientation is reality-centric. What do I most need to be in order to be in touch with reality, to be deeply in touch with myself, with other people, with the world.
And see, a lot of people have kind of, and you see this in sort of the rampant rise of cynicism and nihilism in popular media, because of massive senses of burnout and betrayal and bullshit, people have sort of given up on the world in some ways. And the problem with that is that's not optional.
Our model of who and what we are is inevitably bound up with our model of who and what the world is. And so to the degree to which we find the world an incredibly scary place is the degree to which we create sort of an insular model of ourselves.
We withdraw, and we withdraw, and we withdraw, and we withdraw. The problem with that is that's the behavior ultimately of an organism in pain and in distress.
And the fact that we don't recognize it as that, isn't of central importance.

We're withdrawing. And that's the move of pain and distress.
That's the fundamental move of depression. So even if you don't feel depressed, you're already behaving in a depressive manner.
In other news, creatine is one of the most researched and effective supplements for improving strength, muscle recovery, and it even improves cognitive performance and mood. But not all creatines are created equal.
Purity, consistency, and the absence of impurities like heavy metal can make or break its effectiveness. Momentus' creatine is unparalleled when it comes to rigorous third-party testing.
What you read on the label is what's in the product and absolutely nothing else. This is a massive part of my brain, body, and sleep stack, which makes a big impact on my cognition and my strength and my recovery.
And Momentus offers a 30-day money-back guarantee, so you can buy the best creatine on the market, try it for 29 days, and if you don't love it, they'll give you your money back and they ship internationally. Right now, you can get a 20% discount on everything from Momentus plus that 30-day money-back guarantee by going to the link in the description below or heading to livemomentus.com slash modernwisdom using the code modernwisdom at checkout.
That's L-I-V-E-M-O-M-E-N-T-O-U-S.com slash modernwisdom and modernwisdom at checkout. What do you make of the recent uptick in depression and anxiety? How this sort of relates to the work you've been looking at? So Chris and I, Christopher, Master Petro and I, we talk about three kinds of responses to the meeting crisis.
One is just a reactive sense of despair. You see this in depression, anxiety,

increasing rates of despair. You see this in depression, anxiety, increasing rates of suicidality in places that are marked by affluence, which is a very strange paradox, given our current cultural way of thinking about things.
Loneliness, addiction, all of these things are people basically falling into some kind of drift towards despair in powerful ways. The number of close friends you have is going down reliably decade by decade, even on the number of social connections you have up is going up exponentially.
Things like this. Obviously, we're doing it the wrong way.
We're doing more and more that's giving us less and less. So that's one group.
Then there's a replacement strategy where people try to replace the kinds of things that used to give this normatively charged sense of orientation and meaning in life and give us ways of cultivating wisdom and virtue therein,

namely religion and philosophy. People are trying to replace that with things like the Marvel

Cinematic Universe, which they investigate, they identify with, they go to often dress up as these

people or put markers of them in their home, and they protect this universe with a religious fervor. So there has been rage, self-righteous rage, at how Hollywood has destroyed these universes.
I agree with the aesthetic criticism, by the way. I think Hollywood has just destroyed a lot of these things.
But people aren't paying enough attention to, why does this matter so much? Why do you spend hours online leging like this? That's a replacement strategy. And of course, people are also doing this, can do this in the political arena.
They can do it with pseudo-religious ideologies. They can do it with this weird amalgamation of conspiracy theory and spirituality called conspirituality on both the left and the right.
Neither pole has any monopoly on foolishness. So there's a lot of that.
And then there's a replacement strategy, which is where you see hopeful responses to the meeting crisis.

You can see the rise of an ancient Roman philosophy, Stoicism, becoming super important. You can see the psychedelic renaissance, the mindfulness revolution, the rise of theological practices in communities around the world.
All of these are showing that there's also a healthy response. What was interesting is how COVID was such a cleaving point, because it showed that how many people have what's called existential resilience.
Sooner is the normal routine that keeps them busy, busy unto death, soon as that gets disrupted, they are confronted with, some people were confronted with an abyss of meaninglessness. And they dove into spirituality and all kinds of stuff.
Other people turned to a replacement strategy and they started attending online mindfulness courses, starting to read some philosophy. So it's a very complicated response to the meeting process.
I'm interested in the role of the individual on their own. And, you know, even beyond the sort of connectedness, interconnectedness thing, the fact that seeking meaning as a purely selfish pursuit.
And I heard a quote the other day, which I loved, which was, after a while, you just get sick of yourself. And it really made me think about that step change that a lot of people go through from just living for me, just thinking about me, to trying to serve a – pay it forward, perhaps, and pass it on.
And that perhaps comes along for the ride as a byproduct of getting older. But yeah, I'm interested in the self versus selfless element here.
Excellent. And this goes towards another criticism I have of the standard meaning and life construct.
It's completely egocentric in its orientation. It should be asking questions like, how much are you making meaning for other people? How much coherence and beauty are you bringing into the world? And it doesn't ask those questions.
And that's exactly right. And you see, the self-centered orientation is extremely problematic.
Obviously, there's ethical problems, and we get the increasing growth of spiritual bypassing as a growing psychological problem. So, people pursue spirituality as a way of avoiding their important economic and ethical responsibilities and obligations.
And spiritual bypassing is an offshoot of this growing group of people, spiritual but not religious. So if you look into the academic literature on spiritual but not religious, like people who do the anthropology and sociology of religion, what they'll tell you is spirituality means the religion of me.
That's what it means. You're doing all the standard religious behavior, but you're doing it for you and towards you and by you and evaluated by you.
And that's extremely problematic because autodidactically, we're really bad. So have you noticed, for example, you're very good, and this shows up metabolically in terms of even of cognitive effort.
You're very good at pointing out the biases in your friends and other people. You're really good at it.
You are, by the way, you are really good at it. The objective evidence shows you're really good at it, and you do find it relatively easy.
And what that evidence also shows is you're really crap, and I'm really crap at doing it for myself. I'm really bad at finding my own biases, my own self-deception.
Now, that doesn't, let's be clear what I'm not saying, that doesn't remove the responsibility for addressing those from me. Of course not, but I'm not saying that.
We are still always individually responsible for our vices. So I want that clearly stated.
But what it shows is, and this is something that we've known since Socrates, and we emphasize until recently in current scientific practice, you are my best source of self-correction, and I am your best source. This was supposed to be the engine of democracy, but we've lost that too.
And so the degree to which

