Podcasts about Aristotle

Send us Fan MailMost messages aimed at young men today split into two dead ends: become a sensitive, apologetic non-threat, or go to war and reclaim dominance. Zan thinks both camps hold a fragment of truth and neither offers a boy anything to actually hope for — which is why, more and more, he finds himself wanting to talk to thirteen-to-eighteen-year-olds instead of grown men.In this episode, Jordan asks Zan directly: what's the message? What do you actually say to a generation of boys who've been told their masculinity is the problem, who are retreating to their rooms, whose only two options seem to be surrender or rage?Zan's answer moves through some of the widest philosophical territory this podcast has covered — the concept of worship, stripped from religion and rebuilt around beauty itself. Petrarch and Dante, both of whom had their entire life's work ignited by seeing a woman he barely knew. The 1,500-year-old volcanic winter that blacked out the sun across Europe, and how people found meaning through it anyway. The uniculture problem — why knowing about every disaster on Earth simultaneously might be worse for the human nervous system than knowing only what happened in your own village. And a genuinely moving true story: a twelve-year-old boy, a short walk to a candy store, and one sentence from Zan that a mother said changed her son for weeks afterward.Watch until the end for what Zan calls the real message underneath everything — not optimism, not denial, but gratitude for what you have precisely because it won't last.

Courage is not the absence of fear. Fear is the price of admission. This week: Aristotle's definition, a 2009 flood in Manila, and the one conversation you keep avoiding.

The word “intelligence” is a loaded word. Here's what Elon Musk said to the Economist last week: “I think AI may exceed the sum of human intelligence in around five years. There really won't be anything that AI can't do better than humans, apart from being human, perhaps.” Well “being human” is what intelligence is all about. So I read up on how Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, James, and many of the eastern philosophers define the term. And what you find is that deep thinkers define intelligence far beyond the ability to recall and use facts, but focus heavily on judgement, problem solving, and dealing with uncertainties in life. So after thinking about this for a few years, I decided to posit my ideas, and also reflect on the intelligence of trees, as described in “The Hidden Life of Trees.” What I came up with is four parts to this puzzling idea: horsepower, information, judgement, and wisdom. And as you'll hear, we all have various levels of intelligence in each area, and AI may lack quite a bit. As we all grapple with the exaggerated claims from AI engineers and the real use of these tools, I hope this discussion gives you some perspective, and also calms your fears that AI is going to steal your job. Our new book, Superpowered, is coming out in November, so sign up for early preview – it's all about how AI Superpowers us all, in our work, careers, businesses, and life. Additional Information The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate—Discoveries from A Secret World The full-length interview with Elon Musk | The Economist Are Frontier Models Becoming A Commodity? Galileo: The AI Superintelligence for HR Chapters (00:00:00) - What is Intelligence?(00:10:02) - Does an AI Have Enough Intelligence to Plan?

Round two. Same four analysts, a lot more whiskey, and a lot less structure. Peter Zeihan, Marko Papic, and Matt Gertken sit back down with Jacob - a man who cut his teeth pestering all three of them for their pieces as a Stratfor intern - for an unfiltered conversation about how they actually became geopolitical strategists. They trade formative-moment stories from Stratfor's early-2000s "golden age" (including the Egypt/Mubarak call that made Jacob's career), debate whether corporate America can ever hire real geopolitical talent, and each name the one book that shaped how they see the world - from World War Z to Aristotle to The Ingenuity Gap. Along the way: George Friedman lore, the DC Comics-vs-Marvel theory of geopolitical shops, and a genuinely moving closing tribute to the mentor who built this whole coaching tree. Part reunion, part masterclass in how to think about the world - and part roast session.--Timestamps:(00:00) - Welcome Back Round Two(00:52) - Whiskey And Loose Format(01:34) - Formative Stratfor Moments(02:24) - Arab Spring Cred Test(04:17) - Stratfor Coaching Tree(07:50) - Pipeline After Cold War(14:17) - Academia Versus Geopolitics(17:14) - Analyst Craft And Courage(20:22) - Chief Geopolitical Officer Debate(22:55) - Training Gap And Time Horizons(25:29) - Universities And MBA Reform(27:39) - Ideology And Groupthink(30:02) - Theory Versus Practice(30:57) - Frameworks Beat Facts(31:44) - Operationalizing Geopolitics(34:24) - Training Pipelines and MBAs(37:39) - Sector Specialists and Scale(40:01) - Everyone a Geostrategist(41:01) - Deglobalization in Fashion(42:51) - Formative Books Roundtable(51:07) - Great Men and Psychology(54:21) - Empathetic Analysis Explained(56:25) - Displacement and Perspective(58:23) - Formative Experiences Teaser(58:50) - Yugoslavia Falls Apart(59:15) - Tito Memories and Disillusion(59:58) - Conspiracies and Nihilism(01:01:23) - Identity in the Balkans(01:03:51) - Living With Uncertainty(01:04:39) - Midwest Roots and Leaving Home(01:06:18) - Can Places Change(01:07:32) - America as Debate Laboratory(01:10:22) - Learning to Write Analysis(01:14:39) - Chip on Shoulder Mindset(01:18:22) - Morality Versus Analysis(01:21:12) - Breaking Intellectual Chains(01:23:53) - Finding the Fulcrum Question(01:24:43) - Final Words and Gratitude--Geopolitical Cousins is produced and edited by Audiographies LLC. More information at audiographies.com--Jacob Shapiro is a speaker, consultant, author, and researcher covering global politics and affairs, economics, markets, technology, history, and culture. He speaks to audiences of all sizes around the world, helps global multinationals make strategic decisions about political risks and opportunities, and works directly with investors to grow and protect their assets in today's volatile global environment. His insights help audiences across industries like finance, agriculture, and energy make sense of the world.Jacob Shapiro Site: jacobshapiro.comJacob Shapiro LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jacob-l-s-a9337416Jacob Twitter: x.com/JacobShapJacob Shapiro Substack: jashap.substack.com/subscribe --Marko Papic is a macro and geopolitical expert at BCA Research, a global investment research firm. He provides in-depth analysis that combines geopolitics and markets in a framework called GeoMacro. He is also the author of Geopolitical Alpha: An Investment Framework for Predicting the Future.Marko's Book & Newsletter: www.geopoliticalalpha.com/marko-papic Marko's Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marko-papic-geopolitics/Marko's Twitter: https://x.com/Geo_papicMarko's Macro & Geopolitical Research at BCA: https://www.bcaresearch.com/marketing/geomacro

You've watched a friend go through it. The house, the filing, the number the lawyer gave him. He built that business staying up late for years, and now he's watching half of it get divided by a stranger in a courtroom. You went home and did the math on your own situation that same night. Two years in with a partner who seems good, but still no proposal. You tell people it's timing. But you know it isn't just timing. This episode is for the person who sat down with the numbers, the way he sits down with every serious decision, and concluded the downside can't be insured against. The caution is intelligent. The costs are real. Nobody should tell you the fear is silly. But the fear is pointed at the wrong object. The research shows what he should be afraid of instead. By the end of this episode, the question stops being whether to marry, which never had a good answer. It becomes a harder question about a particular person, and that one you can answer this week. Start the episode here. Show Highlights Include: Why 40 year old men think they're afraid of marriage when they're really afraid of this… (2:29)  The cold, hard facts about what divorce costs you (and the reason to marry anyway) (3:44)  How the "argument" against marriage, even as a man with real assets to lose, falls apart in three steps (7:20)  The weirdest way to increase your lifespan by making one decision (backed by a Harvard research study that's also the longest-running study on human happiness) (7:51)  Why most men miscalculate the "Marriage Variable" and how it dooms them to a life of isolation and emptiness (11:42)  How Aristotle's "3 Types of Human Connection" method can help you identify, long before you get on one knee, whether you should marry your partner or keep searching (14:43)  The surefire way to prevent the inevitable heartbreak that follows when you're served the divorce papers and only then realize how your spouse contributed to your life (17:11)  5 rules that tell you exactly the type of woman you should not marry (19:41)  For more about David Tian, go here: https://www.davidtianphd.com/about/  Feeling like success in one area of life has come at the expense of another? Maybe you've crushed it in your career, but your relationships feel strained. Or you've built the life you thought you wanted, yet there's still something important missing. I've put together a free 3-minute assessment to help you see what's really holding you back. Answer a few simple questions, and you'll get instant access to a personalized masterclass that speaks directly to where you are right now. It's fast. It's practical. And it could change the way you approach leadership, love, and fulfillment. Take the first step here → https://dtphd.com/quiz

Thomas H. Huxley's "The Advance of Science in the Last Half Century" offers a compelling overview of significant advancements in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology from 1839 to 1889, while situating these developments within the broader context of philosophical thought dating back to Aristotle. Huxley, a prominent advocate for evolution and a gifted essayist, presents these complex ideas in a clear and engaging manner, making them accessible to both scholars and casual listeners. The themes of scientific inquiry and the evolution of thought remain relevant today, as society continues to grapple with the implications of scientific progress.

งานที่เราทำอยู่ทำให้เรามีความสุขได้จริงไหม?  หากเรายังหาคำตอบไม่ได้ ให้ลองคิดถึงชีวิตตามสไตล์อริสโตเติลดู . ‘อริสโตเติล' นักปรัชญาที่มีอิทธิพลสูงมากในโลกตะวันตกได้ขบคิดถึงชีวิตและความเป็นตัวตนของเราในฐานะมนุษย์ และความเบ่งบานของชีวิตที่ไม่ได้ขึ้นอยู่กับงาน หรือคน หรือตัวเราฝ่ายเดียว  . แต่มันคือทุกๆ ส่วนของชีวิต ทั้งสภาพแวดล้อม ผู้คน หรือจิตใจของเราว่าแข็งแกร่งมากพอที่จะเลือกจุดที่พอดี และยอมเจอสิ่งเหล่านั้นซ้ำๆ จนกลายเป็นธรรมชาติของเราหรือยัง . . #Aristotle #selfdevelopment #goodtime #5minutespodcast #missiontothemoonpodcast

งานที่เราทำอยู่ทำให้เรามีความสุขได้จริงไหม?  หากเรายังหาคำตอบไม่ได้ ให้ลองคิดถึงชีวิตตามสไตล์อริสโตเติลดู . ‘อริสโตเติล' นักปรัชญาที่มีอิทธิพลสูงมากในโลกตะวันตกได้ขบคิดถึงชีวิตและความเป็นตัวตนของเราในฐานะมนุษย์ และความเบ่งบานของชีวิตที่ไม่ได้ขึ้นอยู่กับงาน หรือคน หรือตัวเราฝ่ายเดียว  . แต่มันคือทุกๆ ส่วนของชีวิต ทั้งสภาพแวดล้อม ผู้คน หรือจิตใจของเราว่าแข็งแกร่งมากพอที่จะเลือกจุดที่พอดี และยอมเจอสิ่งเหล่านั้นซ้ำๆ จนกลายเป็นธรรมชาติของเราหรือยัง . . #Aristotle #selfdevelopment #goodtime #5minutespodcast #missiontothemoonpodcast

งานที่เราทำอยู่ทำให้เรามีความสุขได้จริงไหม?  หากเรายังหาคำตอบไม่ได้ ให้ลองคิดถึงชีวิตตามสไตล์อริสโตเติลดู . ‘อริสโตเติล' นักปรัชญาที่มีอิทธิพลสูงมากในโลกตะวันตกได้ขบคิดถึงชีวิตและความเป็นตัวตนของเราในฐานะมนุษย์ และความเบ่งบานของชีวิตที่ไม่ได้ขึ้นอยู่กับงาน หรือคน หรือตัวเราฝ่ายเดียว  . แต่มันคือทุกๆ ส่วนของชีวิต ทั้งสภาพแวดล้อม ผู้คน หรือจิตใจของเราว่าแข็งแกร่งมากพอที่จะเลือกจุดที่พอดี และยอมเจอสิ่งเหล่านั้นซ้ำๆ จนกลายเป็นธรรมชาติของเราหรือยัง . . #Aristotle #selfdevelopment #goodtime #5minutespodcast #missiontothemoonpodcast

