(0:00 - 0:06) Hello everybody, I am Madison Holmes. And I am Maycee Holmes. And you're watching Holmes Squared. (0:07 - 0:38) Let's go. Let's go indeed. You know where we're going? Yes. Actually, we're about to find out, to be completely honest with you. A bit yes and no. Yes and no. Yeah, that's actually the theme of today's discussion is yes and no. The very fact that there's two kinds of knowing, two kinds of knowledge in the world. And that's why the through line today is kind of on humility. (0:39 - 2:10) So we, it was funny because we wanted to, we got camping trips, you know, it's the summer coming up and we thought, okay, let's, let's bank a couple episodes that way, you know, when we're not here and able to record, the show must go on. And so we had picked a topic that initially I took it for granted to be candid. I thought it would be too easy to talk about. I thought, gosh, this is just gonna kind of be boring. Cause we, we know the brain, the human condition, we can, this will be easy, but it wasn't, it wasn't easy. We were trying to talk about relationships and that is way too broad, even in the frames that we tried to put it and bring in the hemisphere knowledge. We, it was two, we took two attempts and it completely and utterly failed. Neither of us were satisfied with the attempts. And so it was that, again, that humility of the fact that this is no matter how much, you know, about the human condition, there's, there's a shirt that I used to have in grade seven. And it was said, love isn't complicated. People are. And that it very, that's, that it is very much the case that something as complicated as the negotiation of a relationship is, you just can't, you can't talk about it in a 30 minute episode. (2:10 - 8:25) So that it really humbled me and Maycee to talk about that or not talk about it. Let's say that way. So now going into this episode where we want to talk about two different versions of knowing things, um, addressing the very paradox of why can't we talk about something knowing the brain? And we do have some concrete evidence on the brain and the human condition. We've done a lot of psychology works. How come we couldn't just pinpoint and talk about relationships, certainly with ease? Why was it so complicated for us to communicate this type of knowledge is kind of the theme around today's discussion. Yeah. So it makes every time I kind of come to this, I always, it leads me to a segment that was put out in Gilchrist's work and it really resonated with me when he was talking about the two kinds of knowing. And what he talked about was, there's the left hemisphere sense in the sense where you can think and have faith in knowing that something is fixed, that it is certain that you can place it into stasis, that you've, you got it. Um, and the there's reasoning for why our hemispheres have a bit of a, um, what does it call when it's like a, a binary? Yeah. Why, why they have a bit of a binary a mode of attention. And we've addressed that before, but just for, I guess, first, um, people who are new to the idea of mode of attention, when we're talking about that, it's almost like you have, whether or not this has to happen, whether or not it has to be this way, it is this way. And I'm, I'm not trying to necessarily say that as well in the sense of like the certainty and the fixity because everything in between that is very complex, but it's no different than how we can even come to say that it's like, oh, human beings and nature and have that negotiation and feel like we can pinpoint that and feel like it's also at the same time, really complicated and still up for debate. Hence why we will still continue to keep on negotiating it. Right. But for the time being, it's like, uh, I call it, uh, temporarily permanent. Right. It's like, and that sounds paradoxical, but it's very much to me, it resonates with how we, um, approach knowing anything, um, and how we embody knowing anything. And then, so coming back to that mode of attention, it's like there has, again, has to be, there's a part of us that focuses in on the specifics of things and that would be the left hemisphere. And, um, it does this thing for perhaps the utilitarian purposes of why it does this thing, um, for survival, for whatever, like add on the infinitum of context as to why we do this thing, but we focus in on things and you need a really vigilant mode of attention. And in the book, he didn't really use vigilant, but like a very close, a closed mode of attention. So you have to, in order to even come like me saying what I'm saying, I have to place it in the moment of time in stasis. So what, that's what I'm doing, right? I'm placing this thing in a moment of time in its stasis, but things, if you come now with the other mode of attention, which is more attributed to the right hemisphere of keeping it alive, then you know that it's in context to something that is moving. So that is why, you know, that there are things you could not know, right? And that's, that's the mode of attention in the idea of where it's like, and I will talk