we become withdrawn and self-centered is the degree to which we are going to fall prey to self-deceptive behavior and the degree to which we might not pay proper attention to the deep interconnections between our spirituality and our responsibilities.

How can people work out if they're being self-deceptive? By design, we're good at deceiving ourselves. Yeah, but we're also really good at determining it in other people.
That's the counterbalance. So you have to practice a lot with other people, and then you have to imitate what it's like with other people, with yourself, until you get good at doing it by yourself.
And then there's a lot of things you can do that do that. So something that might not seem obvious that actually relies on that, mindfulness.
Mindfulness practices like meditation are a good way at becoming aware of how you are biased and how you're paying attention. But how did you get that ability? Well, you got that ability by doing the following, right? When you're a kid, you imitate how adults, because you trust them, they're credible to you, you imitate how adults are taking a perspective on how you are taking perspectives in the world and allowing them to correct you.
And you imitate that and imitate that and imitate that until you can take a perspective on your own perspective that is corrective. That's metacognition, to use the technical term.
And that's what you're exercising in mindfulness. But that's a broad lesson to be learned.
You practice dialogically with others until you can do it internally and reflectively. It's the whole point of Socratic philosophy.
You hung around with somebody like Socrates, and you did all of this Socratic question and answer and exploration with him. And then eventually you got to the ability where you could do it by yourself.
And Tisthenes, who was considered the forefounder of Stoicism, when asked what he had learned from Socrates, he said, well, I learned how to dialogue with myself. He didn't mean talk to himself because we do that automatically all day long.
He meant that he had so practiced it and imitated it so that he had internalized it. So he had an inner Socrates that was quite competent at pointing out to him his own bullshit and self-destructiveness.
We sort of touched on it earlier on, but I'm interested in how contemporary of a problem a lack of meaning is. And you also said about how as people become more affluent or as nations become more affluent, problems of meaning seem to increase.
I mean, what use is there in us all trying to attain or chase after affluence if all that comes along is a heavy side order of meaninglessness? That's a good question. Rosa talks about the fact that we're in kind of what he calls dynamic stability.
I talk about it as a frenetic frozenness. We have to put more and more effort in not to make things better, but to make sure we don't fall behind or miss out.
Of course, and this is what's predictive of the massive amounts of burnout. And Han talks about how we've become, we're not so much oppressed and exploited by other people as we are exploiting ourselves and oppressed by ourselves.
It's the Red Queen fallacy, right? Yeah, exactly, exactly. And so I think, again, if you asked people and you use the standard metrics they'll tell you well i know i'm i have connections so i care a lot about my kids and i care a lot about my friends and work's important to me you know and so you'll get that but if you ask them like and we know burnout is arising the number of close friends you have is down.
People's sense of trust in others and in institutions is massively declining. So again, that's why I keep pressing on this.
You have to ask this question really, really carefully. And I think around those issues of burnout and being busy unto death and a sense of ever-increasing bullshit and betrayal.
I think that, or if you want to put

it on the other way, a famine, a famine of wisdom, scarcity. We don't know where to go.
We find it

very difficult to get into healthy flow situations. We have addictive and maladaptive forms of flow

generation like video games. We lack fellowship.
Fellowship isn't friendship. We've lost the whole category of getting together with people that we basically trust because we all participate in something that we all are committed to together, like what used to happen in the church or the mosque or the temple or the synagogue, etc.

We've lost all of those things.

And again, we've lost faithfulness.

We've become increasingly short-term, and so it gets harder and harder for us to be faithful, which means sticking in with things, staying connected to things because of their realness, even though it's at times very unsatisfactory to do so um and so you know this shows up in the fact that people are finding it harder and harder to maintain long-term relationships this episode is brought to you by ag1 over the span of about a year i tried pretty much every green stream that i could to see which was best. And I came across AG1 and I've stuck with it for over three years because it's the best.
It's the most comprehensive, highly tested and rigorously formulated. They genuinely care about holistic health, which is why I've got my mum to take it and my dad to take it and tons of my friends too.
And if I found anything better, I would switch, but I haven't, which is why I still use it. One scoop of AG1 contains 75 vitamins, minerals, and whole food sourced ingredients, including a multivitamin, multimineral, pre and probiotic, green superfood blend, and more that all work together to fill the nutritional gaps in your diet.
It increases energy and focus, aids with digestion, and supports a healthy immune system, all without the need

to take multiple products or pills. And if you're still unsure, they've got a 90-day money-back guarantee, so you can buy it and try it every single day for three months, and if you don't like it, they'll give you your money back.
You can get a year's free supply of vitamin D3, K2, and five free AG1 travel packs by going to the link in the description below or heading to drinkag1.com

slash modern wisdom. That's drinkag1.com slash modern wisdom.
You mentioned there about kids,

and I'm going to guess that most people would say a source of great meaning or one of the

greatest sources of meaning in my life has been kids. Have you guys considered the base rate

reduction in the age of people becoming parents and the number of people becoming parents