How can building an audience in advance help your stories reach the people who make movies? And how can you prove there's demand for your book or screenplay before you've written it? Brooks Elms shares his advice after more than 20 years as a WGA screenwriter. In the intro, what doesn't work for book marketing and what does [Amy Chan SubStack; Unsingle; Rephonic]; Goodreads giveaway for Bones of the Deep; FutureVision XPrize. This podcast is sponsored by Kobo Writing Life, which helps authors self-publish and reach readers in global markets through the Kobo eco-system. You can also subscribe to the Kobo Writing Life podcast for interviews with successful indie authors. This show is also supported by my Patrons. Join my Community at Patreon.com/thecreativepenn Brooks Elms is a WGA screenwriter with over 45 scripts, over a dozen sales, and he has directed two indie features. He is the creator of the Answer the Call system and has trained over 1,000 writers. You can listen above or on your favorite podcast app or read the notes and links below. Here are the highlights and the full transcript is below. Show Notes How to see the opportunity in AI when others only see the threat How to test a story with samples, and what a 16-second movie can do Building the trailer before you write the screenplay Letting your audience finance the film once they have validated the idea Why Hollywood still wants existing IP, and what makes them pay attention Feeling safe enough to write the truth, and finding a concrete path forward You can find Brooks on LinkedIn or email him at brooks@brookselms.com. Transcript of the interview with Brooks Elms Jo: Brooks Elms is a WGA screenwriter with over 45 scripts, over a dozen sales, and he has directed two indie features. He is the creator of the Answer the Call system and has trained over 1,000 writers. So welcome to the show, Brooks. Brooks: Thank you. It's awesome to be here. Jo: Fantastic. So first up— Tell us a bit more about you and how you got into screenwriting. Brooks: I started filmmaking first. A buddy came up to me in high school and said, “Hey, we're making a karate movie, do you want to help us?” I was like, “Oh my God, yes, that sounds amazing.” So next thing I know, I had this karate outfit on, and we were just making this completely ridiculous and totally fun movie, and it was amazing. It was so fun. Then it went to a whole other level when we shared it with a friend, this guy Jay Sharon, and he watched the movie and he laughed so hard he literally fell out of his chair. I was like, “Oh my God,” the fun I had making it could actually transfer to somebody else. I was hooked. So from there I went to NYU film school, and then made a few independent feature films which were good but not great in terms of how they were received. They were great for me in terms of enjoyment, but I knew I needed to iterate faster at that point. So then I was like, “Well, it's expensive and it takes a long time to make a movie,” at least back then. So I pivoted to screenwriting, and pumped out two, three scripts a year, got signed at UTA, got writing assignments, and basically launched a screenwriting career. Then I still tried to get some stuff going, but it's hard when movies are so expensive. It's not hard, it's just that it takes a lot of precision in the marketing, and a lot of conversations to find the right matches to finance something, and you're either interested in doing that or you're not. I just was like, “Well, I'll just mostly write screenplays.” Then I started teaching at UCLA Extension and then coaching after that, along with writing. Then all the way up to the future. What's great about moving forward is that with AI, shot-making is becoming very close to cinematic quality. You can actually match cinematic quality in moments in some genres, but probably by next year. Right now you could actually do a really good horror movie all AI for 10, 20,000 bucks, depending on how much you're doing yourself or getting other people to do. So the economics are going to absolutely explode. So I'm sitting on dozens of scripts that didn't get through the Hollywood packaging bottleneck because they're too expensive, and I now have this giant slate that's ready to go, and I'm just absolutely thrilled. It's been a lifelong dream for me. Jo: Oh, so much to come back on there. Where to start? I do want to talk about what you just said there, sitting on dozens of scripts and now seeing the opportunity. I actually wrote down in my journal about a year ago, I see what's coming with AI, and I think that the best thing I can do is create as much original IP as possible, so that I can make the most of the opportunity ahead. So let's just get into the AI, because a lot of people feel it's a super bad thing. Talk about the opportunities and the attitude that you've got [around AI], and that you've seen others have around this, for what is ahead in a positive way. Brooks: It's fascinating to see how people respond to AI. I wonder, when the printing press rolled around, if there was some sort of backlash. Books must be handwritten. They can't be mass-produced. Here's one of my theories. At a deep psychological level, it's so profoundly powerful that I think the default setting is, “Oh, crap.” When I was a kid, some things were hard, and that power imbalance, when something big, new and powerful comes along: I'm going to get screwed, and so this is somehow a bad thing. I think that's the base psychological thing going on with most of the noise. Obviously there are some legit problems, in terms of copyright infringement from learning models, or from some of the environmental situation. So I'm not saying it's all rainbows and butterflies, but I think 90% of the noise around it comes from a fear of change. Here's the other one—a fear of, “Oh, yikes, I'm going to get taken advantage of somehow by either robots, or the corporations are going to use the robots against me,” or something like that. I have real empathy for me when I feel that way a little bit, but I don't feel it much, and for other people that do feel it. The other thing is, you know what it is? I think they fear their own empowerment even more. I had a therapist who was really good. He said, people aren't so much afraid of failing as they are afraid of succeeding. Because if we fail, we're stuck in act one and we don't go anywhere. The fear is answering the call and going to act two, when everything effing changes in the new world. So I think people are afraid of how goddamn powerful they're going to be when they can have a team of AI agents helping them do everything they want in business or life or whatever. I think it's the same thing with the internet. People are like, “Oh, I don't like social media, blah, blah, blah.” And I get it. There's a lot of noise and a lot of crap. Yet we have access to billions of people, and the algorithms in social media right now I think are level three out of 10. They're just going to get better and better. Even as it is now, if I do a post about something and it gets ignored, that's on me. The algorithms are trying to match me to my people. So if I'm not unique enough and authentic enough and aware enough of how virality works, that's on me, and it's a learnable skill that I can embrace and then change and then get better at. So I think people then resist that change. They resist the empowerment of learning the art of virality, or learning the art of some sort of social media stuff or whatever. The last thing I'll say about this rant is, I don't want to act like I'm the guru on the hill that has all the answers. I refuse calls all the time. I'm scared about all sorts of things. I'm certainly not perfect. I feel frustrated when I'm trying to put my big ideas into action and I can't get this technology thing to work or that one, and I throw tantrums. I'm trying to come at it from a real human perspective, but by and large, I've got stars in my eyes. I'm like, “This is amazing. This is going to be so powerful.” For so many people, you just have to be ready to embrace it and just go along for the ride, because there's going to be some big-ass changes. There already are, and that's going to accelerate. Jo: You mentioned there learning the art of whatever it is. One of the things is, I've spent 20 years, and so have you, learning our craft and our art, and now it can be done very easily. I'm generating video, as you mentioned, which is a craft I haven't spent 20 years on, but now I can generate. So things have definitely changed in that way. Just coming to the screenwriting side. Probably about a decade ago now, I did my first screenwriting course. I've written screenplays. Then I looked at the game you have to play and, like you said, the conversations you have to have, the events you have to go and network at, all the things that you have to do to put a screenplay in front of the right person at the right time. I was like, “I cannot do that. It's just not going to happen. I can't do that along with everything else.” So I put it aside, but now I feel maybe it's time to bring it back because things are changing. So can you maybe talk about, if someone has a screenplay now that they've written, or some IP like a book that they have now— What would you recommend people do in terms of wanting to get that [IP] in front of somebody, or doing something with it themselves? Brooks: It's such a good question. By the way, not even a screenplay—you could do the same things with a novel. Let me try to be succinct here, which is a good challenge for me. A simple way to look at it is, you're giving samples. Let's say it's a lemonade stand, and you give out a little shot of your… maybe you have cayenne pepper lemonade, some sort of fun lemonade. If you give out a sample and people are into it, they're going to come back and they're going to tell friends. If you give a sample of the lemonade and they're not into it, then you go back to the kitchen and you mix up a different flavour. So that's some basic business, but the internet allows us to do that at scale. So what I like to encourage people to do when I coach them is come up with the minimum viable material. It can be a 10-second clip. There's a writer in my community who made a really beautiful 16-second movie. It's one shot. I love it so much. It's two wine glasses. There's a lipstick smudge on one of the wine glasses. They're half full, and it's just that shot. It's sitting there, and all of a sudden you hear this thundering, thumping down these stairs, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. Then you see out of the corner of the frame one person runs by, and then the other person behind her runs by and goes, “Wait.” That's it. That's the whole movie. It's 16 seconds. He did that with his phone. So there's so much going on. There's a couple of basic elements, but he just did it with his phone, and you can evoke enormous emotional impact on people through social media, whether it's just words. You guys have a big advantage as novelists because you're so good with words. Whether it's a little bit longer, like sudden fiction, that's a couple of pages or whatever. Even just copywriters are really in a good position for the future because they're super potent with two words or three words or 10 words. Then novelists are probably really advantageous because it doesn't cost anything to just put some words out on the internet. The point is, if you put something out, it's a signal, and you're talking about billions of people who could find that signal. If you do it and then you look at the response, and then you try again, you look at the response, we can do this iteration infinitely for free. So you can do it already. You've been able to do it for 10, 15, 20 years, just with words. But now you're going to basically be able to do that with movies or clips or trailers. So the thing that I'm leading in my community of writers is having people build trailers in advance, or clips. When a book or a movie is done, how the heck do we get people to see it? One way is a trailer or some sort of behind-the-scenes material. You can just do that stuff now before even writing the screenplay. I saw that you were doing this project, a trailer for this competition. And then you mentioned, “Oh, I've got to write the screenplay.” Not really. You have to develop the story enough to know what you're referring to, and then it's about studying the craft of either trailer construction, or whatever the clips are, or viral clips. They all have a structure, and then you just test it. If you enjoy that testing process, which I find absolutely thrilling, it feels like the filmmaking version of a stand-up comedian. If I did stand-up, I say a joke, they laugh or they don't laugh. It's really beautiful feedback from the universe. Nerve-wracking, right? But we can do that now as storytellers. We put a story out there in any format, and the audience responds. Just like you have to read any room, you have to learn how to read the engagement on social media. What do likes mean? What do shares mean? What do comments mean? How do you deal with trolls? All that is just part of the new art. Once you get good at it, holy smokes, that's the key to the kingdom. You can build audiences in advance, and for movies you could even have them finance your movie in advance, if you've built an email list of 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 people because you kept putting out all these viral clips around your story, novel, or screenplay. Then you go, “Okay, now 30,000 people are on my email list and I tell them about me and my perspective and my world. We're going to make this darn thing with AI for 20,000 bucks. You guys have got to pony up some money. Put in a dollar, five, 10, or you get the VIP $500 experience.” It's like crowdfunding, but much more sophisticated, because most crowdfunding was like begging friends and family to donate to your crazy dream. What I'm talking about is going to the audience directly, developing enough of the story, then going to the audience second, and then only when they validate the idea, to the extent that you're happy with. You could do a crazy idea that's going to have a small audience, and you don't have to have a blockbuster audience. You get to pick the audience size that you want, and then put the samples out there and see if you have a relevant audience size for this next project. Once the audience tells you, “Yes, we want this,” then you go make it. So you're ultimately reducing risk to almost zero. It takes time and you have to learn how to do this stuff, but it's thrilling to me because we just have the capacity to test the material and listen to the audience upfront. The last thing I'll say, and I've rambled a lot, I'm sorry. When I made a movie in 1994, a feature film right out of NYU, it took me three years to find out what the audience thought about that movie. I had to make the damn thing, and then I ran out of money, and that took me years to edit it, and I finally got it, blah, blah, blah. And again, I loved it. I loved every facet of it, and it was fine, but it was super inefficient. Today, I could take those same elements, create an AI trailer this weekend, put it in front of hundreds of thousands of people, and they could tell me right away, “This sucks,” or, “This is interesting,” or, “Holy smokes, this is amazing. I want this.” If it's not, “Holy smokes, this is amazing, I want it,” I can go ahead and re-edit the whole damn trailer, and just keep reiterating at almost no cost. Then once the demand is there, I can take that demand and that audience and go to Hollywood, and that's when they're going to want to work with me. Then it doesn't take a million conversations and finding the needle in the haystack, because Hollywood sees the numbers and they go, “Oh, you're the people we do want to do business with. You've proven demand. We want to do business with you.” Jo: Yes, it's so interesting. I can hear people listening and they're like, “Easier said than done, getting an email list of 40,000 people.” And in fact— It's exactly the same as building up a career as an independent author. This is as a filmmaker, as a visual person, and the industry is visual, so doing a visual trailer is the obvious thing. And as you say, the tools I use just to do this one, I use Midjourney, and I've used Seedance as the main video model. It does take a while, but it is pretty fast now, if you have a visual image of what you want in your head, which obviously you're a visual person as well. But is it… Brooks: Hold on. I want to push back on that a little bit, because I think it's really important. So yes, that's true, but underneath that, my friend, it's a relationship. It's the relationship, and the media is secondary. You have been prolific in connecting with your audience, and that's why I think a lot of people like you, because you share and they get to know you in that sort of cadence. I saw you in another podcast, you mentioned Seth Godin, who just said, “Hey, I want to be the type of person that has this relationship with my audience. I'm going to share some of my thoughts every day.” He happened to do it with words, with his background in marketing, but you could do the same thing with still images. You could do the same thing with a five-second movie clip once a week. It's the relationship you want with your fans. I'm not saying you snap your fingers and you have 50,000 people on your email list. What I'm saying is, what else are you doing? If we're artists and our impulse is to create and share, and if you do it in this way, if I can create and share and inspire trust in this relationship with a stranger because they like my genre thing and they like the way they felt when they experienced my media, words, images, movies, it doesn't matter. They just like the feeling, and they go, “Ooh, I want more of that feeling. How do I get more of that? Oh, this person has this email list or community.” If I can do it with one, then I can scale it out. So getting the first one, or the first 5 or 10 samples, that is a whole process. But then once you do that, scaling up is more of a mechanical thing. It's not even that hard, especially when you can do paid ads. So you can scale up very quickly if you have the sauce. If you don't have the sauce, it doesn't matter who you're related to, you've got to get the sauce right. Jo: Yes, and again, it's so parallel to the indie author community. I've just got to ask you, in the olden days, an author might write a screenplay, or a screenwriter write a screenplay, and then they would send it. They'd find an agent. They'd pitch an agent, and I guess then they'd hope that someone would turn that into a movie. So is that just dead now? Is it realistically that you need to get yourself out there, build the audience in the same way that it often is for authors? Brooks: So, no. I've got two screenplay deals going right now. So here's how it's going to work. Think about Broadway, or the theatre district in Britain. It's like West End or East End or whatever… Jo: The West End. Brooks: Sorry for my American ignorance. West End, okay. So every town on the planet has a stage, but there's only one Broadway, there's only one West End, right? And every town has its own festival, but there are a few significant tastemakers. There's Cannes, there's Sundance, there's Toronto. Hollywood is always going to be a tastemaker in our lifetime, for sure. What they don't have anymore, what they enjoyed for the first 100 years of the industry, is that they had a stranglehold on basically the equipment, the financing, and the audience, and that's all going away. Do you want to hear a fun story about the birth of cinema? Do you know why Hollywood started in Hollywood? Jo: No. Brooks: So Thomas Edison invented the camera, or the type of model camera that they were using in, I don't know, 1910 or something around there. They didn't want to pay his patent. They didn't want to pay the patent to make these movies, so they went all the way across the country, a bunch of outlaws, and they set up shop in California because he couldn't enforce his patent that they were basically stealing. And reason number two, LA enjoys amazing weather almost all year round. The weather here is either nice or really nice. You have mountains, you have beach, you have desert, you have all these different locales. So when it was really important to be on location, LA was the perfect place. Anyway, that is all going away. For many decades, more people could make movies. In the early '90s, Robert Rodriguez made a movie for 9,000 bucks. There was a book in the '80s that I bought that I loved, it was Feature Filmmaking at Used-Car Prices. This guy, Rick Schmidt, I think his name was. There were the independent filmmakers really in the '60s and the '70s. So the cost has been going down and down and down, and now it's less than ever. Once social media came along, now you have access to the audience, so why do you even need Hollywood? That being said, there are tons of people. There are 400,000 people already working in the movie and the TV industry here. And they're voracious. We have a voracious demand. Humans need stories. We need big stories, long stories. We need stories, and Hollywood is so good at giving them stories. And so they have a need for these things, and they're still spending a lot of money on those budgets. So yes, there's still a demand for turning books and optioning them and turning them into movies. Books are great. Any sort of existing IP is great because there are marketing efficiencies there. People already know that stuff, know the vibe of it, and so it's easier to market than something that's totally creative and new. When you're spending that much money, you want those marketing efficiencies. They're really important. So the point being, the power is shifting away from Hollywood. Hollywood will still be a tastemaker, but you and me can reach anybody on the planet now. Almost. Billions of people. If it's making a movie, right now you could make a movie that most people wouldn't realise is an AI movie. If it was a horror film, I know a handful of people that could make a feature-length horror film right now with AI and 99% of the audience couldn't tell, if it was professionally written. Jo: I think the point here though is, I'm an author, the people listening are authors, and we don't want to make movies. We want to license our IP to people who want to make movies. Brooks: Yes. Great. Okay, good. So then you could, if you wanted, build an audience. Hollywood loves when something's already proven, so that's that IP thing, right? So if you just have a great book, then it's all about the sales. You guys have Dragons' Den, we have Shark Tank here. And what's amazing about that show is these are people or entrepreneurs pitching an idea, and there's an amazing rhythm that happens. They say, “We've got this great idea. It's this sort of company.” And the sharks, or the dragons, will listen. And there's a huge turning point when they reveal sales. They're either really excited about the idea and then they go, “Well, how are the sales?” And the person goes, “Well, we don't have any sales yet.” And they go, “Uh,” and they're not interested. Or they might even be like, “Eh, it doesn't seem like a good idea.” And they're like, “Well, how are the sales?” And they're like, “Oh, well, we've sold through the roof.” And then all of a sudden they perk up. So it's all about the sales. So step one is writing something that you want. Step two is making sure other people in your target audience are also loving it as much as you do. Step three is proving in some way at scale that there's real demand for it. So you could do that with trailers, you could do that with clips, you can do that as an indie publisher. There's all sorts of things that you can do. Humans are much more persuaded by concrete data than they are by just vibes. So if you can bring Hollywood concrete data of any type, like viral videos, like audience, like obviously bestsellers. Awards mean something, but not quite as much as sales. Then you're going to get Hollywood's attention because that reduces risk for them. So even now, when Hollywood's definitely shrinking and contracting, there's still very significant money being spent because it's a huge demand. If you ever walk around a studio lot, those things are opulent places. It's stunning. Like, how are they paying for all this stuff? These lots are enormous. It's because humanity is voracious for stories, and movies are one premium type of storytelling. The demand for stories is steady if not going up. It's just that we have a wider variety of types of stories that we can do, whether we're an indie author. So anyway, did I answer the question? You get me too excited with these questions, Jo. It's a problem. Jo: Yes. I think there's a lot of opportunity and a lot of ways in, but the parallels with being an indie author I think are quite clear. One of the things I found interesting about your profile and what you do is that you help clients who are already accomplished but not quite breaking through, and that sounds like a lot of mid-list indie authors, probably a lot of mid-list screenwriters, mid-list filmmakers. This is a hard place to be because, on the one hand, we are grateful for what we have achieved and what we can do, and yet wanting more, wanting that big Hollywood deal or the Netflix deal, or wanting the massive bestseller or whatever. So if someone wants to get to that next level, what are some of the ways that they can perhaps try and get there? Brooks: It's a great question. Coaching is a really wonderful way to learn anything of this sort of complexity and challenge, especially if it's a hyper-competitive business. We need two things, I think, to write a great novel or screenplay or both. A, we need to feel profoundly safe in our space. If we can't really feel deeply authentic about the things that are embarrassing, or that we feel shame about, or just our shadows, or anything that we don't feel completely comfortable saying and sharing in public usually. We need to be able to touch those things, and be articulate about those things, and that's one part of it. Then we need a concrete path forward. Maybe you're thinking about some tragedy that you had in childhood, and how you dealt with it and how difficult that was. So you need to be able to be real precise in those observations about what it felt like, and how you tried to compensate for it, and that didn't work and it made it worse. Whatever your observations are about your life journey, you need to be really specific and really deeply felt. A good coaching relationship allows you to be in that space, to be really honest with yourself and authentic. g Aood coach will push you back and say, “You know what? That sounds interesting, but maybe not quite as true to you deeply.” So that's one piece of it. Then there's a concrete path forward. You need to have the emotional access to that truth, and then you need to know what to do with that truth in a step-by-step way. Because most people, the ones that you're talking about, they're accomplished in something else. What happens is when we first start writing, and maybe this happens with novelists, but for sure it happens to screenwriters, you just start typing words. But you haven't really thought through the theme, the concept, the structure, the character, all the deeper questions that really matter. The milestones, like a North Star: winning a major award, or getting a publisher. That's the direction that we're heading towards, and then you set it and forget it, but you want to keep checking it every week, every month or whatever. But you want it very specific. “I would like to sell a book, or sell a book to Hollywood, or write a screenplay, or get a producer attached to a screenplay.” Whatever the milestone is, make it really specific, really concrete, and then reverse engineer. This is what I do on the concrete path. I reverse engineer every step to get there, starting with a really tiny one we can do today, and I make sure they feel really safe, and then we just walk through. Then what happens is, if you do that, if you feel safe, if you're showing up authentically and you have a process that's repeatable, not just willy-nilly, it's got to be something that's proven to work. It wasn't an accident I wrote 45 scripts. I've got a whole system. But by the way, the first five scripts took me forever. The last movie that I made took me three years to write that script. I can write a better script with those same elements in three months now, because I know I have a concrete path. So if you want to do something new, whether it's playing the piano or getting six-pack abs or writing a screenplay, work with somebody who's got a system that's already proven, and make sure you relate to them, and then just follow the system. Then when the doubts come up, and they will, that's where the feeling safe is really important. Because, oh, I want the six-pack abs, but I don't feel like going to the gym. I want the extra donut. If I'm working with a really good trainer, they go, “Dude, do you want the six-pack abs or not?” And then you go back and forth, and I go, “Okay, now I can make peace with myself and say I can take one tiny bite of the donut and then still do my workout,” and then I'm moving towards that North Star. Does that make sense? Jo: Yes. I think, like many independents, I resist anything that is systematised. I'm a discovery writer, and I follow the muse, and all of that kind of thing. I think I would say something in a similar vein, which is sustainable creativity for the long term, because your 45 scripts are also years of work, and my books are years of work, and we get better at what we do. So my system, I do have a system really, because— My system is that I do the work, and I write my stories, and I get them out there, and I do the marketing. So even if it's not as systematised as such, it's still a process that I have repeated over and over again. Brooks: That's fascinating to me. Would you consider yourself a pantser? You're like, “I've got an idea,” and you just start writing? Jo: I don't use the word pantser. I guess I call it discovery writing, which is… Brooks: That's a better term. Jo: Yes. What I'm writing for this prize, for example, I know the characters, I know now what's happening. When I had the idea, it was very much a vision and a theme, and the competition has a theme: a positive future with AI and technology. But the things that came around that, I then started playing with ideas around the treatment. I haven't written the screenplay yet. I don't do a plot, or I don't follow Save the Cat or any of that kind of thing. When I write a novel, I just explore and I never write in order. Then at some point I stop and then I have to think about the structure and putting it all together, so the edits are quite big. But my fun is in that discovery, really. Brooks: Oh, that's awesome. Okay, so let me ask, that's really fascinating. And by the way, that doesn't, to me, negate the system that I use. The one that I use is ultimately… the thing is, these questions, the audience is wanting your unique answers to. You don't necessarily need to do it in a certain order. I think that's actually really cool that you write out of order and you have a few elements in mind. All that stuff sounds awesome. The only thing that then makes me curious is, how's your pace? Are you actually completing novels at a pace that feels good, or do you feel like you go too fast, too slow? Jo: I do one or two a year at the moment. Well, two a year, really. But I would say I'm not as successful as I'd like to be, so I'm not saying that my system is the best. I'm saying I want to be better. It's just that my fun is this sort of creative chaos, which I then try and control later. One of the things I really like about screenplays and treatments and doing this kind of thing for film is that it is much more structured, I think, than a 70,000-word novel. You can go in all kinds of directions, whereas with screenwriting you do have to be more disciplined really. Brooks: Yes, so this is going to be fun probably, to hear my view for your audience, and the differences as I see them. For starters, you're talking about what, 10, 20, 30 hours reading a novel sometimes, or maybe less, whereas a movie's a 90-minute experience, right? So that's different. Or if it's a TV series, you might see an hour and then an hour. So that's a very different experience. What happens is when it's condensed like that, you're loading up layers. So every scene is stacked with exposition beneath the drama, and done in a certain way. So specifically, movies are only what you can see and only what you hear. Whereas novels, if you can think it, you can write it, it can be in there. So you don't need to have a plot, but if you want to sell your book to Hollywood, it helps. So I was very resistant about structure. I went to NYU film school, where we really just made short films. It was funny, I had friends that were in the dramatic writing department, and I was like, “You guys are wasting your money. You're just learning to write scripts. We learn to write the scripts and make the movies.” What I hadn't realised is it's a different skill set to hold somebody's attention across an hour-long play, or a 90-minute movie, than it is to make a movie that holds their attention for two minutes or five minutes. I found out years later when I made a feature that was like a lot of shorts patched together, and people were not… They liked it, but they didn't love it. I was like, “Well, what's going on?” And so then I learned to really love Save the Cat in particular. It completely changed me. What happened was, I got a big old slice of humble pie. I had made my second feature, and I put everything I had into it, and it had loose structural beginning, middle, end, blah, blah, blah. But I was still, “Eh, Hollywood BS. What do they know? It's all fake.” So I was very anti-Hollywood structure. Then I was like, now I've got two independent films out there, people saw them, liked them, whatever, but it wasn't getting me consistent work. It wasn't really advancing my career in the way that I wanted. And I was like, “Well, maybe there is something to the Save the Cat.” So I went to the Save the Cat workshop with Blake when he was still alive, and he was delightful, a really awesome guy. He's got this kind of cutesy style, for people that don't know. For context, Blake Snyder was a working Hollywood screenwriter, and he had this system called Save the Cat, which actually has some really interesting ideas. He's got this very light, breezy sort of style. A lot of people don't like him and some people really love him, and everything in between. But I took his weekend seminar, and it completely changed me, because at that point, like I said, I took three years to write a script. Then once he had a process and he had a way of thinking about craft that was just much more screenwriter-friendly, I was like, “Oh my God.” It was so much easier, because I was just focused on the right thing at the right time. So it just sped everything up. After that, I was banging out two to three scripts a year, and better and better quality. So for me, because I went from winging it and wrote five scripts in 13 years, and then wrote two to three scripts every year, I became a huge proponent of system and process. Then my own system really came from that, but it's modular. I have a nine-step system, but you don't necessarily have to go in that order, other than the last three steps, but I won't get into the details. Sometimes you kind of jump from two to three and then back to two and then back and forth. So I love that you get the feel for those elements, and then you just felt your way through. But writing screenplay pages doesn't make sense until you really understand concept, you get a deep sense of beginning, middle, end, character arcs, and these other threads. There are just way better tools for those jobs than screenplay format, because it's a really weird format. It's got these weird slug lines at the top that are all in caps, because a screenplay is a blueprint for somebody else to make the movie. It's not an end-user document like a novel. I don't let my clients even go to that format because it just gets them focused on the wrong things. What they really need to know is, what is your perspective about this theme? What happened in your life that you're fascinated with, that you'd even want to write about this? And tell me what your real life lessons are. So we go into… again, I go back to relationship. What's your relationship to the universe? And what's your relationship to your best friends, or where you got your heart broken, or whatever you want to write about. And then we get that clarity, and then I show you how to express it in terms of developing a screenplay. It's really long-form storytelling, and then the structure just makes it build on itself. But with the structure, because you're talking about so much money and people involved to make it, at least traditionally, what ended up happening was narrative structure that was not so much rigid. Because here's the thing, you can look at 50, 100 years of European cinema and you can look at Hollywood cinema, and Hollywood laps them. When I taught at UCLA Extension, I had lots of foreign students. Let's say there'd be two or three students… if there were 12 people in the class, two or three people would be from America, and everybody else would be from other countries. I would go around, I'd be like, “What movies and TV shows have you been watching?” Almost in every single country, they watch half from their own country, half from Hollywood. So Hollywood storytelling works, that's just the data, and they're dominant. The reason it works is what Aristotle was saying thousands of years ago.. There's a way of thinking about beginning, middle, end that just deeply speaks to the psyche, and you can ignore it if you want. I think Godard said, “You need beginning, middle, and end, but not necessarily in that order,” right? Which is great. Just the way we experience life, there's a beginning, a middle, an end to this podcast interview. There's a beginning, middle, end to the day, a beginning, middle, end to me eating lunch. So if you don't lean into the beginning, middle, end psychological aspect of your story, you're going to bore your reader. But to your point, you don't necessarily have to sort that out in the beginning. It's more efficient probably if you do, but you don't have to. Go into it wherever the muse tells you to go, and then at some point, like you do, then you go, “Okay, now I go back and I edit.” If you're saying there's another level, you have another gear in you, then yes, I'd be curious to slowly go through how you're making those decisions. Because what's happening probably is there are ways you're holding back a little bit. There's maybe something you're afraid of being vulnerable about. That's usually where me or other writers are holding themselves back, and we can take a look at that. There are different ways I show writers to do it. Then you can go, “Oh, I was doing it here, and now I can do it there.” And it could be with process, or just a certain creative choice. With story, it's clear and compelling. Those are the simple things. So, is this clear enough? Is it compelling enough? And there are almost always ways to up-level on any facet, whether it's one sentence, or a sentence that describes the whole concept of the book, or a chapter. Each one of those can be looked at with that lens and we can just say, “Hey, this is 70%, 80%,” whatever, and then we say, “Well, how do we get a little bit more?” And then when you do that enough, it piles up. Then especially if you bring in an audience and people are flipping out for your work, they'll tell you. Jo: Yes, I love a challenge, so thank you for everything you've shared today. So where can people find you and everything you do online? Brooks: Well, one way you can find me—if anything I said seemed helpful for you, if you have questions about Hollywood or you have a screenplay in your heart—you can just email me, brooks@brookselms.com. You could look me up on LinkedIn. I'm at Brooks Elms. I also have a Skool community called Screenwriter Marketing, but it's really for any sort of storyteller, and it talks about my favourite way to engage an audience and get through it. So anybody can jump into that if you like my vibe. If you really think anything I've said, or the way I said it, seems like it could be helpful for you, just reach out. Let me know what you're up to, and maybe there's a way I can help you. Jo: Fantastic. Well, thanks so much for your time, Brooks. That was great. Brooks: You're welcome. It was a total pleasure. It was lots of fun, and I really appreciate you.The post How To Prove The Demand For Your Stories And Get The Attention Of Hollywood With Brooks Elms first appeared on The Creative Penn.

Most speakers assume their audience is persuadable by good evidence. Psychologist Owen Fitzpatrick, who trained under NLP co-creator Richard Bandler and has travelled to over a hundred countries, including North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran, studying how belief actually forms, argues that's backwards. People believe what feels right, fits their identity, and keeps them inside their tribe. Evidence comes after, as justification.Owen built his reputation on charisma work (his book The Charismatic Edge argued charisma is an impression you create, not something you're born with) before moving into belief and propaganda with his new book Inner Propaganda, out 4 August. In this conversation, he lays out his DELP model (an expansion of Aristotle's ethos, logos, pathos to include demos — understanding your specific audience), explains why intelligent, critical-thinking people are often the most convincing propagandists to themselves, and draws a sharp line between persuasion, manipulation and propaganda that every speaker standing on a stage should sit with.We also get into why spontaneous, unscripted delivery reads as more truthful than polished delivery (with Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" as the example), and why AI's tendency to flatter you is quietly making this problem worse, not better.In this episode:Why charisma is built, not innate, and why it matters more now than when Owen wrote The Charismatic Edge in 2013The DELP model: demos, ethos, logos, pathosWhy perceived authenticity beats actual authenticity, and why spontaneity reads as truthWhy critical thinking doesn't protect you from bad beliefs (argumentation vs investigation)Motivated reasoning, naive realism, and sacred values: why smart people hold ridiculous beliefsThe difference between persuasion, manipulation and propaganda, and why every speaker is, to a degree, a propagandistOwen's practical tools: the belief audit, the feels right/fits in/makes sense framework, and E-Prime languageConnect with Owen on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenfitzp/The book and the special workshop are available at https://innerpropaganda.com, and you can discover more about Owen and his work at https://owenfitzpatrick.comFAQWhat is Owen Fitzpatrick's DELP model?The DELP model is Owen Fitzpatrick's expansion of Aristotle's rhetorical triad of ethos, logos and pathos. Owen adds demos, the requirement to understand the specific audience being addressed, alongside ethos (credibility and positioning), logos (logical structure and evidence) and pathos (emotional impact).What is Owen Fitzpatrick's book Inner Propaganda about?Inner Propaganda is Owen Fitzpatrick's book, to be released on 4th of August 2026, about how individuals generate their own propaganda internally through feelings, self-narratives and motivated reasoning. It argues that people convince themselves of beliefs the same way state propaganda convinces populations, through internal versions of state media, indoctrination and truth engineering.What is the difference between persuasion, manipulation and propaganda, according to Owen Fitzpatrick?Persuasion is the ethical attempt to change beliefs, attitudes or behaviour while genuinely caring about what the other person wants. Manipulation uses deception and serves only the persuader's own interests. Propaganda combines both, using every available tool of persuasion and manipulation to construct an entire reality for the audience.Why doesn't critical thinking protect people from believing false things?According to Owen Fitzpatrick, critical thinking and intelligence make people better at constructing airtight arguments (argumentation) rather than at genuinely investigating what is true (investigation). Motivated reasoning, a concept from psychologist Ziva Kunda, refers to people reasoning toward conclusions they already want to be true.What is naive realism?Naive realism is the belief that one's own perception of reality is objectively accurate and shared by anyone reasonable. Owen Fitzpatrick argues this prevents people from applying the same critical scrutiny to their own beliefs that they readily apply to beliefs they disagree with.What is E-Prime language and why does Owen Fitzpatrick use it?E-Prime is a form of English that eliminates the verb "to be," originally developed by David Bourland based on Alfred Korzybski's work on language and semantics. Owen Fitzpatrick uses it as a belief-flexibility tool: replacing "this is true" with "this seems true to me" builds in the possibility of revision.Visit https://strategic-speaker.scoreapp.com to take the 2-minute Strategic Speaking Business Audit and find out what's blocking you from getting more bookings, re-bookings, referrals and bigger fees. There's a special surprise gift for everyone who completes the quiz.Want to get coached for free on the show? Fill in the form https://forms.gle/mo4xYkEiCjqtz9yP6, and if we think your challenge could help others, we'll invite you on.For speaking enquiries or to connect with me, you can email john@presentinfluence.com or find me on LinkedInYou can find all our clips, episodes and more on the Present Influence YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@PresentInfluenceThanks for listening. Rating the show 5* on Spotify helps their algo recommend the show, so please take a moment to follow the show and leave a rating.Mentioned in this episode:Do you want to join the Known, Booked & Paid Blueprint September Case Study group?This September I'll be working with a group of 5 speakers who are already speaking but not getting the level of bookings and speaker fees that they really want. We'll work on the 3 key areas that will allow your speaking business to flourish. Since it's the founding group, there's an extra special deal on the price for joining that will never be repeated. Go to https://presentinfluence.com/kbpb for full details.

This episode features Ryan Shea, a researcher and educator working with the Nature Institute, which develops ways of thinking and perceiving that integrate self-reflective and critical thought, imagination, and careful, detailed observation of nature's phenomena. He brings to his work at The Nature Institute a broad knowledge of ancient philosophical biology (especially Aristotle), the scientific revolution, phenomenology, German idealism, and Goethean qualitative science.

Thomas H. Huxley's "The Advance of Science in the Last Half Century" offers a compelling overview of significant advancements in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology from 1839 to 1889, while situating these developments within the broader context of philosophical thought dating back to Aristotle. Huxley, a prominent advocate for evolution and a gifted essayist, presents these complex ideas in a clear and engaging manner, making them accessible to both scholars and casual listeners. The themes of scientific inquiry and the evolution of thought remain relevant today, as society continues to grapple with the implications of scientific progress.

