This podcast is brought to you and made possible by generous financial aid from Peter kanzler K. Ay n z l-- e-- r-- you can buy his Amazon books at your favorite Amazon Branch, for example, the original texts of lock Hobbs and the US Constitution of Pennsylvania put together into one book for only $15. Thanks for listening. so last time we talked a little bit about The state of the world of belief I suppose by the end of the 19th century and I talk to you a little bit about Nietzsche and Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. A very large number of the clinical theories that we're going to be discussing for another two lectures after this one have been influenced by philosophers. And that's partly why I'm also talking to you about the Philosopher's it's almost as if in some sense the great philosophers, have our tap directly into the lower strata of are our cultural systems of meaning as they move forward in time and they can outline what those structures are and also describe their weaknesses and their strengths and their likely Transformations moving forward. You know, I mean obviously people can be behind the times and just as it's just as probable that some people are ahead of the times and we would assume if you're thinking about it say from a big five trade perspective that the people who are ahead of the times often are very very intelligent and very very open. And of course that's a pretty good definition of a philosopher. So Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, I think more than any other two thinkers. had their finger on the pulse of the transmutation of cultural systems of meaning in the at the end of the 19th century and they were both very concerned about the fact that the systems of meaning within which Western Civilization at least had taken shape had been fragmented for a variety of reasons. The most important of which was likely the rise of the scientific worldview. And as I detailed to you in the last lecture. both Dostoyevsky, and Nietzsche believed that that had left modern people because I think in the early 20th century, it was Western people, but now I think it's reasonable to say that it's modern people in a state of their there are cultural discontinuity that things belief systems, but also technological systems now have transformed the world so radically that the conflict Between modernism and traditional forms of belief is acutely felt everywhere. It's certainly I think one of the forces that have given rise to the battle between Islamic fundamentalism and modernism because it's more that than a battle of Islamic fundamentalism against the Western world. And the problem fundamentally is that people typically exist within cultural constructs that are very very ancient and that have that are grounded in in evolved systems of meaning that are even deeper than the ones that are articulated and explicit and when there's a period of very very rapid cognitive and technological change than the Integrity of those systems starts. It starts to become questionable from an explicit perspective, but it also be starts to become insufficient from a practical perspective. So one example that you might give some consideration to is the fact of the introduction of the birth control pill. For example, no one if you listen to politically minded people They make the case that the emancipation of women was essentially a political matter, but I don't think that that's a very reasonable way of looking at it at all. Of course the things everything feeds back onto itself and there are multiple causal Pathways to any end the radical element in the emancipation of women was of course the development of deficient forms of contraception. most particularly the birth control pill and it's the case that as soon as you educate women anywhere in the world. Not only does economic productivity rise dramatically. In fact, it's actually the best predictor of increase in economic predict productivity in a modernizing state is the granting of rights to women now, whether it's directly because of the granting of rights to women or because of the existence of an underlying belief structure that allows the concept of right to expand quite rapidly. It's very difficult to be sure of but in any case that exists and then of course the other thing that happens is that And stop having children unbelievably rapidly. So for example, I think I believe it's Iran. Where this has been most Market over the last two generations. So from family size is far greater than replacement to family sizes. Well below replacement in basically one or two generations. It's a massive transformation and it's not necessarily something that anyone expected. It's part of the sequence of forces that are Rapidly allowing our population to reach a peak and then either stabilizer decline. I don't know how many of you know this but the projections are that they'll be 9 billion people on the Earth within 30 to 50 years and that will be our Peak population after that. It will fall rapidly and you know, you can see that sort of thing happening right now all over the Western world and it's happening a lot in China and it's happening in Japan where you know, there are more older people than there are younger people because the younger people aren't having Enough children to actually replace the population. So the probability that will Peak at about 9 billion and then start to fall it's not certain but that's what the best projections seem to indicate now. So what happens anyways with in periods of very rapid technological and and cognitive transformation because those things go together that the certainties upon which people base their interpretation of the world and even more importantly base there. Judgments about how to act start to become uncertain. So for example, if you introduce the birth control pill into a population and you put women's reproductive faculties under their own voluntary Choice, then you radically transform virtually all of society's fundamental social structures not least marriage and marriage of course is being regarded classically as the foundation of civilization. Ation, and of course increasingly, there are more people who aren't married than there are people who are married now. It's very difficult to know what to make of that because of course, there's no setting the clock back and It's not even clear that you would want to set but back the clock if you could but expecting cultural constructs which takes centuries or maybe even thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of years to develop to keep up with change of that magnitude is it's not possible, you know, I mean and you guys face technological Transformations that are earth-shattering on an almost yearly basis and you hardly even notice it I mean Tinder is a good example of that. You know, I don't know if you know, but Tinder is produced quite a spike in sexually transmitted diseases, but you know, it's a radical technology because it's the first technology that's ever been invented that enables men to find partners with no fear with virtually no fear of rejection. And of course that's been a limiting factor for that's been a defining feature of the interactions between men and women ever since history began. And so these things are occurring At an extraordinary rate and of course, it's it's not reasonable to expect are more slower-moving cultural constructs to keep up with them and that's partly because as well that you know, people talk for example about the divisive nature of religion. You often hear people who are critics of formal religion in particular talked about the fact that religion under wise underlies a tremendous amount of Destruction and warfare and conflict. And you know, first of all, it isn't religion that does that The way it's tribalism and tribalism characterizes even chimpanzees and I don't think chimpanzees go to war with each other for religious reasons. So, you know, the religious groupings of mankind are large-scale manifestations of the same phenomena that produce dominance hierarchies in the wild and of course large-scale religions unite people within the religion just as much as they divide people on the outside of it so part of the accumulation of religious tradition across time. Time is a process that allows thousands and ten thousands and even millions of people to exist within the same hierarchy of values and exist relatively peacefully as a consequence. Now, I'm saying relatively peacefully, you know a hundred years ago. It was thought that Pre let's say let's say archaic people. So those would be people who are still living a fairly isolated tribal life in small groups pre you know, basically operating at the level of Stone Age Technology. Let's say the idea was there was a very popular idea for a long time that those cultures were communistic and violence free and that's wrong. They're not violence-free at all. If you track the homicide rates in Stone Age cultures their way way higher than they are in civilized. Just like orders of magnitude higher and there's a variety of reasons for that. But I'm just telling you that because you want to dispense