I don't know. in my life has been kids have you guys considered the base rate reduction in the age of people becoming parents and the number of people becoming parents that i i've got it in my head a friend uh messages me semi-consistently when i do uh q and a's on the show uh and he's very interested but he's a dad of two uh an old schoolschool sort of Irish guy.
He says, so many of your audience just need to have kids. They're asking questions, and as am I, about fulfilling my higher purpose, about enacting my logos forward, about why can't I give myself a break? Why is it that I never really seem to be connected to the achievements that I have in life, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And I think what the sort of subtext of his point is lots of those problems are fixed or pale into insignificance once you have children. I guess two questions then.
First off, meaning crisis and associated with declining levels of people becoming parents. And then the second one, is there something wrong or shallow or compensatory about leaning on your children to provide you with meaning in life? Yeah.
First of all, excellent question, Chris. Eberstadt and How the West Really Lost God talks about the fact that the countries that are the most secular in their orientation is predicted by how much people are living atomically, individually, alone.
and whereas more religious communities tend to be related to people who live in more extended family kinds of situations. This goes towards a lot of research that I think puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that people are religious because they're stupid and intuitive and not rational.
all. So some of the best research done by Gervais and others, who, by the way, are atheists, shows that's not why people are atheist or religious.
That's not what predicts if people are atheist or religious. In fact, you get weird anomalies.
There's kind of a very weak correlation between how analytic people are and how irreligious they are. But you get important anomalies.
Like in the United Kingdom, analytic thought is more predictive of being religious than non-religious. And so the whole enlightenment mythology, still espoused by people like Dawkins and others, just doesn't, that's not what matters.
What matters is how many, remember the kid we were talking about earlier and how you get metacognition? You have to trust, right? You have to trust, you have to entrust yourself to credible others, people that you trust because you can't believe this, but you have to trust that they can see things you can't see. And what seems like senseless behavior to you actually has a deeper meaning to it, a deeper function, right? And that requires, typically, we've relied on families to give us those kinds of entrusted relationships.
But we've narrowed the family down to the nuclear family, the nomadic nuclear family. and that has seriously eradicated a lot of ways in which we could get meaning in life.
I think your friend is right in the sense that children are very powerful indicators, especially of how meaning in life is not about wealth, because you have a child and your wealth goes down, man. The other one is it's not about subjective well-being, especially at the beginning.
Having a child crushes all the measures of subjective well-being. You're not sleeping.
You're not eating. You're wet all the time.
You're under high stress because the baby's crying. The person who you thought loved you the most in the world hates you right now, your partner.
And yet, so that shows you the two things our culture tells us are necessary and sufficient for meaning in life are neither necessary nor sufficient for meaning in life. So I think having children is important.
Children orient you non-egocentrically. You have to go from how is everything relevant to me to how am I relevant to somebody other than myself? And I think those are important moves for meaning in life, although, as I've been arguing, not captured by the current psychological measures.
now I would say he's wrong and you're right about we can turn our children into idols too, and we've done that. Jonathan Haidt has made a good career out of pointing out how an idolatrous relationship to our children, in which we made them the be-all and end-all of existence and helicopter parenting and trying to wrap protective layers around them so they never suffer hurt or pain has actually destroyed them in some very important ways.
And he's got a ton of research to show this. I know most people don't like hearing that, but it seems to be the case.
And so we have to be careful about that. I think having children is a powerful way of reorienting you.
I think our meaning in life, um, the way I've been talking about it evolved out of our capacity to be parents. Uh, but it's not enough to be a parent because if you're just a parent, and here's my point that I've already made, you're still withdrawing into your own little circle.
And you can be having children and not really caring about the world. Now, what's interesting, of course, is children make you care about the world, or at least they should make you care about the world.
And then that's my final point, which is being able to care about things in the right way and really focus on what's the really real. I mean, that's wisdom.
And your friend sounds like a good person, so for whatever set of reasons, they probably were wise parents, or at least wise enough. That's not necessarily the case.
So you could get sort of intense feelings of meaningfulness, but you could be an incredibly foolish parent. And I think that's very problematic.
Yeah, I had Dawkins on the show maybe four months ago, something like that. And we had a live event.
We had a discussion in Austin, Texas, where I hosted him and he was lovely. But I got stuck.
we both got stuck twice in two nights in a row, first live on stage in front of his audience, and then again, the next day when we did the podcast. And I mentioned how derogating the story behind religion, whatever it is that people choose to follow, because you can't prove it, or it can't be proven in the manner that you want it to be able to be proven, doesn't reduce its effectiveness.
It doesn't make it any less useful, even if the level of truthfulness, the bar that you want it to reach is something that it can't do. And I've been obsessed over the last couple of years with things that are literally true but figuratively false and figuratively true but literally false and um yeah i i kind of feel i get a sense in the zeitgeist that people are sort of turning away from the very hard cold sterile uh well it doesn't matter it has to be literally true at all costs uh that that't seem to quite be the case.
And I wonder whether that is born out of a, we kind of had a crack at this. We tried to simultaneous equation our way through coming up with answers to big questions.
And maybe I just need something that works, even if I can't describe to you why it works. Okay.
Well, that's a tall order, but I do feel I have a responsibility to respond. You have to be careful about this notion of truth.
It's very one-dimensional that's being used by Dawkins. It's about evidence that convinces you that a proposition should be believed.
I think that's important. I'm a scientist, and that's what theories are built out of, scientific theories, in the scientific sense of theory, not in the everyday sense, which is completely opposite to how scientists use the word theory.
So, I think that's important, and Dawkins is a scientist, so of course he values that. But of course, those are not the primary ways we feel in contact with reality.
So evidence isn't the same thing as relevance. so your skills

are

they have to be

true to things

like your aim

has to be true

there's a different

sense of truth

you have to be able

to make things present to yourself, and you have to be able to interact with the world in a way that reliably gives you some degree of agency in the world. That's really important to you.
In fact, I would put it to you that if you had to choose between your skills and your beliefs, you'd give up your beliefs rather than your skills. And they're a big part of how you sense what's real.
This is know-how, and this goes into your procedural memory. But you talked about it a bit earlier and this is important.