We continue Jaffa's discussion of Aristotle's Politics, continuing with his take on Aristotle's Book III, in our discussion of an entry in the 1963 Rand McNally publication, edited by Leonard Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, called "History of Political Philosophy." This episode contains discussion of pages 97 through half of 104 covering the topics in Book III of the Politics. That entry on Aristotle is by Harry V. Jaffa, who famously applied his understanding of Political Philosophy to the history of the Republican Party in American politics, and who, as such, influenced me profoundly through my mentors, who were mentored by him. He is thus one of my intellectual grandfathers. This entry was published the year before the author wrote one of the most infamous (or famous, depending) Aristotelean speeches for 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater (R, AZ). Jaffa also wrote one of the most influential phenomenological comparisons of the Democratic and the Republican parties using classical political philosophy for the political phenomenology in "Crisis of the House Divided" (University of Chicago Press) The Republican Professor is a pro-getting-political-philosophy right podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Virtue is like any other skill. It's not something you either have or you don't. It's something you practice, and the more you practice it, the better you become. This was Aristotle's fundamental insight: excellence is not innate. It is a habit.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient philosopher and biographer Plutarch's short work On Moral Virtue This episode focuses specifically on his discussion, early on in the work, of the composite nature of the human soul, which includes a rational part and an irrational part, the latter of which is further divided into a spirited (thumoeides) part and an appetitive part (epithumia). This will be relatively familiar to many as the Platonic tripartite conception of the soul, found in Plato's Republic. He also discusses Aristotle's position and that of the Stoics. You can find the copy of the text I am using for this sequence on Plutarch's On Moral Virtue here - https://amzn.to/3gpyrS3 To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 4000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler (Amazon links are associate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)

Kurt Gödel was a genius mathematician and logician, considered by many scholars to be as influential as Aristotle. He was also buddies with fellow geniuses Albert Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern, the co-creator of Game Theory. In 1947, Gödel told Morgenstern and Einstein he had identified an inner contradiction in the U.S. Constitution while studying for his citizenship test: the type of loophole that could plunge the United States into a dictatorship not unlike the Nazi regime Gödel had escaped when he immigrated from Austria. So, what was the loophole? Over the years, everyone from Constitutional law scholars to laypeople on Reddit have wondered. Endless Thread plumbs the depths of Gödel's galaxy brain with the help of philosopher, writer and Gödel expert Rebecca Newberger Goldstein — and learns some surprising lessons about artificial intelligence, a German shorthand called Gabelsberger, and democracy along the way. Show notes: Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel, by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein (Amazon) Oskar Morgenstern's account of Kurt Gödel's naturalization (Institute of Advanced Study) This episode was produced by Grace Tatter. It was co-written by Grace Tatter and Ben Brock Johnson, co-hosted by Ben Brock Johnson and Amory Sivertson, and edited by Meg Cramer and Dave Shaw. Mix and sound design by Paul Vaitkus.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comRobert P. George is a legal scholar and political philosopher. At Princetown, he's the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He's also a senior fellow at both the American Enterprise Institute and the Witherspoon Institute, which he co-founded. His many books include Making Men Moral and In Defense of Natural Law. We spent many years sparring in print over marriage, gays, and Catholicism.For two clips of the episode — on disobeying unjust laws, and the supposed harms of gay marriage — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: his dad's harrowing service in WWII; Robby growing up in Appalachia with his grandfathers in the coal mines; first in his family to go to college; stories of both of us being at Oxford at the same time; the origins of bluegrass; Robert Byrd's legacy; Plato's Gorgias; Aristotle and friendship; Robby's close friendship with Cornel West; Montaigne; Aquinas; Vatican II; Eastern Orthodox liturgy; neo-scholasticism; Darwin's survival of the fittest; Nietzsche; loving one's enemy as uniquely Christian; just law and unjust law; MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail; Hume; Oakeshott; natural law theorists vs legal positivists; the AIDS crisis; Christian marriage vs civil marriage; divorce; the Manhattan Declaration; Henry VIII's annulments; the sexual habits of Clinton and Trump; illiberalism on the left and right; and the beached squids of Ptown.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Ross Barkan on the DSA and Mamdani, John O'Sullivan on conservatism, Azam Ahmed on terrifying new drugs, and Megan McArdle on pretty much anything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Where did America get the idea that "all men are created equal"? Princeton's Dr. Robert George traces it back further than Aristotle or Cicero, all the way to Genesis 1. Come along as we explore what this may mean for how we understand faith, truth, and the American founding today.  Guest bio:  Dr. Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.  Show Notes:  museumoftheBible.org/america-250 RobertpGeorge.com rgeorge.scholar.princeton.edu x.com/McCormickProf Books by Robert George, PhD (Amazon)  Stay up to date with Museum of the Bible on social media:  Instagram: @museumofBible  X: @museumofBible  Facebook: museumofBible  LinkedIn: museumofBible  YouTube: @museumoftheBible 

In this audio episode of Blind Techie Geek Speaks, Kathleen Masciana explores how children react when screens are taken away, how Aristotle's idea of akrasia helps explain those reactions, and how a screen-free family vacation connects to bigger questions about technology and self-control.

In this episode, Tudor Achim, Co-Founder and CEO of Harmonic, the AI lab behind Aristotle, a mathematical reasoning system that won gold at the International Math Olympiad, makes the case that AI hallucinations aren't the problem with today's models. The real problem is that nobody can verify whether a hallucination is right or wrong. Tudor explains why his team bakes formal, computer-checkable verification (using a language called Lean) directly into how Aristotle reasons, so instead of trusting an AI's word, you can mathematically prove it's correct. Liam and Tudor go deep on what "truth" actually means in mathematics versus the real world, why Andrew Wiles's famous proof of Fermat's Last Theorem had a two-year hidden flaw, and why Tudor believes math is in the middle of its first fundamental shift in 4,000 years, moving from proofs written in English to proofs written in verifiable code. They also get into a spirited debate about the U.S. education system, what Harmonic actually looks for when hiring (hint: it's not the résumé), and why Tudor thinks AI will never be trusted to grade its own homework. Key Topics Covered What "truth" means in mathematics versus science, and why logical reasoning is really just a simple form of math Why the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem had a hidden flaw for two years, even after being announced Why hallucinations are actually necessary for AI reasoning, and what separates a good hallucination from a bad one How Harmonic uses Lean and formal verification to make Aristotle's math proofs checkable step by step, like reviewing code Why Tudor doesn't think any AI will ever be trusted to fully verify its own output Why Harmonic gives away the Aristotle API for free right now, and where the business model is headed The "phase transition" Tudor believes is happening in math for the first time in 4,000 years: from English proofs to machine-verified code Why open-sourcing formal math matters more to Harmonic than keeping a competitive edge Harmonic's five-year goal: contributing to solving a Millennium Prize Problem by 2028 A debate on whether the U.S. education system actually teaches critical thinking, and what AI should (and shouldn't) change about how kids learn What Harmonic actually looks for when hiring, and why résumés carry almost no signal anymore Tudor's take on inequality, taxation, and what a healthy AI-driven economy could look like Episode Timestamps 00:00 Intro and welcome 00:33 What is truth, and is logic just math? 07:59 Why the company is called harmonic.fun 08:48 The real problem with LLMs and truth 12:57 How formal verification works inside Aristotle 16:43 Who else is building in this space 19:48 Can AI ever be verified with 100% accuracy? 23:10 Why AI can't fully verify its own answers 26:46 Open-source math vs a venture-backed business 29:39 The five-year goal: a Millennium Prize Problem by 2028 31:51 Has Harmonic's vision changed? 34:28 AI, formal verification and the future of education 44:34 Debating the US education system 45:09 How Harmonic hires and what they look for 50:21 Testing for trust and honesty in interviews 54:14 Harmonic's biggest challenge right now 58:19 The future of working with AI 59:55 Family, kids and optimism about the future 1:01:38 Inequality, capitalism and AI's role in the economy 1:04:19 Why Tudor does what he does 1:05:19 Where to find Tudor Connect with Tudor on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tudorachim/ Partner Links Upgrade your AI toolkit: https://www.theaireport.ai/ai-executive-pass Subscribe to our free newsletter: https://newsletter.theaireport.ai/subscribe Join the community: https://community.theaireport.ai/checkout/the-ai-report-welcome-gift?coupon_code=WRTH Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Al Roxburgh and Jenny Sinclair welcome Maurice Glasman back to Leaving Egypt for a second conversation. Maurice traces the exhaustion of a settlement built on progressivism and globalisation -one the church has too often been co-opted into rather than resisted. In its eroding, he sees opportunity for a politics built not on elite abstraction but on ordinary virtues - commitment, constraint, solidarity, family, place and nation - drawn from the well of Catholic Social Teaching. Water, land, the human person: for Maurice these are gifts of God, not commodities, and recovering that conviction is where renewal begins. He argues the divide is no longer left versus right but sovereignists versus globalists, those who want power to rest with peoples and places, versus those who would transfer it to borderless, unaccountable systems of capital, ideology and technology. He turns to two countries close to his heart: confronting Iran's regime and backing its people's resistance, and Ukraine's costly defence of its sovereignty. What may be coming, he senses in a yearning for settled life from working-class Britain to Ukraine and the Iranian people, is restoration: the recovery of family, faith, place and nation: a hopeful story the church could yet join, if only it had eyes to see it.Lord Maurice Glasman is a British politician, political theorist, commentator and community organiser who has served as a Labour life peer in the UK Parliament since 2011. He is best known as the founder of Blue Labour, a movement launched in 2009 to address Labour's drift from its founding roots, challenging both New Labour's neoliberalism and progressive identity politics. Drawing on Catholic Social Teaching, Aristotle and the thought of Karl Polanyi, he promotes a politics of the common good. Alongside his parliamentary work he remains active internationally, particularly in relation to Ukraine and Iran. He has a longstanding commitment to community organising, most recently in Grimsby, through the Common Good Foundation, which he founded and directs. Born into a Jewish working-class family in North London, he studied at Cambridge, York and Florence. His official title is Baron Glasman of Stoke Newington and of Stamford Hill.LINKSFor Maurice Glasman:https://x.com/blue_labour?lang=enhttps://www.bluelabour.org/https://www.commongoodfoundation.org.uk/Books:Blue Labour: the Politics of the Common GoodUnnecessary Suffering: Management, Markets and the Liquidation of SolidarityFor Alan J Roxburgh:http://alanroxburgh.com/aboutFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/alan.roxburgh.127/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thecommonsnetworkBooks:Forming Communities of Hope in the Great Unravelling: Leadership in a Changing World (with Roy Searle)Joining God in the Great UnravellingLeadership, God's Agency and DisruptionsJoining God, Remaking Church, Changing the World: The New Shape of the Church in Our TimeFor Jenny Sinclair:Substack: https://t4cg.substack.com/s/from-jenny-sinclairWebsite: https://togetherforthecommongood.co.uk/from-jenny-sinclairLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenny-sinclair-0589783b/Twitter: https://twitter.com/T4CGFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TogetherForTheCommonGoodUKInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/t4cg_insta/ Get full access to Leaving Egypt at leavingegyptpodcast.substack.com/subscribe

How do you know when it's worth optimizing your retirement plan and when it's better to keep things simple? This week, Roger answers a listener question by exploring Aristotle's concept of the "golden mean," arguing that the best retirement decisions are rarely found at either extreme. He explains why financial optimization should be measured by the life it enables rather than the dollars it saves and introduces the OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) as a practical framework for evaluating trade-offs. Roger also answers listener questions about stepped-up cost basis after the death of a spouse, whether dividends can be used to fund an income floor, and when bonds versus CDs make sense in today's interest rate environment.OUTLINE OF THIS EPISODE OF THE RETIREMENT ANSWER MAN(00:00) Roger introduces today's discussion on balancing financial optimization with simplicity, previews upcoming episodes, and shares updates on the August replay schedule and September Social Security series.RETIREMENT TOOLKIT(02:31) Finding your "golden mean" between optimizing your retirement plan and keeping it simpleWhy retirement planning often overemphasizes financial optimizationThe difference between optimizing for money and optimizing for lifeHow Aristotle's concept of the golden mean applies to retirement decisionsUsing the OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) to make better decisionsRecognizing personal biases before making financial decisionsEvaluating trade-offs and second-order consequences before pursuing tax strategies, Roth conversions, and other optimization opportunitiesLISTENER QUESTIONS(36:35) Roger answers a listener's question about home cost basis. (41:02) Can dividend income be used to fill the gap in my retirement income floor?(44:55) Are bonds still a good conservative investment, or should I use CDs instead?SMART SPRINT(49:55) Practice using the OODA framework on a small, everyday decision this week to determine whether optimizing is truly worth the extra time and effort.CLOSING THOUGHTS(51:24) Roger reflects on how building a resilient retirement plan isn't just about protecting against uncertainty—it also gives you the confidence to lean into life and enjoy retirement more fullyREFERENCESSubmit a Question for RogerSign up for The NoodleNote: The opinions expressed are for informational purposes only and should not replace personalized advice from licensed professionals.