probably in the utilitarian analogy that he uses where it's like, if there's a bird and it's on the ground and it's lying down and it's pecking, it's trying to peck out of a thing of pebbles and it's looking for a seed, right? It's like, I need food. It's looking specifically for this thing, this thing to focus on in the infinitum of things going on. And then there's another part of it that needs to be aware of predators that needs to be aware of friends, foes, and everything else in between, right? And that would be the open type of attention that you have to the world. And that would be more of your right hemisphere because that one is the one that's keeping in context that things are going on despite this little moment that you're getting caught and locked on this thing. Albeit for lots of good reasons as to why we have developed our left hemisphere in the way that it has. And then when me and Maddie kind of go into the logistics of what can happen when it goes off, we'll, we'll dive into that a bit more, but just that's where I would say the two kinds of knowing come in. Because you can know something as that finite, that status, this is a seed. Because if you're not certain of that, you're like, oh man, like there's so many things I could debate about what this is, but it's like, put it in your mouth, eat it, see what happens. If you don't die and it feeds you something, it's food. It could be a source of food. I mean, it's a seed, so it could be a source of a home for an insect. It could be lots of different things, right? But for you, right? It's this thing. And then you have to, you have to come to the idea of like, well, what is it that you want it to be? Right? And that also requires a bit of the left hemisphere to kind of go like, oh, well, like, what do I want? Right. And so, but then there's the idea of coming to know something and knowing something as if it is always something to be known, always something to be approached. Right. And there's that kind of knowing, not the stasis, not the complete, but the faith and also the extension. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's a good, as soon as you start talking about mode of attention, that's how he starts painting the pictures to understand you got to, they are opposites. They are contradictory, but does that mean contradictory things cannot be held together? The answer is obviously no, because it's happening on a regular within our own head. (8:25 - 12:46) We have literally one hemisphere that is looking at one thing. Yes. I meant no, as in you can't not hold them together. Obviously these things can be held together. Yeah, you can. Yeah. Yeah. It can be held together obviously because it's, what is that quotidian thing that occurs? What is it? Two things can be true at the same time. Yes. You have one hemisphere, the left hemisphere that is focusing on one thing, whereas the other hemisphere, the right hemisphere focusing on everything else. So that way, so you have two completely different modes of attention, one attending to one thing, the other attending to everything, going on at the exact same time. And that happens on a regular. And that's one of the funny things when he's talking about the brain, and even we in our household talk about the brain, you do. And in that essence, because you got these two antithetical things happening, it's almost like you have two completely different people going on in your head. Because you have one hemisphere that values this one thing at this moment, which you need in order, like Maycee said, to do anything. Because even language, language is very static. We're describing these things. And like we said at the beginning, that humility, that's where the knowing comes in. We use these terms and describe these things. You describe people yourself. That's the one thing I very, very much loathe about categories, is that people will put themselves in a box. They will label themselves. I get that I'm a woman, sure. But even that, I would sooner use something more general to focus on the human condition. Because the qualities of what kind of woman, that's what the right hemisphere would concern itself with, whereas the left hemisphere is like, okay, I'm this feet tall, I'm white, I'm whatever, I'm a Christian, I am an atheist, or I am, and then any of the LGBTQ categories. The left hemisphere loves those labels. And that's what even profilers do. They'll say, you know, you're this type, you're schizophrenic, or you're extroverted, you're introverted. And that is putting a person in moment, that's the left hemisphere's version of looking at a person and putting them in stasis so we can understand them. And although I understand that we do need, we do talk and you need to communicate, so we need to use these words, even though time is a constant, it is flowing ever on perpetually. So when we try to describe things, even these podcasts, you can't put, especially people, because people can negotiate their own existence, you can decide to be, you can have essence of a Christian and essence of a Taoist and all