We also have like what it's,

what I call perspectival knowing what it's,

what it's like to be you here now in this situation, in this state of mind.

And that is a different set.

This is knowing by noticing it.

It's knowing by being present.

It's how you're sizing things up. What's your take on things, how you're framing things, all that sort of stuff.
Now, notice, so my partner, she was gone recently because she was at a yoga retreat getting her certification to be a yoga instructor. We're going to run retreats when we're both retired.
And so, now, I still had all my beliefs about Z. I still believe that they're all true, right? And I still have all my skills for interacting with her in place and everything.
But she wasn't present to me. And she, that's, oh, and we, there's a sense of that lack of presence really matters to us.

And there's a sense, and you can just feel it right now, there's a sense of this is real

because it's present.

It's present.

There's this power of presence that matters to us.

That's not captured by propositions.

I could state all of the propositions all day long about Sarah that didn't make her

present to me.

I wonder whether that's why long-distance relationships are often difficult. Exactly.
That's exactly right. And then beneath it is this, this is what I've called participatory knowing.
This is knowing by sort of emplacement, being in place. Like you have a, like you have, you belong.
It's not just a space. It's a place you belong, you fit the space and the space fits you.
So it's a place for you. Right.
And, and, and, and this is often very unconscious, but you, you lack it. For example, when you're homesick or, or you lack a certain version of it when you're lonely.

And this really contributes to your sense of real.

Have you ever gone that thing where you've traveled to another country and it's all exciting and interesting,

but you don't really feel like you're properly in place?

You're getting a bit of culture shock,

and then it starts to feel less real to you.

It starts to feel surreal to you.

And see, so what Dawkins is forgetting, he's forgetting all of those other aspects of realness that matter if what we want is to be in contact with reality. And secondly, it's not that he's forgetting all of those.
He's forgetting that our access to those non-propositional kinds of knowing is largely done through what's called the imaginal. So, for example, I'm present to you, I hope.
Can you literally see into my mind? No, you're imagining it. Now, it's not imagining the way you're imagining a sailboat where

imagination is taking you away or distracting you from reality you're looking through your imagination because you're trying to have the insight look into my mind now let's make it even more freaky that space inside your head where you're aware of yourself is that a literal space nope is it just? Is it just false? No, because you get real self-knowledge. In fact, that's central to you being a rational being.
So that's imaginal. It's fictive.
Or Richard Dawkins, open a science book. Oh, look, here's on page three.
Here's the solar system model of the atom.

That's almost completely false. Yet we teach it to kids.
Why do we give them this image? Because the image trains their perspective taking, gives them skills so that they can get to the place where they can then get the deeper propositional knowledge.

The imaginal is irremovable from the way in which we need to train the non-propositional in order for us to get those proper connectedness to reality that allows us to find the causal

patterns that establish the propositional, the scientific kinds of claims.

What about people that think meaning is a thinking problem? A lot of us spend a lot of time in our heads. We're learning.
This is somewhere between philosophy, psychology, sociology, all of these things. I think the only place I have to experience these things is in the head, a little bit in the body, and that gets fed up through my head as well.
Can we fix this by just thinking our way out of the problem? No. I mean, especially if we think of thinking as just running a lot of propositions together and making sure they're coherent and computing with them, that's not going to work.
As I said, most of what we're talking about here when we're talking about this kind of connectedness, this sense of belonging, this sense of emplacement is happening, right? It's happening in a completely embodied fashion. It's happening non-propositionally, like your skills.
You have the skill of swimming. Can you get access to that skill without swimming or doing something imaginal? No, you can't, right? What about, you know, what your state of consciousness is like? You have a kind of memory for that, episodic memory, like, did you take a shower this morning and you sort of remember, you sort of relive it for a moment, right? That's different from your knowledge of our cat's mammals.
You don't relive that, right? You have to, like, there's whole aspects of you that you can't get access to unless you're doing it imaginally. And that means embodied.
This is all dependent on the fact that you're embodied. The view that this is just sort of a matter of not having the right propositions.
Look, here's how it's fun. Let me give you a concrete example.
This is from Thomas Nagel. All of the arguments for reality being absurd aren't actually good arguments.
This came out in, you know, really, I think the movie is really good, by the way, Everything Everywhere All at Once. But all the arguments in there are you know, everything everywhere all at once that makes your life meaningless.

Well, how?

Well, because there's so much that makes this insignificant. But if it makes each part insignificant, how can the whole have significance? That doesn't make any sense.
Do you understand? If all these little individual parts are made insignificant by this huge collection of all the parts, how does the huge have a better standard by which it renders all the parts so meaningless? Like, well, I'm so small. If I blew you up to a galaxy, would that make your life more meaningful? Well, you know, what I'm doing now won't matter a million years from now.
So that means what's happening a million years from now shouldn't matter to you now. Like, none of these arguments actually work.
They're really bad arguments. They self-destruct.
That's not what drives absurdity. What drives absurdity is, right, when there's a clash between your perspectives, when you have this, Thomas Nagel tells this wonderful story, and he wrote this way back when, when we used to, the dark barbaric days where we had answering machines that were actual machines that were actually in your home and things like that, because we couldn't carry our telephones around with us.
And he tells this thing about Tom who realizes he loves Susan. And he calls Susan up and he hears the receiver get picked up.