How can organic writing and leaning into the pivot help your stories stand out? And how can you pitch a story as a discovery writer if you genuinely don't know what's going to happen next. Steven James gives his writing tips after more than 20 years as an author. In the intro, Better Than Free in an Age of AI [Kevin Kelly on Tim Ferriss; Kevin Kelly on The Creative Penn]; Future Vision XPrize; A Different Kind of Bucket List. Today's show is sponsored by Draft2Digital, self-publishing with support, where you can get free formatting, free distribution to multiple stores, and a host of other benefits. Just go to www.draft2digital.com to get started. This show is also supported by my Patrons. Join my Community at Patreon.com/thecreativepenn Steven James is the multi-award-winning and international bestselling author of 21 novels across thrillers, YA, and science fiction, with more than a million copies sold, as well as the author of non-fiction craft books for writers, a writing teacher, and the host of The Story Blender podcast. You can listen above or on your favorite podcast app or read the notes and links below. Here are the highlights and the full transcript is below. Show Notes How to lean into organic writing, and what to focus on instead of plot How characters unfold on the page, and why an attitude beats a background Producing an outline for an agent or publisher when you genuinely don't know what happens next Don't pitch the plot, pitch the pivot The four choices you have in every scene, and why logic plus surprise is the engine of story Faith, moral clarity and big questions You can find Steven at StevenJames.net. Transcript of the interview with Steven James Jo: Steven James is the multi-award-winning and international bestselling author of 21 novels across thrillers, YA, and science fiction, with more than a million copies sold, as well as the author of non-fiction craft books for writers, a writing teacher, and the host of The Story Blender Podcast. So welcome to the show, Steven. Steven: Thanks for having me, Jo. Good to be here. Jo: Great to have you on the show. First up— Tell us a bit more about you and how you got into writing and publishing. Steven: Oh, gosh. Well, the thing is, when I was a kid, I fell in love with stories. My uncle would always, whenever we got together for the holidays—Christmas, New Year's and so on—he would take my sister, my brother and myself into a corner of the room while the other adults had coffee, and we would just sit there, and he would get this look in his eye and he'd say, “I'm going to tell you a story.” We were transported to another world. We were swashbuckling with pirates, or facing down a grizzly bear in Alaska, or flying over the desert on a flying carpet, or whatever. I fell in love with imagination and stories and everything. So I started reading as much as I could, mostly short stories. They had a programme at our library called the paperback book exchange, where you bring a paperback book and you leave it, and you can take any one of the paperback books that they had. You could keep it as long as you wanted. If you wanted it for your life, that's fine, or you could just bring it back as soon as you finished reading it. Anyway, I went crazy over the summers reading short stories, mainly. As I got older, I was like, “I think I want to be a storyteller.” So I actually got my master's degree in storytelling. Then I started to travel and tell stories, but I had three little daughters at home, and I was like, “I don't want to be gone 300 days a year when they are growing up.” So I ended up starting to write stories instead of travel, and then it just kind of shifted in that direction. That was in '97. Oh my goodness, that's long. '97, '98. So then I started to write books, and then eventually in 2007, I think, my first novel came out. Now, mainly, I've been writing novels ever since. Jo: It's so interesting. Was it a job, storytelling? Is that what you did before you became a book writer? Or did you have a different job? Steven: I mostly would go to events, conferences, schools and so on, and do a family-friendly storytelling show. So I would tell personal stories, some folktales reimagined. I would go to different events around the country. Mostly it was that. Then I started to shift. I wrote for magazines for a while—80 different magazines I wrote for over those years, a couple of hundred different articles, stories. I was like, “I'm just going to try to make a living telling stories.” So the shift has gone back and forth between actually telling stories and writing stories, but these days, I don't know. I'm still speaking. I'm still out there teaching. Jo: That's so interesting, because it's obviously a completely different thing to tell a story in person than it is to write a story. So when you decided to shift that way, what did you have to learn and unlearn? Because your thoughts on the page are so different to when you can make eye contact with an audience. Steven: That's a good point. I kind of started by telling stories back when I was in college, so I sort of moved from telling to writing. And you're right, there's so much that's lost, whether it's eye contact or pauses. On a printed page, there's always the same amount of space between every word—a space. But when you tell stories, obviously you pause for effect in different places, different areas, and so it's quite different. So if I have an idea for a story, I usually have to decide, is this going to be written or told? And then I do it in that medium. Then if I want to, let's say, tell a written story, I almost have to relearn it, or retell it very differently. You have gestures, body language. All of those things are obviously lost in text, so they are very different. I think for me it's been good, because when I tell stories, I hear different characters speaking, so that when I write, usually dialogue comes fast to me. I can hear what people are saying. I don't always know where they are. I don't always know the setting. I don't even know the scene necessarily, but I can hear the dialogue. Then it also helps me to step into the characters, like when I'm writing different points of view, so that I think I can do a good job of getting into that character's mind, as if I were that person. I think some of that comes from just telling stories. Jo: You've taught so many writers over the years, and it's interesting you said that you hear characters' dialogue. I see visual film in my mind. I don't hear any voice at all. It's all silent. I struggle with dialogue, but I do great world building. Do you find that this really is different by the author? I feel like we fall into these different groups. Steven: Yes, I do. I kind of feel like that's very true as far as what comes first, whether it's a description of a place, whether it's the action. I mean, basically a story has dialogue, narration—or we call it sometimes exposition—and description. Those three things. Every story has those three things, and those are the three that we use to tell a story, a novel. So some people tend to drift into one or the other as sort of their default setting: dialogue, description, or action. That's true. I think also something else that's interesting about writers is they tend to fall into either the camp of being a wordsmith or a storyteller. Not everyone, but I feel like some people are wordsmiths, where I read what they're writing, and I'm like, “Man, this is so powerful, evocative,” whatever. Maybe there's no story there. It's just really interesting writing. Other people just are natural storytellers, and they have to really work on the wordsmithing. I think that's me. I'm more naturally just a storyteller, but it takes me a long time to get the descriptions to where I want them, to choose exactly the right word. That takes me more effort. Some people have to build up the storytelling muscles. I have to build up the wordsmithing muscles. Jo: Well, part of the reason I wanted to talk to you is because you talk about this thing called organic writing in your book Story Trumps Structure, which is out now in a second edition. I call it discovery writing, so similar to you. But most people in the writing community seem to obsess about plotting and planning. So talk about your process of organic writing. You say in the book, “Trust the fluidity of the process.” Tell us more about that. Steven: Well, I remember in high school even, when my teacher got up front and he kind of got this very almost wise look on his face, and he goes, “A story is something with a beginning, a middle, and an end.” I'm sitting there in high school like, “Well, so does a bratwurst. What are you talking about here?” A description of a chair has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The sentence, “Preheat the oven to 450 degrees,” has a beginning, a middle, and an end. My view is that saying a story is something that has three acts is like saying that a pizza is something with three toppings. It might have three. It might have one. It might have five. So the idea for me is not to worry about structure, trying to tick off the boxes of a template, a formula you find online, a fill-in-the-blanks kind of a thing. But instead, to actually look at what lies at the heart of the story—the character, the tension, the struggle, the pursuit, the pivots and plot twists, and the payoff at the end. As you develop those aspects of the story, I feel like you need to worry less and less about following a formula. The more you understand what lies at the heart of a story, I feel like the less you need to plot and the less you need to write by the seat of your pants. A lot of people say, “Oh, you write by the seat of…” No, I don't write by the seat of my pants, because I know what a story contains, so I know that in a certain scene a character will make certain choices that are unpredictable but that escalate the tension, and different things like that. I'm a huge proponent of discovery, as you say, or organic writing. I won't get the quote exactly right, but Ray Bradbury said something along the lines of, “Plot is the tracks left in the snow after your characters have run by on their incredible destinations. It cannot precede action. It is the chart that remains when an action is through.” So he's saying plot is not what precedes action. After the action, you have plot. So the whole idea of trying to plot out a story before you write it is going about writing exactly backwards. Plot doesn't precede action. It's the result. So I always tell people, “Don't worry so much about the plot. I want you to look at the pursuit.” A plotter might say, “Well, what should happen?” And they'll just come up with something. But an organic writer—a pursuit-based question would be, what does the character want? Now, when I know what the character wants, I will know what should happen. So literally, it will lead me to the story. Focusing on plot will not necessarily lead you to the story. It might lead you down the wrong track. Jo: Then in terms of your actual writing process— Do you start writing without knowing the ending? Do you write in order? Is the organic side also in the process? Steven: I've never started a book where I know how it will end. So I usually start with either a character that's fascinating or, in some cases, a premise, a question. Then as I write, I explore the possibilities of where it might go. I've tried to outline a scene—like one scene, not a whole book—and it never works. I can't even outline one scene. I've tried, and I'm like, okay, that's… What I end up with is completely different from it, so it's just a waste of time and effort for me to try to outline or plot out a story. I'm much more interested in the pathway the characters will take as they face obstacles and setbacks in their pursuit. As the struggles and the tension develop, what choices will they make? That's how the story will unfold for me. Jo: I'm similar. Then I also wonder— Do you do character sheets and character bios, or do the characters also unfold organically? Steven: Absolutely, I don't do any of the sheets and bios and stuff. The characters really come to me as I write. I begin to get to know them. I always tell people, a character with an attitude is more interesting than a character with a background. So a lot of people will spend a lot of time on, like, where's this character gone to college, and what's their first pet's name, all that stuff. I'm not trying to dump on that idea. I get that that can be helpful. But I'm like, how would I know that until I've spent time with them? Then once I begin to spend time with them, I'm writing and I'm like, “Nah, this doesn't seem like what that character would really say or do,” so I have to go back and rejigger the story to hopefully make it fit with that character. Then I like to give the characters some sort of attitude. I'm not talking about a negative or judgy attitude, but an attitude about something that is unique or different, and that makes them not a template character, not an archetype or whatever, but unique. Sort of this constellation of unique traits, characteristics, maybe wounds, flaws and so on, that create a character where you're like, “This is a character like none I've ever seen before. I want to spend time with this character.” Jo: Then you're spending time with the character by writing what's happening, as opposed to writing loads of stuff beforehand and then starting to write. You're actually finding all of this out during the process of writing. Steven: Yes, and I think it's kind of like getting to know someone. If I were to say, “Okay, I'm going to write down Jo's bio,” or whatever—okay, I'm making stuff up, because I don't know you super well. If we were to spend time together, hang out, whatever, talk, over the course of time I would start to know, oh, she likes this, she doesn't like that. This is important to her. This is what she would weep or pound the table over—whatever, all of the things that come with time. It's like a friendship in real life to me. So I can't sit down and tell you what a character in real life would think and say and do if I don't know them, but the more time I spend with them, then the more I'm able to predict that accurately. I think the mistake a lot of people make is they think, “I'm going to get to know this character with a background,” and then they start writing it, and instead of looking at the context, they look back at the—I don't know what you call it—the background or something like that. I always feel like what you mentioned earlier is, like, hold it loosely in your hand. Trust the fluidity of the process. As you're writing, you have an instinct. “Ah, I think this character would say this or do this.” So trust that. Trust that instinct. Trust that moment in the story, instead of trying to go back to an outline, back to a character description, or whatever it might be. So I'm a big proponent of looking at the context—not just what happened, but what is the result? So looking at the impetus and the implication of the choices and the activities. When something occurs, what would the character naturally say or do or think or respond? Then what would that cause? What's the implication that that would have on the rest of the story, on the rest of the characters? So, really trying to keep your finger on the pulse of the story, and adapt as you move forward through it. Jo: I love all of that, but I also am very aware that you've been in traditional publishing for over 20 years, and one of the things with agents and publishers is that they often ask for an outline. So how do you manage that? Or how did you more earlier in your career, because I imagine they just trust you now. Earlier in your career, or people listening who want to pitch but they write in this organic way, how do we deal with that kind of thing? Steven: Well, okay, so there's two good questions. One is about producing an outline for an agent or editor or publisher and so on. The other is how to pitch a story. So the first: I would write the premise down, and maybe a paragraph or two, and then where I think it might go. Basically, I would focus on the questions that the characters will face, maybe the moral dilemmas, the sacrifices they have to make, the world they live in. I kind of know that stuff, and I can write a couple of paragraphs about that. But beyond that, I just don't know what's going to happen, so I can't really provide more. I'm looking at my shelf at the books that I've done, and mostly that's what I've done is kind of a couple of paragraphs focusing on the premise and the problem, the struggle, and so on like that. As far as pitching a story, I always tell people, “Don't pitch the plot, pitch the pivot.” I think that there's a screenwriter—I think that he talks about this a little bit. I've not read the book Save the Cat, but people have told me, “Oh, he kind of brings this up in that book.” The idea is to pitch the irony instead of what occurs. So sometimes when I tell people to pitch, or I give them ideas, one process that you can use is: when, must, before, or else. So, when this occurs, this character must do something before this, or else. So you have the character, you have the struggle, you have the inciting incident, you have the stakes, and you have the countdown. It works well for thrillers. So for instance, like Jaws. When a man-eating shark starts eating people in a small seaside village, the sheriff must stop him before more people die and the town loses its economy. So there you have when, must, before, or else. Now, no one's going to buy the story based on that, because there's no irony, there's no pivot. It's just a description of the plot, and that's what most people pitch. So I always tell people, pitch the part of the story that you wouldn't expect. So for instance, in there you might pitch: when a shark starts eating people in a small seaside village, the only one who can stop him is afraid of the water. Now you're like, “Oh, well, that's interesting. How does that happen? What happens there?” With my book Broker of Lies, the pitch was something like, when a high-level Pentagon redactor ends up on the run, he must stop a terrorist attack before he's neutralised by the people he trusts the most. So the pivot is that the people he trusts at the Pentagon the most are actually trying to neutralise him because he's on the run, and all that kind of stuff. So why would they be trying to do that? Well, that's interesting. So it's always looking for the irony, the pivot. Why is this character the last one in the world who would ever be equipped to tackle this problem or face this issue? So that's one way to do a pitch. Obviously there's lots of them, but I think your goal with a pitch is to get them to say, “Tell me more.” It's not necessarily to summarise the whole story. Jo: That's great advice. So you teach writers—I first saw you at ThrillerFest, I think it was 2012—and you do events, you run writing retreats. So you work with a lot of authors, and I wondered, what are the challenges that you see from authors with, say, five books? So not the beginner authors, because obviously there's a lot of challenges. But those who, let's say they've got the three to five books, things are going all right, but they're like, “How do I get to the next level?” What are the craft issues, or the business issues as well, that mid-list authors face? Steven: Well, business, I'm not the guy to ask. I could try to answer that, but I mean, basically: meet your deadlines and write something amazing. Try to be easy to work with, but also stand up for what you wrote as far as working with editors. It's sort of a fine line you have to walk. The one thing that over the last few years I've really noticed in a lot of writers who are in that space is that they don't have many pivots. They tend to write predictable stories, and that's why they tend to stay where they're at—whether it's because they're following an outline or a plot formula or whatever it is. So when I talk about a pivot, I mean a moment in the story where something happens that's both unexpected and inevitable. For instance, if you're reading a story, you want things to make sense. You want them to be logical. That's one thing. But you don't want them to be too predictable. If it's too predictable, it's boring. It's like, I'm not interested. So we also want surprises. We want these two things. We want logic, and we want surprise. When those two things meet and you have a moment in the story where it's like, “I didn't see that coming, but that totally makes sense,” that's what we want, and we want that in every scene. I feel like a lot of authors don't have that in every scene. Now, you might say, “Well, every scene?” Well, yes, because basically those two factors, logic and surprise, can only meet in four different ways. You could have something that's very logical but has no surprises. That's going to be boring. It's going to be too predictable. We don't want that. You could have something that is very surprising but not logical. It makes no sense. A lot of stuff is surprising, but that's not what we want, because it's unbelievable, and it's like, what is going on here? You could have something that has neither logic nor surprise, which obviously we don't want that. The only other option is to have a moment that is both logical and surprising. So you have a choice in every scene. You have four choices, actually. You can have it be predictable and boring. You can have it be nonsensical. You can have it be unbelievable. Or you can have a pivot. So I find myself trying to really coach people on pivots. They'll say, “Oh, well, do I need it in every scene?” I'm like, “You can choose, but do you want it to be predictable or boring or nonsensical, or do you want it to really drive the story forward?” I think it's because people have been taught structure and plot and three acts and all this kind of stuff, but they haven't been taught this idea—even though it's not something I made up. Aristotle, in Poetics, thousands of years ago, put it a little bit differently, but he said, “The reversal of the situation”—what I call the pivot—”is the moment at which the action veers around to its opposite”—that would be what I call surprise—”subject always to a rule of probability or necessity”—which is the logic. So he's basically saying the same thing in just a little bit different language, but you have these three factors. You have logic, you have surprise, and you have them come together in a specific moment. I don't know why it's not taught more. I have never found anyone who teaches pivots. I have not found any books, so I wrote a book recently about how to use pivots. It's so central, and I think great storytellers naturally do it. You'll read a book, or you'll maybe watch a show, and you're like, “Oh, I didn't see that coming. That totally makes sense.” I don't see anyone else out there really focusing on teaching that. So that's a huge thing for me, really, to help people move up in their writing, elevate it to a different level. Jo: Is that Delve, Pivot, Propel? Steven: Yes. That book came out a couple years ago. We just re-released it. I updated it some, but it talks pretty much in depth about pivots and how to actually use those to propel the stories forward. Jo: Maybe you could just give us one tip on how to do that, because going back to the organic writing—let's say I've been organically writing, and every time a character has a decision to make, I think at that point about what I want to write and I write it. Are you suggesting that we go back in the edit and look at the end of every scene and redo it? Because I can't imagine that I would get this right every time. I would need to do that in an edit, I think. Steven: I think for me, when I'm writing, I'm always asking myself a series of questions. One is, what would the character naturally do? I want to make it believable and natural. Let them do it. I want to escalate the tension, so I'll ask myself, “How can I make things worse?” Then I'll always ask myself, how can I add a pivot to this scene? So as I'm writing a scene—again, I don't know how it will end when I start it—but if I use the first idea that comes to mind, probably a lot of readers would guess that as well, because it's the first idea that comes to mind. It's probably logical and probably predictable. That's why most stories end up being too predictable. It's because we go with the first idea that maybe we had. So I try to discard that. Maybe the second idea, just discard it. Then I start thinking, okay, now if I've discarded the obvious, what is going on? What's below the surface? So to answer your question, I'm looking for what isn't what it appears to be, or who isn't who they appear to be, or a surprising way to bring together plot threads that I didn't see related before. So it's always looking for the unexpected, the surprise, because most of the time that is what we're missing. Now, if you have a great surprise, then you have to lean into making it believable. So you've got to move into that idea of, well, what would the character naturally do? You can't just have him do something ridiculous and then say, “Oh, it's for my twist.” No, you can't do that. You've got to play fair. So it has to be believable, causally related, logical, and surprising. That's what you're shooting for. Those are the questions going through my mind. So as I'm working on a scene, I'm like, “How could I end this?” Or include something that people won't see coming right away. The best ideas always come to me then. It's so interesting. A lot of people will say, “Oh, don't write organically,” or, quote, “by the seat of your pants,” whatever they'll say, “because then you might write yourself into a corner.” I'm like, “Yes, absolutely write yourself into a corner. That's what I'm trying to do in every scene.” And then you write yourself out of a corner in a way that's logical and surprising. The best twists I've ever come up with have been when I'm in a corner. So why would I warn people against going to the place where the best ideas await them? That just seems mean. Why would I do that? No, I want you to have the best possible ideas. So yes, look for corners, write yourself into them, and then write yourself out of them in a way that's both logical and surprising. Jo: I guess also it needs to be genre specific. We write mainly thrillers, and there is this fine line, isn't there? I love Stephen King, but one of the most unbelievable endings is Under the Dome. I still remember feeling betrayed. I don't know if you've read that one, but— Steven: Oh, no. Jo: I was like, “I'm sorry, you've just changed genre in the last chapter of the book. What is going on here?” Steven: That's actually interesting. The fourth question I ask… So I ask, what would the character naturally do? How can I make things worse? How can I add a pivot? But the fourth question is, what promises have I made that I have not yet kept? So genre, to me, is a promise. You build up a promise in your writing at the beginning of the book, and then I feel like as we write, we have to honour that. So if we bring something up that's super interesting, bring it back or whatever. Keep your promises. Keep your narrative promises. It's true of really any genre. Let's say you're writing a romance. You want to respect the conventions, but not fall into the clichés. So there's going to be a moment where the lovers meet, right? They haven't met before. I don't know what they call it, a meet cute or a cute meet. I think they call it a meet cute, I guess. Jo: Yes. They do. Steven: Anyway. So they're going to meet, right? And you're like, “Oh, I'll just have them meet.” Well, try to do it in a way we haven't seen before. Add something else to the scene. Add a third element, as my friend Bob Dugoni likes to say. Add something a little bit that we're like, “Huh, I've never seen that before.” We know they're going to meet, but let them meet in a way that we don't anticipate, that we can't predict right away, that isn't exactly by the numbers, and then you're going to be on the right track. Jo: So then, talking about reader expectations and genre, I wondered if I could also ask you about your Christian faith, because many people listening are people of faith, and some people want to write a Christian book. Other people want to bring their faith into, say, a mainstream type thriller in an authentic way. So how do you balance your faith and your writing? Because I think you have some series that are more sort of Christian than others. Steven: It's interesting. When my first novel came out—The Pawn, like a chess piece, The Pawn—back almost 20 years ago. Gosh, 20 years ago. Nineteen. But anyway, when it came out, someone wrote to me and said, “Is this a Christian book?” I'm like, “What would make a book not Christian?” I'm like, maybe if it has a lot of idolatry, or witchcraft, or maybe sexuality or graphic violence. Then I'm like, oh, wait, that's… No, that's the Old Testament. So it's interesting, because people have asked me similar questions over the years. My books are not sermons in disguise. I'm trying to write great stories that anyone of any background or faith will enjoy. I always ask big questions. I let my characters wrestle with questions that matter, I think. Do my choices matter? Is there hope? Is there a God? Is there no God? Do I have free will? Can I find forgiveness? Can I offer forgiveness? Can I extend it, or whatever? So I always try to base the stories on something deeper. I do believe that there is good and there's evil in the world. That's part of my worldview. So when people talk about moral ambiguity, I don't want to write or read something that's morally ambiguous. I want moral complexity, but I also want moral clarity. So whenever you write, the question is, what are you justifying and what are you condemning? And if you're justifying something that's morally—I would say wrong, actually—then I don't feel like that's the kind of book I would want to write. So I want to write stories that explore good and evil, that explore our world, human nature, in an honest way. I feel like when you write honest stories, people, no matter what their background or whatever faith, then they will connect with it. I think a lot of people, if they start off with an agenda—whatever that agenda might be, let's say it is a Christian agenda, like I want people to trust in Jesus, let's say—so they write a story. Well, what you're doing, you're actually starting your story with an answer, and drama is not built on answers, it's built on questions. So you're actually diminishing the amount of tension. You're also diminishing the possibility of a pivot, because we all get where you're going. It's predictable, but there's probably no surprise. You're diminishing the payoff at the end, because we're like, “I saw that coming. I exactly knew where you were going with this.” So instead, I don't start with an answer. I always start with a question, or in some cases a moral dilemma, like, what's more important, protecting the innocent or telling the truth? That's interesting to me. If I had to choose between the two, would I tell the truth or would I protect the innocent? It's interesting, because people might come down on different sides of it. They might say, “Oh, you should always tell the truth,” or they say, “You always should protect the innocent.” I'm like, okay, well, let's explore it. Let's literally ask the question. So I come from a certain worldview, but I've written characters who have very different worldviews from me. I'm always just trying to be honest with the character, ask big questions, tell a story that examines human nature and sort of the paradoxes of the human condition in a way that will resonate with really whoever the readers might be. Jo: And of course that worldview is part of your author voice and part of what readers come to you for. I also notice that you have some pretty diverse different series. How do you manage that diversity of series under your one brand? Do you find your readers move from one to the other, or do you have different readerships? Steven: You mentioned the B word—brand. That's what publishers are always telling me: “What's your brand?” I'm like, “I don't know. You tell me what my brand is.” I've done fantasy, science fiction, conspiracy. I've done spies and police procedurals and crime and suspense, thrills, whatever. So I would say the one thing that really ties all my stories together is probably just suspense. They are stories with suspense. Some are more high concept thrillers, some are more dark fantasy, but they're built around suspense. So I guess that would be intelligent suspense, maybe, if I was trying to come up with a brand. Something like that. Because I don't want them to be dumbed down. They're not dumbed down stories, so they're a little bit more complex than you might find in other places, but always built around the idea of suspense. Suspense to me is basically—my definition is apprehension born of concern. So we're concerned about a character, and we're apprehensive because there's peril around the bend, or right in front of them. So I want the readers to really care about a character, and then try to build the story and the suspense around that empathy or sympathy that we have for the character. Jo: I think it's really interesting, because again, you mentioned 2007—we're coming up on 20 years since first published. The publishing industry has changed a lot. So what do you think has changed most in publishing for you, and what are your thoughts on routes to market for new authors these days? Or even established authors who are finding that things have changed, which they obviously have. Steven: Well, I'm not a marketer, I'm not a businessman. I'm just a storyteller at heart. So I just keep writing stories that I would be intrigued with reading, stories that I feel like are resonant. Then I look for publishers for those. I've been to a variety of different publishers over the last decade. I've done some different types of stories. I feel like you have to just write the story instead of trying to write for a specific market trend or something like that. So I might not make as much as some of my friends, I might not sell as many books, but I feel like I have to write certain stories if they grab ahold of me. There's a Native American—I think the Pawnee tribe, anyway, in the United States—but they were saying that all the stories that exist are out there already, and when one finds you, it's your job to share it with the world. I think that's kind of interesting. Sometimes—maybe it's just true for you, I don't know, Jo—but it's like a story will grab hold of me, or an idea, and I'm like, “I can't shake it.” That's a story that I want to tell the world. I would say that stories are becoming shorter, dumber. People are trying to write faster. They're trying to write several books a year, and as a result of that, some of the quality has gone down. This is all unfortunate. I'm still sort of a dinosaur. I still tend to write longer, complex stories. But people have shorter attention spans and whatever, and they're not reading as much. The structure of stories, I think, is changing slightly, where people will have to spend more time on a hook to really grab the attention of the readers. Then there might be a longer slow period, or more info dumping, which I'm not a fan of. So they kind of look like, “I want to get readers hooked at the beginning, and then get them to flip pages.” So I tend to set up my stories a little bit differently than that. So I'm not the best guy to ask about marketing and sales and stuff like that. I feel like, write a story that will not let you go. And if you do that, I feel like that's the kind of story that will resonate with readers, because there's a deep honesty to it. You care, you're passionate about it. It's not just something you're trying to spin out just to sell books. That's my view. Jo: I guess I also feel that writers are doing other things. So you have non-fiction, you have your podcast, you do events. I see you sell books direct from your website. It's like the business expands into multiple streams of income, so that the art doesn't have to pay all the bills. Steven: That's interesting. I do love to teach writing at conferences, events, and speak at different things. So I guess if you think about it that way, my brand might be just story, or storytelling, or something like that. Really trying to get out there, and whether it's speaking or writing, just tell a great story. So it's so interesting when I work with publishers and they'll ask, “What's your brand?” Basically it's like, “What's your box?” is really what they're asking. What box can we stick you in that will make it easy for us to package you and sell you? I know myself, and just a lot of authors that I know, we don't think in a box. Every one of my stories is not boxy. It's not the same. They're different. I know a lot of authors like that too. So it's unfortunate. I get it, that it's part of them trying to market and sell the books. I understand that, but I think being honest, genuine with the story, doing the very best you can, writing a worthy book, and then letting them come up with a way to categorise it, is probably the best bet. I don't know. Jo: We're almost out of time, but this is obviously a podcast, and you have a podcast. So tell us about The Story Blender Podcast and what people might find over there. Steven: Yes, I appreciate it. Basically, I interview some of the leading writers and storytellers in the world every week, and the goal is for great storytellers to share the secrets of great storytelling. So I basically pick their brains, kind of like what you were doing with me today, and find out what projects they're working on, and really just try to get insights into storytelling. So it's tons of fun. I've been doing it now for a number of years, and I guess I've interviewed over 250 different authors and writers from around the world, and so I always enjoy it. It's a ton of fun. It's The Story Blender, and people can find it anywhere. Jo: So where can people find you and your books and everything you do online? Steven: Probably the best place is StevenJames.net. I think I'm on different socials @readstevenjames, so you can look me up there—Facebook, Instagram, X, and so on. I think they're all under readstevenjames. Check out the website, drop me a note. I always enjoy hearing from readers. Jo: Well, thanks so much for your time, Steven. That was great. Steven: Thanks, Jo. I appreciate it. Good luck. The post Organic Writing And The Power Of The Pivot In Fiction With Steven James first appeared on The Creative Penn.

Josh Cole discussed Zeno's paradox that says motion is not possible since you must go half-way, and then half of the remaining distance, and so on, infinitely. Aristotle and others struggled with this, using ideas like "potential infinity" that hint at ideas that would appear in calculus hundreds of years later. The ancient Greeks were focused on the counting numbers, so they expect things to happen in succession. In particular, the Arrow Paradox asks at what point in time does an arrow move.

Send us Fan MailWe start with a simple mystery: how the same person can make a proud plan at night and break it in the morning, even while still believing the plan is good. We connect akrasia, free will, and moral responsibility to transaction costs, treating self-control as a contracting problem between competing versions of ourselves. • Jordan I and Jordan II as a model of divided preferences over time • Hard determinism, libertarian free will, and compatibilism as the main philosophical map • Responsibility and punishment as social conventions that reduce coordination costs • Aristotle on voluntary intoxication and why blame can attach upstream • Akrasia defined as wanting to want the right thing • Plato's knowledge-based denial of akrasia versus Aristotle's acceptance of weakness of will • Paul and Augustine on the internal conflict of the will • Time-inconsistent preferences and hyperbolic discounting as a behavioral explanation • Commitment devices as credible commitments and transaction cost engineering • Odysseus and the sirens as the classic precommitment story • Listener letter on military punctuality as costly signaling and institutional discipline • Listener letter on recycling labels as regulation creating new transaction costs Links and Sources1. Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge University Press.  Link: Cambridge University Press — Picoeconomics 2. Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Batoche Books. (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)  Passage: Book VII (on incontinence/akrasia). Link: Nicomachean Ethics, trans. W. D. Ross (free PDF)3. Augustine. (1838). The confessions of Saint Augustine (E. B. Pusey, Trans.). John Henry Parker. (Original work written ca. 397–400 C.E.)  Passage: Book VIII, Chapters 8–9 (§§20–21). Link: Confessions, Book VIII, Pusey translation (free full text)4. Davidson, D. (1970). How is weakness of the will possible? In J. Feinberg (Ed.), Moral concepts (pp. 93–113). Oxford University Press. Link: Oxford Academic — "How Is Weakness of the Will Possible?" (in Essays on Actions and Events) (gated — subscription/institutional access)5. Dennett, D. C. (1984). Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting. MIT Press. Link: MIT Press — Elbow Room (gated — purchase; excerpts free)6. Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom evolves. Viking.  Link: Internet Archive — Freedom Evolves (gated — free with Internet Archive lending account)7. Hume, D. (1999). An enquiry concerning human understanding (T. L. Beauchamp, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1748) Passage: Section VIII, "Of Liberty and Necessity." Link: Hume Texts Online — Section 8 (free full text)8. King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original work published 1769) Passage: Romans 7. Link: Romans, Chapter 7 (KJV) (free full text)9. Plato. (1967). Protagoras (W. R. M. Lamb, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published ca. 380 B.C.E.)  Link: Perseus Digital Library — Protagoras (Lamb trans.) (free full text)10. Schelling, T. C. (1984). The intimate contest for self-command. In Choice and consequence: Perspectives of an errant economist. Harvard University Press.  Link: National Affairs — "The Intimate Contest for Self-Command" (original 1980 essay, free full text) · Harvard University Press — Choice and Consequence (book page, gated)11. Strawson, P. F. (1962). Freedom and resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy, 48, 1–25. Link: The British Academy — Freedom and Resentment (official publisher page, may be gated)12. Vaihinger, H. (1925). The philosophy of 'as if': A system of the theoretical, practical and religious fictions of mankind (C. K. Ogden, Trans.). Harcourt, Brace. (Original work published 1911)Link: Internet Archive — The Philosophy of 'As If' (free full text)Book-o-da-Week:  Emily Wilson's translation of Homer's THE ODYSSEY, 2018, WW Norton. If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com !You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz 

Today on Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Dcn. Garlick hosts Dr. Patrick Deneen to discuss his NEW BOOK: The American Odyssey: What an Ancient Story Reveals About Our Divided Souls.Pick up the AMERICAN ODYSSEY out today!https://a.co/d/01rpYuwt23 Observations on the new Christopher Nolan Odyssey Moviehttps://www.patreon.com/greatbooks/posts/23-quick-on-164190324In this special episode of Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Dcn. Garlick welcomes back renowned Notre Dame political thinker Dr. Patrick Deneen—author of Why Liberalism Failed and Regime Change—to celebrate the release of his brand-new book, The American Odyssey: What an Ancient Story Reveals About Our Divided Souls.Fresh off a 12-week deep dive into Homer's epic, the conversation reveals why Odysseus is the ultimate “proto-American” hero: a restless seeker torn between the hunger for home and the irresistible call of the frontier. Deneen traces this tension from the ancient text through Dante's damning portrayal of Odysseus as a villain of forbidden knowledge, to the Renaissance reinvention of him as the triumphant explorer who metaphorically discovers America itself.What makes this episode unmissable is how Deneen unlocks Aristotle's radical claim that humans are political animals precisely because we are neither beasts nor gods, the “citylessness” that turns Ithaca into a Cyclopean free-for-all, and the startling parallels between Odysseus' refusal of immortality and Huck Finn's decision to “go to hell.” Pairing iconic American stories like The Wizard of Oz, Field of Dreams, and Huckleberry Finn with Homer's timeless episodes, Deneen shows that the Western tradition isn't locked in dusty classics—it's alive in our movies, novels, and national character, especially as America marks its 250th anniversary. Dive in and discover how an ancient tale of departure and return still maps the divided soul of a nation that can't stop exploring… or longing for home.Chapters:00:00 Introduction to Dr. Patrick Deneen and the Book01:54 Deneen's Return to Homer and the Odyssey03:59 Odysseus as a Proto-American Figure06:59 The Tension Between Flourishing and Discontent12:07 Odysseus and the Pioneering Spirit of America19:02 The Shift in Odysseus' Image from Medieval to Renaissance27:01 Odysseus as a Figure of Forbidden Knowledge34:08 The Connection Between Odysseus and Columbus40:02 The Polis and Citylessness in Homer and Aristotle48:07 The Return of the Polis and the Homecoming56:06 Huckleberry Finn as an Odyssean American Hero59:45 The Western Tradition in Popular CultureKey words: Ascend Great Books Podcast, Deacon Harrison Garlick, Dr Patrick Deneen, The American Odyssey book, Homer Odyssey, Odysseus proto-American hero, Why Liberalism Failed, Regime Change, Western tradition, Aristotle Politics, man political animal, apolis citylessness, Dante Inferno Odysseus villain, Renaissance explorers, Columbus Amerigo Vespucci, American character, pioneering spirit, frontier homecoming, Calypso immortality, Huckleberry Finn, Field of Dreams, Wizard of Oz, 250th anniversary Declaration of Independence, Notre Dame political science, Homeric studies, great books podcast, Platonic dialogues, American soul, divided souls, political theory, classical literature, Americana, Odyssey episodes.

Send us Fan MailMost men have been trained to see the “male gaze” as something to apologize for — a coarse, objectifying reflex to suppress or perform your way out of. Either you're the bro who can't see past a woman's body, or you're the guy in the loafers and matcha latte performing a “female gaze” so hard it becomes its own kind of costume.In this episode, Jordan revisits a line from The Alabaster Girl that's followed him for thirteen years — women have a beauty song — and asks Zan whether it still holds. What follows is one of the most philosophically dense conversations on the podcast: gratitude as the lens that transforms looking into witnessing, the difference between a woman posed as a nude and a woman caught naked and unguarded, and why Zan refuses to be embarrassed about the fact that his eyes are drawn to the female form.They get into the man in the coffee shop who watches a woman order her latte and lets her walk out the door without chasing her — and why Zan calls that moment “code complete.” The phrase Zan wrote in his new book: a woman's walk is the oldest promise in the world. Freud's split between exhibitionism and voyeurism, and why every peep show needs a pervert. And Zan's answer to the discourse around male gaze versus female gaze — which he'd never even heard of before Jordan brought it up.Watch until the end for Zan's real-time reinterpretation of John Berger's “nude vs. naked” distinction — and his own bikini-versus-underwear version of it.__________________________________________________Ars Amorata, Summer '26:Text Her — Stan's course on apps and messaging: from swipe right to archetype. Opens soon.https://amorati.me/courses/text-her/Perception, Openness, Beauty — Online weekend intensive with Jordan, 18-19 July. Inside the Guild.https://arsamorata.com/guild/Desire in the Afternoon — Private salon-consultation with Jordan. 25-26 July, Bali. (Two-day option with embodied women's feedback newly added.)https://desireintheafternoon.carrd.co/Amorati Guild Summer Holiday — A beach weekend in Vama Veche with Zan. 21-23 August, Romania.https://arsamorata.com/guild/____________________________________________________Need a gunslinger? Someone who rides into town, completely solves your problem, then rides off into the sunset. Contact Zan Perrion personally to inquire about his incredibly effective one-on-one Laser Coaching. Find him here: https://arsamorata.com/gunslinger/__________________________________Get instant access to our 4 part mini-course with Zan Perrion

Storytelling has become the most overused word in marketing, and Emma Lieberman thinks that's exactly the problem. In this episode of Content Amplified, Emma, Director of Copy and Content at Impact Networking, argues that storytelling isn't a strategy to optimize, it's a craft, and treating it like a KPI is why so many brand stories fall flat. Drawing on Aristotle's Poetics, Emma breaks down what actually makes something a story (a beginning, a middle, an end, a character who changes) and why most marketing "stories" are really just branding wearing a costume. She walks through three examples that get it right: Grainger's YouTube series of unscripted client interviews, a Volvo ad that never shows the car until the very last second, and Google's classic "Parisian Love" ad told entirely through search bar queries. Emma also shares the one tactical move any marketing team can make tomorrow: start with client stories, since no sales team has ever said no to more of them. If you've ever wondered why your brand's "storytelling" isn't landing, this conversation explains what's actually missing.About EmmaEmma Lieberman didn't start out in marketing. She spent years in Los Angeles working as an actor and comedian, doing stand-up, sketch, and indie film, before the pandemic pushed her to try content writing as a freelancer. She quickly found that the skills she'd built connecting with an audience on stage translated directly to connecting with one in writing, and she moved from freelance work into an in-house role at Impact Networking. She's been promoted several times since and now serves as Director of Copy and Content at Impact Networking.Show NotesConnect with Emma on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emma-lieberman/Text us what you think about this episode!