with the idea that along with complex civilizations and the Sprint say of unifying religious beliefs. There was an increase increase in Baseline violence because there's just no evidence for that at all. Now the problem with these large-scale belief systems is they're not very fast and part of the reason for that is that in order for a large-scale belief system it I meant to to manifest itself. In any reasonable Forum, it has to be predicated on the mutual agreement of the people within whom within who operate within its embrace, you know, so for Toronto to exist as a city has a peaceful City. Basically what has to happen is that the vast majority of us have to agree that the rules that govern the city and the social interactions within the city are useful and Last and because if you don't agree with that then Splinter movements of all start start to occur and people become more revolutionary in their modes of action, and then they become more violent than the whole system starts to break down. So it's not easy to establish a collective, Norm Because people have to agree to it and you can imagine that hammering out agreement with anything with even a small agreement that affects many many people is a process that takes a tremendous amount of time people can argue forever about the smallest alterations in the systems that regulate our Behavior now, you know, some of you might be familiar with the terror management theories how many of you have heard of Terror management Theory? Okay. Well the terror management theories are predicated. On the idea that our belief systems protect us from our fear of death now exactly how they do that isn't specified particularly. Well in the terror management theories, but the originator of the theory whose name was Ernest Becker who was a sociologist by the way and a Freudian believe that cultural systems enabled us to attribute beliefs to our actions finite and infinite so that we could consider ourselves in relationship to Eyetality and in some sense hide from the truth of the final two of our existence. Now one of the things the terror management theorists don't really give any Credence to is the fact that belief systems are not only systems of belief their systems of action regulation. Right? So we've talked about the PS Yeti and notion of a game the game exists first as something that everyone can play and only later as something that people represent. Social culture is the same way the cultural culture regulates the way that you interact with each other and what you expect from each other and how you can fulfill your Mutual your needs in relationship to one another and then it's represented and the representation might help you find meaning in your life, but the fact of the initial social contract which is the phenomena that regulates your interpersonal Behavior doesn't protect you from the fear of death. It protects you from dying. And and that's a very important thing to note. I mean, you know all of you know, of course that's very cold out today and yet here you are in this classroom where it's remote ridiculously comfortable, you know by classroom standards and of course by standards around the world and you're not freezing to death in here and that's not your belief that's protecting you it's the fact that you're embedded in this insanely complicated system of cultural interactions, and it just so happens that you get to sit here. Listen to a lecture. Well, there's thousands of people beetling around many of them outside in the cold making sure that the power grid for example that keeps this place warm is properly maintained and functional which takes a tremendous amount of work. So when in during periods of Rapid transformation, it's hard for the social contract to adjust itself so that everyone knows how to behave in relationship to one another but then it's also very difficult for the description of that. So the articulated Norms that constitute a society it's very difficult of them to transform rapidly enough so that they can keep track of the of the changes and help people decide what they should do. So, let me give you an example. So I had a client who while back who had been raised as the fundamentalist Christian and she was very she had been socialized and had come to believe that Sex before marriage was wrong, but the probability that she was going to get married before she was 27 or 28 was low for a whole variety of reasons. And so then she faced this conundrum and it was an interesting conundrum my perspective because you know, I think that in a well-regulated psyche sexuality is integrated into the personality so that it's so that it plays its role in the what would you call in the polity of the self? It's integrated properly inside and so it's under moral control roughly speaking because it serves its own function plus the function of keeping the person well situated in the present and developing properly in the future and maintaining proper relationships with everyone around them, but it was quite obvious to me that a lot of the constraints that had been placed on her behavior as a consequence of a relatively rigid belief. We're actually interfering with her development as a person. And so one of the things we had to puzzle out was well exactly. What are the moral guidelines that you should use to regulate your sexual behavior outside of marriage, if you're not planning to be married for you know, maybe until your late 20s. Well, you know, good luck trying to figure that out. Like it's a really it's a really really really really complicated question and it's certainly not obvious that any one person can figure out the answer to that in a single lifetime, you know, even if they thought of nothing else especially because the landscape itself is transforming as you're attempting to adjust to it, you know, when we eventually concluded although it was a very individual solution. We eventually concluded that there were things that she had forbidden herself to do that were stopping her from establishing any kind of long-term relationship at all, and that that was interfering with her development, you know as a mature person and that the morality that she had used to structure her behavior appeared to be Counterproductive at least you know in some in some areas. So it's one thing to you know to to regulate sexuality in the hopes of marriage when you get married when you're you know, 19 or 20 or 21. It's a completely different thing when it's perhaps not going to happen until you're in your late 20s. So now need shit talked a lot and Dostoyevsky talked a lot about the collapse of meaning systems in the late 19th century. And you know that was followed by a Rivera very rapid period of technological transformation like that really kicked in in the late 1800s, which was the you know, the well was in the height of the Industrial Revolution particularly in England and there were modern Technologies being Thrust out of the Industrial Revolution like mad like the automobile and the airplane and the electric light. and recording devices and all of the things that we're still elaborating on now and then of course apart from the collapse of classic say Christian belief and the introduction of all these new technologies when World War one hit the entire monarchical structure of the Western World collapsed and that also occurred say with regards to the Ottoman Empire and that was partly what led to the creation of the modern Middle East and of course, we're still that still hasn't been sorted out to any great degree at all. So the monarchical structures collapsed these ancient civilizations the Russians, Underwent their Revolution and we're you know, and we're transformed into Communists and then after World War 1 the stress between the potential different ways of structuring societies after the Monarch achill societies had collapsed was almost unbearable and people didn't really know what to do. Now. What happened at the end of Nietzsche's period and and Osteo skis period was that the question that both of those people What the most important question both of those people ask became the central focus of the development of philosophical ideas of Ethics in the 20th century. So you could think about those as about as a kind of a post religious ethic now, the reason I'm telling you this is because among other things is because a lot of what cycle analytic or psychotherapeutic treatment is about is about ethics and that can't be dressed too much because ethics is about how you see the world and how you behave and so even behaviorists who are technically embedded in the scientific world are still pregnant practical ethicists because what they're consistently doing with their clients is breaking down whatever the problems are that are causing the misery breaking them down into sub problems and trying to figure out solutions that improve their quality of life, like practical implementable solutions that improve their quality of life. Not only now but as they propagate into the future and that is not a scientific issue. It's a how to live issue. So the entire history of the 20th century in some sense political economic and