He says, Susan, don't talk. I have to tell you I love you.
I love you. I love you.
And then he hears, Susan is not here right now, right? And notice you laugh. And laughter, like humor, is that there's a contrast between the two perspectives.
There's the personal perspective of his life and the impersonal perspective of

the machine.

And there's a clash there.

Humor is when you're,

when you're on the cusp of authority and I got to meet John Cleese,

by the way,

when you're on the cusp of absurdity and Monty Python was brilliant at that,

right?

They could take you to the edge of absurdity.

And then what you do is you have a weird insight

that relieves the absurdity.

But if you can't relieve the clash between perspectives with an insight, because that's

what insight does, it relieves a clash between perspectives, then you will experience absurdity.

Now, I ask you, Chris, can you think your way into an insight? Huh, I don't know. Well, have you ever needed an insight? Yeah.
And realized it just wasn't coming? Yes, many times. Insight doesn't work that way.
Insight doesn't work propositionally.

You can't infer your way into an insight.

In fact, it looks like the parts that are responsible for insight and the parts that are responsible for inference are kind of like an opponent processing with each other.

Let me tell you why I say that.

When we're doing bad inference, it's because we're jumping to a conclusion. That's insight.
Insight is when you jump to something. When you like it, you call it insight.
When you don't like it, you call it jumping to a conclusion. Insight has to do with changing your perspective, altering your perception and attention, but also participating in a process that is self-organizing.
You don't make an insight. You don't just receive an insight.
You participate in a self-organizing process. So this is why you can't think your way through.
You see, thinking matters. Don't misunderstand me.
Propositions matter. I'm not saying they don't.
But it's not just a matter of running good arguments, because that's not where the primary problem lies. In other news, you've probably heard me talk about Element before, and that's because, frankly, I'm dependent on it.
For the last three years, I've started my morning every single day the same way with Element in a cold glass of water. Element is a tasty electrolyte drink mix with everything that you need and nothing that you don't.
Each grab-and-go stick pack contains a science-backed electrolyte ratio of sodium, potassium, and magnesium with no coloring, no sugar, no artificial ingredients, or any other junk. It plays a critical role in reducing muscle cramps and fatigue while optimizing brain health, regulating appetite, and curbing cravings.
Their orange salt in a cold glass of water is gorgeous. It's a beautiful, salty, sweet, orangey nectar, and it's how I've started my day every single day for as long as I can remember, and I genuinely feel the difference when I take it versus when I don't.
Best of all, they've got a no-questions-ask refund policy with an unlimited duration, so you can buy it totally risk-free. If you don't like it, you don't even need to return the box.
That's how confident they are that you'll love it. Right now, you can get a free sample pack of all eight flavors with any purchase by going to the link in the description below or heading to drinklmnt.com slash modern wisdom.
That's drinklmnt.com slash modern wisdom. I remember you saying that some truths are only knowable through transformation.
Oh, totally. And I was having a great conversation last night, and we came up with this term of unteachable lessons.
And an unteachable lesson, one of the best unteachable lessons, I think, is money and success won't make you happy. And it is a unique category of lesson where nobody gives the people trying to teach it sympathy.
They're derogated in a manner that no teacher would typically accept. And I'm yet to, I know of nobody who has arrived at that realization logically they've arrived at it experientially um i was trying to think about some other uh ones that are not too dissimilar i think um don't don't be uh swayed to falling in love with somebody who looks very pretty but has no morals or anything sort of deeper to do with you you know it's very much the the thing that i kind of came to realize at least with the some of the unteachable lessons i'm sure there's a million um but the ones that i'd found were ones that sort of limbically were very seductive in one form or another.
They were about status. They were about acclaim.
They were about resources. They were about sex.
They were about power. And that was so salient that what you end up with is this, you're at war.
There is one hired version of yourself that goes, I remember the last time that I got into a relationship with a girl that was pretty and kind of didn't really have much much to say and we didn't really have much to do or whatever. And, you know, that didn't end too well.
But, you know, she's just so hot. I can't not think about it.
And then, you know, the same with everybody else says that sort of money and success didn't change any of the internal voids that they had. But that was them.
I will be able to thread the needle in a different way and uh i just i thought

it was so funny that uh unteachable lessons came to me last night uh knowing that i was going to speak to you today and the some truths that are only knowable through transformation i thought that was a nice uh a nice parallel that's powerful i like that um yeah la paul's work on transformative experience that, yeah, because we don't know who we're going to be and what's it going to be like to be that other person until after we've gone through the transformation. So we can have all the propositions we want.
We can even have some relevant skills, but the perspectival knowing, knowing what it's going to be like, the participatory knowing, who are we going to actually be? We won't know that until we undergo the transformation. And so we draw very poor conclusions because we've been sort of educated for quite some time since Descartes that truths are just accessible to calculation.
We should just be able to calculate all possible truths. And that was to overturn an older religious idea that, no, no, many truths are, as you're indicating very powerfully, many important truths are only disclosed to us after we commit to undergoing a fundamental transformation.
And I think that's deeply right. Now, the issue around this is, well, if you're ignorant, what do you do? And then here's where the imaginal comes back in, right? So let's use one of L.A.
Paul's powerful examples, having a child. You don't know what it's like to be a parent until you're a parent.
And we were kind of talking about that a few minutes ago. You can read all kinds of books, but they really don't help that much, right? And you can even practice some skills sort of in your head or on your friends or something.
But what do people do then? Well, what I've noticed is a lot of people do, and some people are even noticing that other people do this, is they get a dog. They get a dog and they pretend, but it's not really pretense because it's actually a dog.
It's an intelligent living being that needs your attention and your care and it's very demanding. I'm helping to raise a dog right now.
And so they get a dog and they treat it like a little person. They name it and they talk to it.
Sometimes they'll even give it its own room and have family pictures and the dog is included. And so this is what's known, what I've been calling serious play.
What we do is we set up this liminal place. Winnicott talked about this as this transitional place where we're neither fully apparent, but we're not just single anymore.
We're in this liminal place where we're doing this

very serious play by this kind of imagining through the dog, not imagining a dog, but imagining through the dog what it would be like to have a child that I'm responsible to. Now, the thing about the dog is it's still an element of pretense because it's not a human child.
And so you can do things with the dog.