"...And he will refrain from giving to anybody and everybody, that he may have something to give to the right people, at the right time, and where it is noble to do so..."I am reading from Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, written in 350 BC. Reflection questions:Where are you being vague in your conversations with donors or in your campaign materials?How will you lean into providing clarity to our donors in your leadership?Reflection on quote:This month, we are exploring what it means to lead with integrity during a capital campaign.  For this series, we are using the metaphor of standing at the base of a mountain where the trail is obscured from view by the undergrowth of the forest. Each step is a step of faith, but the journey is grounded in building trust with our staff, volunteers, donors, and the community.  It is both exhilarating and challenging as we make our way to the mountain top to complete the capital campaign.  This trust building requires honesty, clarity, openness, and curiosity in our leadership. This week, we are exploring the principle of clarity through ancient wisdom.  Note: Aristotle uses the word liberal to denote a donor of money from their wealth.Aristotle points to a key principle for capital campaigns; that is, the importance of clarity when speaking with a donor about the campaign. He outlines that virtuous major donors will give to the right people, the right amount, and at the right time.  In the capital campaign context, we lead with clarity when we define why we are most equipped to expand our programs and services now and how we can be trusted to sustain our essential services through our new building or renovation after the campaign is over.  We lead with integrity when we clearly explain the true costs of the campaign and the gift range the donor may consider themselves in.  And, we lead with clarity when we demonstrate why the campaign is needed right now and a gift will have the most effectiveness when given now.  While it may seem more polite in our small towns to be vague in donor conversations, vagueness only leads to donor confusion, sending them back to the trailhead or lost off-trail.  Instead, it is more noble to lead with clarity that we are the right people for the right amount at this right time to receive a gift to the capital campaign.  This work has entered the public domain.What do you think? Send me a text. To explore small town capital campaign coaching deeper and to schedule an free explore coaching call, visit ServingNonprofits.com.Music credit: Woeisuhmebop

On the #amwriting podcast's Margin Notes, host Jennie Nash talks with Caroline Bicks, Stephen E. King Chair in Literature at the University of Maine and co-host of the Everyday Shakespeare podcast, about her book Monsters in the Archives: A Year of Fear with Stephen King. Bicks describes how she became the first invited into King's Bangor archives after King called to meet her, and how her sabbatical became a year of researching five formative works (including Carrie, Night Shift, The Shining, Salem's Lot, and Pet Sematary) to understand how horror language creates lasting fear. She explains choosing a first-person narrative that blends literary criticism, archival discovery, and her own anxiety, including eerie moments in the archive and insights into King's word-level edits, literary influences, and Shakespearean foundations, especially The Shining's ties to Hamlet.#AmWriting is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Read the Book* Monsters in the Archives by Caroline BicksTranscriptJennie: [00:00:00] Hi, I'm Jennie Nash, and you're listening to the #amwriting podcast, the place where we help writers of all kinds play big in your writing life, love the process, and stick with it long enough to finish what matters most. Welcome, everyone. This is Margin Notes, the part of the podcast where we're talking about the big decisions writers face in their work and creative lives.I'm here today with a super special guest. I'm so excited to speak with Caroline Bicks. She is the Stephen E. King Chair in Literature at the University of Maine, where she teaches courses in Shakespeare, early modern culture, and horror fiction. And she's the author of all kinds of very cool books ... about Shakespeare, including one on cocktails.Um, and, uh, is the co-host of the Everyday Shakespeare podcast, and we are here today to talk with her about her new book called [00:01:00] Monsters in the Archives: A Year of Fear with Stephen King. Welcome.Caroline: Thank you. Thanks for having me.Jennie: So this is gonna be the strangest interview you've probably ever done. ICaroline: don't know.Because- I've talked to a lot of people around the world about this Stephen King book.Jennie: I couldn't read your book. I, I couldn't read it. I can't read horror. Yeah. Which listeners of this podcast are gonna laugh about, ‘cause I'm actually coaching someone live and they're writing gothic horror, and they're probably like, “All you talk about is horror, Jennie.”But, um, it's actually the reason why I wanted to talk to you, because you made a decision in the writing of this book that I thought was super cool. Mm. Which was you put yourself in it.Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: And you're a scholar.Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: And you've written scholarly books, and you approach this with a scholarly perspective, but you, you really put yourself in it.And, and so [00:02:00] I was reading it for that part of the story and I had to skip over huge chunks of, of the, of the work. Because what you're doing in this book is you're getting at this question of- W- what, what is scary in writing? Like, how does it actually work? How does it act- what is the magic or the function that makes us feel this thing?And you actually feel it yourself while you're going through it, and I found it quite terrifying actually. So, um, that's kinda what I wanted to talk about is how did you make the decision? Well, first of all, you were the first person, I wanna make sure I get this right, ‘cause this is very cool. Yeah. You were the first person who was invited to the archives, the Stephen King archives.Caroline: Yeah. I mean, it's, it's a bit of a story, so I won't spend too much time on it, but just the mo- Oh, no, do. It's good ... when I ch- when I took this position... So I've been a Shakespeare professor my whole adult life, ba- as soon as I graduated from grad school in the late ‘90s, [00:03:00] and I was at Boston College for 15 years.I took this position at University of Maine nine years ago as a Shakespearean. Um, so it is an endowed chair in Stephen King's name because he's our most famous alum. So when I took the position, I, it was because I'm a Shakespearean, not because I'm a horror specialist. Um, I had always been a Stephen King fan since I read him when I was 12, and he scared the beje- Jesus out of me, um, with The Boogeyman story.Jennie: Right.Caroline: Um, so when I took this position though I was told, “You're never gonna meet Stephen King. Don't even make contact with him.” I'm like, “Fine, you know, this is still a great job. I'm excited.” Um- ThanksJennie: for the money. Yeah.Caroline: Thanks for... You know, no, it's a wonderful fund. It was funded by the Harold Alfond Foundation, and it's to support the public humanities, which is an incredible mission.So, um, I get to give money away to people. You know, it's a great, great position, but I was not a horror specialist. And particu- a- and as an adult, I actually wasn't reading horror because it scares me too much. You know? Yeah, yeah. Um, but it had grabbed me when I was a teenager. So it was about four years into the [00:04:00] job when I got a call at home from Stephen King, which just, uh, uh, my jaw hit the floor.And he said, “You know, I think it's time we meet.” I'm like, you know, I, I really fan-girled because I really, I have so much admiration for him and respect. Um, I invited him to come talk to our students. He was brilliant, generous, funny, kind, and I felt so at ease that I felt like I could ask... You know, and I got to know him professionally.We had a good professional relationship that developed from there. When I had a sabbatical year coming up the next year- I could have written another Shakespeare book. I had another one in my head. I've written a bunch of them but I knew that he and Tabitha had just collected all of his manuscripts and put them in a climate-controlled space attached to their home in Bangor, and I thought, “You know, this is an incredible opportunity.I would love to dig in there and be the first one in there, and just read those early drafts of the books that scared me so much when I was a teenager, and try to just explore why. Why were they sticking in my head still?” Um, again, I am not a specialist in... I'm not a cognitive scientist. I'm not a [00:05:00] specialist in horror literature, but I'm obviously highly trained in how to do literary analysis and how to do archival work, not Shakespeare, because we don't have any of his works, but, you know, I, I understand what that process is.So back to your question about why I wanted to bring myself into it, which was, you know, I had been experimenting with first-person storytelling after I got tenure. You know, ‘cause it's a long process, Kate. Right. And most of my writing had been academic writing, but I really had always loved storytelling And I got a piece into the Modern Love column.I started to have some success with publishing my first-person stories, and I was like, “You know, I love this.” So when I had this opportunity to go into his archives, they generously said yes, was amazing. I thought, “You know, I really wanna tell this story. I don't wanna write an academic book. I want this to be the story of a literature scholar, but really the story about a scared kid.”Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: You know, you, you never lose that scare, you know, I don't... This is the thing. Fear has stuck with me with those stories [00:06:00] for 40 years. So I was fascinated, and I just wanted to understand how he had crafted the language so that it was sticking in my head still. Because when I was talking to people around, you know, whenever you mention Stephen King to people, you know, if they've read him, they remember specific lines and specific words, and I was like, “That's an extraordinary, um, 50 years on to have that power.”So, um- Well- Anyway. Yeah. Go ahead. I, I could talk about this forever, so you tell me- Oh, no, it's- ... where you wanted to pick up from this.Jennie: It's so good. Well, I have to tell you this funny anecdote, which is that my college roommate was from Bangor, Maine, and babysat his kids in that house.Caroline: Oh, that's insane.Jennie: So when I went to visit her, she drove me by that house.There you go. And I was like, “Oh, hell no- Yeah ... would I ever babysit in that house.” Like, it's-Caroline: It's ‘cause it's like a gothic, it's like straight out of Haunting of Hill House ...Jennie: actually, and like these spiderweb gates that, and you describe that in the [00:07:00] book and, and the- Yeah ... archives are in that house. They'reCaroline: in the house.They're attached to the back. I know. And it, it was so, it was, it was insane. It was like a full-on 360 experience writing this book. Um, and I, I knew, like, so I did the research for a year. I didn't even know if this would be a book. I just knew I wanted to have the opportunity to be in there because it, I knew it was a great opportunity, and I was so curious, you know?Yeah. So I, I came out of the year with just tons of notes and observations, but I didn't have a book, you know? Yeah. And then I started experimenting with writing a chapter, and I just, the storytelling just came forward and then when I got an agent and she, you know, s- I, I, I was able to get a contract based on a proposal and that one chapter I had written and I was really fortunate to have a fabulous editor, David Ebershoff, at Hogarth, who is just such a wonderful writer himself, and he really encouraged me to bring my voice in and bring my story in even [00:08:00] more.Um, so that's- And- ... that's the story of that.Jennie: Was it hard for you as a scholar to do that?Caroline: You know what? It was so freeing and so fun that it actually wasn't, you know? Because I, I knew this wasn't going to be an academic book, so once I let go of that- Yeah ... um, I was like, wow, I have the, and yet I have this skill set I can bring forward, and I knew that's what would make this unique.Um, but I can combine my two favorite ways of writing, ‘cause I do actually love writing literary criticism. Like it's, I get a thrill out of it. I wouldn't be doing it this long if I didn't get a thrill out of it, but I also love telling my own stories and drawing a reader in. And so for me it was like just a circus carnival.Like it was so fun to be able to do it. Once I had the permission and I had a contract, I was like, fine, you know? I, I, who am I writing this book for? I'm writing it for me, you know? Like this is just something I wanna do because I'm so passionate [00:09:00] about it and I, and I love Stephen King. And, um, once I got into it that way and wasn't thinking about who's gonna criticize me for this, like how will academics view this, I was like, I don't care.I just don't care. I know I've got a great story to tell that people are gonna love to read because there's so many people that love not just Stephen King, but people who love reading about how great books get written, you know? Yeah. And so that was the audience I had in my mind when I, when I was crafting it.It was really, in my mind, anybody who cares about books and writing. It doesn't have to be... So when you say, you're not the first person who's said to me, “I can't read your book,” or, “I can't read-” Oh, I'm so glad. “... Stephen King books,” you know, and I'm like, “That's okay. You can skip, you know, the parts that really scare you,” because there's plenty about just like that first chapter I wrote about Pet Sematary, just his sticky notes back and forth with his copy editor, which is so fun I think.You know, it's just like, wow.Jennie: Totally. Yeah. But the thing that you do is you- Allow yourself to confront that fear-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: [00:10:00] that, that I feel that the people can't, that can't read horror feel. You know, anybody that even allows themselves to be scared feels. And-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: and you, you do some very specific things, um, which I, I found fascinating, including tracking down on eBay the original copy of that book you read as a- Yeah, I wanted-as a teenager.Caroline: Yeah, that was part of the process for me, was I wanted to make sure I was reading... So before I would go into the archives for each work, and I'd spent like two... I only picked five, because I wanted to... First of all, I knew I wanted to make this personal. Um, and those were the five that scared me the most when I was a teenager.So I grew up in the ‘70s and the ‘80s as a teenager, so for me, it was in real time when the books were coming out practically. So it was- Yeah ... Carrie, Night Shift, The Shining, Salem's Lot, Pet Sematary. Um, I'm forgetting one of course. Uh, but I went -Jennie: The other one.Caroline: The other one. Had a huge impact on me. [00:11:00] So it was those five, and I, I knew those were the ones I was gonna do a deep dive into, and that I wanted to really re-engage with, and bring my whole self to.So I wanted to find the copies that I had read in the ‘70s and the early ‘80s. And fortunately, it's pretty easy to find them. Uh, so yeah, but eBay sometimes I had to go on, or go into a used bookstore and, you know, find the like actual 1979 paperback, you know.Jennie: Um- I mean, that- Um ... I just, there's some, there's so much to say about that because-Caroline: YeahJennie: like, I just, um- We, we just had a new bookcase built, um, which is something I've wanted to do well for eight years in this house. But it's a thing I've always wanted to have, which is like a grand bookcase, and it just was finished last week, and we had all the books packed up in storage, and we brought all the books back.Then we went through this discernment process of what goes [00:12:00] on those shelves. And I, you know, I had all those books from when I was a kid, even when I was a kid-kid, and they're yellow, and moldy and falling apart, and the covers aren't on, and they're taped and-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: eh, but I cannot let them go-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: because those...that was the object.Caroline: That's the object. This is what I feel sad for kids now, because they're not gonna have those same memories, um, of books. Yes. You know? And I don't think they stick in your head the same way if you don't have the full sensory embodied experience with a book.Jennie: Right. You know? Even when you open...I read on Kindle, which I love for so many reasons. Yeah. But you don't even see the cover.Caroline: You don't see the cover, right. And for me, it's so much. Like, I remember going to the Scholastic Book Fair and being like- Yes ... “I'm getting Summer of My German S- Soldier because Christy McNichol's on the cover,” you know?Yes. Yes. So yeah, that was part of the journey for me was I did wanna just [00:13:00] reconnect with those books again, try to h- and as much as you can, you know, reexperience the feelings of f- like The Shining, I actually... the only one I still have from 1977 is the actual Shining that I read. Um, and that's, for me, that woman in room 217.Well, I know you haven't read it ‘cause you're probably... What? But, um, it, that particular one I still have from, from when I was growing up. Um, and I love that I still have it, and it still has the photo... You know, it's the version that has the photo inserts that includes the Kubrick film photos. Oh, okay.Jennie: Okay.Yeah, yeah.Caroline: And I read it before I saw the film, so I remember being- 15 reading it and then seeing the pictures and being like you know? And that's part of the experience, but it wasn't, it's different than seeing the film, you know? And I really, I wanted to write this book as a love letter to language and to books, and not to film.Like, there's, that's a whole other category I think that enters people's brains in totally different ways. It's a very different experience. For me it's about, like going back to your original question [00:14:00] about like why, why, why do stories cause fear, and like what's the value perhaps in that? Yeah. That was something I came to after this long journey really, and talking to people and thinking about why.And also by understanding and reading more about Stephen King's books and talking to him about them, and realizing for him how much these stories are rooted in personal experiences or fears of grief and loss. And- Yes ... that was really profound for me. And like The Night Shift, which is the ur-text that I start with, ‘cause that's the one I read when I was 12, and that's his first collection of short stories.It came out in 1978. It's 20 short stories. But he ends it with a story about his mother dying, and it's, I mean, it's thinly veiled autobiography. It's about a man who's watching his mother die in the hospital. Um, but it's clearly a mirror of his own experience losing his mother when he was 26. And I'm like, wow, what's that doing in a collection of horror stories?[00:15:00] And it's like, what? ‘Cause that is of course, at least for me and I think for a lot of people, that's the core fear we first have, is that where's mommy, right? Yeah. Right? You lose the person who's in charge of taking care of you, and if you're lucky, does it well and with care. Um, but even if it's not, like Carrie, you know, the more I was looking through the Carrie drafts, I was like, right, he's really homing in on Carrie calling out for her mother even though her mother's terrible and abusive to her, right?So it's, there's just this, I don't know. It's a long way around to say I think horror, and he writes about this really eloquently, is a way for us to metabolize our deepest fears. Um, and to look at trauma not head-on but sideways. Um, and he writes about that, um, a number of different places in a really powerful way.He's just such an extraordinary human. You know, he's been thinking about this and for so long.Jennie: Yeah. Yeah. So, so your willingness to [00:16:00] confront that, those particular fear, fears in your own self and on behalf of the reader, really puts you in it. I mean, like you, there's a really lovely moment where you are reading I think it's, I think it's Pet Sematary, reading the actual book, and you have to turn it over so you- Yeahdon't see, like on your nightstand so you don't see the cover. I'mCaroline: scared, I'm scared of the cover, right, still.Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: And then there's moments, se- several where you're driving And you're sort of holding your breath while you drive past a place that he writes about or, or- Mm-hmm ... you know, um, well you have to tell the story, I'm sure every interviewer asks you about the, um, the doorknob in the archive.You have to, like, I was-Caroline: Yeah, not too many people have asked me about that, but I'm like, that to me was the scary moment-Jennie: Wait, shut up ... the most, theCaroline: most sturdy. I'm like, wh- uh, why did that happen? But of course, I mean, there's a reason why it happened. It's, it's, it [00:17:00] automatically locks if, you know, the, if you- Okaydon't lock it So let's, let's play- So but it just happened that we were inside the archive room. It was me and, and Julie Ugli, who is their assistant, who was helping me through this whole process. And I know, and I was, like, literally holding the first page of the first draft of The Boogeyman, the story that had scared me so badly when I was 12, about a monster that comes out of closets, and we're like in this room.And the, the archive room, it actually, it almost feels like a closet. It's not huge at all. You know, it's just-Jennie: Yeah ...Caroline: top to bottom, ceiling to floor stacked shelving with, you know, boxes of materials. And yeah, and we were in there, and I'm holding the first page, and the lock closes on its own. It just goes...And I'm like, I'm looking at Julie, I'm like, “What is, what's happening?” We don't have our cell phones with us. I'm like, “Are we stuck in here? Like, what's gonna happen?”Jennie: In the scary archive- In this, I was terrified ... in the back of the scary house. Like-Caroline: I know, I know. It was like, you can't make this stuff up.That's why I was like, I [00:18:00] couldn't wait, when I finally got a chance to write the book and sit down and write, I was like, I can't wait to tell these stories, because they just... I, I'm not a fiction writer. Like, I, I have such mad respect for- I don't know about that ... well, I've m- We'll see I don't know. I have mad respect for people who can write fiction.For me, I only can write what I know and exper- So I'm like, ah. But these stories were just so amazing. Or like when I was reading The Shining, like the first draft of The Shining, which is crazy. I mean, it's so different from the published version. And like getting to the woman in room 217, and like reading th- and literally my head w- like I thought I was having a stroke.Like it was like, like... And it's like, and then I find an interview where Stephen King writes about how he was scared to go back to that scene when he was revising it, the book, because he was dreading it. And I was like, oh, my God, have I just like had some kind of telepathic experience with Stephen King?Like- Right ... across time, space, and yeah, it was amazing.Jennie: Well, yeah. I mean, [00:19:00] it's just, um, uh, I actually made myself go through the whole book skipping giant chunks.Caroline: I feel so badly I put you through this.Jennie: I know. I, I feel like why, I kept saying, “Why? Why did I think this was a good idea?” Um, and it- I mean, even just tangentially, I, I don't know.It's interesting. I have, I'm sure you have this too, anybody who reads a lot or spends a lot of time with words, you have a capacity to sort of pay half attention, if that makes sense.Caroline: Mm-hmm.Jennie: Um, like you c- could sort of look at it without letting it all the way in. Yeah. But I, I just was, I just was riveted by the thread of, of your story and your putting yourself through that as a scholar and a human.But, but then some really cool things happen, and I, and I have flagged, um... Do you, [00:20:00] w- would you mind reading a tiny piece? It's- No, not at all ... it's on page 82, and it's the p- the paragraph that starts, “These manuscripts.”Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: That would be amazing.Caroline: Absolutely. So this is actually the moment I just described to you, where my head was like, I got...Oh, actually, I had just discovered the last 150 pages of the original Shining manuscript in a random folder in the archives, and I was like, “What is this doing here?” And I was getting obsessive about the manuscripts at this point, clearly- Yeah. Yeah ... just like the main character in The Shining, Jack Torrance, who gets obsessed with the manu- with the papers in the basement of the Overlook Hotel.But here we go. “These manuscripts are definitely getting into my head, and not just its rational part. In his memoir, when King describes books as being a uniquely portable magic, he doesn't specify what kind of magic. What if manuscripts can absorb and store more than just ink and words? [00:21:00] What if their pages can pass on dark energy along with dark stories?Ghosts have more than one way of making sure their stories are heard, of ensuring that the past is not forgotten, but rather pressed into our minds, even if we wrench our heads off the pillow and refuse to listen.” And that last is a reference to my, I used to see a ghost when I was five, and I write about that in the book too.Jennie: I mean, when I read that, I was like, “That's, that's me.” Like, these ghosts and horrors are pressing themselves into my mind, and I'm refusing to listen, and they still, they still do. And, um, King's stories in particular are so iconic, you can't really escape them. Like, you, you know the scenarios, you know the characters, you know-Caroline: YeahJennie: you know. And, and so it was interesting for me reading this book that that described my [00:22:00] experience where I was both repelled and magnetized at the same time.Caroline: That's beautiful the way you just put that. I mean, I think that is exactly our relationship also, of course, to our own fears. You know, again, what makes these stories endure, and I didn't go into this book thinking like, “This is a book about promoting Stephen King,” and, you know- Rightlike, I don't work for Stephen King. I just want to put that out there. Right. He, you know, he graciously agreed to let me go into the archives. He's been very generous about answering all my questions I had about the manuscripts, but he never at any point was like, “You can't say this,” or, “This is how you're supposed to say this.”So, but what I came away with after this process was exactly what you're describing, why we need these stories, why they endure, actually, is because they tap into our very real human fears. It's not about the monsters. It's about the grief and loss that's coming for all of us if we live long enough, you know?So you, and you have to at some point confront that, you know? So if it's- Yeah ... you can [00:23:00] try to run away from it, but it's coming, and that's part of being human. That's the human experience, obviously. Not to be glib, but it's like-Jennie: Yeah ...Caroline: you will experience loss. You will experience grief. And if these stories help you metabolize that or have a cathartic experience with that feeling without having to actually experience your worst fear, right?Um, like Aristotle says, it's cathartic, right? It's you watch a play, a, a tragedy because you experience a catharsis.Jennie: And did you, did you get to that in your own process?Caroline: That's a really good question. Um- You know, I, I think I became more aware of it. You know, I am, you know, and I write about this very openly in the book, that I was an extremely anxious little kid, um, which is part of why I think the boogeyman triggered me in the particular way it did, you know.Um, and that I grew into a pretty [00:24:00] anxious adult, you know? Yeah. I think anxiety is one of those things that, you know, I... Again, I was born in the ‘60s, so we didn't have this language for this back then. Like, my parents wouldn't have known to call me an anxious child, you know? Right. They probably would've said, “Oh, she's shy,” or, “She's whatever.”Um, so I think I, you know, like, and I as an adult, I think I've, I've found ways to manage it pretty well, but I am definitely a control freak. Like, that's part of how I manage it. I shouldn't use that language, but you know, it's like I, I like to just control what I can control, and that makes me feel that I can put the anxiety at bay.So I will say I think it's been interesting for me, Nick, now when I have those moments that are my worst fear moments that sometimes still will creep up on me just even though when I think I've figured it out, like doom s- doom scenarios. I tend to go to doom scenarios. So, like, if I can't reach... Uh, I will say Life360 has been, like, the best invention on the planet for me-with my two kids [00:25:00] and my husband. I'm like, “I know exactly where everyone is.” Yeah. It has saved me a lot of worry. Sometimes Life360 doesn't work, or sometimes a person still doesn't answer the phone, and then I have to manage my anxie- And then it's like... So I will say it's been interesting going through this process and having to confront or revisit the core of what scares me and, like, why that impacts, you know, why certain moments come forward for me still.So I think, yeah, I think it has helped me to a degree. Like, I can recognize it more clearly now. I'm like, “Oh, right, that's why I'm scared of that,” you know? Um-Jennie: That's so cool.Caroline: Yeah.Jennie: And it feels like that's the, the, um, the transformation in the book is you're exploring how that actually works and the language and the stories.Mm-hmm. But you're, you're also exploring how it works in your own self, how it did when you were young, how it does now- Yeah ... these moments when you're scared. So it- Mm-hmm ... there's such [00:26:00] a depth to it and, I mean, I just, uh, even in my half reading of it, I just loved it. Thank you. And, um, there's something that happens That's kind of crazy, which is, so you're a Shakespeare scholarCaroline: Mm-hmmJennie: And I ha- I, I know from reading Steve, a- about Stephen King, from reading his book On Writing, of course, and, um, interviews and such that, uh, I'm, I'm probably gonna say this in a disrespectful way, and I don't mean it to be so, but the, the easiest way I can describe it is that he's always had sort of a chip on his shoulder that he's just a popular writer and not taken seriously in a literary way.Mm. I don't know if that's, if that is fair to say, but that's how I'm saying it. Uh,Caroline: yeah.Jennie: And, um, what, what I found incredible was that [00:27:00] here comes this Shakespeare scholar into his archives doing proper scholarly archiver, arch- archival work, and there's this moment when you begin to see Shakespearean themes in his, in his work, and you can't ignore it, and particularly in, in Carrie and- Yeahparticularly around exactly the thing you were wrestling with, which is like a young girl's- I don't know, sense of, of not being fitting in the world or, um-Caroline: Yeah ...Jennie: right? And so that, um, there's, on page, since you have the book in your hand, um, I think it's pageCaroline: 202. Mm-hmm.Jennie: And it refers back to that passage you just read about portable magic.It's the one that's I remembered.Caroline: [00:28:00] Right. Okay. So this is going back to when I first was, um, I was in the final round of the job for the Stephen E. King Chair in Literature, and I was working on a book about Shakespeare's, the girls in Shakespeare's plays and world and teenage girls and their cognition.Like, the how were people during Shakespeare's day thinking about girls' brains? Yeah. So I'd been working on this for 10 years. Um, and then I was getting ready to give my job talk. This was the first time Stephen King and Shakespeare came together for me, and it was getting ready, and this, again, this is an authentic story, like write what you know.So I was getting ready for the job talk. I remembered that King's 1974 novel, Carrie, featured a 16-year-old girl whose telekinetic powers are unleashed when she gets her first period in the school shower. I started rereading it, and within a few pages came across an uncanny phrase. When she's walking home after being dismissed early, Carrie feels her brain flexing in a new way, [00:29:00] as if her powers have been waiting below the surface for her to reach, quote, “mental puberty.”I couldn't have wordsmithed this dynamic cognitive change better myself. In the last part of my job talk, I used the phrase to connect the brain work of Juliet Capulet, who's described as being two weeks away from seeing the change of 14 years, to Carrie's newly activated adolescent mind. It felt like a moment of pure portable magic between Stephen King, Shakespeare, and me.Jennie: Ugh, so beautiful.Caroline: Oh, thank you. Yeah. I mean, that was just so gobsmacking. Like, when that happened, I was like, I ca- I can't believe it, but yeah.Jennie: And then, now I may be getting some of the things wrong here, but then you- You realize, is it Carrie that, that you realize he was, you thought he was emulating a play, a Shakespeare play?Caroline: I think you're thinking of Shining. I mean, definitely at the end of the Carrie [00:30:00] chapter I return to, I did notice echoes of Macbeth, and I was convinced that that must have been what he was thinking about. And, and what's funny is, so one of the conversations I got to have with him, I mean, he's so generous with his time, one of my last conversations with him was about the end of Carrie, and that's a book that he actually doesn't like very much.You know, it was his first published novel, he was 26, and he's like, “I think that was written by a young man who thought he knew more than he did.” So he's, it's not a book that he goes back to. He recognizes it's important, and it's important to him, but, ‘cause it started his whole career, his whole trajectory.Um, but he didn't particularly, he hasn't returned to it. Yeah. So that was a fun chance for me to sort of talk to him and say, “Hey, you know what? I think you should maybe go back,” ‘cause it's it's, there's a lot of Shakespeare in there. Anyway, but the Shining chapter, what was fascinating, so there's this first draft, which I, I write a lot about, called The Shine, that's in the archives, with a totally different ending.Um, and when I looked at it, [00:31:00] he'd also divided it into acts and scenes, like Roman numeral acts and little- Mm ... Roman numeral scenes. And I was like, “This, what is this? This is like a Shakespeare play.” Like, that's what it looked like. And then sure enough, I found out he was imagining, he was thinking of a Shakespeare tragedy when he wrote The Shining.And that was the first moment where I was like, “What? This is insane.” Like, this- Yeah ... like, ob- obviously that became, for me, the story I wanted to tell about that particular set of manuscripts, was sort of uncovering, like, what's the Shakespeare play? Like, what's the tragedy? And I didn't wanna ask him because I didn't want- I wanted to go in with my mind clear, like, of any outside influence.I just wanted to see what my Shakespeare brain, because I'm so embedded in Shakespeare. I also have a Shakespeare podcast I do with my best friend. Like, we're, I'm always thinking about Shakespeare and how it relates to everyday life. You know, and so I'm like, “Well, how does it relate to The Shining?” Which is, like, an ur-American text.Like, this, like, say what you want about horror, [00:32:00] like- I'd be shocked if people don't know what The Shining's about, even if they haven't read it even if they haven't seen the film. Like, you probably know something about The Shining, right? Right. So I was like, if there's a Shakespeare tragedy at the foundation of this, you know.And here's the thing about Stephen King that I came to learn, again, reading all of his notes and finding these edits, and I did find traces of Macbeth in the first draft of The Shine, um, that he ended up taking out. So I was like, “Oh, is it Macbeth? It feels like it could be Macbeth.” There's so many things it has in common with it, with hallucinations and with baby bashing.And, you know, all of these horrible things that are in Macbeth are certainly in that book. Um, but I really wanted to go in, like, just on an adventure, like, see what I saw. So I didn't ask him which chi- tragedy until I was fully done with all my research and I felt like I had it all done. And that's when he drops that he was thinking of Hamlet.And once he said that, of course, it became so ... I mean, I [00:33:00] had seen traces, there were references to Ophelia that also didn't make it into the final published draft. So you wouldn't know this. This is the beauty of archival work, like you're gonna see things that other people will never know about unless you tell the story.That's why I felt so passionate about this. Like, “I need to tell people-” Yeah ... “that Ophelia was in the first draft, that he was thinking of Ophelia.” ‘Cause of course, you know, again, even if you don't know The Shining, the woman in the tub, the woman in the bathtub, like a drowned woman in a tub, like ah, Ophelia.Yeah. Like Ophelia's another one of those ur, like she's so, she's such a part of our cultural air, right? I mean, like no matter what country you're in. Right. There's a reason Taylor Swift has a whole, you know, song The Fate of Ophelia. Like people know what that means. Um, so I was like, “Oh my gosh, this is, this is incredible.This is even deeper than I thought it was gonna be.” Um, but also it made me appreciate how much that book is about intergenerational trauma. Um, and it's not ... So he doesn't like the Kubrick film [00:34:00] for reasons that, you know, a couple different reasons. One is that it flattens out the character of Jack Torrance, and Jack Torrance is an abused child himself, and he passes on that abuse to his son, Danny, right?Um, but you wouldn't know that from Kubrick's film. While Hamlet, of course, is about a father's ghost coming forward. Like, “The past is a ghost,” King writes, which is so f- powerful, right? Um, here's this ghost saying, “You need to kill for me.”Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: Yeah. And that's what happens to Jack. Yeah, so anyway, that's a long way to say that wasEach chapter was my favorite in different ways, but that one I loved being able to do the deep Shakespeare dive.Jennie: And was that ... You know, so I started that question by saying I, I had heard or understood or maybe inferred that, um, you know, King himself had this sort of desire- Okay ... to be taken more seriously.Was that, that must have been, I don't know, powerful for both you and him, uh, to [00:35:00] come to that? Not like, “Oh, you're the only person that's ever made him feel that way” or-Caroline: Yeah,Jennie: no,Caroline: I agree ... or agree with that, but. Like I, yeah. And, um, I mean, I will say I think part of the reason he was always really ... I mean, first of all, he's just so generous, and any writer who's ever worked with him has the same experience.Like he just gives his time. He just loves writing and writers so much that he will just, he'll just t- like any email I would send him, he'd write back in like an hour with a response. The part about how he feels about academia, you know, and I never directly asked him that because I didn't wanna ... You know, if he wanted to bring it up, great.But I think- Yeah ... my, after going on this journey with him, he clearly loves talking about- literature. He's the most well-read person I've ever met. I'm just gonna say that hands down. Like, the guy reads- Really? ... cons- constantly and if you read his early works, like even when he was 17, he wrote The Long Walk, okay, which just came out as a film, [00:36:00] and in that, he's citing T.S.Eliot, he's cit- he's citing Poe at 17. Okay? So he's, he, he, this, he comes by this honestly. He's not just trying to seem smart. Like, he literally is constantly reading and it's clear when you read his manuscripts or when you read his published books, he's making references to all, whether it's Shirley Jackson or Wallace Stevens or, you know, uh, he's so capacious in his knowledge of literature.And, like, just a couple months ago, he sent me an email, I don't, I can't remember, we were talking about something about Salem's Lot, and he was like, “Yeah, when I was writing Salem's Lot,” which again, this is 1975 when he's writing Salem's Lot, so that's a long time ago. He's like, “I was really into James Dickey's poetry.”Jennie: Whoa.Caroline: You know, who was an American no, you know, poet laureate. Uh, he's like, “And I was reading everything I could read of, of his and then I read Deliverance, and then I went back to his poetry, and that really impacted how I wrote the chapters [00:37:00] about the Lot,” which if you've read Salem's Lot, has some very lyrical, poetic chapters about the town, like, “The town knew about darkness.The town had its secrets and knew how to kept it.” And then he, like, sends me the entire poem that he was thinking about that James Dickey wrote. So I mean, it's, he's, and it's not performative. He's not, like, he has nothing. He doesn't need to prove anything to me, you know?Jennie: Right, to anyone, yeah.Caroline: He just literally loves, he loves literature.Like, this guy, he loves poetry. I mean, he actually writes poetry. He wrote poetry as an undergraduate. Uh, it was actually the core start for him of The Stand, was a poem he wrote called The Dark Man one day when he was, like, hungover in the school, like, cafeteria. Like, so it's like he, he's been thinking about literature and living with literature and, uh, since he was a teenager, if not earlier.His mom brought him, uh, Bram Stoker out of the public library when he was nine, so I mean, the guy- Whoa ... ‘cause he asked for it. He asked for Dracula. [00:38:00] I wasn't reading Dracula when I was nine. Were you? I mean-Jennie: No,Caroline: no. I was reading Little House on the Prairie. I mean-Jennie: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Wow. Wow. So- I mean, this book, again, it's called Monsters in the Archives: My Year of Fear with Stephen King by Carolyn Bicks.It's just incredible, whether you're a King fan, whether you're a horror fan, um, but for sure for all writers, which are all our listeners. If you can, if you can bear it.It's very specific, um, a very specific- specific exploration of, of how good writing works really. Yeah. Right. And, and how you... You know, there's always that perennial question of how do you get emotion on the page? How do you make your reader feel something? And you, you show it very specifically, and I wanted so badly [00:39:00] to, to get into the details, and I, and I, I just, I just couldn't.Um, maybe someday, but, um, I just, I just can't recommend it enough for, for, um, this audience and, um, you know, anyone who's interested in any of these things we've talked about.Caroline: Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. And I will say, like, the Pet Sematary chapter, which is the first one, that was the first day I was in the archives.One of the things I discovered about him day one was how much attention he pays to word sounds. So I think for any writer interested in sort of doing a deep dive into, like, how one word change, right- Yeah ... can make a difference, you know? Yeah. And I didn't appreciate that about his writing until I went in there and saw his notes to the copy editor where he's like, “Nope, the word's clitter, not clatter.This is why.” You know? Like,Jennie: he's- There's a, um- Yeah ... yeah, there's a book I love, it's probably right behind me, um, called The Artful Edit by Susan Bell, in which she [00:40:00] shows examples of that kind of very careful change in, um, The Gre- The Great Gatsby and The English Patient and various works of, of literature, and your, your whole book is like that.It's, it's just amazing. Um- Thank you ... so is the next book gonna be the Shakespeare one you had thought of before? Or are you gonna- ... go in the, in the personal direction?Caroline: You know, it's such a good question. I think right now I'm just taking a break, you know, because I'm the kind... Like, I immerse myself in a project, and this has been so all-consuming.Um, and I'm back to doing my Everyday Shakespeare podcast, which I love and I missed. Um, so I'm doing that. And I, I really don't like to think too far ahead about what I'm going to write. I like to have it come organically.Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: Um, so I could go back into the archives. I could write another one of these kinds of books, but I don't know if that's the [00:41:00] right thing for me right now.Jennie: Yeah.Caroline: Um, I want to make sure whatever I write next- You know, I loved writing this book so much. It's my favorite... I mean, it's, it was such a powerful experience for me, um, because I could bring my personal experiences into it and my scholarly self into it. I don't... You know, it's gonna be hard to recreate that.Yeah. I think it can be done, but I don't wanna force it. Yeah. So I'm gonna wait and see what the next, what the next oneJennie: is. Don't you, don't you love the interviewer who's like, “Hey, congratulations. You wrote a book. What, what's your nextCaroline: one?” What are you working on now? What are you doing now? I know. And I get that.I'm like-Jennie: So mean ...Caroline: I'm just, I'm just reading books I wanna read. I'm doing my laundry. I'm getting to know my dog again. You know?Jennie: Oh, wow. Well, thankCaroline: you. But, you know, it's a fair question. Yeah.Jennie: Yeah, yeah. Thank you for coming and chatting about this, and for writing such a cool book. And- Thank you ... um, I'm looking forward to seeing what you do next.Caroline: Thank you, Jennie. It was a [00:42:00] pleasure.Jennie: Well, for our listeners, until next time, stop playing small and write like it matters.The #amwriting podcast is produced by Andrew Perilla. Our intro music, aptly titled Unemployed Monday, was written and played by Max Cohen. Andrew and Max were paid for their time and their creative output because everyone deserves to be paid for their work This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit amwriting.substack.com/subscribe