psychological was a sequence of attempts to answer the question when your fundamental systems of Ethics collapse, how is it that you should live? Now Nietzsche said very clearly that there would be two consequences to the collapse of these systems and one would be nihilism the belief in nothing at all, which he also regarded as a form of escape from responsibility. So it's a logical consequence of the breakdown of classical belief systems, but it's also a cop-out and it's the kind of cop out that Dostoyevsky explored very deeply in his small brilliant novel Notes from Underground which describes a person who's basically slipped and intellect intelligent person and an irresponsible person who's basically slipped into a pit of meaninglessness where he experiences hatred and resentment in the desire for revenge and all of the sorts of things that would afflict someone in the Underworld who's got nothing to hold them together and then course Nietzsche also talked about the likelihood that people would turn to totalitarian belief systems such as and he particularly discussed communism as a replacement for disbelief. I can give you a Canadian example of that. So I heard a Gallup poll stir one time. I was at a conference in Ottowa. It's the only time I've ever heard this and I think it's an amazing. It's amazing fact, they were looking at the probability that people would be separatist in Quebec. And if you are lapsed Catholic the probability that you were be a separatist was increased 10 times. And the reason for that is, you know, Ted what system fell apart in Quebec in the late 1950s it was one of the last places in the Western World roughly speaking where the feudal in some sense structures of Catholicism had maintained themselves right up to that point right up to the 1950s late 1950s and that collapsed precipitously just like belief in Christianity had in Russia, you know in the late say 1880s and what happened in Quebec was well first of all the birth The rate plummeted. I mean I did genetic research in Quebec and in the 1950s and before that it was very typical to see families of 9 to 13 children and of course, but now Quebec has the lowest birthrate. I believe in the western world. It's way below replacement. Everybody bailed out of the church. Nobody gets married. And if you were a separatist if you were a lapsed Catholic you were 10 times more likely to be a separatist. What all that meant was that when Catholicism fell apart, you know people who still needed to have restructured belief systems just turn to nationalism as a natural alternative, you know, and that's part of what if that's part of what accounted for the rigidity and utopian the utopian the utopian nature of the Quebec movement towards independence, you know, I remember talking to one of my colleagues very very intelligent person and you know, I asked him because at that point they were predicting that if Quebec separated, The Canadian dollar would fall to 40 cents 45 cents us something like that be complete economic catastrophe. I said, well, you know, the predictions are that if Canada separates at first of all or Quebec separates and no one would know how to do that is the Canadian economy will collapse and of course that will collapse the Quebec economy to and he didn't deny that he said yeah, but it would be worth it and I thought well, there's just no way of having a conversation under those circumstances because from my perspective total, you know. Veer economic collapse is a good reason not to do something. But if you believe that the Pope the future potential is such that that's Justified then well, there's no arguing with you. It's just something that you decided and that's the end of that and when I lived in Quebec as I did for a long time, I learned very quickly never have a discussion about politics with anyone who is the separatist because it was just absolutely counterproductive, you know, they had axioms of belief that were movable like the Future will be good enough so that no matter what price we pay in the present that will be justified. Just like well that's not an idea. Right? It's a statement of faith and you saw exactly the same thing happening not with the same principles. I'm not saying that but you saw the same thing happening from a psychological perspective in Russia, when the Communists, you know, when the Communists really started to become active in the 1920s when any manner of horror whatsoever was fully justifiable because it was going to bring about some future state that basically equivalent to Paradise so anyways, so and then you know Dostoyevsky pursued the idea of nihilism even farther because Dostoyevsky was certainly someone who was willing to go to the ends of an argument and one of the things he proclaimed was that if there was no God than anything was permitted and his basic hypothesis was well as if there's no ultimate Arbiter of values if there's no Transcendent Arbiter of values, then your radically free now, you know the existentialist I would say well you could use that radical freedom to find meaning in your life. But one of the things Dostoyevsky realized was that you could use that radical freedom for anything that you wanted and so in his book crime and punishment, for example, he explores the actions and beliefs of a student named raskolnikov and raskolnikov is a starving student. He's a law student and he doesn't have enough to eat. So of course he's his cognition is a little bit on the addled side because he's going through periods of starvation. And drunkenness so it's not like he's thinking that clearly he wants to become a law student so that he can help society and he finds out that his sister is basically willing to enter into a Loveless marriage and more or less prostitute herself so that she can generate enough money to share with her mother so that they can fund his continuation through law school and he thinks that wouldn't be a very good deal at the same time. He is indebted to a pawnbroker who everyone hates who is an absolute. Miserable person in every possible way in ostia is he sets up the situation like that. So the pawnbroker has a nice if I remember correctly who she basically in slaves and Miss treats and she squawk squirrels away all sorts of money, but never does anything with it lives in absolute poverty. And anyways, he considers her the sort of person without whom the world would be a better place. So having all of these things Co occurring in his imagination he decides that be Because there are no ultimate Arbiters of value that all morality is essentially cowardice which is kind of the reverse of what Nietzsche concluded see said most people were cowardly and Justified that with their morality but responding to call took the other idea, which is well, why do I have to obey any rules at all? If there's no ultimate source for any of these rules? It's just convention and cowardice and and if I have enough strength and I can leave outside of that framework and I can do whatever I want. So he decides to kill the pawnbroker which he does and quite successfully and not only that he gets away with it. And that's about the first third of Crime and Punishment. And the rest of the book is that the discussion of the manner in which he comes unglued as a consequence of having performed this act and it's it's a brilliant. It's an absolutely brilliant study of the way that value system holds you together even in ways that you don't know. And then if you step outside of that and violate your relationship to it in some really intense way then there's going to be catastrophic psychological consequences that will echo through your whole being we know that this is more than Theory. Because many people soldiers in particular who develop post-traumatic stress disorder develop post-traumatic stress disorder when they observed themselves doing something that they regard as tremendously cruel or vicious or immoral, you know, and they're in the situation where you know acting that acting in that manner is highly probable. It's a war situation usually very intense and you know, they don't have a lot of time to make decisions and God only knows you know, The specifics are of the particular event, but many many people come to be. So Shattered by observing themselves do things. They can't believe that a human being would be capable of doing that. They never recover and it's partly because you know, they violate their their ethical the ethical structure that holds them together holds all their ideas and their their plans and their perceptions and their interactions with other people. That's a unified field. Add in some sense and if you violate it and it fragments, then you're left absolutely fragmented. And that's not that's not even a psychological observation. It's a psychophysiological observation. You can stress yourself. So badly raise your stress level so high that your brain starts to become damaged by the stress hormones and you know, so it's not just a psychological State. It's its damage to the core of your being in some sense. now the collapse of these belief systems and their destabilization was well thought through by these