Like you can say after three weeks, no, this isn't really for me. And then you can find a

new owner for the dog. And nobody thinks you're a particularly immoral person.
But if you do that

with your kid, now I'm three weeks in, no, no, this isn't for me. I'm going to find another,

here, do you want my child? People think there's something, and as they should, there's something

dramatically wrong with you. So we use, we need serious play, which is an imaginal practice

Thank you. So we need serious play, which is an imaginal practice in order to try and get a taste so that we can properly commit ourselves to the transformations that will disclose those unteachable truths.
So let me give you a more concrete example that goes back to your first thing. I'm going to use myself as an example, so I'm going to make myself vulnerable here.
I've not been what I would call successful in my romantic life. I've had lots of relationships, some of them very long-term, but in many ways, they did not bring out the best in me, and I did not act my best within them.
I'll put it as succinctly as I could. So after my second, isn't that a point of vulnerability? Second marriage fell apart.
I'm on good terms with both of my exes, by the way.

But I realized that I had been doing what you were talking about. I had a type that I found particularly attractive.
And this was probably driven largely by genetic Darwinian factors. We sound like Plato now with the monster in our genitalia, right? And I decided I was going to change my attraction radar.

I was going to go not go to the women that immediately were salient to me, sort of physically.

And instead, I tried to break against my type, which wasn't easy, by the way, especially when you're feeling so vulnerable and that you'll never be loved again because the relationship is ended and all that crap that that little thing says in your head. And I found this woman when she found me, and she wasn't my type.
and because of that and because I really wanted to be different

on how I entered into a relationship, I allowed myself to be attracted in ways I hadn't been attracted before, and I fell in love with her soul. And then only did I realize, and now to my great joy, do I realize she's actually a very physically attractive woman.
And my type that I find attractive has completely shifted because of that. And that was powerful for me.
And I'm not holding myself out as any kind of exemplar for relationship advice. I'm saying that sometimes we have to be willing to overcome our automatic salience projector, salient, what grabs our attention, what arouses us, right? If we want to actually find deeper connection and meaning.
And this woman and I, Sara and I, we have made a lifetime commitment to each other because we have found that we reliably bring out the good in each other, which is actually the basis for a relationship. And we realize that that is what you should base a commitment on.
Not is this person satisfying all of your wants and needs, not is this person, you know, helping you with all your projects and helping you to self-actualize and all the stuff that we say in California. But are the two of you reliably bringing out the good in each other such that I texted her today and I said, I love that I get to know you more and more while realizing that I'll never completely grasp you.
And so that is something I did not have access to as long as I was going according to what I typically found salient. That's a beautiful story.
And I've been thinking a lot recently about why do you think that you know what's best for you like why is it that you have you know you had this assumption i have a type i have a type i have a type and uh there's a a need for control there's desire for control there you know i have a predictive model of how things are going to unfold i can therefore have a good example of the the trajectory i know exactly where this is going to come into land, kind of-ish. And I know that maybe a couple of times this evidence has shown, you're actually denying evidence, especially if you've had a couple of these things occur and you go, well, those ones didn't quite go the way that I wanted to.
And this is something different. Well, maybe different could lead to a different sort of an outcome.
It's like, ah, no, I'm pretty sure that the same will somehow lead to a different kind of an outcome and um yeah as in a world where people want to control they do not like the idea of not being able to fully predict where things are going to come into land uh reminding everybody myself included that you are not necessarily the best judge of what is best for you. You don't actually always know, you can't always predict what's best for you.
And that's a lovely example of a time where perhaps you were right to be wrong in that regard. Yeah, thank you for saying that.
I mean, one of the hallmarks of modernity given to us from the period of the European Enlightenment is this sort of putting on a pedestal, enfranchising autonomy, self-government. It's Kant's biggest virtue.

And there's value in that, again, because autonomy reminds us that

we are

simultaneously our best

friends and our worst enemy

and that we are responsible

for the content

of our behavior and our thoughts

and our affect.

And so that's important. I don't want to just go back.
But it's also given us this, and there is no other word for it, a lack of humility. It's given us an arrogance that we always know what is best for us.
And that's simply not true. In fact, we are really bad at discovering our own self-deception.
We are really bad at what's called affective forecasting. We're really bad at predicting what will make us long-term happy and what will make us long-term really, really sad.
We're really bad at that. We're really bad at it.
We're really bad at it because we fall prey to hyperbolic

discounting. That's a fancy sounding term.
It means we find present stimuli very salient

and long-term stimuli very non-salient. This is why it's hard to lose weight and it's hard to study

and all those kinds of other things because the chocolate cake is there or the party is there

and health and the exam are off in the future. And by the way, you can't argue yourself

Thank you. chocolate cake is there or the party is there and health and the exam are off in the future.
And by the way, you can't argue yourself away from that hyperbolic discounting. It doesn't help.
Giving people lots of reason and evidence for why, for example, why they should save for their retirement doesn't really help them do that. But if they do some serious play by imagining their future self as somebody a family member that they've always loved and taken care of and they form that effective bonding then they'll start to save for the retirement kind of thing um so there are lots of ways in which we are not um the best.
We have to become adults in which we take responsibility, and that's important, and I don't want to denigrate that, but that's only one half of maturation. John Rusin, I think, is right when he talks about the main part of maturity is facing up.
I like that phrase. It's beautiful.
Facing up to reality. And facing up to reality is humbling.
You're looking to something. When you're looking up, that's a humbling stance, and you're facing it.

