(0:00 - 0:07) Hey, buddy, I am Madison Holmes. And I am Maycee Holmes. And you're watching Holmes Squared. (0:07 - 0:12) Ta-da! Ta-da! Ta-da! Ta-da! Anyway. Wow. Sorry. (0:13 - 0:22) Today, it's kind of a part three because we were continuing off of the previous episode. Episodes. Episodes. (0:22 - 0:26) Yeah, the two. We're on. We got a trilogy going on, everybody. (0:27 - 0:36) Trying to keep them shorter. That way people can also, you know, not grow their attention span. And Maycee left us off on the previous episode. (0:36 - 1:34) We were talking about Euthyphro and Socrates and how piety and impiety and beloved are words that really only you to trying to define them in association when you're using them, especially with something like presuming the gods know these things, then you can't really do so without accounting for the process of which these words have come into being and the process of which people have manifested them, like actually live, whatever the word is supposedly representing, because that's what words are representations of real life things and experiences. So we alluded to the movie that we watched, and I believe I have it pulled up here, The Professor and the Madman. It was honestly a surpriser. (1:35 - 1:48) I we call it Sleepers because it means it's a really good film. But like, how come no one in our household heard about it? Or no one talks about it? I mean, maybe it's talked about, but like we weren't aware. So we're like, oh, that was a sleeper that we didn't know existed. (1:48 - 1:54) That was actually really good. Yeah, I had never I'd never even heard about it. It's 2019, so it's relatively new. (1:55 - 2:25) And if you're reading it, you can see it's on the Oxford English Dictionary in the 19th century. And personally, because we've done a lot of work with Iain McGilchrist, the master and his emissary, knowing the hemispheres, he is a very educated man when it comes to languages. So he can and knowing the hemispheres, which hemisphere is using the word, he knows their value. (2:26 - 2:40) And because of this, when it comes to the dictionary, I immediately dad put it on and the movie started. I went, we're watching a movie on the creation of a dictionary. I thought I was like, this is the most going to be the most left hemisphere. (2:40 - 2:48) I that was my personal. I just that was the first thing that came to mind. Of course, I'm like, I'm going to go for the ride and we're going to get surprised to see where it actually takes me. (2:48 - 2:59) But that was my initial because the left hemisphere, of course, is faster than the right, unfortunately. So by zero point two seconds, left hemisphere made a quick judgment. I was like, wait, wait. (3:00 - 3:44) But it was funny because McGilchrist and Mel Gibson's character who is helping create this Oxford dictionary, they actually have a lot in common because Mel Gibson's character knows all these languages. And so he's like, I need to be on this project because I can help you with the roots of these words and I can help you go back to not just the timeline of which they were used, but which cultures helped develop them and develop the actual usage for them via each century of its growth. Because words are even though they are static, they represent one thing momentarily because people use them. (3:45 - 4:24) They still, as Maycee was alluding to, with the Euthyphro, the impiety, the beloved, they manifest a process via our usage of them anyhow. And so it ended up being what I would consider there's two different modes of attention that appear in it, because Mel Gibson's character had the right hemisphere approach to this dictionary, where we also saw the other people who they wanted to use the words for profit or the dictionary for profit, or they wanted it to be a timely fashion. And they wanted Mel Gibson tried to bring the people into it as well to help with the process, which is where the madman ends up coming in the movie. (4:24 - 4:56) And all the other ones went, you can't bring the plebs into this very prestige process of the creation of the dictionary. Yeah. Like for content, for people who haven't seen it, just to reiterate a bit of what Maycee said, to make it clear, is that their task was to undergo creating the dictionary. Right. But you had this group of kind of like academic elitists that were like, oh, we're going to do it the way that we want to do it. And then Mel Gibson's character, who doesn't have any degrees, he's just what you would call kind of like us where we're like we're self-taught. (4:57 - 5:21) He knew all these languages and he was just like, well, you know, we should do we should go and we should outsource to the public. So outsourced to the people in England, but also the people maybe in the United States, just we should outsource to our countrymen and ask them to help us out. And the of course, the academics, elitists were like, oh, we can't do that. (5:21 - 5:46) That's not that's not what we want to do. And then, of course, a good like preliminary in that is like then it would force other people to be able to read, which is definitely something that they were concerned about. And that's that's a I guess a good kind of little irony, because it's funny because even in your critique of you're like, oh, this is going to be like a little left hemispheric. (5:47 - 6:03) And even in our understanding of Gilchrist, we know that language is primarily dealt with in the left hemisphere. But that doesn't mean that the right hemisphere doesn't know or have its own kind of language. And it doesn't even mean that it can't do what the left hemisphere can do. (6:03 - 6:54) Because it can. But it's primarily dealt with the left in the sense where it's like you're taking something that is derived from an ever growing, changing process and you're putting it kind of into unchangingness by putting it in this sort of symbol to represent it. Right. Like this is something that represents this process. Right. Yeah. You're taking something transient and making it immutable, which is transient being experienced. And then and yet it's funny, though, because you're worried about people reading, which is what is reading, right? It's like reading is just like I have the book here. That's why I just picked it up for people listening. I literally just picked up a book. It was Master and His Emissary. But like you're picking up a book that has a bunch of words and a bunch of symbols. (6:54 - 7:12) And then you go and you the thing that obviously worries them is then people start thinking about these things. Right. Because the it's it's almost like the returning back to the right hemisphere is the part that I think that they were afraid of, because it's like it's in a static book. (7:12 - 7:36) But this book was written by someone in the past, and it was written by someone who went through experience and. Their own life's journey, and they decided to put it into stasis, momentary stasis. But the thing that is worrisome is that when you come to meet that you are a living thing, you are a living, changing thing, and you come to interact with this thing that is in stasis. (7:37 - 7:45) But someone's life or part of their life is in it. And then your life and where you are at is engaged with it. And so that gives you ideas. (7:45 - 8:01) You start to go like, oh, like this, this resonates. Like, what could I what could I do with this? Or, oh, like that's I didn't know that that's what he was going through. Or like and then creative juices kind of start to flow and something happens where there's a space between a betweenness. (8:01 - 8:39) And now you are half creating in this work as well as receiving as well as half perceiving. And so it's funny because even in this chapter that we're going through with Gilchrist and they're talking about art and they're talking about poetry, the thing that resonates and what we were talking about with the familiars at the the right hemisphere when it right hemispheric, almost like painters and philosophers. But or I guess relied a lot on art and on poetry to try and understand the world around them. (8:40 - 9:06) And the way in which they did it, though, was some of them, the artists would gravitate towards paintings of landscapes. And what they would do is they would portray it either and the dusk or the dawn or they'd paint it based on like the moonlight. And it's or in he specifies in Japan, it's like they rely on things that are half half perceived or half complete because like, yeah, like the mist on a mountaintop. (9:06 - 9:11) Right. Like you can't see the peak. You can only see the base and then there's something up there. (9:11 - 9:13) But you're not quite sure what. Yeah. Right. (9:13 - 9:27) And so or they would rely on times of autumn or times of spring. Yeah. And these are all things that are half the translucent. Yeah. Yeah. And so there was like, I think it was a quote. (9:27 - 10:12) If I'm going over here and it's like the romantics, too, had a predilection for whatever can only be partly discerned for unfinished sketches, for the half light of dawn, for scenes by twilight or moonlight, for music heard afar off, for mountains whose tops are obscured by mist that comes and goes. And then he says in chapter two, I referred to this consistent finding that whenever an image is either only fleetingly present, presented or presented in a degraded form, that the that only partial information is available, a right hemisphere support superiority emerges. One way of looking at romanticism is to see it as the wooing by whatever means can be brought to bear of the world is delivered by the right hemisphere. (10:12 - 10:47) And then it was like another way of looking at it is that in the process of completing or attempting to complete through imagination, the fragmentary impression one becomes in part the creator of what one perceives and importantly, only in part if the thing were either wholly given so that we played no part at all or wholly our invention, there would be no betweenness, nothing to be shared. As Wordsworth suggested, we half create and half perceive the world we inhabit. This reciprocal evolving process between the world and our minds again suggests the right hemisphere's role here, something ever more about to be. (10:48 - 11:04) And I just I don't know, I just really like that quick. It's it's it's a nice kind of bringing in on the idea and the concept of language and of words because it's very much linked to art, I think, like how you come to approach really anything. It's like even the way that art could technically be argued as a symbol. (11:04 - 11:16) Right. But what's the difference between a symbol and a metaphor? Right. It's like at one point, do you decide that that's going to be the switch? And it's like, no, it's not just it's not just something symbolizing something. (11:17 - 11:23) It's literally a metaphorical understanding of the world. Right. And that's that's a bit of the problem is during the Reformation. (11:23 - 11:50) When we go through this work, what happens is that there comes to be the left hemisphere wanting to make something original, right? It's like, oh, there's this is too. It's funny, funny enough, it's like I placed it in a box and now it's too familiar. And now I just got to in order for me to get it out of the box, I'm just going to create something completely new. (11:51 - 12:09) Yeah. Kind of like Great Reset. The example in the book that he gave was in the Reformation, they thought the bread and the wine to represent the body and blood of Christ in the Reformation, the belief was that the bread and the wine is inauthentic because it's not authentic. (12:09 - 12:30) It's not the real blood and body of Christ. They're like totally missing the whole metaphorical meaning there. Yeah. They're missing the embodiment and the experience you were supposed to invoke. It's about you, not necessarily the bread and the wine. But they fixated on that as if it were this external apart from you entity and went, it's it's a symbol. (12:30 - 12:41) And that doesn't actually do the real thing. And therefore it is inauthentic. We need to get rid of it and go as close back to the original, the original version of the body and blood of Christ. (12:41 - 12:53) Unless you plan to go back to when he put himself on the cross. OK, you're not going to do that. So they completely missed the boat, which is why they end up, like Maycee said, trying to recreate it. (12:54 - 13:08) They tried to recreate a different representation of the body and blood of Christ. And they and they did this in the Enlightenment and the Reformation with different things, trying to replace God with science in the Enlightenment. Same thing. (13:09 - 13:34) But you just end up idealizing and bringing out new symbols. Now, instead of a beautiful picture or a statue, because that statue is not the real version of Christ, then you replace it for words, funny enough, static representations, because then they would do religious texts and they would make it into an acronym. And now the acronym became the new cross. (13:34 - 13:51) So they just replaced it with something even less. Yeah, it's like it's again the idea where it's just like you get mad at somebody like worshipping something because you're like, oh, they clearly don't understand what it is that they're just worshipping a false entity. And then you create your own false entity. (13:52 - 14:38) And then I think it was like, I don't know if I touched on this, whether off screen or on screen, but Gilgur's best example was the French Revolution, which was meant to, you know, represent liberty and freedom and humanity and all of these great things. And it became like one of the most inhumane, slaughterous, genocidal frickin like events that could have occurred because people clearly had some sort of idea of like, oh, like this is not what real liberty and what real freedom is like. This is what it is. Right. And then but then it's almost like you ignore what it is that your part to play in your role to play in it. Because even with the idea of like a scientist kind of being separate from his experience. (14:38 - 14:46) Right. And separate and looking at things as objective. It's like me and Maddie were talking and there was an experiment done with a lab rat. (14:46 - 15:05) And when I heard this, I'll tell you how I felt right after. But in the experiment, it was they put a lab rat and like a big kind of tank of water for it to swim around. And it got, I'd say about 15 minutes before its energy left, its juice ran out and it died. (15:06 - 15:19) And then what they did again is they grabbed a rat and they were like, OK, we're going to take it out after like 14 minutes and 59 seconds. We're going to take it right before it's about to cut off. We're going to dry it off. (15:19 - 15:33) We're going to, you know, maybe give it some food, something just like rescue it. And then we're going to put it back in. And then the rat right after it lasts for 60 hours right after because it thought it could be saved. (15:33 - 16:11) And like the first thing I thought of when I was told that is who the fuck would do that to that poor rat? Who? Why would you kill a rat for this stupid experiment? And like and then, of course, my brain's like, oh, but look at how much that relates and look at like the metaphorical meaning. Isn't that funny how that works? Right from the science experiments, we already start going to metaphor. Isn't that funny? So it's like I was like, but did we need to go and kill a bunch of frickin rats in order to figure out that as a society that we that we sometimes emanate that where it's like, oh, my gosh, it's like we're like like it's like we're lab rats in an experiment. (16:11 - 16:25) And it's like we knew how we were treating each other well before we ever fucking started treating rats like that for the sake of experiment. It's like I felt like it's like, sure. Now you could say, oh, look, a physical reality. (16:25 - 16:35) Isn't it proof? Isn't it fact? And it's like it's already being lived. You didn't need to do that. Like what the heck? Yeah, that was that one was definitely brutal. (16:35 - 16:52) And when that's the debate about the academics again versus the people on the ground, the academics think it's OK because they actually don't go and live real life. So then they actually get pulled. They start to think what we talked about previous episode. (16:52 - 17:06) Fact is the reality versus theory, which theory is actually closer to reality than the fact because the fact is the isolated entity. Apart from context, theory and fact comes out of theory. Theory is wholly reliant on context. (17:07 - 17:18) That's where the potential comes out, which even even this poor rat swimming is like there's potential. You just give it a little bit of hope and then it goes the whole mile. It more than doubled its success rate. (17:18 - 17:44) But that's the whole thing on the this the place of words in our society, because depending on the hemisphere, words can be a tool to manipulate, which is partly why it's largely left hemisphere. It starts in the right. But then anything that usually gets old becomes familiar to familiar routine in the quotidian life, then goes to the left, which is what we talked about two episodes ago with the relationships. (17:44 - 18:09) You supposedly get tired of your lady and things become inauthentic or unfamiliar. And you've got to revitalize it or create something entirely new, which is where fantasy comes in versus imagination. So I'm glad that you're bringing that up, because I literally just have the the books in front of me because I wanted to bring that up because it plays into like, so what are we? How it's basically like watching how we're even responding to ourselves. (18:09 - 18:14) It's really funny. It's like left or right hemisphere has whatever idea in their head. Right. (18:14 - 18:35) And the right hemispheres are probably wouldn't be too much of a stagnant one. It would probably just be like, oh, but this is just like I know that this may not apply always at all times, like forever. But then we start to quite literally act on those ideas or act on our brains leaning right. (18:35 - 18:51) And it manifests in the world. And then that has downstream consequences. That's why we think the the work on the brain is so important because it's like, no, like the attention that these hemispheres and the way in which they respond to the world and the way it plays into how they shape the world. (18:52 - 19:17) But I'll just go on to the the quotes, because I think it plays into well, like the idea of how did we get to replacing symbols with just more symbols, you know what I mean? And again, the idea of how you come to know slash interact with these symbols and or metaphors. Right. Because it's like the differentiation of is it either or and like again, like it was funny. (19:17 - 19:21) I was just talking about science and I immediately start moving my way. We start inching our way into metaphor. Right. (19:21 - 19:42) So it's just there's there's something there. But so it says the deadening effect of the familiar, the inauthentic, the phenomenological terms is the trap of the left hemisphere. Breaking out of it requires the work of the imagination, not fantasy, which makes things novel, but imagination that actually makes them new, alive once more. (19:43 - 19:53) A defining quality of the artistic process, perhaps it's raison d'etre is is in play. Oh, sorry. Implacable. (19:53 - 20:09) I think it's implacable, I think. Opposition to the inauthentic. However, there is an absolute distinction, even an antithesis here being made between two ways of responding to the experience of the inauthentic. (20:10 - 20:23) In one, the inauthentic is seen as that which is too familiar in the left hemisphere sense, which is to say too often presented. Therefore, in fact, never more than represented. In other words, a worn out resource. (20:23 - 20:40) In the other, inauthenticity is seen as resulting precisely from a loss of familiarity in the right hemisphere sense, which is to say never being present at all. We are no longer at home with it. We start at home with it, have become, in fact, alienated from it. (20:40 - 20:55) In one, the thing itself is perceived as exhausted and needs to be replaced. In the other, the problem lies not in the thing itself, which we have barely begun to explore, but in ourselves and our ability to see it for what it really is. As a result, the responses are different at all levels. (20:56 - 21:27) In the first case, the solution is seen as lying in a conscious attempt to produce novelty, something never seen before, to invent, to be original. In the second, the solution, by contrast, is to make the everyday appear to us anew, to be seen again as it is in itself. Therefore, to discover rather to discover rather than to invent, to see what was there all along rather than put something new in its place, original in the sense that it takes us back to the origin, the ground of being. (21:27 - 22:00) This is the distinction between fantasy, which presents something novel in the place of the too familiar thing, an imagination which clears away everything between us and the not familiar enough thing. So we see it, it's sorry, see it itself new as it is. So it's funny because even when we're talking about the the professor and the madman and we're talking about the words, his mode of attention, even when you were saying it's like trying to find the root of the words or trying to. (22:00 - 22:37) It reminds me of when Gilchrist as well, way back in the novel was talking about how language is a form of life. And when he said that to me, I was like, oh, yeah, that's so true, because it's like when you're in a different culture, right, they have an entirely different way of interacting with the world, not entirely as in like separate from us, but just they have something that is theirs and their language is albeit a representation and a reflection of that. So it's not entirely always accurate, but it's something that's trying to become the most akin to it. (22:38 - 23:05) But even here when it's talking about like trying to discover rather than to invent, and then it's like. With the even in the in the in the professor and the madman with words, it's like how you how you treat and interact with them. It's like, are you look for the replacement? You have to have assumed already that you understand what it is that you're replacing. (23:05 - 23:16) Yeah. Right. But whereas he was saying for the right hemisphere, it was not necessarily that it felt like it understood what it was replacing because it wasn't really wanting to replace. (23:16 - 23:33) You and I were talking about this because when I first read that, I thought, oh, well, that seems really like to me, it's still send it left hemisphere. Even when he was describing what right hemisphere is like, I don't really know if that work, because if you're feeling like you've lost the familiar, you had to have some idea of what that was. Right. (23:33 - 23:44) But it reminded me way back in the book. He said that the right hemisphere has a certain relationship with the familiar in terms of my my familia, my home. Right. (23:44 - 24:23) So that is experience. That is not the abstract version of what a thing is. Almost like when people instead they replace the actual thing for the word instead of the word is replaced for the actual thing. Yeah. Then the right hemisphere with its ability of what's inauthentic because it's relying on experience. But if you're relying on experience and you know what you have experienced and you know what you have not experienced. Right. And so when it's like I have not experienced you before, I have not experienced this before. It may feel unfamiliar or it may feel inauthentic. (24:24 - 24:48) And then you're asking yourself, hmm, like, what do I do? And then I think maybe the thing is, it's just as simple as like, let it let it approach me, let it present itself to me. And then I will have experienced it. Like, well, it's time to experience. It's a form of like remapping. So if you people discover themselves or when you feel like you have the rug pulled from under you, it's not necessary. Sometimes it's not even, again, this external thing that has changed. (24:48 - 25:05) But you and the way you are approaching the world, that's the thing that has to change or it has, regardless of whether or not you want it to, because we are, again, not immutable creatures. And so that's where he argues the place for poetry. He talks a lot about Wordsworth and Wordsworth. (25:06 - 25:30) He the reason McGilchrist emphasizes poetry is because it's strong use of metaphor and metaphor and connotation. Yeah. And that's and the point of that is to use real life experience to re embody and reinvigorate life using something as static and as really left hemisphere as words. (25:31 - 25:50) And even in the movie, the thing that took something like making a dictionary, which really is like on face, it's a very left hemisphere thing. Like it really just because it's a bunch of categories there for you to use. But with the creation of it, he was even the madman. (25:51 - 26:03) He was talking to this lady, this potential love interest, and she was bringing him books. He said she couldn't read. And he's like, I can teach you. (26:03 - 26:18) And she went like, don't mock me. And he's like, no, because then you can teach your children. He said, you don't understand what that opens up because reading, even though they're static representations of things, you then get to learn like me and Maycee reading Socrates. (26:18 - 26:36) We are now learning. We get to reinvigorate. We get to reinvigorate minds that were here once decades ago and get to re understand lessons that if they learned it instead of us, like Maycee said, you don't have to take that rat and put him in the water and do this terrible experiment. (26:36 - 26:57) Some people have already learned these terrible lessons via their own experience. We can read history, read those books, these static representations of what was once living and bring it back into life by incorporating it into our own experience. And he was saying, this is why it's not just about you transcending something that maybe you think you don't need. (26:57 - 27:13) It'll take your kids somewhere that they couldn't have gone if you didn't have the skill of reading and writing. And I don't know what it was, but it was The Professor and the Madman and they were talking when they were on the bench together and they were talking about just the different words and they were using them. They were like, hmm. (27:13 - 27:23) And then they it's funny because they it's almost like painting with words, almost. They were tracing. And I know that sounds very linear because in part a little bit is right. (27:23 - 27:47) But they're tracing again the almost like the origins, like how Gilchrist was just saying, where it's like you're you're trying to figure out like original in the sense that it takes us back to the origin, the ground of being right. And that's why do we talk about even the metaphors that we choose when it comes to words themselves? These symbols like roots, right? Like words have roots. They have ground itself. (27:47 - 27:48) They have origin. Yeah. Right. (27:48 - 28:23) And so that's it's funny because like you're trying to apply how do you take this technically dead entity and revitalize it, reinvigorate it and put life back into it? Because there is there is something that it has history. Right. And then that is why I think some of it gets lost in translation for when you're trying to, I guess, do what the left hemisphere does and replace something and create something novel in its place. Right. And it's like its place was never something that was static. Its place was historic. (28:23 - 28:34) Like it is that symbols also, if you wanted to, like from a right hemisphere understanding, it's a living symbol. Right. It's something that is still has history and it's still playing out. (28:34 - 28:56) And and because living things, you know, interacted and created this this momentary stasis. So it's like a it's like the when we were watching the film, it was like watching the two hemispheres come together and create like that's when their most creative endeavors occur. And I don't even mean just the creation of the dictionary, something that was creative. (28:56 - 29:06) But I just mean even the process of how. Right. And the coming together of the people and the interaction. (29:06 - 29:26) And like even even there was I don't want to give away the movie. So for those who kind of don't want me to give it away, maybe stop here, but I'm just going to continue going. There was a part in the film where the woman does end up figuring out how to read. (29:26 - 29:38) She's slowly getting there and for her children, as many was expressing. But she creates a note for the madman, I think, or the professor. The funny part was you actually can't. (29:38 - 29:48) There isn't they're kind of a bit of both. They're both professor and madman at the same time. And she wrote a note for him. (29:48 - 30:03) And it was like, if love, then what? Right. And that's what it said on the note. And for the context was that this woman, sorry, this madman slash professor, he killed this woman's husband. (30:04 - 30:22) And so to him, he had a huge amount of guilt on his shoulders. And he was just. Like torn because this woman started to love him, like started to love this individual, and that sounds messed up, but go watch the film, it's actually a very, very heartfelt human moment. (30:22 - 30:35) And then when she sent him that, that's when he started having his schizophrenic breakdown. That's when he like at first he was doing really well. But the minute that she gave him that, that's when he kind of started losing it. (30:35 - 30:43) And then in his response, it was like, then there will be no redemption because he himself is carrying this vast amount of guilt. And and all of these things. Right. (30:43 - 31:03) But instead of allowing for what was what was happening to presents itself, he was stuck in the abstract. He was stuck in the idea of this woman. And funny enough, it's almost I don't even know if it's paradoxical or not, but it's just he was so focused on almost like this dead person. (31:03 - 31:16) This person is not alive anymore. Right. He was so focused, funny enough, on like what it is that they would think and how it is that they would feel if they were here today seeing what was going on between this woman and he gave up his own life. (31:16 - 31:26) Like he was embodying the dead man. He's like, how do I redeem? I give you everything. I basically die in this jail and then it'll be OK. (31:26 - 31:35) But what she was saying was, no, no, no. You have to come back. You being dead, you're not. (31:35 - 31:38) And yeah, you can't be. Yeah. It's like it's funny. (31:38 - 31:56) He did a very sort of right hemispheric thing, sort of where it's like this dead entity, this person who's no longer here. You reinvigorated their life, but you did it through a representation of you representing them. But that was never what that was never what the reality was, because you were never this person and you were never you never had to be them. (31:57 - 32:10) And you were never you weren't responsible for that. But at the same time, he took the responsibility for what he was responsible for, which was what are the downstream consequences of my actions? Right. And then he decided I wanted to do something about that. (32:10 - 32:54) But the the the answer to the riddle in the if love, then what? For this woman loving him? The answer was then love, right? Then presencing, then what it is that is then it is what it is, like what it is, is like so and then instead of some other alternative that was his him getting stuck in his own head, you know, instead of allowing there for something new to arise, the the life that was surrounding what was he was concerned with was dead. And so I think that is the the purpose. That's a nice way to kind of wrap this up, is that is the purpose of language and writing books like static entities. (32:54 - 33:06) The reason you do it is to help. It's supposed to help the process of the experience. It is supposed to help you map your own brain. (33:06 - 33:35) That's poetry has a place for a time and writing has a place for a time to help you solidify your own thoughts and where you're going, because you have to put something down concretely. And then, like you said in our last episode, hopefully you come back to it and maybe write another book. But the point of literature is it's meant to increase the the authenticity, funny enough, this, you know, this. (33:36 - 33:47) Dead entity is supposed to increase the authenticity of the real life experience. And if it's not meant for that, then it's probably being used for manipulation and other nefarious purposes. Yeah, it's the distance. (33:47 - 34:01) It's the the distance of literature can be used to manipulate, but it can also be used to connect. So, yeah, me and Maddie have another obligation now to go to. So we have to shut it down here. (34:01 - 34:08) But thank you guys so much for for listening. I don't think we're going to do part four. I think we are doing OK. (34:08 - 34:13) So without further ado. This has been Holmes Squared.