thinkers by the end of the 19th century and then we have the technological Transformations and the and sociological and political transformations of the early part of the 20th century that leaves everyone in a state of confusion in some sense like in Germany in the 1920s course, the Germans had gone through this terrible period of trench warfare, so they're all their men were brutalized. Some of them had been on the front four months and that was in the trenches and then, you know, their political system and collapsed and they put a week weekly rooted democracy in place and then the economic system collapsed and Germany went through a period of hyperinflation. So that money the value of their money basically dropped to zero and so that meant that if you were 65 years old and had saved up your whole life to have enough money to retire and we're a good citizen, you know and prudent and careful every single thing you ever own disappeared. And so at the same time, you know, the Communist Revolution had taken place in Soviet Russia, and there was great concern within Germany that the same thing was likely to happen there and certainly the Communists were always pushing for that because they had the comintern which is the international communist movement, which was devoted towards destabilizing, you know, non-communist governments and and producing the preconditions for the revolutions. It wasn't was it like it was just paranoid. It was a real threat and it was out of all that mess that came the emergence of the fascists and the Nazis and it's not that you know, it's not that surprising because chaos breeds the desire for order. And so that was what that was One Direction that people could go, you know, instead of following an abstract from Messiah. Let's A the sort of idea that was embedded in classical Christianity. They realized the new Messiah not was Hitler and that certainly didn't seem to be any Improvement, you know, and because Hitler was really a messiah of Destruction and fire and you know, the World War II killed about a hundred and twenty million people and of course it left Germany in absolute rooms Hitler killed himself in his bunker underneath Berlin while it was burning in the Russians were advancing into the you know into Germany and they were not happy. He didn't want to be a German National. Well, the Soviets were advancing towards you after your country after your country to invaded. There's a push them back halfway across the Soviet Union, you know and produced a tremendous amount of damage and and distress. It was an awful situation, you know, and the Messiah is that the Russians turn to Lenin and Stalin were barbaric and brutal Beyond Comprehension, you know, and it's a strange thing. You know, we're not very well educated in what happened in this in the Soviet Union in the 20th century. We know far more about what happened in Germany say with the Holocaust and know it's very important that people should know about that but there were tens of millions of people brutally destroyed in the Soviet Union and you know partly because they were murdered by people who were at least in principle motivated by left-wing utopian Visions we seem to our education System seems to regard that as somehow more forgivable which it certainly isn't so, you know, the whole the whole generate secular alternatives to religious belief issue didn't seem to work out very well. And then the nihilism alternative. Well that has its own problems. You know one problem is the sort that Dusty Esky talked about, you know, and you see the kids who go up and shoot shoot up high schools and exploding rage. Age, you know, they're often people who feel that they have no meaning in their life that life itself is contemptible. And that suffering is too extreme. And that there there there they bear the brunt of unfair reality and you know, they develop unbelievably dark and and destructive theories of Revenge and Mayhem over sometimes over the period of years and then they go up in the world and lay those things out and it's not like they're thinking is irrational. You know, it's coherent. It's just predicated on principles that you might not agree with such as you know, the principle that everyone that I don't like deserves to die, but you know in the absence of a really formal way of demonstrating that such thoughts are not only immoral but wrong, you know in some absolute sense. It's very difficult to come up with ways of Defending ourselves against those two extremes, you know, the extremes of destructive. I'll ISM and the extremes of ideological session now Nietzsche has started to work out some some solutions to this and I just started to touch on those at the end of the last lecture. You know Dostoyevsky solution was a return to Christianity fundamentally and it's revivification. And that was the same tack that Alexander solzhenitsyn attempted to lay out and also Tolstoy in Russia, you know, and I'll talk to you about that a little bit more in the next lecture Dusty or Nietzsche's idea was that people would have to he said, you know, when his quote about the death of God that people would have to become like Gods just to be able to tolerate the consequences of this. dismemberment of the previous civilization and he believed Well, his thinking on this I would say is somewhat fragmentary. I mean Nietzsche was a great critic of Christianity institutionalized Christianity and a great diagnostician. He could say what was rotten at the core of Western Civilization will say modern civilization, but when it came to actually describing what to do about it, well, he didn't live that long, you know, he died a fairly young man. There's actually a video of meet you in the mental hospital online. I And at the other night, I have no idea that he was ever captured on video. But there's video from movie from about 1899 showing him in the mental hospital where he ended up in his early 40s. So he talked about the development of the of the being he called the over man, which is often translated as Superman and his idea was that people would have to take on to themselves the the burden of creating new systems of meaning and And new morality he's that were suited to them that they would have to create new values. Now you took Nietzsche's diagnosis very very seriously and you can you can certainly say that you was as much influenced by Nietzsche as he was by Freud and I would say in some ways. He was influenced more because one of the things that young was trying to do was to identify where the Lost values had gone. So the nietzschean idea is that it's possible for human beings to create their own values. Now there's a problem with that and there's a variety of problems with that and one is that it's it doesn't seem exactly true in that, you know, and a lot of the existentialists who followed me chair like Jean-Paul Sartre for example believed in the radical freedom of human beings that we were we were doomed to be free in a sense. And that was absolutely necessary for us to conjure up our own meanings and values because fundamentally we Face the void and You know life was nasty brutish and short to use Hobbes terms and that we had to be able to confront that and live despite it and well, there's a variety of problems with that solution. The first one is well, if you come up with your system of values, there's no reason and I come up with mine. There's no reason to assume that they're going to be sufficiently integratable so that we don't have to fight each other to the death. That's a big problem. So, you know, you'd have every single person with their own system of beliefs. Well fine, except how do you know that in the sense? That's a structured kind of philosophical Anarchy. Well, okay, maybe that's good if you happen to live alone on an island, but if you're stuck with all these other people then that becomes a very difficult thing to manage and I think it's partly for that reason that Sartre famously said hell is other people, you know, because he thought of the other in some sense that which was not him as an oppressive force that stops Him from manifesting his Destiny in the way. That would have been best for him. Well, you know, he'll might be other people but that doesn't mean that first of all that's a very one-sided way of looking at things because of course hell is other people hell is you to when you know, he'll is nature. There's lots of places you can find hell but by the same token, you know, the most meaningful elements of people's lives are often their social relationships and you can't lay everything out the door. Of pathological Society, you know when we shouldn't forget as well. That's Sartre didn't what come up with any reasonable critique of the Communists until the late 1960s by you know, but that was a little late people with any sense. Like George Orwell had figured out that the whole Soviet experiment had become radically murderous by the early 1940s. And so Sartre, you know proposed radical Freedom as a as a As the existential response to the unveiling of no meaning but when it came right down to it, he couldn't resist identification with a totalitarian structure. So