You're confronting a reality that is making you look up, right? And so that is an attitude in which you realize that you don't know best. So, for example, as things started to succeed for me, I had the Verveke Foundation, but I was blessed by terrific people.
But I asked them to act as a constant check on the fact that I could fall prey to self-aggrandizement, hubris, arrogance, all the proclivities we see in social media people. and they I committed

them to this because I did not trust that I would be a good enough person for determining that issue. And we've done things specifically.
Like we pivoted away from Voices with Ravaki, and I was doing all these videos, and we just do now a couple videos a month.

And I've become very clear.

We now have what's called a lectern.

My role, I'm a teacher.

People are not my fans.

They're not my followers.

They're my students if they want to study what I'm teaching.

That's my role.

That's who they are.

And I'm emphasizing quality over quantity. A lot of things to try and prioritize virtue over success.
And that initiative wasn't my initiative. It was the initiative from Ryan Barton and Christopher Mastipietro at the Vervecki Foundation.
But as soon as they said it, I recognized that it was true. So thank God for that.
This is one of those moments. My background when I first started the show was a sort of productivity bro world.
world. I was very much trying to wrangle chaos and have the right notion template and the morning routine and time blocking and the calendar and all of this stuff trying to create some sense of organization out of what had been a pretty sort of messy 20s and um it's funny that even in things like this you know we, we're talking about transcendent, we're talking about, you know, accounting for the various machinations and ways that your ego is going to pervert the incentives and, you know, your higher calling and how do we really pay this forward in the best way and so on and so forth.
And what it comes down to, in some ways, are an operational set of principles, like that you need some hard and fast rules. You need to actually put some bright lines in the sand and sort of draw those around you.
And I've got it in my head sort of thinking about people for whom that approach is very seductive. I would probably put myself in that category that, again, if I just have the perfect to-do list template, then all of my problems will be sorted, et cetera, et cetera.
Let's say that somebody is operationally pretty effective when it comes to that sort of stuff. What are some of the practices that you like, that you use the most yourself to get you out of that kind of mode, to get you out of the mode of logic, of reason, of rationality, of logistics, of operations, and get you into a more embodied or dread joy kind of sense? Because I feel like that's important.
So we've been talking, this ultimately goes back to sort of a compilation put together by Nathan Vanderpool, who I was working with. We talk about dime.
We talk about these four dimensions. The dialogical, I'll come back to each one in a minute.
The imaginal, which I've been talking about a lot. The mindful, both meditation and contemplation, sitted and moving, and embodiment.
So you need these four dimensions. You need practices in all four of these dimensions.
And you need sets of practices because there is no panacea practice. Practices have strengths and weaknesses, and you need to align them so they're correcting and compensating for each other.
So one of my standard examples is meditation is training attention. Meditation is you're stepping back and looking at the lens through which you're normally looking through at the world.
You're trying to pay attention to your mental framing. This is meditation.
The problem with that is you need to determine if any intervention, well, I stilled my mind. Well, does that allow you to see better into the world? And you have to do contemplative practices where you look out and see if you're seeing the world more deeply, more clearly.
You have to to and fro between them. You have seated practices where you're sitting, right? But then you should do moving practices where you're trying to carry mindfulness into your movement.
So I do like Tai Chi Chuan and things like that. You need imaginal practices where you're engaging your imagination not for entertainment,

but you're doing that serious play that allows you to taste what it might be like to be somebody other than who you currently are and how you might identify with that. And those are very important practices.
So, dialogical practices, we have a bunch of those. We have, oh, let me give you an example of an imaginal practice.
Lectio Divina, which is reading a text in an imaginal fashion. You're not just reading it to get information.
You're trying to create the, trying to take up the text as a serious play, as something imaginal through which you're trying to see the world differently, take a different way, taking perspectives you haven't taken before and what, and taste what the transformation might be like that that text is providing you, that other voice, that other perspective. The sage that you're reading is like a parent to a child.
As the child is to the adult, the adult is to the sage, and you're doing this imaginal work in order to try and undergo a transformation. That's a kind of imaginal practice, Lectio Divina.
You want to do dialogical practices. We have a whole bunch.
We've been teaching on the Awaken to Meaning platform where you can go now, and there's a whole website where you can do all of the practices. You can take courses.
There's drop-in things. My good friend, Taylor Barrett.
By the way, that is now running autonomously, separate from John Dravicki. I get nothing from that other than the satisfaction of knowing that some of my ideas have been put into practice.

And Taylor is a good friend of mine.

And so we have what a practice called dialectic into dialogos, which is how can you talk, how can two people enter into this mutual midwifing, this fellowship where they're trying to give, I'm trying to help you to give deeper birth to yourself and you're trying to help me.