these other things. Well, you're stressing essence, and I think that's a good point. Because when I was reading Gilchrist and I found he was talking about people have models, my brain was like, there is never not going to be a model that a person adheres to. Even us describing the left and the right, it's like, it's so funny, because it's like, we have to use our hemispheres to try and understand our hemispheres. You know how fucking difficult that is? But you also know how we are the only ones that probably could because we live it, right? And so that's why that it's those two contradictions in your hand. And when you're talking about essence, I think of the model idea, because it's like, even for us to say, like, you have to, or like, this is things that you need to consider, right? It's like, this is our model, right? This is our understanding of the world so far as we go. But even as we, it's like, again, it's almost like, temporarily permanent, right? It's like, even our approaching of the world, our approaching, our approach, right, is still an approach. And when you take an approach, right, then it's still an interaction. It's still something coming together. (12:46 - 14:31) It's not nothing, right? It's not nothing. It's never, never going to be nothing. And it's never going to be everything. And so you're going to have aspects of stasis, but you'll also have something that is movement because I'm approaching, I haven't approached. I'm approaching. And then, so that's where it's like, even where it's like, trying to avoid having a system is in itself a system, right? So it's like, oh, you should have an open system. Well, then I would agree. Like, to me, I'm like, if you're going to have a model, at the very least, try and have one that tries to encompass many other models. Yeah. Yeah. I was just about to say, so if we're talking about models, which you're right, we were going to, because to understand, again, the left hemisphere, and you, that little bird trying to find that little seed amongst the sea of pebbles, it really needs to focus in. And if it doesn't, it dies. So the left hemisphere, that's where it's, it's really, really important because the right hemisphere, there's that saying, you're so heavenly minded, you're no earthly good. And that's, that's really the right hemisphere because it, it'll look at the vastness of everything and it's beautiful and great and vast. It's profound, but it'll get stuck looking at everything and it'll never do anything. That's the funny thing about books. We have conversations lots in our household and a book is a very left hemisphere invention because it is a bunch of, you even, you're trying to put a whole life or whole mindset. Something living and putting it into an inanimate object. An inanimate object. And in stasis, as if you don't update, which is, but so- Which you could update it. No, you absolutely- You might write multiple books, but like, regardless, there's still going to be a static past life version of you in this inanimate thing. (14:32 - 14:59) Yes. So the reason I emphasize this is because you don't want to create this dichotomy of the left hemisphere. It's so evil. No, you, you very much need it because you can, again, be too heavenly minded, you're no earthly good. So if you're too right hemisphere and you're thinking, you don't get anything done, but you can also be so earthly good. You're no heavenly minded, which is when you don't include, if you're too focused on that one pebble, you die, also die. (14:59 - 19:42) So either way, if you get too right hemisphere or left hemisphere locked, then you're dead because you didn't look for all of the predators that could have been around you while you were focusing on this one thing. So with motive attention, talking about models, we are going to have a you were going to focus, uh, the left hemisphere will fixate on something because that's its job to graph something. And with that having in mind, if the right hemisphere has all the tools of the left, for the most part, it doesn't do the left as well as the left can do it, but it has it, which is to say, if you're going to have a model, the most right hemisphere inclined model you could have is one that Maycee said, where it's, it encompasses other models. So when people say, cause some people have compared, we they've, if you're very, very religious in your thinking, which is totally fine. Cause we, we take faith. Um, not likely, um, people will say, well, your, I have the Bible. You just have the master and his emissary. That's just your new Bible. They're not entirely wrong, but not, or they're also not entirely correct because the thing with something like the master and his emissary, which is talking about the brain and the human condition, it'll include the religion and the Bible within it because it includes people and the process of the Bible and the relationship that one pursues with religion and the Bible knowing the hemispheres will encompass it. And that's the ideal with, um, most information. And the two versions of knowing is that you