Turning 40 inspired me to stop and reflect in a deeper way. In that reflection, I asked a question I hadn't asked in a while: which ideas have actually changed the way I live? Four rose above the rest (convenient since it was my 40th!), and one thing that surprised me is how they build on each other, almost like a manual for how to live. In this solo reflection, I walk through all four, along with the single thread that connects them: awareness/mindfulness comes before change, every time. Key insights include: Why alignment, not achievement, has been the biggest unlock for me, and ways to know when something is truly aligned.  How meditation became less about reaching some blissful end state and more about being still enough to hear what's actually true (with a nod to "self vs. parts" from Internal Family Systems). Why identity is built through repetition, and how treating life as an ongoing experiment turns results into feedback instead of judgment. How your standards, what you're willing to tolerate on your lowest day, quietly shape your health, relationships, business, and even the standards your team accepts. The balancing act of not postponing your life for a "someday" that may never come, and why success should expand your life rather than delay it. Tune in for an honest look at how a decade of small shifts, and one big birthday, changed the way I make decisions - plus a simple one-question challenge to carry into your week.   TRANSCRIPT: Garrett Salpeter (00:00.974) Hello, New Fit Nation. Welcome back to the Undercurrent Podcast. This is the first episode that I am recording in my 40s. I just turned 40, and that is actually the theme of today's episode because it certainly feels like a milestone. It has caused me to stop and reflect, and I'm going to share some of those reflections with you here today. In the recent years of Gone through periods of transition in business, in life, my kids have hit new milestones. This year, my daughter, older daughter started high school. I've also gone through some personal transitions with a separation and divorce. And all of this has caused me, especially in combination with with a significant birthday like this, caused me to look up from the day to day and ask some bigger questions and wonder if I'm living my life in the way that I wish to be living my life. I I look at and I think about. How I'm responsible for what has happened and is happening in my life. The one that immediately led to this episode, I also thought about and asked myself what ideas and principles have influenced me and actually changed the way that I live? And when I sat with that question, there's four principles that rose above the rest. So I was, as you can imagine, I was very excited to see that having four corresponds well with a 40th birthday. I'm glad the numbers work out. I also saw a common thread and realized that they're not necessarily four separate lessons, but that they build on each other. And there's almost a sequence that for me is like a manual for how to live. And that is what I want to share with you today. And before I get into that, a couple notes. One is that if you're familiar with me, with our work at Newfit, you know that for nearly 20 years now, for me it's it's all come back to one thing, which is the nervous system. And when we're Talking about the new fit method and the newbie, it all comes down to helping people retrain their nervous system. It's the operating system of the body. We want the whole system to be running better. And I, in reflection on these, I see how I've been doing the same type of thing with myself, trying to get my operating system to work better. And one of the biggest things that, as you know, the nervous system does it's to make us aware, aware of our internal and external. Garrett Salpeter (02:22.486) environments and so awareness is a thread that also ties together these four lessons that I'm going to share with you because each one of them is preceded by or begins with awareness with noticing noticing where I am where I'm not in alignment noticing what my habits are and how they're influencing my life noticing what I'm accepting or tolerating in my life and also noticing for me areas in which I've been postponing my life and waiting for something to happen so I could achieve something and then feel a certain way, things like that that that I'll get into here. So these are the four, I don't necessarily want to say lessons, but I'd say the four biggest shifts in how I've lived that really stand out to me as being very impactful. And my intention here and sharing them with you is that they'll also be worthwhile to you in some way. So on to the first shift. For me, it's all about alignment. This is number one, I'm choosing this first because choosing to share this first because I feel like alignment has been the biggest unlock for me in the sense that finding where I feel aligned or where I haven't felt aligned and how the decisions I made from that, I can see how things play out. And one of the first times where I really realized the the dark side of this of acting out of alignment was an issue with a a person I had worked with and I knew deep down inside that there wasn't alignment. It wasn't a good cultural fit. And I overrided or overrode that in part because of people pleasing tendencies, because it was difficult for me to have hard conversations and and let this person know what was problematic, what was not working, what needed to change, difficulty for me setting boundaries. And I also had this, this was very early on in my career, also had this sort of scarcity mindset as opposed to abundance mindset of like, gosh, can I ever find anyone else to work with me? You know, so there's this feeling of not being worthy, not being good enough, noticing these things certainly all influenced it. But in overriding that, I allowed to continue Garrett Salpeter (04:49.91) situations and dynamics that ended up costing far more in the long run, emotionally and monetarily, costing a lot more than the initial pain and cost or the immediate pain and cost would have been having a hard conversation up front or getting rid of a person, you know, who wasn't a good fit years ahead of when I finally found the courage and clarity to do it. And when I Look at at other times where I've made decisions that have come out of alignment. Like, for example, coming out of college, I had a physics undergraduate degree, and I was set to go to engineering graduate school at the University of Texas here in Austin, which is how I got down here. And it was a fabulous experience, and I'm so glad I did it. And I had options to take jobs. I had a job offer with a big consulting firm out of college. I had an opportunity to interview with a large, very well-known investment bank, which I may or may not have gotten a job, but I decided that I wanted to pursue this because it felt more aligned with who I was and what I was interested in doing. And that ended up being a great decision. And that engineering background ultimately gave me the the experience and the perspective to be able to lead the team that ultimately created the newbie device and do the things that I'm doing now. It was a big part of that journey. So I'm I'm so glad that I did it. Also early on in my career back when I was working in a clinic and I had this hundred and twenty square foot office in the chiropractic office, chiropractic clinic of the guy who was the U T Longhorns chiropractor, his private practice. I was using older versions of electrical stimulation. That's part of what led me to ultimately creating the newbie. And I you know, very young doing this, it wasn't sure no one was really sure where this was gonna go. Me l me most of all. but I I knew that I really want to do it. And there was a moment there when when Brianna and I, my former wife, got pregnant with our first daughter. And I was still in my early twenties and I was honestly scared. And there were some suggestions, like my father, for example, very reasonably and lovingly encouraged me to take my master's degree in engineering and go get a stable. Garrett Salpeter (07:13.814) job so I can provide for my family. And I understand and appreciate why he said that. And for me, I sat with that and realized that what I really wanted to do was to follow my heart and pursue this work, doing this clinic and this type of work that led to new fit and everything that that we're doing now. And I'm so glad I did it. And it came from alignment. So those are some examples of acting from alignment or overriding the internal knowing. and acting from a place of misalignment. So that to me, that really is the f foundational framework. And a big catalyst for me understanding this has been my experience in meditation over the last couple years. I probably first got interested in meditation From listening to and reading Sam Harris's work and conversations with my friend Wesley Cress, who's been on this podcast, and hearing his experiences and his his explanations of meditation really helped it resonate with me in a way that it got me interested in pursuing it. And I've done more formal work both with Shauna Shapiro and Corey Muscara. Shauna's been on the podcast as well. And I highly recommend both of their books and their online work and courses or in-person work and courses because For me, meditation has been the way to really clarify and crystallize this concept or operationalize this and bring it into my daily life, where a lot of times we think that meditation is about sitting still until we get to a place of bliss or happiness where nothing bothers us. But what it's really about, as I've learned from people like Corey and Shauna, what it's really about is Have being still enough so that we can be aware enough or mindfulness, right? Mindful enough to be aware of what's going on in our own experience. So that I can actually feel when something I'm contemplating doing is aligned or is not aligned. And the the framework that I really love here that I have started using w whenever I can is understanding when I'm making a decision. Garrett Salpeter (09:28.44) From a place of self or parts, using the language of internal family systems. Another great book recommendation is No Bad Parts by Richard Schwartz, Dick Schwartz, that describes this concept of internal family systems. When I'm making decisions from my true self, which you have a true self, I have a true self. We all have this true self, this place within us that is our deepest truth, where we feel clear and calm and confident and courageous and creative. And connected. There's these different C words that describe this state. Even just hearing those, you may feel some energy resonating. And the the parts are the different different patterns within ourselves that I alluded to earlier in my own experience, where I learned to act a certain way, you know, in people pleasing, difficulty setting boundaries. I had also learned that I felt like I had to achieve something in order to be worthy of love. And so these are the patterns. These patterns are parts. Of me and different parts can be online at different times and they can interact in certain ways, and I can be acting from certain parts or acting from self, those different places. And so meditation for me allows me to have the opportunity to slow down enough to drop in deeply enough to get clearer on what is my true motivation for doing something and making a decision. Is it aligned? Is it coming from a place of self or is it coming from a place of parts? And so the the question I really love to ask myself, which I got from Corey Muscara and his teaching is am I doing this? Am I considering doing this thing because I already feel complete as a person and it's aligned with my true desires? Or am I feeling empty inside and I'm choosing this thing as an attempt to grasp at something that might fill me up? Because we all know that that you know, getting past a certain point at least getting more money or getting a nicer house or a nicer watch or a nicer car, you know, we feel like that's gonna that's gonna be the thing that finally gets us happy. And we know that it doesn't work that way. But there's these patterns that I even will notice sometimes that I fall into. And it's the kind of underlying awareness of this alignment dynamic that helps me navigate this. And there's a few examples where I've seen my ego that Garrett Salpeter (11:50.307) that that part many many examples where I've seen that you know I was I was just reflecting in preparation for this like one for example doing what I do for work I I admittedly take a lot of pride in helping people get get results in sports medicine and rehabilitation and things like that and and with myself I put off for many years getting a hip surgery that I likely should have gotten earlier, and that I finally did get, and that was helpful. I got bone shaved down, bone spurs shaved down off the neck of my femur where I had a femoral acetabular impingement FAI. And I you know, I'm so glad I did it. But I put it off for a long time. I also noticed really interesting, after my first meditation retreat. I, as you likely can tell, you know, I read a ton of books, and I think a lot of the the where I am and what I've learned and who I've become is positively influenced by the books that I've read. And so I think that's wonderful. And I also at the same time observed that a lot of that came from a place of feeling somewhat empty or incomplete and thinking that if I was just a little bit smarter, If I knew a little bit more, then I'd be better, then I'd finally be worthy of some sort of status or love or belonging, some sort of internal drive like that. And I learned that some of that consumption of you know books, podcasts, etc., was some of that grasping trying to fill me up inside. And it was so interesting that after my first meditation retreat with Corey Muscara for a couple months. I I noticed that desire was significantly diminished. Where I you know, instead of always wanting to listen to a podcast or a book on tape audio book when I'm in the car, book on tape, they're not on tape anymore, but when I noticed that I would actually just enjoy sort of doing a breathing exercise or sitting and listening to music, things like that. It was it was an interesting shift. And so now I still read. Garrett Salpeter (13:59.679) And I ask myself if I'm doing it from some sort of compulsive desire to fill a perceived void, or if I'm doing it from a place of true interest and alignment. And it often is from a place of interest and alignment, but I really like that framework, and I felt compelled to share that with you. So I think the big, the big question that I would ask, and that I encourage everyone listening to this to ask, is It's not necessarily about following your passion, but following your alignments. I would ask you if what you're contemplating doing is truly aligned. And one exercise that that I have done in the past is actually close my eyes and consider a path A, consider a path B, and see how they feel in my nervous system. Because that often will give us a clue. It'll, you know, sometimes it's as dramatic as one path. will feel very constricting energetically and one will feel expansive, like it's giving us energy. And I've that's one thing that I've found is that if I'm doing things that could be objectively hard, even if it even if it is hard, it feels somewhat easier to me because that sense of alignment gives me energy and and it doesn't feel as hard. It makes makes having a going through difficult times in business or having a a a workout program sustainable. So I would ask myself and encourage you to ask yourself, where in my life am I choosing from emptiness rather than from fullness? Whatever, whatever that means to you. So that's the first the first one is is understanding alignment. And we really have to understand our identity, our true selves, who we are, what is most important to us, what we value, what what is in alignment with us at that deepest level. And then This second shift principle that I want to wanna share is how our identity is built through repetitions, how we are a culmination of our habits. And I think a lot about my life as an ongoing experiment. I think about my inputs that I do in my in my training and lifestyle, in my business, how I show up with my family and what you know what I do with my kids. And I look at the results that that come out of that. Think about it as as sort of one big ongoing experiment. There's also this great quote. Garrett Salpeter (16:25.578) Of attributed to Aristotle of we are what we repeatedly do. He talks about excellence is not an act, but it's a habit, because what we repeatedly do adds up to who we are. And so I think also in this sort of scientific ongoing experiment, results are feedback. They're not necessarily judgment. We don't fail, we gather information. I think that's a good mindset shift. I also think a lot about this in terms of Fitness and and health, which I think is a great metaphor for anything, because in fitness there is this balance of of work and and recovery and rest and regeneration. There's this this balance of delayed gratification of having to work for a period of time to see a result that comes later, of having to have faith in the process of of getting help and support and coaching and learning and and finding the most effective way, not the shortcut, but the most effective and direct path to your goal. So there's all these different lessons that I think extrapolate beautifully to all areas of life. And I I think a lot about the the way that what how what I do every day, how to have a daily routine. That helps me get to the levels of health and fitness and physical and mental performance and vitality that I wish to achieve for myself. So one thing that I'm working on is I'm generally very stiff. I have a background of ice hockey. As Greg Cook says, I was was one of these examples of someone building fitness on top of dysfunction. I didn't have my core movement fundamentals down, and yet I built a fair amount of size and strength and speed on top of that. And so couple that with playing ice hockey and being locked in that kind of half squat position with hips and external rotation, very little foot and ankle movement because the feet are locked in a in boots, you know, ice hockey boots, the skates, and all that leads to significant mobility restrictions that now I want to work on. And so I think about how my habits influence that. And there's things that I do to work on hip internal rotation. Garrett Salpeter (18:38.638) And I do those six or seven days a week. I work it into my plan. And over time, it's been so cool to see my hip internal rotation go from generously zero degrees to you know 15, 20 degrees. It's still not, you know, anatomically ideal, but it's gotten a lot better. And it's cool to see the progress, even in something that's as slow to change as structural remodeling of joint capsules. And I think this is a great. prompt for us all to look at our habits. You know, if someone all also going back to fitness, there's a great a great quote that the body you have is the body you've earned. So how if we're if we're not as strong in a certain area or we're several pounds overweight or you know, there's there's likely some reason for it. And it's sometimes not the individual's fault. Sometimes there's there's toxic exposure or things like that that's out of their control that's causing more inflammation that That throws things off or some disease state. And oftentimes once once we know about it, then there's things that we can do about it. So there's certainly the I think a lot of value in understanding that our life now is the culmination of our habits and really examining and evaluating those and making sure that yes, they are aligned. So we have number one being alignment, number two being habits, repetition, how that how that builds upon and cements our identity. And then related is number three, which is the standards. There's this great saying that we get what we tolerate. There's there's our our standards really shape our lives. And so for me right now, I actually just keeping on the fitness metaphor, one of my standards is being able to to sprint all out. And I'm dealing with an Achilles injury that is very frustrating to me because I'm currently not able to meet my own standard. And because I take that standard seriously, it creates within me a sense of urgency where I'm rehabbing my Achilles very diligently. And it's difficult for me to be patient and understand that it can take, you know, several months for tendon tissue to remodel. And that's actually the subject of what will probably be the next podcast we release. a little bit of a foreshadowing there. Garrett Salpeter (21:02.536) on on Achilles tendon injuries and recovery from surgery and that whole topic. That's something that I'm diving into, trying to l really learn as much about as I can, both out of interest and a desire to share it and this personal desire to get back to my standard, where by the end of this summer, I intend to be able to get back to at least my weekly sprinting. So that's something that I I I think a lot about and that is is very important to me in terms of what we tolerate there that's both within ourselves and it's with you know the people that work within our businesses. It's fit within family members and friends and things like that. It's sort of this not just what we do on our best day or when we hit our stretch goal, but it's what do we tolerate on the the floor on our the lowest day. And it's important in in business. You know, we're not going to hit our stretch goal every every week, every month, every quarter, every year, but if there's a minimum number of calls that we're going to make or if there's a minimum number of some effort that we're going to make. If we hold ourselves to that, chances are we're going to better over time. Same thing in the gym. If you you're not going to set a PR every day, but if you're going to continue working and getting better and following the program, that often leads to a great place in the long term. for me, one one standard is my bedtime. I will occasionally occasionally stay out late for a special event or something like that. If I really feel like and this plays into number four where I I'm I'm focusing on yes, delayed gratification is important, but I don't want to delay everything for a someday that may never come. So every once in a while I'll do this. But generally speaking, I'm very diligent about my bedtime because I know that if I if I don't go to bed on time, I'm not gonna be as effective the next day. It's gonna throw off different aspects of my vitality and energy and and mental and physical ability. And so if I have something to do, one, having a being more strict with my bedtime, it forces me to prioritize getting shit done during the day, pardon my language. And it also, you know, it makes it clear for me if I have something that I need to work on, I I will choose to to go to bed earlier and then work get up earlier and work on it in the morning rather than stay up and and do it that night. Garrett Salpeter (23:25.196) because that will I know that the outcome is gonna be better if I go to bed now and get up and do it in the morning in in in many ways. So there's a lot a lot of ways that That affects me. And that's one that's important for me. You know, for some people, it's a minimum number of pages that they're going to read in a book per day or whatever it might be. People have a devotional or they just want to read different different things. Or meditation. For me, I think about the minimum number of minutes per day or days per year that I'm going to meditate. But the standards that we hold ourselves to apply everywhere in health and recovery, in relationships, in our self-talk, in our environment and our finances and our businesses and the standards that I as a leader accept from myself become the standards that our team accepts too. So especially for those of you who are leading teams and businesses or leading leading within your family and home life, this is this is very important as well. So I think it's best summed up in that the the quote that I've heard many places, I don't know where it originally came from, but we don't get what we want, we get what we tolerate. So I encourage you to ask what what you and I will ask myself, what have I quietly or not so quietly started to tolerate that I never used to or that is not in alignment with who I wish to be and how I wish to live my life and how I wish my business to be and how I wish my family to be, et cetera. And that segues into the fourth shift. And this is, you know, if we talk about alignment with our identity, we talk about reinforcing that identity and number two, through our habits. We talk about preserving that through the standards and what we're willing to accept. Number four is about rounding out that identity because I know that I was, especially in the early New Fit years, I was very much in this trap of optimizing everything for later. Garrett Salpeter (25:23.31) Putting off most of everything now, thinking that once this business grows, once I achieve a certain level of success, then I'll be able to enjoy my life, then I'll be happy, then this, then that. So it's this notion of journey over destination, process over outcome, or something like that. So I I just I want to also frame this up as a continuum, because on one hand, there's what I just described, there's putting off entirely putting off the future, d entirely delayed gratification, and not enjoying anything right now. And then on the other end, there's like total nihilism or or not caring about later and just wanting just enjoying today and not planning for the future at all. And so what I'm proposing where I've settled on this balance for myself and it can be personal for everybody, where I've settled on this is is somewhere in between. Where I do I do work hard now for where That will bring our business and and my family in the future. I work hard now for where my that will bring my health in the future, right? I want to be healthy and vital in my next decade, in the decade after that, and the decade after that, which God willing I will live to see. And I I so I wanna I want to strike that balancing act. But there's there's a great book that I highly recommend called The Happiness Advantage by sh I believe it's Sean Acor. and it it talks about how many of us fall into this same trap of thinking that if I if I achieve this now, this promotion or make this amount of money or have this or that, then I'll be happy. And it's so amazing that he shifts that on his head. He talks about the r how the research says quite the opposite. How if if we're happy now, we're actually more likely to achieve the thing that we wish to achieve. Because Generally speaking, happiness makes people healthier, more resistant to getting sick, more effective, more creative, gives them more energy, more health and vitality. And that, of course, makes it more likely that they will achieve the thing that they're setting out to achieve, assuming it is back to number one, assuming it is aligned with their true selves and deepest desires and and all that. And so for me, this has really Garrett Salpeter (27:50.669) manifested in a couple of ways. It's something that I I read about and I I I was aware of this notion and it just sort of gradually hit me that I was putting off so much of my life for later. And so I I finally just somehow, some way crossed over that threshold where I realized that I do need to make time to enjoy life now. along the way, even as I'm practicing delayed gratification in certain important areas. And so taking my kids several years ago on a trip to Spain over the summer for a week and a half was an amazing memory. Taking them this year to Disney World, you know, creating these memories while my kids are still young enough to to make these memories, there's a great concept of memory dividends. I forget the I think I first heard about this from the guy who wrote Die with Zero. I've gosh, I can see his face. I forget his name now. He's here in Austin. Cool, really cool guy. And he talks about this notion of Die with Zero being that if we accumulate all this money, we should actually enjoy it in this life. You should give it away because that will create joy. We should also invest in experiences because it creates these memory dividends. You know, having the memories from these different trips with my kids is worth is worth so much more. I'm getting a return on that investment, more than if it was sitting an account earning interest somewhere. Also for me, I joined EO and and a forum. EO is an entrepreneurs organization, similar to YPO if you're familiar that. And it's all all founders, all business owners. And so I'm in this forum with anywhere from seven to nine other guys. And we do these adventure trips every year. And that was something that I sort of I realized along the way that I just wasn't I was putting off for later the idea of having you know friendships and social relationships. And I finally realized, you know what, I I would like to have more of that in my life now. I would like to prioritize and make some time for that. And we've done these amazing adventure trips. We've gone hiking twenty miles through the narrows in Zion National Park and kayaking and fishing in the San Juan Islands between Seattle and Vancouver. And just this year, camping and fishing and Garrett Salpeter (30:05.624) Hiking in Colorado along the Gunnison River. You know, my first time I was kind of a city kid. these trips allowed me to go camping for the first time in my life, which was amazing. And so I I encourage you to consider what this right balance is for you. Again, it's very individual. Consider where this where this where you fall along that spectrum. And if if it falls into wanting to play more golf now rather than waiting until you're retired, give me a call and play a r play around of golf. So again, it's not not about like being anti discipline or being reckless. There are areas where we still have to sacrifice. It is it is a balancing act. And I think there's there's this sense that success should expand our lives, not necessarily postpone it. So I will Ask you, what are you postponing in your life that you actually could start living now? And as we wrap this up here, I will end where I started with talking about turning 40. And when I was younger, I was so focused on on life and on focusing my life on becoming successful, whatever that meant at the time. And I really believe that if I just worked hard enough, sacrificed enough, delayed enough that Everything else, the happiness, relationships with life, would it would all sort itself out later. Now I I I'm grateful that that younger version of me put so much time and effort into learning and and beginning, building the early stages of new fit and all that. And now I I am grateful for the added perspective and experience too, where I realize that it's not it's not just about becoming more. accomplished and achieving more, it's also about alignment. And when I think about alignment, that actually helps produce more success than than some of the other tactics and strategies and and mindsets too. So it's interesting how these four can also interact as well. And again, this was Garrett Salpeter (32:28.576) not necessarily a a dramatic overhaul, but it came from noticing from awareness. And so I I hope that you can have some sort of practice, and perhaps you already do, that has been as meaningful to me as this meditation practice in in becoming aware of these different dynamics in my own life. And in closing, I'd like to leave you with one small challenge. Pick one of these four that hit you the hardest, whether it be focusing on alignment, your habits, your standards, and what you tolerate, and or balancing. work now sacrificing now for something later figure out which of those four hit you the hardest and this week ask yourself the question where are you choosing from act from empty instead of full? What are your daily inputs building you into? What have you started to tolerate that you no longer intend to tolerate? Or finally, what are you putting off? that you feel like deep inside you really would be better served by doing now. So I I really appreciate you spending this time with me. If this one resonated, I'd love to hear your comments on the social media or direct message, anything like that. And I look forward to seeing you on the next episode of the Undercurrent podcast.  