We're trying to do that in a reciprocally opening fashion. And how can we do it with like three or four people? So that sort of gets into a shared flow state where we start to be drawn into those kinds of life-giving conversations, which we've all had because they take on a life of our

own and they take us to places we didn't think we could go to. We don't necessarily end up agreeing, but we all say, wow, I never thought I could get here and I couldn't have got here on my own.
Those kinds of practices. We're just putting the final touches on a practice we've been working on, cultivating, developing for the past year or so, in which you teach people a Socratic practice of go into something, a deeply personal problem you're having, and then how can you go through a set of, with the help of other people's, a set of transformations on your perspective and also on your sense of identity so that you can go from it being your personal problem, which is just yours, to an existential dilemma that is probably shared with many people.
And then once you get at the level of existential dilemma, the tradition can talk to you and tell you what virtue might be relevant to the existential dimension, and then you can then address that part of it, and then you bring that back into and transform your personal problem. We're doing things like that.
Where can people go? Where should they go if they want to check out more of that? Awakentomeaning.org. It's a platform.
That last thing, which is called the Socratic Search Space,

we're just going to roll it out in the next month or so uh the dialectic and the dialogos you can do that philosophical fellowship you can do that you can learn about lexio divina meditation contemplation uh various other kinds of practices that's. John, I appreciate the heck out of you.

I really have to say as well,

it's beautiful to see you smitten.

It's really lovely.

It genuinely is, mate.

I think good people deserve good relationships,

and I'm very glad that you've managed to find yours.

So what can people expect next?

You've kind of rounded out this chapter.

When was the first Meaning Crisis video put on YouTube? February 2019. Okay, yeah, so a good half-decade journey on one thing.
Well, the book is only part one. There's part two coming out, which is the second half.

That'll have even more revisions in it because all the scientific work on relevance realization has gone through a lot of revision and collaboration with other people publishing papers like this year and stuff like that. The next thing is, well, I've got a bunch of books coming out.
I've got a book, well, I'm working on Einstein and Spinoza's God,

and then a book called Reimagining Religion,

and then a book by Greg Enricus.

We've got a lot of that written on consciousness. That's coming out.

The big project is The Philosophical Silk Road, which is going to be my next big multimedia endeavor. It's going to be sort of at four levels of presentation.
One is, well, it's based on this thesis. This is what's next.
I made a fundamental mistake in Awakening for the Meaning Crisis. I thought the solution was to engineer an ecology of practices, a religion that's not a religion, failing to realize that's exactly the framing that I was criticizing throughout.
So I fell prey to a very serious performative contradiction. Because I realized, like that example of the living conversation, the sacred, you can't manufacture it, you can't engineer it.

It has to show up with a life of its own or it's not the sacred. It's not that fount of rejuvenating meaning that is deeply transformative of individuals and communities.
But what's happening and what I've seen since all of the connections that were formed by awakening from the main crisis is communities around the world and things happening in academic cognitive science and philosophy and psychology and biology, what I call the advent of the sacred. It's like sacredness is trying to be born in a new way for us, I think as a response to,

it's the,

I'll be Hegel here for a second.

So this is my only technicality.

This is the Weltgeist,

the spirit of reality that's challenging the zeitgeist,

the spirit of the times of the meaning crisis.

And so I want to do this.

I want to,

in fact,

it's not I want to do this.

I feel called to do this. One of the things I'm going to do is I want to try and teach by undergoing a pilgrimage.
I want to go to the various places in the world where the sages of three great traditions that sort of built comprehensive ways for people to deeply dialogue with each other, the Neoplatonic tradition that runs through Christianity and Judaism and Islam. So I want to talk about, right, I want to talk about, you know, Maximus the Confessor or Nicholas of Cousin, and I'm going to go there, or Clement of Alexandria, or Sauravardi the Sufi,, right? I'm going to go there, and I'm going to walk and talk and live and really undergo and try and make myself vulnerable to hearing these people.
I'm going to go to India with all of the Vedanta and everything wrapped around it, And Vedanta is like wrapped with Tantra and Jainism and original Buddhism.

And then I want to go to Japan because there's Zen, because Zen integrates Buddhism and Taoism and Shinto. And get all three of these.
Like what would it be like to do the philosophical Silk Road, create a lingua philosophica, so we could engage in these, not just an ecology of practices, but an ecology of traditions where we could really deeply talk to each other and people can travel and transform and maybe return and recover their home or travel and find a new home. That's going to be the upper level.
Then below that is going to be a lecture series, like Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, where I go through each one of these thinkers and explain them in great detail. And then below that is going to be specific video essays on more technical topics, like comparing the non-duality in Vedanta to the non-duality in Zen, for example, or Neoplatonism.
And then below that, we have what's called the Codex. We have a whole bank of volunteers taking all of my language, and they're creating like a Wikipedia of it where there's, and it's being written at multiple levels of accessibility.
Somebody in grade 10, completed high school, all these levels.

There's cross-referencing.

There's diagrams. There's practices you can undertake to get a deeper understanding of the concepts.
And so there's going to be these four tiers. And there's going to be like a narrative structure and an argumentative structure, right, and a reflective structure.
It's going to be this. And the hope is that a, and that a lot of the teaching will not go just in what I'm saying, but what I'm undergoing and how I'm being transformed.
There's going to be people that are going to travel with me in various places and meet me in various places. And the hope is to open people up to the advent of the sacred so they can properly orient to receiving it so that we can really transformatively trust each other in the way we need to in order to address the meeting crisis.
Well, I'm glad after taking on such a medium-sized topic, you're taking it a little bit smaller for the next one. Very reassuring that you're going to keep it nice and niche.
John, I appreciate the heck out of you, mate. I can't wait until you get whatever you've got coming out next out, and I would love to bring you back on whenever you're ready.
I'll always come back and talk to you, Chris. Thank you very much, and thank you for allowing me to shamelessly plug my new book, which I really appreciate.
Everyone should go and check it out. I appreciate you, mate.
Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for allowing me to shamelessly plug my new book which I really

appreciate. Everyone should go and check it out

I appreciate you mate, thank you. Thank you so much

Chris