I don't see any reason why we should really pay any attention to what he had to say. So now there's another problem with the idea that people should create their own values and that is that it's not so simple, you know, and the problem seems to be is that you don't obey yourself very well, you know, you can say well Here's my code. I'm going to live by it. So and week let's do that. Simply to begin with you say well, I'm going to study very hard and do well at my classes just for the sake of argument, you know, but you don't, you know, you procrastinate and you have a paper you're supposed to read and you know, you're supposed to read it and you need to read it for reasons that are even hypothetically important to you. But there's no damn way. You can get yourself to sit down and read it your attention wanders and you go to do three or four stupid things and you feel terrible. Bill about it. Like you feel like you're betraying yourself and maybe this is a continual pattern in your life. But one of the things you find out is that you don't get to create your own damn values because for some reason you're not in charge of yourself, and of course, that's where the psychoanalytic idea start to come from, you know Freud notices. This is in the aftermath of nature that you're not the master of your own psyche, you know that there's there's many sub use inside of you and they don't all want the same thing. And so the that you can generate your own meaning is very it's an insufficiently developed idea because there's a lot of meaning making generators residing within you and not only do they not all point in the same direction, which is a huge problem, but they don't even necessarily they don't necessarily lay themselves out in some integrated fashion across time and they don't necessarily operate together in a way that's going to enable you to To find your place with other people and in society, so, you know make your own meaning well, which part of you you know, you're not a unified thing. So that's a big problem. And then all these other problems just remain unaddressed completely. Well one answer to that and this is the answer that the more radical existentialist took as well. Society has to be reconfigured but you know, we kind of know where that leads to when people are doing radical societal. And at least as far as we've been able to tell most of the time that's an absolute murderous catastrophe. So, you know, it's reasonable. It seems reasonable to me to presume that that those experiments have already been run. All right. So now you like Dostoyevsky was very interested in returning to sources of meaning from which he believed that our original religious ideas had emerged and this is partly his Notion of the collective unconscious. So, you know part of the radical critique of religious systems is predicated on the idea that there's something like conscious beliefs, you know, they're articulated beliefs that you could lay out in a CREDO, but but that's not right. It doesn't seem to be correct at all. And Nietzsche actually knew this he knew that a lot of our social institutions had emerged from the bottom up and it only become articulated after they'd been embodied and danced out. Essentially, you know, you are a tribal group learns how to organize itself over thousands and thousands of years of trial and error and pushing against each other and so forth and they come into that tribal grouping with a biological substrate and their sociological and political interactions are constrained by all of those things. And then maybe they come up with a description of that over time a self-description and an articulated representation and that's the religious system. It's not that the religious system is thought up first as a system of metaphysical presuppositions images and dreams then turned into rules then imposed on the population who then obeys it and generally speaking when people criticized formal religion. They criticized it assuming that that's how it had developed, you know, and that's kind of a Marxist idea. For example, that religion is the opiate of the masses and that, you know, the religious structures were laid out so that a small Elite Control the population now, you know in virtually every domain a small Elite emerges that dominates the population. I don't care what domain you look at. So Marx is accurate in that way in that, you know, there's always a power imbalance between Elite minority and at non-elite majority but to say that That's the cause of all the systems that people interact with in is well, it's it's unsophisticated beyond belief. What it does is it takes phenomena their complex beyond comprehension and reduce them to one thing. It's not helpful. Like, you know, here's an example. If you if you sampled popular songs on the on YouTube, let's say you made a graph of how popular songs were. What you find. Is that about 10 songs at any given time are played. Half of all the songs played at any given time are going to be one of 10 songs while and then with the other thing you'd find is that half of all songs played are played by one or more of 10 musicians. And that's true no matter you know, if you look all the way from the 1930s to now if you look at popular music, you see the same thing almost everything that almost everyone listens to is created by very few people and then there's millions of musicians, but you've never Heard of most of them and you'll never hear a song for most it's a small minority and what you see is in any field of creative production. This happens a small Elite emerges and dominates the entire landscape now, you know, it's kind of it would be kind of ridiculous to assume that the 10 most popular singers and musicians that are currently operative were those who gave rise to the system that allowed them to thrive. I mean, obviously that's a Dopey idea. And it's no more an intelligent idea of when you look at any other domain where there's tremendous variation and the emergence of an elite. It's a very common phenomena. It happens. As I said, it happens anywhere there's creative production. So that's why one percent of the people, you know, roughly have 50% of the money. It's no different in in other creative domains now, we'll talk later in the course about why that happens but to think it's because those people set up the system so that they Thrive is well. There's an element of that obviously because once you're rich you're going to prefer political policies that help you stay rich, but that doesn't mean that you set up the whole damn system that made you rich to begin with plus it's not the same people over any reasonable span of time. So the one percent of people who have most of the money, it's always one percent, but it's not the same people, you know, each individuals tend to hold onto money for very short periods of time. Current and big companies don't last very long, you know, they last on average about 30 35 40 years and that's it. Then they disappear. So it is because you know, the economic landscape is just churning like Matt. It's very difficult for a company to you know, there's not that many big steam coach companies anymore, you know, and and nobody makes Zeppelin's and nobody makes typewriters and you know what I mean is things move quick and just because you dominated the landscape at one particular It doesn't mean you're going to be able to do it that the next so alright. So the create your own meaning thing is a rough one. And then there's another problem to which is what makes you think you have enough time. you know lots of times people come to me and they have relationship problems and part of the problem is that they've set their relationships up outside of social norms, and they do that, you know, so they'll say something to me something like well we are not going to get married because marriage is just a piece of paper which is really a stupid thing to say like it's an incredibly stupid thing to say but underneath that there's this idea that they want to remain free of social constraints so that they can negotiate their own way like if you're Them credit for you know wanting Freedom instead of just escaping responsibility. But the problem with that is it's like, okay good luck to try it. I don't know why you would assume that you have enough time in the 30 or 40 years that you're going to be pursuing relationships to actually figure out how they should run. You don't have a hope of that and it's worse to because very very few people can negotiate, you know, because the here's the way it works. You either adhere to the social order or you stand outside of it as soon as you stand outside of it, you're in a chaotic place because there's no guidelines and then you either live chaotically because there's no guidelines or you start to formulate order but to do that. You have to know what you want and you have to know how to express it and then you have to figure out what your partner wants and help them express it and then you have to negotiate In a solution. Well, I would say one in 20 people know how to negotiate. It's really really difficult be mean just think of the steps. First of all, you have to know what you want and then you have to admit it to yourself. Well, yeah, right like you can't you're not even going to get to the first one in all likelihood. What do you want? A lot of what you want can't be articulated. Even you know, I'll give you an example. So there's a great study done a while back on the prediction of Mayor of relationship longevity. Okay, so here was the question. How many negative interactions do you have to have per set of positive? Sorry how many positive interactions per negative interaction? Do you have to have with your partner in order for the relationship to remain stable? Okay. So let's say you have one negative interaction to everyone positive interaction. Okay. Well, maybe have 10 negatives to every positive then you can imagine a different situation where you have a hundred positive 2 1 negative right spanning the whole potential continue. And you use that to predict relationship satisfaction and Longevity. Well, you might think well God, obviously a hundred positive 2 1 negative is where is the preferable ratio? And so it's those people who you know, their relationship is nothing but constant compliments and Bliss. They're the ones who last it's not true. What you see is that there's a there's a an optimal inaudible ratio domain if it falls below 5 to Positive to negative then your relationship falls apart. It's too negative and it's partly because people feel negative emotion more than they feel positive emotion because you can be hurt more than you can be pleased and so one that's only five to one is to punishing and people won't won't stay in it. But if you get above 11 to 1 it gets not punishing enough. And you think well, what does that mean? Exactly? Well, what do you want a relationship? Well, you think Bliss it's like that isn't what you want as it turns out. It's more like you want someone to contend with, you know, you don't want to push over. You don't want everything just to be easy, you know in this is the sort of This sort of phenomenon that Kierkegaard was talking about when he talked about deciding to make things more difficult for people because that's what they need, you know, you know this perfectly well because if you go out with someone and they worship you and they don't on your every word and there's nothing but positive feedback coming from them you lose respect for the most instantly and you go wander off and find someone who's more interesting and part of the reason for that. I think is that you want the person that you're with to challenge you so that not only do you Do reasonably well data gate day together, you know so that you can coexist in the same space with a reasonable amount of Peace. But you also want there to be enough tension in the relationship so that you're both involved in a process of mutual transformation. Well, try specifying that in an articulated way, you know, good luck. You know what it also explains strange things about people like the fact that they'll stay in pretty negative relationships. Like what the hell are you doing there if you'd Kick, you lated it two years ago. And you said well, I want to be with someone. I'm miserable with half the time. Of course, you're never going to say that but it could easily be that that's what you're after so well, so, all right. Now Heidegger is another philosopher who was attempting in some sense to solve the problems that were laid out by Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky and the way that hiker Heidegger. it began to resolve them was by taking a radically new look out philosophy itself and He was he was he was one of the Prime phenomenologist sand. I told you a while back that the phenomenologist say decided to reconstitute Western philosophy. So that was focusing on being instead of knowledge. And so the hardest thing to grasp about the phenomenologist is what exactly they meant by being and so I'll give you I'll give you a overview of that. So that's where the termed as sign comes from. And that's a German term it means being there. So right now you're encapsulated in a design and the design is the totality of your experience, and that experience would be an experience of the extended world the natural world and then the social world and then inside that the world of your subjective experience and that constitutes being and the phenomenologist smake the case. They're not playing this subject object game. They're standing. Outside of the division between subject and object that's part of the scientific world view. So it's a real paradigm shift in that you can't use the rules from the old way of looking at things inside the new way of looking at things you have to start with new presuppositions. So we might say well one of the things that you're going to do if you look at things phenomenologically is to assume that everything that you experience is real. So so then we would say that there's no attempt in a phenomenological world to reduce pain to something material pain stands as stands itself as a phenomenon so does anxiety. So does Joy all the things that scientists of Consciousness call qualia which are viewed by them as qualities of the objective world aren't viewed that way by the phenomenologist. They just say those are primary elements of So it's a very interesting way of looking at things because it kind of allows you to reclaim the validity of your own experience. You can no longer say well that's only subjective. Now. That doesn't mean that everything you claim subjectively is true all objectively or for other people what it does mean is that everything that you experience subjectively is real now, that doesn't mean you you have to not think about it or take it apart or categorize it. Properly you still have to do all of those things. But you're you're put into a place where there's no need to deny the reality of your own experience or to subordinate it to something else. So for example, if I'm doing dream analysis with someone which I do often if people dream because dreams as young pointed out are there they are their manifestations of being you don't come up with them. They appear to you. Sort of appear out of nowhere in some sense. They manifest themselves. They do it strangely be and I think the reason for that is that they contain unarticulated thought but if you can get a handle on them and assess them then sometimes they can tell you things that there's no other way you can figure out and what's really cool about them. Is that they're they have the same personality as phenomena in the like the broader world of experience have you know, you don't ever think about the truth of a chair? It's just there and dreams are like that. They're just there and if you can untangle what they have to what they indicate then you can get a take on your own experience. That's not Altered by any of your local subjective wishes and desires. I hate to use the word subjective in this sort of context. So phenomenology is the study of being now now and in being there are a variety of aspects and so one aspect. I never remember the names of these but I'll get it here right away. Oh, yes. Heidegger broke the world of experience being into three basic categories. There was the umwelt which I think is basically the world Beyond culture and the individual there's the mid welt announce the world that we share with everyone else. So that's roughly the social world in the social structures and then there's the eigen value which is that domain of experience that's unique to you that other people can't partake in so those are the elements of being as far as the Just work concerned and in those domains of being different experiences manifest themselves. We talked about some of the ones that would be manifestations of the eigenvalue out scientists would call those things emotional or motivational States normally people think of them as feelings. I would say I feel thus I feel such and such and those are experiences that that manifest themselves to you or that you have depending on how you look at it that are indicative of the manner in which you should act in relationship to being now. One of the part of the reason that this is relevant to psychotherapy in particular was because the the phenomenologist were very interested in the manifestation of meaning so you could say well nihilism is the absence of meaning and totalitarianism is the fixed adness of meaning right? If you're a totalitarian, what you do is say all meanings exist in relationship to this structure. It's almost as if from the phenomenologist, Say you're trying to reduce the the umwelt which is the natural world the myth weld which is the social world and the eigenvalue which is your own world. You're trying to reduce all of that to the MIT. Well, so that everything falls under an explanation that's granted to you by some higher authority. And and then of course the nihilists are are having none of that. They see they they they use their eigenvalues. I would say their own world to invalidate meaning in any domain. Now the phenomenologist would say well it's a mistake to use your rationality to undermine the the sense the manifestation of meaning and I can give you an example of that. So let's say you're a good nihilist and you think that maybe you're going to go do something difficult like put yourself through University and then you think in a relatively but depressed state of mind. Maybe you encounter some obstacles of one form or another and you think oh to hell with this whose What difference does it make anyway, who cares if I go and get my degree, you know, none of this knowledge is particularly relevant or meaningful and Who the hell's going to know the difference in a million years. And so you think well, that's a perfectly rational dismissal because who is going to know in a million years or let's say well even if you could make a case that someone might know there might be some effects left of you in a million years, then we'll just multiply it by a hundred thousand and go to a trillion year. So here you are you're just little tiny Speck on a slightly bigger Speck in the middle of a galaxy that has God only knows how many billion stars and then there's a billion of those galaxies. Although there's way more than that and they're spread across this tremendous expanse of time and in the face of all that who cares what you do. Well, what a phenomenologist would say is, okay. Let's look at how meaning manifests itself when you alter your own. Private World in a variety of manners. So let's say You're trying to do something. Maybe you're working in a maybe you're working as a volunteer in a hospital helping sick kids, you know, you're reading to them so that they're distracted from their pain and you say well in the trillion years who's going to know the difference and so you think well, it's meaningless to do this. The phenomenologist would say if the frame of reference that you're using like if you're if you're imposing if you're transforming the way you're being manifests itself, so that it becomes more. Meaningless and observed then you should try experiencing it in a different manner. So it's a seat because a rationalist in some sense the phenomenologist a rationalist can't deal with the argument. What difference is it going to make in a trillion years and here you are a little dust Speck among all these other just bets. It's ultimately meaningless a phenomenologist would say maximize the meaning That's the that's the marker of Truth. It's a completely different way of thinking about it. So he would say for example that if you're going to a hospital and you're reading to sick children that the frame of reference that you should use the way that you allow that experience to manifest itself should be such that the experience manifests itself so that it is meaning full as possible rather than his meaning less the idea being that just because you can Twist your own experience. So that certain elements of your being become meaningless does not mean that that's right. The fact that it becomes meaningless actually means that it's wrong because you think you see It all depends on what you allow to be primary and this is the phenomenologist point. If you allow your strict rationality to be primary then if it can attack something and destroy it then that thing is worthy of being attacked and destroyed but if you flip it around and you say well what you should be doing is allowing is interacting with your experience or allowing your experience to manifest itself in a manner that situates you most Fully in the Here and Now whatever framework you're using to do that that works is right. Let's completely different way of looking at things and it's a real it's a real escape from the pathology of rationalism, you know, because it isn't obvious that what you think should take priority. Now the phenomenologist would go farther than that. They would say that and this is something so here's a way of thinking about it. it So Binswanger said what we perceive our first and foremost Binswanger was a psychiatrist who is very much influenced in swaggering boss where the people are going to talk about. Mostly we're very much influenced by I to Gary and ideas and say what we perceive our first and foremost not impressions of taste tone smell or touch not even things or objects but meanings Okay. So the idea for the phenomenologist is that what being is made out of his meaning? It isn't that the objective world is made out of things. It's that being is made out of meaning now. Some of those meanings can be positive and some of them can be negative and some of them can be neutral but the fundamental constituent elements of being the fundamental constituent element of being is meaning and then there is an argument between Binswanger and boss about how that meaning manifest itself. So Binswanger would say that You and Dau meaning on the world. So that's kind of an Ichi and idea that you create your own values so that you have within you something he called an a priori ontological structure. It's a world design or a matrix of meaning that determines how the world manifests itself to you. Now the easiest way to think about that is that you know, you're thrown into a particular time and place that's another existentialist idea. And that's part of the absurdity of your life is that you're here now in this particular Euler context and situation it's something you have to contend with and that's true for everyone there arbitrary preconditions to everyone's being and one of those arbitrary preconditions is the structure through which you look at the world and that structure enables some things to be highlighted and some things to be ignored. And so the way that meaning manifests itself is a reflection of this a priori ontological structure the a primary mode of being so there can't be being Which is say your experience for the sake of argument without the structure that consists of you that you can system. And so that's a given and it's the action of that structure that determines the meaning of things now boss would say exactly the opposite he would say, that's the wrong way of looking at it. You should look at the totality of the Your Existence, which is partly The broad natural world the cultural world and your own world and you should note that meaning arises in different places of its own accord. You can't you can't reduce it to the action say of this ontological a priori ontological structure. And so one example would be well, what about the meaning of things you don't understand? Well, it's hard to understand how the meaning of things you don't understand can be attributed to what you understand the meaning seems to be there to begin with. So here's an example your you have a relationship with someone and you discover that they have an affair. Well, the discovery of the affair is going to be something that's meaningful. Now. You don't know what the meaning is. You're going to interpret it to begin with likely very negatively except to the degree that part of you would like to escape out of the relationship. Right because sometimes if you're betrayed you're happy about it because it's time for that to be over with but in any case there are things that you can encounter that you don't understand that are meaningful in and of themselves. So I think that you actually can't separate. Your structure from the structure of everything they're always interacting and meaning emerges out of the interplay of those. So here's another way of thinking about it you reading a book. The book is Meaningful. Where is the meaning? Is it in your head isn't in the book? Well, it's very difficult to say right because obviously there's a subjective element to it. There's an element that's unique to you. But just as obviously that meaning wouldn't manifest itself if it wasn't for the book and of course the book would be meaningful if you end the book weren't embedded in this complex structure. And so the meaning is an emergent property. The meaning is an emergent property of the interplay of all. the elements of being that's a very interesting way of looking at things. So you have all these elements of being and their dance produces meaning of one form or another now, you might say if you were a phenomenologist that some of that meaning is going to be life-sustaining and some of it is going to be life-destroying and the phenomenologist would say from a clinical perspective that you're if you're if you are if you exist in a system of meaning Revelations that are life destroying that you should turn your attention. Wave from them towards meetings that are life-affirming and you know, one of the things that's quite interesting about the phenomenological perspective is that you can experiment with it quite easily. So I could say to you for example a couple of phenomenological experiments one would be for the next two weeks. You want to detach yourself in some sense so that you're curious Observer of your being, you know, not necessarily trying to direct it. You know, you're just trying to let it unfold and then what you might want to watch for is when the meaning that manifests itself as as things flow around you is clearly meaning of the life-affirming type now you'll see that you know, it depends on how well situated you are in some sense