9 Hours and 55 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the first 10 episodes of our ongoing Continental Philosophy series with Thomas777. He covers Aristotle, Thucydides, Socrates, Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Grotius, and Hegel.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

AI will not make you a better leader. For most people it will make them dumber, by quietly taking over the one thing that made them worth following in the first place. Dr. Chris McAlister and co-host Mark Stanifer get into the human capacity AI can never replace: phronesis, the hard fought wisdom Aristotle called the chief virtue. A story about an 18 year old, a church in open revolt, and the prompt that would have weaponized him. Why the first move AI hands you is almost always the wrong one. And the one question worth sitting with before you touch the keyboard: are you leading for impact, or for validation? Chapters 0:00 Intro 0:41 The book is live 4:37 An 18-year-old, a church in revolt, one decision 8:17 The twist: what if he had asked ChatGPT? 10:37 AI as amplifier: it makes your first move worse 12:25 Phronesis: the wisdom Aristotle prized most 17:01 IBM 96 percent, and the 4 percent only wisdom can handle 18:24 Outsource your thinking and AI makes you dumber 22:39 Why Chris built his AI to slow down 24:38 Impact or validation? The most intimate question 28:23 The volunteer he hired too fast, then had to fire 30:54 Hard fought for wisdom: scars and receipts 32:15 Double down on being human (next time, the why) Take the Identity Fear Quotient® (IFQ®), four questions in about 15 minutes, to see the fear that quietly drives how you show up under pressure: www.taketheifq.com Get into the SightShift ecosystem at www.sightshift.com Find the new book, The 3% Shift: The Human Edge in the Age of AI, at www.threepercentshift.com

In this audio episode of Blind Techie Geek Speaks, host Kathleen Masciana discusses iOS 27, her experience as an Apple developer beta tester, and the ideas of Aquinas, Aristotle, and Oderberg. The episode focuses on Screen Time, Time Allowances, Ask to Browse, Siri, ethics, practical wisdom, and human purpose.

Is beauty just personal preference, or is it real? Rev. Kyle Verage, pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Pleasant Prairie, WI, joins the podcast to trace how Scripture answers a question philosophy never could. Verage starts with the common phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and shows where it breaks down — some things are simply more beautiful than others, whether or not we can always articulate why. He walks through the history of aesthetics from Socrates' pragmatism through Aristotle's search for objective standards to Kant's retreat into pure subjectivity, showing how each falls short apart from revelation. The heart of the conversation is word study: Verage searched the Old and New Testaments for every occurrence of "beauty," "beautiful," and "handsome," and found the data points overwhelmingly to the Hebrew term yafeh (used of people) and pa'ar/tif'arah (used of constructed things — garments, crowns, the temple). From there he traces the Greek pairing kalos kai agathos — the beautiful and the good — through figures like David and Abigail, into Zechariah's messianic prophecy, and finally to Christ himself as the true bridegroom who makes His bride beautiful. The conversation closes on the Divine Service: where objective beauty — art, music, architecture, rhetoric — is wedded to God's Word, and where Christ clothes His people in beauty not by their achievement, but by His declaration over them. Topics covered: The history of aesthetics: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant Word studies: yafeh, pa'ar/tif'arah, kalos, horaios, tov Kalos kai agathos — the beautiful and the good — in David, Abigail, and Zechariah 9 Christ as the exemplar of true beauty How the Word of God declares believers beautiful Beauty in the Divine Service as the marriage of external art and God's Word ----more---- Host: Fr. Paul Schulz Guest: Fr. Kyle Verage ----more---- Become a Patron! You can subscribe to the Journal here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/subscribe/ You can read the Gottesblog here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/gottesblog/ You can support Gottesdienst here: https://www.gottesdienst.org/make-a-donation/ As always, we, at The Gottesdienst Crowd, would be honored if you would Subscribe, Rate, and Review. Thanks for listening and thanks for your support. 

The modern script for women seems to contemplate exclusively two options: either the feminist and childless virago, or the homemaker and mother of as many children as possible. While neither path may be “wrong”, and while we won't tell anyone how to live their lives! - a real problem may lie in the way both conservatives and progressives understand women more broadly. As important as motherhood may be, does women's generative nature “define” them? Are children a woman's “job”? If so, for how long? Even more radically, to what extent are men and women “different”?Biology provides some answers without a doubt. It is only with the help of lady philosophy, however, that both men and women can appreciate what to do with their differences and how to understand their common human nature. In this episode, we discuss these issues with Dr. Angela Knobel, professor of Philosophy at the University of Dallas. Dr. Knobel's forthcoming book deals precisely with these questions, and with the unexplored territory of Aristotle and Aquinas' ethical naturalism applied to motherhood. Links & Resources Dr. Angela Knobel: https://udallas.edu/academics/programs/philosophy/faculty/knobel-angela.php Dr. Knobel's Book, Aquinas and the Infused Moral Virtues (2021): https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268201104/aquinas-and-the-infused-moral-virtues/ The University of Dallas: https://udallas.edu/ Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture: https://www.austin-institute.org The Austin Institute: https://www.austin-institute.org/

Why do so many Muslims feel intellectually insecure today?In this episode, we are joined again by Ustadh Saad Yacoob to explore how the history of debate in the Muslim world, from the influence of Aristotle to the impact of colonialism, has shaped the way Muslims think, argue, and understand their faith today.Together, we discuss righteousness, justice, revelation, the thought of Muhammad Iqbal, and why the modern culture of debate may reveal a deeper crisis: many Muslims have come to defend Islam on someone else's terms rather than their own.Has modern debate brought Muslims closer to the truth? … or further away from it?JOIN OUR WEBSITE MEMBERSHIP! @ https://ansaripodcast.comThe Debt Clinic: https://www.mydebtclinic.com/ansariProvision Capital: https://www.provisioncapital.com00:00 Intro00:44 The History of Muslim Debates05:44 Ad07:15 Importance of Aristotle in Muslim Debates14:07 Why are Modern Debates So Bad?31:36 Ad32:28 The Source of Muslim Insecurities38:46 European Insecurities41:12 The Struggles of Muslims in Recent History46:00 Muhammad Iqbal's Thought57:10 What is the Point of Revelation?01:00:44 What are We Doing With the World?01:03:07 What Makes Islam Different that Every Other Religion01:10:57 How to Raise a Generation of Muslims that aren't Insecure?01:14:54 Mamdani's Significant Role01:23:49 23. Does the Future of the Ummah Include Shia?01:29:07 Final Thoughts01:29:52 Outro#debate #history #dawah #philosophy #civilizationListen on All Audio Platforms: https://tr.ee/JeX-ILYSyjFollow The Ansari PodcastInstagram: https://instagram.com/ansaripodcastTikTok: https://tiktok.com/@theansaripodcastTwitter/X: https://twitter.com/ansaripodcast

In this episode of See See by Ceci, Dr Stephen Cave, philosopher of technology, intelligence and the human quest to outlive death, joins us in our Berlin studio. At heart, this episode turns on two questions most of us would sooner leave undisturbed: why do human beings insist on ranking one another, and why can we not make our peace with the fact that we die? Academic Director of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence and Co-Director of the Institute for Technology and Humanity, both at the University of Cambridge, Dr Cave took his PhD in philosophy at Cambridge before spending the better part of a decade as a British Foreign Office diplomat. He is the author of Immortality: The Quest to Live Forever and How It Drives Civilization, a New Scientist Book of the Year, and, with the philosopher John Martin Fischer, Should You Choose to Live Forever?: A Debate. He is also co-editor of AI Narratives, Imagining AI and Feminist AI, all published by Oxford University Press. In this wide-ranging conversation, Dr Cave traces the idea of "intelligence" across two and a half thousand years, from Aristotle's "natural slaves" to Francis Galton's invention of both eugenics and the IQ test, showing how so slender a concept came to serve as the perfect instrument for justifying patriarchy, colonialism and scientific racism. It is precisely this buried history, he argues, that explains the dread super-intelligent machines now inspire in us. The real peril, he suggests, lies not in what artificial intelligence might do to us, but in the deep-seated biases and failings already entrenched our societies, that is, in what we might be tempted to do to one another with it: in surveillance, in the automation of labour, and, above all, in the quiet erosion of the human relationships that hold a society together and lend our lives their meaning. He then turns to mortality: the four stories every civilisation tells itself to outwit death, why a genuine immortality would prove a curse rather than a gift, and how our very finitude is the thing that makes a life worth living. From the Epic of Gilgamesh to Borges's deathless troglodytes, from Dorian Gray to the laboratories where great fortunes are now spent in pursuit of longer life, he asks what such a life is truly worth if it is not also a life of meaning, and warns that "work, scroll, repeat" is no less hollow at two hundred than at eighty. He arrives, in the end, at something disarmingly simple: an answer that has rather less to do with intelligence than we might expect, and everything to do with finitude, and with what, and whom, a life is spent upon. With reflections from the philosopher and cognitive scientist Paul Thagard on whether a machine can ever truly care; from the posthumanist scholar N. Katherine Hayles on the human aura in the age of the deep fake and the promised revision of the Enlightenment; from the drummer, composer and Berklee professor Terri Lyne Carrington on music and the eternal present; from the historian Philip Matyszak on the Roman afterlife and the building of "moral muscles"; and from the cognitive neuropsychologist Alfonso Caramazza on the remarkable flexibility of the human mind. This is an episode about power and the stories it tells to justify itself; about the older stories we tell to cheat death; and about a quiet, radical proposition: that to be human is not to be the cleverest thing in the room, but to know that our days are numbered, and to spend them building and delighting in our bonds with one another.