want a model or a way of thinking that'll incorporate and acknowledge the fact that you're always going to have to incorporate. You will never have static knowledge. Yeah. And it's like, there's a segment and I, uh, I thank God I have notes, geez. And so it was in chapter 11 and for, we'll be doing that. So people will definitely be able to check it out on our sub stack. Cause we'll touch way more on, um, that as we go, but it was a segment and it was saying that it was like the, uh, the left hemisphere has a error when it comes to either or thinking it thinks it's either this or it's that. And it said in this quote, it was on three 36 of chapter 11 of the master and emissary and the chapters romanticism and the industrial revolution. And it just said, it must be pleasure or it must be pain coupled with sequential analysis. If both are present, one must give rise to the other, presumably pain to pleasure. The option that both emotions might be caused at the very same moment by the very same phenomenon is excluded. And that makes me think of the Bible and the hemispheres and God and all those things. It makes me think that it's like, why does one have to, um, I guess give rise to the other, right. Where it's like, um, I mean, one could argue, well, God gave you a brain. Right. But it's like, but I'm in, I'm using my brain to interpret what God is. So it's one of those things where it's like, it's like a coming together. Cause it's like, I don't get to, I don't get to interpret the world without being in it. Yeah. Right. But then at the same time, if I was never born, what would it matter to me? Like, you know what I mean? And so it's like, there's a coming together, right? Like I came world was there. Right. And so then it's where it's like, well, the world perceives you and it's like, for sure. But my meaning in it means nothing if I'm not in it. If, if that makes any sense, but No. Yeah. Cause it, you always, you refer to it a lot when It was like a coming together. Yeah. It is a coming together. Cause there is no position from nowhere. This omnipotent idea, this omnipresent, um, which people call God, they say God is omnipotent. That's nice. We aren't, you know, we don't, it's, it's humble to recognize that there is a lot of world and the world has been going on for thousands of years, hence history. There's a history before you and context. It is humble to acknowledge that and should be done. However, that's not how we embody life because we aren't from the past. We are here, here now. So when we interpret We're from history. (19:42 - 20:34) Well, we have things in common with history. We are living history. We're well, that's the point. Yeah. We're living history. So we are, we are coming just from anywhere and we're not coming from nowhere. We are coming from somewhere, some place in time is where we are. So that affects how we interpret, how we come into and understand everything around us. So, yeah, it was the beautiful part I loved about this chapter. And I know like, we're going to definitely touch on it more, but what I really liked was when he was talking about awe, because I had a moment like that, not actually a couple, not even two or three days ago. And I was, my biggest moment was one time when we went out to the cabin. And then I don't know, I went out on the balcony and I saw the stars at night and I'd never seen, I'd never seen stars like that. (20:34 - 34:00) And even right now I'm like getting a little teary. But it was the most profound moment because I felt so small and I felt like the whole universe at the same time. And I was like, whoa. And then I felt like I had to go share it with you and mom. I was like, hey guys, lie down and look at this because it was, it was like a feeling of genuine like loss and emptiness and sadness. But at the same time, it felt like I'm a part of everything. I am everything. And I know that sounds very narcissistic, but that's just the overall. And when he, when he was talking about that, I can barely see now because I have tears. When he was talking about that, it made me feel like it relates to how you can, I guess, come to know things and how you can come to approach your understanding of things is through that idea of yes, like two things can be true at the same time. And that feeling, even with the idea of like, um, God and yourself and, and your interaction with what's going on in your little slot of time, it's like, it feels like that is, that is like, that is the, the thing that could be felt if that makes sense. Yeah. We've got to make room for, for both. Um, you should not to look at somebody and tell them you should criticizing people for having the openness of, and recognizing even verbally that we don't have anything. That's what we said at the very beginning. We know a lot about the brain and we know a lot about the human disposition, but that doesn't make us all knowing. And even the way we treat people, we can, we can talk about a person's proclivity and what their, their psychological pattern is, but we never treat a person with those, with those final judgments. We, because we know, and our model is trying to encompass, make room for both positions. The other person can change their mind about who they want to present themselves as. So even if how they present themselves online could be absolutely horrendous, but if we meet them in person, there's so many different factors or you meet them not just in person, but maybe in person and with other people, as soon as you introduce a crowd versus one person, even that dynamic changes and whether it's better or worse is that that's completely neither here nor there. It's just the fact that who a person has in their brain, who they are, who they choose to demonstrate themselves as. And so we have to keep that in mind, even when interacting with people, regardless of all of our knowledge, who do they want to present themselves as? And that's the humility of also with not claiming to know people. It doesn't. And that is one thing that we wanted to talk about in relation to relationships is great. You've been with your woman, like the Pina Colada song. I've grown tired of my lady. Yeah. We've been together too long. So regardless of how long you've been with your woman, or your man, it would be arrogant to presume, you know, everything about them. And that's, yeah. Like even the line, even the line of the song, like, like a worn out recording of your favorite song. Right. And it's like, she's not a recording. Yeah. She's not a song. Yes. Well, actually she, so again, there was another cool part in the book. Uh, and he was talking, I think it was, uh, all right, for all y'all listen, it's 373. I feel like I'm like doing a bingo thing where it's like, here's the number of the page of the book. Yeah. And it's a lovely segment because it was talking about how, uh, during the romantic era, how I guess artists, but also people who are witnessing art came to approach their, their art came to approach it. And it was, uh, let's just not make this too long. It's just, uh, let's go and say here, here again, distance results in seeing indistinctly, which allows other aspects of the painting. It's music to come forward there. So, uh, what that means, cause I don't want to go too much into it. Cause again, I'm almost teasing you guys. You guys can check out when we do our, our little, uh, chapter 11 discussion, but what that meant is that when you allow distance for the painting to speak its music, it's the same thing as what we're talking about with that, that Pina Colada thing. It's like, yes, she's, she's a song actually, but she's not a, a looped recording, you know? Cause the recording is, is a loop, right? But no, she is a continuous symphony, infinite, infinitum. Right. And there might be patterns, right. But then every once in a while, it's like when you are listening to an orchestra, you're listening to a beautiful symphony. It's like there are acts, right. And they have their little themes, um, of what is similar and what is not right. But then they stir up all sorts of different emotions. You can go from being very happy and invigorated to very sad. And it's all still the same song. Like it's all still the same composition, the same, it was the same composer. Right. And so, yeah. It's like, so we'll, there are, there are very few, there's a couple of movies where it's like, I have Insta cry moments. And I know that sounds like a very woman thing, but there it's archetypical and it really rings true. One was the Patriot and it's the scene where his daughter, she had stopped talking to him cause she was so upset that he just kept leaving and she just wanted her dad around. And then he was, he was, he tried to reach out to her again and then she was just, no, no, no, denied. And then he goes to leave and then she says, daddy, don't go. I'll say anything. And I just, oh, it's just me. Yeah, I know. But it's funny cause also, uh, this last Christmas, Christmas was going smooth. You know, there's, there's the seven of us cause we had a new addition to the family. We were six and now we're seven. Um, and it was, there was no, it was just good Christmas. Everybody's good feels. And then mom pulls out this last gift and it's, I open it at the same time as Maycee opens hers. And it's a pillow with a bunch of, and it has the word love written on it with a bunch of pictures of me and Maycee. And I instantly bawled. Like it was instant just like that. And talking about this, this song and all of these emotions coming up at once, it's like you can have these consistencies, but I, with you knowing you're a human being and I let you be whatever it is you choose to be. Of course, if you decide to be, you know, uh, a despot or some sort of retard, then I'm going to say something, but I allow you to be the ever changing and evolving thing. And I allow you to present yourself who you are to me. And then that allows me to really hold all of you. If I tried to box you, it's like princess Leia, you know, the, the tighter your grip, the more galaxies that'll slip through your fingers. I keep very open hands with you. And I do with those movies, which is why, even though I've seen them a thousand times and I see you every day, I can still re-embody you. And this is the thing you're supposed to do. Even in your relationship, your marriage, you look at people with open hands and allow them to be the not because we're not immutable. People are not immutable. We are transient and allowing them to be that thing. You then get more of them. And I feel like it's allowing yourself to have open hands with yourself. Yeah. Because what happens is like, when you decide to take a look at someone from a different perspective, it's you saying, maybe I'm seeing something wrong. Maybe I'm not seeing something. And so that allows you to go like, maybe I'm the thing that needs to, to change in the sense where it's just like, I'm a living thing. Why is how I view this person have to stay the same? Because do I have to stay the same? Right. And then consequently you help this person not have to stay the same because you yourself decided to change your, your outlook. And, and, and that's where it's a hard thing to do. Like, I know I can get very resentful when I feel like I have my grasp on someone. Like I feel very resentful and it's, it's, it's hard because you have to also like, ask yourself, like, how should I, what, what am I, what could I emanate that's different? What could I be giving this person that I'd be willing to give? And that maybe I haven't given before. And it's really, it's really hard to figure that out because I'm also that type of person where it's like, if someone wants something from me, I'm more apt to want to resist giving someone what they want because, but the problem first is assuming I know what it is that they want. And I could be right, but sometimes you should ask yourself, are you sure that's what they want? And maybe it is in part, maybe they want that in part, but maybe what else could you give that is more valuable that you think, again, if you think that this is what they value, right? Then it's like, well, lean towards something that you think they might also value, right? It's like, but what if they care, what if they could care more about this sort of affection as opposed to another, this sort of place of love as opposed to another, right? And then how can you be that? And then, and I'm still trying to figure that out. I feel like I'm in the process of that. And if anything, that is a very important key is that it's in the process always. And it's those little acts of courage to figure out how to be a good friend, but then also how to be a good friend to yourself. Because it's like, sometimes, even when you're trying to figure out how to negotiate with someone, you yourself have to, like, I say this to Maddie all the time, but whenever we have like critiques of individuals, like Maddie, she'll have thought about it and then she'll tell me, and she'll be like, here's what I'm thinking, right? And I always say that it's like, I feel like you should tell them, I understand. And like part of me resonates and part of me agrees with you, but I didn't earn what it is that you have put clearly such thorough thought into, and it didn't instinctively come to me. Like, I agree. And if I could, I probably could bring it up, but if I can't bring up the examples for evidence, because we know, if anything, we know because of people's left hemispheres, like someone who's not willing to change or someone who's just not listening, they're not going to accept it. They're going to be like, well, give me an example, right? Because like, seriously, and rightfully so, right? Rightfully, in part, right? Like these are, they're not, it's, I understand. And at the same time, fuck you. You should be introspective enough to see the example. Why should I have to give it to you? If what I'm saying does not ping to your head, right? For you to actually come on, man, give, give yourself something. What do you mean? You don't know what I'm talking about, right? Then clearly, how the hell is that my fault that you're not paying attention enough, right? And so this is the negotiation, this is nuance, but I kind of lost a little bit of my, my end point in that rant, but we can, we can just keep flowing. It reminded me of what you were saying, like humility, because you're, you're holding these people and allowing them to present themselves and you're making room for what you haven't come out with. But it doesn't mean we don't have judgments. And it doesn't mean we don't have expectations. Yeah. Well, you can't not live with a model and that's, you're going to come, you're going to have a model, just how efficient isn't and doesn't make room for room for other models. Cause not all models are created equal. So, and you can't simply look at somebody and say, Oh, that's just their way of understanding things. It's like, well, does it, is it incomplete? And the answer is most emphatically, probably definitely. Yes. Cause most models are incomplete, but some are more complete than others. There's a ratio and you want to look at that. But what you were saying on this, the regarding the two versions of knowing and then bringing about even with the art and then things being more authentic or less authentic, there's, we're going to talk about this cause we actually, Maycee's alluded to it a couple of times. If anybody here wants to join us, there is, if I share my screen here, we do the book readings and we got our recording for chapter 11 in a week's time ish. So it'll be a couple days for when this comes out, but. (34:00 - 36:11) Oh, you mean like for people who want to join in? Yeah. For if you want to join you, we have our email. I apologize for people who may or may not have seen it in advance. We were going to be doing it this weekend, but something came over, so we're going to be doing it next weekend. But yeah, so that'll probably be, what date specifically? Cause these episodes come out weekly. Sure. So I just want to make sure we can give. I mean, we're going to, we're going to make, we're going to make a post. So if like, I'll make it on the sub stack. And if you guys want to join in, just email us because you're welcome to join. Like what I, I want people to take away from those discussions is that it's like, you don't have to have read the material. Of course we encourage you to, because like it's, it's your mind. I, you can, I'd like to hear your impression that we don't. Yeah. And, and there's still even a negotiation going on. Like, I don't agree with everything Gilchrist says. And there's even some stuff where I'm still confused and I actually don't know yet. I'm like, wait, is that left hemisphere or more right hemisphere? And then I'm like, and it's, it gets messy sometimes trying to figure this shit out. But that's where we can do it together. Yeah. And then, and what we talked about here today, chapter 11 really expands upon it. So if there's questions from today or you want to figure out how to negotiate it better, maybe describe it better. Just hop on, go to our sub stack. Send us an email. Every reading at home with homes episode, we have our email and then you can let us know you want to join. I'll send you a link once we have the date. But I know that you want to keep this short. I can kind of tell that you're wanting to do a bit of a, of a closing in, I think you said, wasn't it? 374 that had the one about the inauthenticity. I kind of just wanted to touch on that very briefly. In fact, hell, we won't even get to the Socrates thing, which is totally okay. But which we're starting to read. So that's fun. Anybody who hasn't read the Socrates-Euthyphro dialogue? We'll do another episode on it. Oh yeah, we definitely can. Our knowledge is ongoing. That is yes, very true. (36:12 - 39:10) But something that I thought was interesting and we'll kind of leave it off as a bit of a last minute thing is that sometimes what is being posited in Gilchrist's theory in this chapter is that the left hemisphere, when it goes on tilt a little bit towards itself, it becomes self-reflexive. And we've talked about that a little bit, but what happens is, it's funny, you would think that the opposite happens, but the left hemisphere tries so hard to authentize the, according to it, the inauthentic. It, it sees something as inauthentic and thinks, oh, we need to fix that. And so what it does is it's like, let's create something original, right? But what we're trying to say is any, even in Gilchrist's work, it's like, instead of feeling like you need to create something new in something to like, I guess, put in its place, replace it with to re-present it. There is an idea of just presencing and the idea of taking that, which you deem familiar. And like we said, like even with the Pina Colada song, right? It's like coming to an understanding that there is something else here, that there's something new you can, you can revitalize instead of deadening it, instead of taking the animate, a living person or a living idea and placing it into stasis and place, placing it into a, like a dead entity. Yeah. A label or a category, a label, a category, what something says on paper of what, according to this, this is what your symptoms are. And this is like, you are patient A. So therefore you need treatment A. That's a good one. Yeah. Okay. So then I won't, I won't touch it anymore because then that's a little teaser, but, um, but I would just say, yeah, like that is an important thing to try and understand. It's like, no, they're like a work of art. You can approach it so many times. And did the art really change? No, but you're the one who could change and you're the other one who changes like anything, a work of art, like a sculpture or a book or a painting. And there is something that presences the together, the between it may seem static. Right. And even a person they're a work of art. Right. And so it could seem static, but you yourself are the one that's responsible for making sure it's not. So, yeah. Yeah. That's very humble. Okay. Okay. Well that kind of concludes today's episode. We are at just under 40. So that being the case, thank you everybody for watching. And this has been Holmes Squared.