because if you're if you're surrounded by If your experiential field is primarily negative, these are going to be relatively rare events, but they will still not be non-existent. They might only happen for a few seconds or a few minutes every day or every two days but so say, okay, you notice that all of a sudden you're in a place where things are the way you would like them to be so you could say you're in a place where being is manifesting itself as acceptable. Okay. So that's a place where nihilism is not appropriate. It doesn't apply because of the quality of the experience. Ian's is such that it's life-affirming. You have to notice that something that happens and then you might ask yourself. Well, okay, what are the preconditions that enabled that? What are the preconditions that enabled all of the different sub elements of being to work harmoniously together at that time in place? So that that was the meaning that emerged and then the next question might be how would it be possible for me to allow that to happen more frequently. And so you can tilt yourself towards life-affirming meanings and away from From say meanings that are associated with despair nihilism, but you do that partly. It's almost like you're navigating in a boat. In fact, I think you are. I think you're navigating to find the line between Order and Chaos because that's where the meaning is. That's exactly where the meaning is and you can feel it like it's a place and that's the other thing the phenomenal just to try to get across these things are real. They're not secondary manifestations of some deeper reality. They are reality itself. I So think and we'll talk about this more when we get to the neuropsychological portion of the course that your brain is actually set up first and foremost to detect meaning you detect meaning before you detect object. And it's partly because you have to detect meaning so that you know what to do when something happens very rapidly and there are times when you have to figure out what to do before you have enough time to even see what's there. You just don't have the time. So, you know part of the question is well, what exactly do you mean by meaning? You know, I think meaning is significance for Behavior or significance for the structure that governs Behavior, but those are very very basic fundamental perceptions their they're not you see Object and then you derive the meaning. It's exactly the opposite many cases you perceive the meaning and derive the object and there's plenty of neuro physiological evidence for that. For example, you have lots of you know, your retina is a pattern detector and the retinal information is transmitted to your brain along the optic nerve but the optic nerve branches and it goes lots of places in your body some of it Maps right onto your spinal cord so that your eyes can make your body move. Some of it maps onto your amygdala so that what you perceive are the meanings of facial expressions without even perceiving the face so you can have people who have blindsight a damaged visual cortex. You can show them angry faces, which they say they can't see but they'll respond to them electrophysiological e it as if they're being exposed to something negative and it's because the retinal pattern is manifesting itself right onto the system that map's one form of meaning so you can clearly have meaning without Without object perception and so the idea that you derive the meaning from the object you see the thing and then you attribute meaning to the thing that's that's right at some levels of analysis, but it's wrong it many other levels of analysis. So The other thing I think that you can try that's phenomenologically informed. This is quite an interesting trick. It can really it's really hard on you those. So be careful if you try this. So what another thing you could try for two weeks is to watch what you say. You've got to detach yourself again. You have to remove the belief that your thoughts and you are the same thing. And then you have to watch Mostly what you say and then you have to see in this is something that Rogers would also be an advocate of you have to see if what you say makes you feel. what you have to see if what you say improves the quality of your being or makes it worse and you know, if you stop believing in what you say and watch what the consequences are instead how it manifests itself in terms of a transformation of being then you can also learn how to only say things that improve the quality of being well, that's a good thing if you can manage it, but but it's terrifying in some sense because one of the things that you'll find is that hardly anything that you Say does that most of its neutral but a fair bit of it has exactly the opposite consequence it makes things worse. So I think I mentioned that the word phenomena that's where the phenomenology the term phenomenology comes from. Obviously that term phenomena means is from the Greek word faintness thigh and famous thymines to shine forth. And so the phenomenology is phenomenologist argument is that like being is made up of meanings that shine forth for you and that those different meanings attract you they're like, they're like guideposts that you can follow so you know what, Notice this for example in relationship to reading so I'll be reading a complex text and some passage will really strike me so it manifests itself as meaningful. Why is that? Well, you know, one of the phenomenologist which would be being Binswanger would say, well it's because of the way that I'm structured but boss would say well no it's a dance that's occurring within the structure of everything and the consequence of that is the manifestation manifestation of this meaning Well, what I found is that I can follow threads of meaning through books. You know that it's like it's something that's guiding me that sense of meaning and often if I find something within a book that's meaningful. Then I'll read the other things that that person wrote and all see that some of the people that they read have meaningful things to say and then I can Branch out that Network and it's it's following a pathway that's laid out for you in some sense that's laid out for you in the world. And you know, the phenomenological idea is that if you follow that pathway, then what happens is being becomes more and more integrated around you. And those experiences of of intrinsic meaning start to multiply and increase in intensity and you know, if you're able to do that over a long period of time, then you can get more and more of the totality of your being revealing the kind of meanings that stop you from being either nihilistic or totalitarian. So well, that's the basic that's the fundamental theory of phenomenological Psychotherapy. You know, we might first say well, you know, you're depressed and anxious and your life isn't going very well what keeps you afloat? It's something to observe and then we might say, well are there ways that we can expand that small area that's keeping you afloat so that it starts to occupy more and more of your experience and push back the it's that are either neutral or negative and you know, it's a It's in large part a consequence of attention and and and willingness to first of all treat things as if their meaning is real and then second to allow that reality to transform the way that you experience things in the future. See you Thursday. This podcast is brought to you and made possible by generous financial aid from Peter kanzler K. Ay n z l-- e-- r-- you can buy his Amazon books at your favorite Amazon Branch, for example, the original texts of lock Hobbs and the US Constitution of Pennsylvania put together into one book for only $15. Thanks for listening.
2016 Personality Lecture 09  Phenomenology  Heidegger, Binswanger, Boss - Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast TMJBP 🐸 MAPS OF MEANING PODCAST JORDAN B PETERSON PODCAST Jordan B Peterson is light on the horizon. He wants his message to be heard. The TOO MUCH JORDAN B PETERSON PODCAST uploads all of his (especially older) YouTube Content to make it available immediately to download or listen to without being "glued to a screen". We try to put the media back into immediate. https://www.bit.ly/JBPQUOTES Here's your chance to help the publishing endeavour sustain itself: Support the Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast that provides video free content for you by starting an own website with Siteground which is the Number One in Price and Speed: http://bit.ly/SITEGROUNDSALE or by getting a book by SC: http://bit.ly/SCHRIST If you really want to help out, get your free Audiobook via http://bit.ly/AUDIBLESALES (BTW: 1 Free audiobook for every country account!) Support the Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast that provides old good content for you by getting some #Bitcoin via Coinbase: https://www.bit.ly/COINBASESALE Or simply donate to or search for: 3AqWZuAE4VKRdS2k4v1zmAwn9pNkGY4rkd The Leviathan (1651), The Two Treatises of Government (1689), The Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776) in one Binding for 15.95$ by Peter Kanzler: https://amzn.to/2KQT8U1 