In this special episode of the Internal Comms Podcast, host Katie Macaulay looks through 15 seasons of the podcast and pulls together some of her favourite conversations about the craft, the science and the power of storytelling in internal communications. Stories help us understand, remember and care, and make sense of complexity. They build trust, create connection and move people in ways that data alone rarely can. In this episode, six guests share how to make the most of this powerful tool. Hear Jeremy Connell-Waite (ep #113) explain what Aristotle meant by story and what we actually mean when we talk about storytelling, Sean Langston (ep #103) on challenging leaders to answer human questions, Gabrielle Dolan (ep #42) share the value of collecting stories, Shane Hatton (ep #77) show how a single story can travel through an organisation and embody its values and identity, Jo Hudson (ep #121) tell the story of the ‘Bupa elephant', and Agatha Juma (ep #94) introduce a practical three-part storytelling framework. As Katie explains: “Stories aren't a soft skill or a nice-to-have. They're how human beings make sense of the world. They're how we explain change, share values, build trust and help people see not just what's happening, but why it matters.” Happy listening. #TheICPodcast

697.Kevin explores how true happiness isn't about physical fitness but about living a life of virtue. He unpacks Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, sharing insights on achieving fulfillment through balance, practical wisdom, and meaningful relationships. Discover how exercising virtues, not just muscles, can lead to lasting happiness.Get-Fit Guy is hosted by Kevin Don. Find Get-Fit Guy on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to the newsletter for more fitness tips.Get-Fit Guy is a part of Quick and Dirty Tips.Links:https://www.quickanddirtytips.comhttps://www.facebook.com/GetFitGuyhttps://twitter.com/GetFitGuy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hermann Ebbinghaus is remembered mostly for discovering the forgetting curve. Open any psychology textbook, any blog devoted to a flashcard app or any study-tips listicle, and you’ll find his name alongside a distinctive graph. Memory expert Tony Buzan called it the most important graph in the world. That’s because its iconic line shows memory plummeting within hours of learning something new, then flattening out over days. Countless discussions of how to reduce forgetting give you the same tidy recommendations. Usually they tell you to review your study materials at intervals, just at the point you’re starting to forget. That way, many authors promise, you’ll beat the curve. The problem, just one of many you’ll discover today, is this: Ebbinghaus didn’t discover the forgetting curve. He discovered his forgetting curve. He was one man, testing his own memory, on one kind of material, using one method. And although the forgetting curve is indeed one of the most repeatable and reproducible principles in the history of scientific studies, reproducibility in laboratory settings does not mean you’ll stop forgetting by using the conventional recommendations. Besides, here’s something almost no one else will tell you: The deepest principles the Ebbinghaus experiments revealed were already written down more than two thousand years earlier by Aristotle. You’ll find them in a short treatise that describes something remarkably close to using a Memory Palace in combination with the same kind of serial positioning Ebbinghaus described as a means for reducing forgetting. So today I’m going to cover a few aspects of the forgetting curve all serious users of memory techniques need to know. These are points I’ve been putting off writing about for a long time. However, a few emails and comments I’ve received over the past few years have convinced me that now is finally the time. Especially since I’ve spent decades memorizing poetry, scripture, mantras, complex terms, the names of people from various backgrounds and vocabulary and phrases in multiple languages. And I’ve done this all while teaching thousands of students to do the same. From where I sit as a practitioner, the forgetting curve is real, useful and badly misunderstood. But treated correctly, it’s an invitation to success. First, however, for the uninitiated, let’s make sure we’re on the same page about the definition of this term. That way, you’ll be able to discover your own curve and work on reducing its impact in your learning life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_qwUkfO65M   What Is the Forgetting Curve? In 1885, Ebbinghaus published Über das Gedächtnis (Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology). In this monumental work, he reported years of experiments he had run on a single subject: himself. He memorized lists of sinnlose Silben, the German term for nonsense syllables. These were consonant-vowel-consonant combinations like ZOF and KEB. After committing lists of such invented words, he then tested how much effort it took to relearn them after various delays. Notice two things. First, these were invented words. Nothing with any meaning. Second, pay attention to the word relearn. Ebbinghaus did not measure memory only by asking whether he could reproduce an entire list perfectly. He also measured what he called “savings” in the context of relearning. This study goes quite deep into the nuances and implications of this particular concept for memory. To get the concept in brief, suppose it initially took you 20 repetitions to learn something. If it took only 10 repetitions to relearn it later, some trace of the original learning clearly remained. Your inability to reproduce the information perfectly would not mean the memory had disappeared completely. Keep this idea of “savings” in mind. It matters more than the famous graph, and we’ll return to it when I show you what happened to a long Sanskrit mantra I intentionally abandoned for years. It also connects to some concepts in memory introduced by Richard Semon and studied more recently by Dr. Paul Garrett in relation to the role of fuzzy memory. Back to Ebbinghaus, the  result of his experiments is what we now call the forgetting curve. It shows how retention drops steeply at first, then the decline slows. He also documented what we now call the spacing effect. It describes how reviews distributed over time preserve more in long-term memory than the same number of reviews crammed together. All of what Ebbinghaus found replicates, so his science is not in question here. What’s in question is what you and I should actually do with his findings.  And that’s where things really start to get interesting. Ebbinghaus Was an Early n=1 Memorizer Notice what Ebbinghaus actually was: A practitioner running experiments on his own memory. In today’s language, he was doing n=1 self-experimentation. He had skin in the game, memorized real material with his own mind, and measured what happened. I took his actions as both a lesson and an inspiration. It’s just that rather than memorize nonsense (apart from a bit of Kurt Schwitters’ “Ursonate”), I’ve focused on applying memory techniques to Chinese, scripture, poetry and facts related to law school. But you will never see the results you can achieve by reading about Ebbinghaus. You’ll only see it by memorizing information yourself and paying attention to what happens next. Tony Buzan was great about splitting the difference during his ThinkBuzan seminars. He taught memory techniques, but also had participants draw their own graph of the forgetting curve. Here’s mine: In sum, reading about the forgetting curve while never memorizing anything is like reading about swimming while refusing to get wet. Is There Such a Thing As Too Much Scientific Literacy? Years ago, Harry Lorayne coached me on becoming a successful memory coach. I followed just about everything he said, except one thing. He said, “whatever you do, don’t tell ’em about the science.” The reason I ignored the advice is that: I’m very interested in memory science Studying it has helped me discover many powerful memory activities and brain exercises The only problem I’ve seen is that about a year ago, students of all ages started writing to me in the language of science at an increasing rate. And for many, the various terms and memory statistics available online have created anxiety and perfectionism I don’t think needs to exist. For example, a medical student taking the Magnetic Memory Method Masterclass recently emailed multiple times with worries about whether his review schedule was set to properly combat the “decay function.” Now, obviously, the research on memory genuinely matters. I cite it often and terms like this can be useful for forming a solid practice with using mnemonics. But Lorayne’s warning has started to take on a strange and unexpected sense because something strange happens when the vocabulary of science replaces practice. After all, science is mostly there to describe, not proscribe. We can certainly use scientific findings to improve our practice, but it’s not helpful to let techniques that have been used happily for thousands of years become the source of anxiety thanks to scientific papers. Don’t Let These Terms Interfere With Your Memory Training It’s not only beginners with memory techniques or medical students who would tend towards scientific verbiage when contacting me. I regularly hear from people fluent in the terminology, sometimes with publications to their name. A published researcher wrote me recently and had thoroughly reasoned himself into genuine paradox. Amongst other things, he wanted to know what a trained mnemonist’s memory does “without any technique.” Now, you certainly can get a swimmer to demonstrate what a particular stroke looks like without the water. And in the context of memory training, the question can sound rigorous. But in my view, this kind of question suggests that the researcher has lost contact with the very thing he’s asking about. This is because someone with a trained memory can’t isolate a ‘raw baseline’ without risking cognitive paradox. I would have to reflect on my use of mnemonic methods while not using them. And since he immediately followed-up with a pseudo-scientific claim about photographic memory, I knew he was not taking Ebbinghaus’ n=1 practice as an example by actually using the techniques himself. After all, photographic memory has been thoroughly debunked and I’ve demonstrated many times over that it not only does not exist. The term itself makes zero sense. So this is where some nuance about the forgetting curve is very important to the serious user of memory techniques. No matter who you are, you need to make contact with actual remembering. Aristotle Described the Core Principle Two Thousand Years Ago Actually studying and practicing a wide variety of memory techniques will get you insight far more interesting and impactful than any psychology textbook could hope to provide. In De Memoria et Reminiscentia, Aristotle describes recollection as movement through an ordered series. At one point in the book, he uses a sequence like the letters of the alphabet and gives strikingly practical advice that deeply inspired what I call Recall Rehearsal. This is a form of spaced repetition applied specifically to the Memory Palace technique. As Aristotle puts it, if you forget something, don’t start over from the beginning. Start from the middle of the series and move outward from there. Richard Sorabji, in his landmark study Aristotle on Memory, admits that he doesn’t understand what Aristotle is talking about in this passage. That’s a courageous confession, as many scholars would just make something up or speculate. As a practitioner of memory techniques with decades of experience, I can tell you what I believe Aristotle is describing. It’s either: An alphabetically labeled Memory Palace An early description of serial positioning and spaced repetition Or a description that provided the inspiration for creating this kind of Memory Palace practice. It’s genuinely difficult to say which. But either way, the principle and how it reduces unwanted forgetting is unmistakable to anyone who has actually run the technique. In case you have never used a Memory Palace, it involves ordered locations, deliberate starting points, and strategic entry into the middle of a sequence as part of several spaced repetition patterns that establish substantial retention. Modern Practitioners Who Know How to Beat the Forgetting Curve  You can trace this practitioner lineage forward through Peter of Ravenna, Jacobus Publicius, Robert Fludd, Giordano Bruno, and in our own time, mnemonists like myself and Lynne Kelly (especially in her book, Memory Craft). Our combination of fieldwork and daily personal practice in particular sets the standard for studying these techniques. Certainly Frances Yates deserves credit for reviving scholarly interest in mnemonics through her book, The Art of Memory, but she acknowledged never practicing the techniques herself. Frankly, it shows. Her treatment of memory wheels, for example, creates the impression they were used as Memory Palaces, which is possible but unlikely. Practice changes what you can see in the Memory Palace books you read. Why does the Aristotle passage matter for the forgetting curve? Because his advice that you should “start from the middle” of a sequence of information you keep forgetting is serial positioning in action. And serial positioning is the key to defeating the curve. My Own Forgetting Curve, Observed in the Wild The reason I’ve never tried to reproduce Ebbinghaus’s experiment formally by memorizing nonsense is precisely because you see advice on how to beat the forgetting curve thousands of years before he conducted his research. That said, I have watched my own forgetting curve operate over years, and the observations I’ve made are instructive. For example, I worked daily with one long-form mantra built from a few dozen Sanskrit phrases for many years: the Song Celestial. Then I deliberately let it lapse with no rehearsal at all for approximately two years. I was not as deliberate as I could have been in terms of tracking like Ebbinghaus would have. But since the research is so heavily reproducible and we know why Memory Palaces work, I was happy to be casual about it. When I finally came back to this mantra, I was shocked by how much I could still recall. The forgetting curve had certainly caused some “decay.” But it was nothing like what Ebbinghaus’s graph would predict for material of that length after that much neglect. In Ebbinghaus’s own terms, the “savings” were enormous. And the relearning cost me a fraction of the original effort, because the trace was never gone. It was waiting for me. The question is, why? After all, I can’t sing songs I used to know by heart when I was a kid? Part of the answer is that I never stopped reciting the other three Sanskrit mantras I have memorized. They have very similar meanings, and in many cases, some of the same words. The meaning element in particular suggests that I partly benefitted from stronger retention due to what scientists call context dependence. Because I never left the realm of reciting Sanskrit entirely, that must explain the higher rate of retention. Compare this to my previous career as a Film Studies professor. I hardly watch movies anymore, let alone read theoretical books about them or lecture for weeks on end during a traditional university semester. The lack of context has accelerated the force of the forgetting curve and deskilled my chops as a film scholar. Memory Palaces: Structured Spaced Retrieval Systems That Beat Forgetting Apart from context-dependent memory benefits, another reason I could recall so much of a mantra despite not reciting it for years has to do with how I memorized it: using the Memory Palace technique. Not as a party trick, but as a structured spaced retrieval system. To learn more about how it works, check out my Complete Guide to the Memory Palace technique. In brief, the key is to place information tethered to associations along the stations of a Memory Palace and then practice Recall Rehearsal following patterns no software like Anki can guide you through. Titus Andronicus and Recall Rehearsal in Action My favorite demonstration where I show you Recall Rehearsal in action involves Shakespeare, specifically a passage from Titus Andronicus I memorized for my case study of how Anthony Hopkins memorizes his scripts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhjIkGu32CA I’ve retained the passage ever since running it through Recall Rehearsal with minimal repetition. Or better said, I repeat these lines often, but now it’s performance, not just recitation. But the interesting thing isn’t really that I can recite this passage. Anyone can chain words together through brute force rote learning and recite lines like these forward. The proof of the power of Recall Rehearsal is that I can recite the lines out of order: Jumping between sections Running lines in reverse Reciting the odd-numbered lines and then the even numbered lines It’s now probably my favorite demonstration because it makes the power of serial positioning visible. Even better: I’m not alone in enjoying the benefits of improved retention. Magnetic Memory Method Students Who Have Bent the Curve I’ve watched this play out in my students for years, and two cases capture it especially well. Jeannie Koh spent years learning Koine Greek using rote learning during years of what she said were filled with tears and pain. But after learning to encode with Memory Palaces, she found memorizing “much less painful, and much more enduring over time,” now recalling whole passages in that ancient language with an ease she says feels almost suspicious. Same brain, same language, two encoding methods, two completely different forgetting curves. She’s a one-person controlled experiment. For more success stories, including physicians who used these methods to retrieve high-volume, complex information under exam pressure months after encoding it, check out my testimonials page. The pattern is always the same: the forgetting curve is not destiny. So long as you’re using memory techniques optimally, you can resist it, if not beat it. Should You Reproduce Ebbinghaus’s Experiment? One problem I see time and again is that many people want the exact steps needed to measure their progress. Especially when they hear me discuss how rigorously I use journaling as part of my memory activities. I’m sorry, but the demand for “exact steps” is mostly a desire installed by content marketing. The truth is that there isn’t one exact path. There are several and the real lesson in Ebbinghaus’ story is that you need to get involved in creating your own. You can journal manually by simply memorizing real words or nonsense words. Note the dates, and test yourself over time. What matters is that you work inside projects that matter to you. Whether that’s language learning, poetry, mantras, scripture, use a memory journal to help you test what holds and what fades as you use memory techniques. If you’re competitive, you can study how memory athletes use journaling to sharpen their game. My podcast conversation with Johannes Mallow, in which he explains how journaling improved his competitive standing, will be useful in that regard. Often Forgetting Is Actually a Crisis of Commitment If there’s one thing I’ve noticed over the years, it’s that people often take on learning projects connected to lives they do not actually want. They study for a qualification because they believe they should, or to please a family member. As a result, they struggle to memorize information for a job they already suspect will make them miserable. Then they interpret their resistance as a defective memory, when the deeper problem is in fact a conflict of purpose. I’ve had to face this in my own law-school experiment. I could not know in advance exactly what studying law would involve or how well the field would suit me. The saving grace is that trying it has given me greater insight into what’s involved. But now that I’ve seen some of the field from within, I have to ask a different question: Just because I am a mnemonist who can memorize legal Latin quickly and an upcoming presentation I have to give does not mean I must continue pursuing every possible outcome associated with the degree. The ability to remember something does not prove that it deserves years of my life. As I know from my studies in polymathy, memory mastery must include the development of careful selection parameters. In other words, one of the best “meta level” ways to beat the forgetting curve is to decide whether the material deserves a place in your memory at all. If you’d like help picking what to memorize on top of using the Memory Palace technique and Recall Rehearsal, my new training “The System” can help you pick a first project you actually care about. Once you have a learning goal you love, keep a journal as you memorize. Not to reproduce a nineteenth-century experiment, but to watch yourself break the forgetting curve, one piece of info at a time.

This week we're doing another NPC Deep Dive, and this time its Aristotle De Laurent: Book of Nod scholar, Malkavian, cult leader, and kind of chill dude(?) Check it out! https://www.patreon.com/BlankBodies http://blankbodies.com our theme is: Millions of Dead Cyborgs - Paralyze https://paralyzeevm.bandcamp.com/track/millions-of-dead-cyborgs Portions of the materials are the copyrights and trademarks of Paradox Interactive AB, and are used with permission. All rights reserved. For more information please visit worldofdarkness.com.

For our 50th episode, we return to Ancient Greece and to philosophy with The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle (384-322 BCE). Intended as a guide to the good life for ancient Athenian elites, the Ethics has some advice to offer us today about how to pursue a worthwhile existence. This episode also goes into Aristotle's background and the shocking fact that most of the works we still have of his are lecture notes. That's right: for 2,500 years, people have pondered what are essentially Aristotle's PowerPoint slide decks.Want to read the transcript? Click here. Thanks for listening, and don't forget to subscribe, rate, review and share us! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us Fan MailA Guild member sent in a message that stopped this episode cold. A friend of his — married, still in love with his wife — confided that she won't have sex with him anymore. Not even a goodbye kiss. He found out she's been using a vibrator. He can't understand why she won't let him be the one. And the group of friends around him, hearing this, offer the usual advice: book a weekend away, drop the kids at her sister's, get her alone.Jordan and Zan don't offer that advice. Instead, they take the story apart piece by piece — and land somewhere much harder and much more honest than “just try harder.”They get into what it actually means when a woman stops admiring her husband — not respect, something deeper — and why that, once gone, cannot be incremented back with flowers and date nights. The devastating truth that all the desperate gestures a man makes at 3am to save a dying relationship are exactly what he should have been doing all along, when things were good. Why “relationships are work” and “relationships are compromise” are, in Zan's words, bullshit — and what he believes actually holds a marriage together instead. And the brutal timing problem: the moment a man finally feels the fear is usually the exact moment it's already too late to act on it.Watch until the end for what Zan calls his gunslinger coaching — for the men who are in it right now, and need someone to ride in fast and find out if it's still redeemable.

Aztec Philosophy, Ethics, and the Outward Path with Dr. Sebastian PurcellWhat if living a good life isn't about chasing happiness, but about building strong relationships and fulfilling your responsibilities to others?In this episode of Tales From Aztlantis, Kurly Tlapoyawa and Ruben Arellano Tlakatekatl sit down with philosopher Dr. Sebastian Purcell to discuss Aztec (Nahua) philosophy, ethics, language, and his groundbreaking books Discourses of the Elders and The Outward Path. Together they explore why Nahua philosophy deserves to stand alongside Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophical traditions, and why many of its teachings remain surprisingly relevant today.Dr. Purcell shares the story of how he transitioned from computer science and mathematical logic into philosophy before discovering the rich intellectual tradition preserved in Classical Nahuatl texts. He explains the challenges of producing the first intentionally philosophical English translation of the Huehuetlahtolli and why translating philosophy requires different choices than translating historical documents.The conversation then turns to one of the central ideas in Nahua ethics: that living well is fundamentally a social endeavor. Rather than viewing ethics as an individual pursuit, the Nahuas understood human flourishing as something achieved through cooperation, mutual obligation, and healthy communities. Dr. Purcell contrasts this worldview with Aristotle, Confucius, Stoicism, and Buddhism, arguing that Nahua philosophy emphasizes an "outward path" that begins with our relationships before turning inward.Along the way, the discussion explores the meaning of concepts such as in ixtli in yollotl (face and heart), in kwalli in yektli (the good and the right), rootedness, centeredness, and the famous Nahua metaphor of the slippery earth. The hosts also discuss whether modern scholars sometimes underestimate the philosophical sophistication of Nahua texts by insisting on overly literal translations.The latter portion of the interview examines how to distinguish Indigenous teachings from later colonial Christian additions in the Huehuetlahtolli. Dr. Purcell proposes that passages emphasizing intrinsic reasons for acting well are more likely to preserve precolonial Nahua thought, while passages grounded primarily in divine punishment often reflect later Christian influence.Finally, the conversation tackles one of the most debated subjects in Nahua studies: the controversial concept of Ometeotl, Miguel León-Portilla's influence on the field, and what current scholarship can and cannot confidently say about pre-Hispanic Nahua theology.Whether you're interested in philosophy, Mesoamerican history, Nahuatl language, archaeology, or Indigenous knowledge, this episode offers an engaging introduction to one of the world's richest philosophical traditions.Topics DiscussedDr. Sebastian Purcell's path from mathematics to philosophyTranslating the Huehuetlahtolli into EnglishWhy Nahua philosophy deserves recognition as philosophyEthics versus morality in Nahua thoughtThe social nature of virtue"The Outward Path" and why relationships matter more than individual happinessFace and heart (in ixtli in yollotl)The slippery earth and rootednessNahua concepts of virtue and the good lifeClassical Nahuatl and philosophical languageDecolonizing interpretations of Nahua textsSeparating Indigenous teachings from Christian interpolationMiguel León-Portilla, Ometeotl, and ongoing scholarly debatesBooks MentionedDiscourses of the Elders: The Aztec HuehuetlahtolliThe Outward Path: The Wisdom of the AztecsMemorable Quotes"Acting well is inherently a social activity, not an individual activity.""You're not really after happiness. You're after a rich, meaningful life with your friends and family around you.""The goal of ethics is to help you live better.""Go outward first, then come in."Connect With Tales From AztlantisIf you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to Tales From Aztlantis, leave a review, and share it with someone interested in Indigenous philosophy, Nahua culture, and Mesoamerican history.Listen wherever you get your podcasts.listener comments? Feedback? Shoot us a text!Use the promo code “KURLY” in the "How did you hear about this adventure?" field when you sign up for a $200 discount.Visit skeptoid.com/adventures to learn more and reserve your spot. I hope you'll join me this December as we explore the mysteries of the Maya together. This December, I'll be joining Skeptoid Adventures as your guide for The Mysteries of the Maya, where we'll travel through the Yucatán exploring remarkable archaeological sites, uncovering the real history behind the Maya civilization, and separating fact from fiction along the way. To reserve your spot, all you need is a fully refundable $500 deposit. Your deposit is refundable through August 1, so you can reserve your place with confidence. After Au Lignum is a haven for culture, rest, and resistance. We believe in celebrating community and honoring the land that holds us. At our urban “milpa,” we practice indigenous science that respects the natural cycles of the region, and most of our workshops are hosted by indigenous and local experts. Every project we do is grounded in collective memory, creativity, and respect for the land and its people.  Order "NEVER WILL IT BE LOST" and get $5 off!Support Lignum: A Cultural Haven in MéridaYour Hosts:Kurly Tlapoyawa is an archaeologist, ethnohistorian, and filmmaker. His research covers Mesoamerica, the American Southwest, and the historical connections between the two regions. He is the author of numerous books and has presented lectures at the University of New Mexico, Harvard University, Yale University, San Diego State University, and numerous others. He most recently released his documentary short film "Guardians of the Purple Kingdom," and is a cultural consultant for Nickelodeon Animation Studios.@kurlytlapoyawaRuben Arellano Tlakatekatl is a scholar, activist, and professor of history. His research explores Chicana/Chicano indigeneity, Mexican indigenist nationalism, and Coahuiltecan identity resurgence. Other areas of research include Aztlan (US Southwest), Anawak (Mesoamerica), and Native North America. He has presented and published widely on these topics and has taught courses at various institutions. He currently teaches history at Dallas College – Mountain View Campus. Find us: Bluesky...

Send us Fan MailDr. Shane McLoughlin is an Associate Professor in the School of Education at the University of Birmingham, where he works in the world-leading Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. He is a leading expert on Aristotle's concept of practical wisdom, and his work brings together moral philosophy and psychology, character education, behavioural science, differential psychology, clinical psychology, coaching psychology, and psychometrics to explore how people develop the good character and judgement needed to live and act well.Shane is the author of Practical Wisdom Coaching, published by Routledge, and serves as Programme Lead for the MA in Character Education. His research focuses especially on practical wisdom, virtue, flourishing, measurement, and the limits of “one-size-fits-all” approaches to education, coaching, clinical practice, and human development. Across his work, Shane treats wisdom as a practical capacity: the ability to discern what matters, respond proportionately to complexity, and choose well when no rulebook can do the choosing for us.A Couple Quotes From This Episode"Intelligence is knowing how to do things. Wisdom is knowing whether you should do them.""You're finding the right amount at the right time for the context that is conducive to flourishing."ResourcesBook: Practical Wisdom CoachingAbout The International Leadership Association (ILA)The ILA was created in 1999 to bring together professionals interested in studying, practicing, and teaching leadership. Attend The Global Conference in Toronto, October 28-31.About  Scott J. AllenWebsiteWeekly Newsletter: Practical Wisdom for LeadersMy Approach to HostingThe views of my guests do not constitute "truth." Nor do they reflect my personal views in some instances. However, they are views to consider, and I hope they help you clarify your perspective. Nothing can replace your reflection, research, and exploration of the topic. ♻️ Please share with others and follow/subscribe to the podcast!⭐️ Please leave a review on Apple, Spotify, or your platform of choice.➡️ Follow me on LinkedIn for more on leadership, communication, and tech.

Why do we say a stone "obeys the law" of gravity? What is a "law" of nature, anyway? The idea that nature has laws — universal, mathematical, binding — was born in the seventeenth century, when Descartes and Newton assumed a divine lawmaker had legislated the cosmos. Modern science dismissed the lawmaker but kept the laws. This episode traces the history of science's deepest unexamined assumption, from Aristotle's purposeful cosmos through the Scientific Revolution to Laplace, Einstein, and the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" — and confronts a question physics still can't answer: if nothing governs the universe, why is it so perfectly well-behaved? Support the show and unlock supporter-only episodes, including the companion to this one, "The Questions AI Might Ask": https://www.patreon.com/bradcoleharris

This week on the Mark Levin Show, this American Marxism movement is a threat and it traces back to self-identified progressives from Woodrow Wilson onward who rejected the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They imposed redistribution of wealth, oppressor-oppressed frameworks, and related policies through the Democrat Party, which has never fully accepted Americanism or constitutionalism—evident in the rise of Democratic socialists, Marxists, and radical Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran-supporting Islamists within it. Another converging threat is the Woke Reich neo-fascists - authoritarians in Republican and other circles who attack Christianity, Judaism, Israel, and Christian Zionists while holding pro-Putin and pro-Sharia positions. Later, what made the Declaration of Independence remarkable was that it was unprecedented in human history. The Declaration serves as the foundational basis for the nation and its Constitution, celebrating America's purpose. Critics like Presidents Obama and Woodrow Wilson have rejected or downplayed its first part on the Creator and principles, focusing instead on the list of grievances against the king to advance new ideologies; however, President Coolidge defended these enduring, universal ideas from Aristotle and Locke as perpetual, not to be dismissed. The Declaration's concise statement of American identity is incompatible with Marxism, Islamism, and fascism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, what made the Declaration of Independence remarkable was that it was unprecedented in human history. The Declaration serves as the foundational basis for the nation and its Constitution, celebrating America's purpose. Critics like Presidents Obama and Woodrow Wilson have rejected or downplayed its first part on the Creator and principles, focusing instead on the list of grievances against the king to advance new ideologies; however, President Coolidge defended these enduring, universal ideas from Aristotle and Locke as perpetual, not to be dismissed. The Declaration's concise statement of American identity is incompatible with Marxism, Islamism, and fascism. Also, President Reagan was a great admirer and friend of Milton Friedman. He often sought his input on economic policies. During Reagan's presidency, there was massive economic growth, and he won two historic landslide elections, popular vote and electoral college, like no Republican before or since. Alexander Hamilton would grow increasingly supportive of a powerful central government. He would argue with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on their approaches to government during the Washington administration and beyond. Hamilton argued for implied powers under the Constitution, which infuriated Jefferson and Madison. Hamilton claimed the necessary and proper clause was essentially a ticket to significantly expanding federal action. Later, Americanism and capitalism are philosophies enabling individual decision-making under the Declaration and Constitution, whereas ideologies are fanatical beliefs imposed society-wide regardless of consequences. Communism is defective and anti-human, misreading human nature by suppressing free will, reason, debate, and academic freedom in favor of brainwashing, conformity, and central control, as seen in places like Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and China, and similarly with Islamists. Nationalists, populists, and Marxists attack the American experiment, economic system, and culture through emotion, slogans of equality, and activist government, showing overlaps reminiscent of 1930s fascists and communists. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices