Podcasts about Platonic

This week on The Sidebar Podcast, Leise Winny and Mr. Royce sit down with William Honablew Jr., Business Consultant, for a sharp, layered conversation about capitalism, leadership, culture, and power.From understanding business ownership in Black communities to navigating influence, distraction, and the consequences of “winning,” this episode connects entrepreneurship with identity, accountability, and cultural politics.Is capitalism the path to leadership — or just another hierarchy?Should cultural figures be called out for their behavior?Who controls access to power?And what does it really cost to win?It's business… but it's also bigger than business.4:20 — William Honablew Jr. introduction5:12 — Why is it important for Black people to understand how to run a business?10:30 — Should we call out 50 Cent for his behavior?14:30 — Looking for leadership through capitalism19:13 — Who can say the N-word?26:02 — What is a martyr?32:35 — Keeping people out & using power strategically34:15 — Entertainment or distraction?39:08 — How marketing changed the game49:48 — Platonic friendships — real or not?1:00:55 — Being honest: hero vs. villain1:13:18 — The consequences of winning1:20:30 — William's business info & closing

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Would you date a divorcee?The episode kicks off with a wild dating take from the train — two kids is fine, but being divorced is where the line gets drawn. Is divorce actually a red flag, or are we just projecting our own fears about commitment?Recorded on location at an Apricrest property in Bryanston, the guys also unpack the difference between sectional title ownership and corporate landlord models — from slower decision-making and levy risks, to whether single-owner rental estates actually make for better tenant experiences.Then the conversation pivots into relationships:Are women intentionally testing boundaries?Is insecurity something we bring into relationships — or something that gets unlocked once we're in them?And why do honest conversations between men and women break down the moment insecurity enters the chat?Expect debates on dating, emotional honesty, power dynamics and the uncomfortable truths nobody wants to own.00:00 Would you date a divorcee?03:00 Episode intro + Uzuri Online & Standby Auto Repairs04:00 Corporate landlords vs sectional title ownership08:30 Non-paying tenants & levy risk explained11:00 Body corporate rules vs single landlord control16:40 The headache of serious relationships17:20 Do partners create chaos when things are “too peaceful”?19:10 Boundary-testing in relationships20:00 Can men criticise women objectively?22:40 Nature vs intention in conflict24:00 Emotional honesty vs “pop psychology” excuses25:40 Insecurity in dating dynamics26:00 Platonic friendships & trust issues27:30 Owning your insecurity (or refusing to)

What is mathematics, really? Mathematician David Bessis joins me to argue that math isn't about numbers in a Platonic realm or a meaningless game of symbols—it's a cognitive technology for rewiring your brain. We explore why the official definitions of mathematics have been unresolved for 2,300 years, why understanding something means finding it obvious, and how the gap between a beginner and Terence Tao looks less like genetic destiny and more like compound interest on intuition. When asked what mathematics fundamentally is, his answer cuts through millennia of philosophy: it's what happens in your head when you pretend something is true until it feels real. LINKS MENTIONED: Papers, books, websites: - https://davidbessis.substack.com/ - https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YmJL9KwAAAAJ - https://amazon.com/dp/0300283288?tag=toe08-20 - https://davidbessis.substack.com/p/the-magic-of-mathematical-intuition - https://davidbessis.substack.com/p/weve-been-wrong-about-math-for-2300 - https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9404236 - https://amazon.com/dp/0387900926?tag=toe08-20 - https://davidbessis.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-broken-theorems - https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html - https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2024/12/11/fermats-last-theorem-how-its-going/ - https://gwern.net/doc/math/1979-hersh.pdf - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/zf.html - https://imperialcollegelondon.github.io/FLT/blueprint/ - https://amazon.com/dp/1015393233?tag=toe08-20 - https://annals.math.princeton.edu/2015/181-3/p01 - https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0610778 - https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~bts82/events/homotopyF20/notes/bar-construction-typed.pdf - https://www.edge.org/conversation/reuben_hersh-reuben-hersh-1927-2020 - https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Ramanujan/ - https://amazon.com/dp/1107536510?tag=toe08-20 - https://viennot.org/abjc-lectures.html - https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/272332/1-s2.0-S0021869306X06555/1-s2.0-S0021869305006150/main.pdf Videos: - https://youtu.be/tYgiVnQubyw - https://youtu.be/RX1tZv_Nv4Y - https://youtu.be/73IdQGgfxas - https://youtu.be/lhpRAWxvY5s - https://youtu.be/rJz_Badd43c - https://youtu.be/c8iFtaltX-s - https://youtu.be/81sPQGIWEfM - https://youtu.be/wbP0KjWm0pw - https://youtu.be/mTwvecBthpQ - https://youtu.be/_sTDSO74D8Q - https://youtu.be/DeTm4fSXpbM SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Love is in the air… Wait, no. That's not love. It's just our host. She smells amazing. That last statement was not written under duress… Host Terri Doty is in the booth and ready to catch up with... Read More

: Valentine's Day isn't dying—but it is changing. It's less about romance and more about… friends?

In this episode of the podcast, Keltie speaks with creative director, producer, musician, and writer, Amrita Vijay, about her decision to have a child with her platonic life partner, Andrew. You'll hear about: Why Amrita never wanted kids — and what made her change her mind How Amrita and her gay best friend, Andrew, decided to become co-parents How her and Andrew's unique relationship allows them to challenge traditional gender roles — and the pressures and expectations that still exist as a straight-presenting "couple" (who aren't actually a couple) The importance of questioning societal expectations around marriage and family — and how doing so, can create new ways of having kids and experiencing family What Andrew and Amrita's co-parenting relationship entails, and how they're navigating dating, future partners, and living arrangements Mentioned in this episode: Find Amita on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/vijayandstephens Her and Andrew's website is: emergencycontacts.substack.com Watch Amrita and Andrew's short film, LOOSELY — inspired by their decision to have kids together, and viewable on a private link here: https://vimeo.com/788430913/bc7f928154 Check out Amrita and Andrew's feature on Storyworth, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS_1ZCkQtJU Join one of our monthly SUPPORT SERIES sessions

It's our 800th Episode, and it's about time we show our real face. For 16 years, you thought we were Da Gooberman, but really we're Monica Angela Rita! But don't worry, we're still full of great advice even though our souls are spread out across eighty-eight haunted piano keys.Suggested Talking Points: Da Man in Da Goobermask, Be Gentle About Deck Size, Trade Your Brother for a Website, Hone Your Brain and Ditch Your ShameImmigrant Law Center of Minnesota: https://www.ilcm.org/donate/

Heavily Edited-Watch the full uncensored livestream with Nick Farrell: https://youtube.com/live/toQi9HIR4FYExploring Hermetic Wisdom with Nick Farrell: A Deep Dive into the Golden Dawn TraditionJoin us on the Magic Without Fears Hermetic podcast as we welcome renowned occult author and practitioner, Nick Farrell. In this episode, we discuss technical glitches, Farrell's influential books, and his controversial views on the Golden Dawn, Mathers, and historical occult figures. Farrell emphasizes the human flaws of these figures and the importance of magical practice and experience over theoretical knowledge. The conversation touches on a range of topics, from the misuse of secrecy in occultism to practical applications of ritual magic. We also delve into Farrell's latest work on John Hayden and the complexities of alchemy and geomancy within the Golden Dawn system. This insightful discussion offers valuable perspectives for both seasoned practitioners and newcomers to the occult. Don't miss this deep dive into the rich traditions and modern interpretations of Hermetic wisdom. #Occult #GoldenDawn #NickFarrell #MagicWithoutFearsTheomagica is the blueprint for a lot of the waffle you hear in modern occult circles, but with actual depth and taken in context.Heyden discusses the magician as a mediator between celestial forces and the material world. It's the exact microcosm–macrocosm spiel that the Golden Dawn borrowed wholesale and incorporated into their rituals. Like Heyden, Crowley waltzed in later, sprinkled on some poetry, and declared himself the prophet. But the cosmology he borrowed comes from the likes of Heyden.His book is stuffed with Platonic philosophy, biblical mysticism, and the power of the stars, and unlike some later magicians, he didn't need a thesaurus to make it look impressive.Even Frederick Hockley, who was the Golden Dawn's beta version, drew on Heyden when shaping his scrying techniques. And despite his endless bluster about smashing old systems, even Crowley ends up echoing Heyden's ideas. Mathers and Westcott leaned on Heyden's worldview, which included magical images and a hierarchy of spirits, while pretending it all came straight from the Secret Chiefs.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/magick-without-fears-frater-r-c-hermetic-podcast/exclusive-contentAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This week on PodQuest, Walnut has been playing some games including the Tomb Raider Remaster and Highguard, meanwhile Chris caught up on some shows starting with Shrinking on Apple TV+. We also have a bit of a Dragon Ball discussion, Walnut played some Nice Day for Fishing, and Chris watched season two of Platonic, also on Apple TV+. Our current theme is movie sequels following a big gap (minimum 10 years). The second pick for this is Spinal Tap 2 (2025) Timestamps 00:00:00 - Intro 00:07:34 - Agenda 00:07:54 - Tomb Raider Remaster (Game) 00:19:05 - Nice Day for Fishing (Game) 00:24:15 - Highguard (Game) 00:40:49 - Shrinking (TV Series) 00:50:12 - Platonic (TV Series) 00:55:36 - Outro Support One-Quest https://www.Patreon.com/OneQuest Follow Us Email - Social@one-quest.com Twitter - @One_Quest Instagram - @One_Quest Facebook - OneQuestOnline Follow Chris on Twitter - @Just_Cobb Follow Richie on Twitter - @B_Walnuts Follow Drootin on Twitter - @IamDroot Check out Richie's streaming and videos! Twitch b_walnuts YouTube BWalnuts TikTok b_walnuts Intro and Outro music Mega Man 2 'Project X2 - Title Screen' OC ReMix courtesy of Project X over at OCRemix

This week on PodQuest, Walnut has been playing some games including the Tomb Raider Remaster and Highguard, meanwhile Chris caught up on some shows starting with Shrinking on Apple TV+. We also have a bit of a Dragon Ball discussion, Walnut played some Nice Day for Fishing, and Chris watched season two of Platonic, also on Apple TV+.

Hermione Lee is the renowned biographer of Virginia Woolf, Edith Wharton, Penelope Fitzgerald, and, most recently, Tom Stoppard. Stoppard died at the end of last year, so Hermione and I talked about the influence of Shaw and Eliot and Coward on his work, the recent production of The Invention of Love, the role of ideas in Stoppard's writing, his writing process, rehearsals, revivals, movies. We also talked about John Carey, Brian Moore, Virginia Woolf as a critic. Hermione is Emeritus Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford. Her life of Anita Brookner will be released in September.TranscriptHenry Oliver: Today I have the great pleasure of talking to Professor Dame Hermione Lee. Hermione was the first woman to be appointed Goldsmiths' Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford, and she is the most renowned and admired living English biographer. She wrote a seminal life of Virginia Woolf. She's written splendid books about people like Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, and my own favorite, Penelope Fitzgerald. And most recently she has been the biographer of Tom Stoppard, and I believe this year she has a new book coming out about Anita Brookner. Hermione, welcome.Hermione Lee: Thank you very much.Oliver: We're mostly going to talk about Tom Stoppard because he, sadly, just died. But I might have a few questions about your broader career at the end. So tell me first how Shavian is Stoppard's work?Lee: He would reply “very close Shavian,” when asked that question. I think there are similarities. There are obviously similarities in the delighting forceful intellectual play, and you see that very much in Jumpers where after all the central character is a philosopher, a bit of a bonkers philosopher, but still a very rational one.And you see it in someone like Henry, the playwright in The Real Thing, who always has an answer to every argument. He may be quite wrong, but he is full of the sort of zest of argument, the passion for argument. And I think that kind of delight in making things intellectually clear and the pleasure in argument is very Shavian.Where I think they differ and where I think is really more like Chekov, or more like Beckett or more in his early work, the dialogues in T. S. Elliot, and less like Shaw is in a kind of underlying strangeness or melancholy or sense of fate or sense of mortality that rings through almost all the plays, even the very, very funny ones. And I don't think I find that in Shaw. My prime reading time for Shaw was between 15 and 19, when I thought that Shaw was the most brilliant grownup that one could possibly be listening to, and I think now I feel less impressed by him and a bit more impatient with him.And I also think that Shaw is much more in the business of resolving moral dilemmas. So in something like Arms and the Man or Man and Superman, you will get a kind of resolution, you will get a sort of sense of this is what we're meant to be agreeing with.Whereas I think quite often one of the fascinating things about Stoppard is the way that he will give all sides of the question; he will embody all sides of the question. And I think his alter ego there is not Shaw, but the character of Turgenev in The Coast of Utopia, who is constantly being nagged by his radical political friends to make his mind up and to have a point of view and come down on one side or the other. And Turgenev says, I take every point of view.Oliver: I must confess, I find The Coast of Utopia a little dull compared to Stoppard's other work.Lee: It's long. Yes. I don't find it dull. But I think it may be a play to read possibly more than a play to see now. And you're never going to get it put on again anyway because the cast is too big. And who's going to put on a nine-hour free play, 50 people cast about 19th-century Russian revolutionaries? Nobody, I would think.But I find it very absorbing actually. And partly because I'm so interested in Isaiah Berlin, who is a very strong presence in the anti-utopianism of those plays. But that's a matter of opinion.Oliver: No. I like Berlin. One thing about Stoppard that's un-Shavian is that he says his plays begin as a noise or an image or a scene, and then we think of him as this very thinking writer. But is he really more of an intuitive writer?Lee: I think it's a terribly good question. I think it gets right at the heart of the matter, and I think it's both. Sorry, I sound like Turgenev, not making my mind up. But yes, there is an image or there is an idea, or there are often two ideas, as it were, the birth of quantum physics and 18th-century landscape gardening. Who else but Stoppard would put those two things in one play, Arcadia, and have you think about both at once.But the image and the play may well have been a dance between two periods of time together in one room. So I think he never knew what the next play was going to be until it would come at him, as it were. He often resisted the idea that if he chose a topic and then researched it, a play would come out of it. That wasn't what happened. Something would come at him and then he would start doing a great deal of research usually for every play.Oliver: What sort of influence did T. S. Elliot have on him? Did it change the dialogue or, was it something else?Lee: When I was working with him on my biography, he gave me a number of things. I had extraordinary access, and we can perhaps come back to that interesting fact. And most of these things were loans he gave them to me to work on. Then I gave them back to him.But he gave me as a present one thing, which was a black notebook that he had been keeping at the time he was writing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and also his first and only novel Lord Malquist and Mr. Moon, which is little known, which he thought was going to make his career. The book was published in the same week that Rosencrantz came up. He thought the novel was going to make his career and the play was going to sink without trace. Not so. In the notebook there are many quotations from T. S. Elliot, and particularly from Prufrock and the Wasteland, and you can see him working them into the novel and into the play.“I am not Prince Hamlet nor was meant to be.” And that sense of being a disconsolate outsider. Ill at ease with and neurotic about the world that is charging along almost without you, and you are having to hang on to the edge of the world. The person who feels themself to be in internal exile, not at one with the universe. I think that point of view recurs over and over again, right through the work, but also a kind of epigrammatical, slightly mysterious crypticness that Elliot has, certainly in Prufrock and in the Wasteland and in the early poems. He loved that tone.Oliver: Yes. When I read your paper about that I thought about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern quite differently. I've always disliked the idea that it's a sort of Beckett imitation play. It seems very Elliotic having read what you described.Lee: There is Beckett in there. You can't get away from it.Oliver: Surface level.Lee: Beckett's there, but I think the sense of people waiting around—Stoppard's favorite description of Rosencrantz was: “It's two journalists on a story that doesn't add up, which is very clever and funny.”Yes. And that sense of, Vladimir going, “What are we supposed to be doing and how are we going to pass the time?” That's profoundly influential on Stoppard. So I don't think it's just a superficial resemblance myself, but I agree that Elliot just fills the tone of that play and other things too.Oliver: In the article you wrote about Stoppard and Elliot, the title is about biographical questing, and you also described Arcadia as a quest. How important is the idea of the quest to the way you work and also to the way you read Stoppard?Lee: I took as the epigraph for my biography of Stoppard a line from Arcadia: “It's wanting to know that makes us matter, otherwise we're going out the way we came in.” So I think that's right at the heart of Stoppard's work, and it's right at the heart of any biographical work, whether or not it's mine or someone else's. If you can't know, in the sense of knowing the person, knowing what the person is like, and also knowing as much as possible about them from different kinds of sources, then you might as well give up.You can't do it through impressions. You've got to do it through knowledge. Of course, a certain amount of intuition may also come into play, though I'm not the kind of biographer that feels you can make things up. Working on a living person, this is the only time I've done that.It was, of course, a very different thing from working on a safely dead author. And I knew Penelope Fitzgerald a little bit, but I had no idea I was going to write her biography when I had conversations with her and she wouldn't have told me anything anyway. She was so wicked and evasive. But it was a set up thing; he asked me to do it. And we had a proper contract and we worked together over several years, during which time he became a friend, which was a wonderful piece of luck for me.I was doing four things, really. One was reading all the material that he produced, everything, and getting to know it as well as I could. And that's obviously the basic task. One was talking to him and listening to him talk about his life. And he was very generous with those interviews. I'm sure there were things he didn't tell me, but that's fine. One was talking to other people about him, which is a very interesting process. And with someone like him who knew everyone in the literary, theatrical, cultural world, you have to draw a halt at some point. You can't talk to a thousand people, or I'd have still been doing it, so you talk to particularly fellow playwrights, directors, actors who've worked with him often, as well as family and friends. And then you start pitting the versions against each other and seeing what stands up and what keeps being said.Repetition's very important in that process because when several people say the same thing to you, then you know that's right. And that quest also involves some actual footsteps, as Richard Holmes would say. Footsteps. Traveling to places he'd lived in and going to Darjeeling where he had been to school before he came to England, that kind of travel.And then the fourth, and to me, in a way, almost the most exciting, was the opportunity to watch him at work in rehearsal. So with the director's permissions, I was allowed to sit in on two or three processes like that, the 50th anniversary production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at the Old Vic with David Lavoie. And Patrick Marber's wonderful production of Leopoldstadt and Nick Hytner's production of The Hard Problem at the National. So I was able to witness the very interesting negotiations going on between Tom and the director and the cast.And also the extraordinary fact that even with a play like Rosencrantz, which is on every school syllabus and has been for 50—however many years—he was still changing things in rehearsal. I can't get over that. And in his view, as he often said, theater is an event and not a text, and so one could see that actual process of things changing before one's very eyes, and that for a biographer, it's a pretty amazing privilege.Oliver: How much of the plays were written during rehearsal do you think?Lee: Oh, 99% of the plays were written with much labor, much precision, much correction alone at his desk. The text is there, the text is written, and everything changes when you go into the rehearsal room because you suddenly find that there isn't enough time with that speech for the person to get from the bed to the door. It's physics; you have to put another line in so that someone can make an entrance or an exit, that kind of thing.Or the actors will say quite often, because they were a bit in awe—by the time he became well known—the actors initially would be a bit in awe of the braininess and the brilliance. And quite often the actors will be saying, “I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't understand this.” You'd often get, “I don't really understand.”And then he would never be dismissive. He would either say, “No, I think you've got to make it work.” I'm putting words into his mouth here. Or he would say, “Okay, let's put another sentence or something like that.”Oliver: Between what he wrote at his desk and the book that's available for purchase now, how much changed? Is it 10%, 50? You know what I mean?Lee: Yes. You should be talking to his editor at Faber, Dinah Wood. So Faber would print a relatively small number for the first edition before the rehearsal process and the final production. And then they would do a second edition, which would have some changes in it. So 2%. Okay. But crucial sometimes.Oliver: No, sure. Very important.Lee: And also some plays like Jumpers went through different additions with different endings, different solutions to plot problems. Travesties, he had a lot of trouble with the Lenins in Travesties because it's the play in which you've got Joyce and you've got Tristan Tzara and you've got the Lenins, and they're all these real people and he makes him talk.But he was a little bit nervous about the Lenin. So what he gave him to say were things that they had really said, that Lenin had really said. As opposed to the Tzara-Joyce stuff, which is all wonderfully made up. The bloody Lenins became a bit of a problem for him. And so that gets changed in later editions you'll find.Oliver: How closely do you think The Real Thing is based on Present Laughter by Noël Coward?Lee: Oh, I think there's a little bit of Coward in there. Yes, sure. I think he liked Coward, he liked Wilde, obviously. He likes brilliant, witty, playful entertainers. He wants to be an entertainer. But I think The Real Thing, he was proud of the fact that The Real Thing was one of the few examples of his plays at that time, which weren't based on something else. They weren't based on Hamlet. They weren't based on The Importance of Being Earnest. It's not based on a real person like Housman. I think The Real Thing came out of himself much more than out of literary models.Oliver: You don't think that Henry is a bit like the actor character in Present Laughter and it's all set in his flat and the couples moving around and the slight element of farce?The cricket bat speech is quite similar to when Gary Essendine—do you remember that very funny young man comes up on the train from Epping or somewhere and lectures him about the social value of art. And Gary Essendine says, “Get a job in a theater rep and write 20 plays. And if you can get one of them put on in a pub, you'll be damn lucky.” It's like a model for him, a loose model.Lee: Yes. Henry, I think you should write an article comparing these two plays.Oliver: Okay. Very good. What does Stoppardian mean?Lee: It means witty. It means brilliant with words. It means fizzing with verbal energy. It means intellectually dazzling. The word dazzling is the one that tends to get used. My own version of Stoppardian is a little bit different from, as it were, those standard received and perfectly acceptable accounts of Stoppardian.My own sense of Stoppardian has more to do with grief and mortality and a sense of not belonging and of puzzlement and bewilderment, within all that I said before, within the dazzling, playful astonishing zest and brio of language and the precision about language.Oliver: Because it's a funny word. It's hard to include Leopoldstadt under the typical use of Stoppardian, because it's an untypical Stoppard.Lee: One of the things about Leopoldstadt that I think is—let's get rid of that trope about Stoppardian—characteristic of him is the remarkable way it deals with time. Here's a play like Arcadia, all set in the same place, all set in the same room, in the same house, and it goes from a big hustling room, late 19th-century family play, just like the beginning of The Coast of Utopia, where you begin with a big family in Russia and then it moves through the '20s and then into the terrible appalling period of the Anschluss and the Holocaust.And then it ends up after the war with an empty room. This room, is like a different kind of theater, an empty room. Three characters, none of whom you know very well, speaking in three different kinds of English, reaching across vast spaces of incomprehension, and you've had these jumps through time.And then at the very end, the original family, all of whom have been destroyed, the original family reappears on the stage. I'm sorry to tell this for anyone who hasn't seen Leopoldstadt. Because when it happens on the stage, it's an absolutely astonishing moment. As if the time has gone round and as if the play, which I think it was for him, was an act of restitution to all those people.Oliver: How often did he use his charm to get his way with actors?Lee: A lot. And not just actors. People he worked with, film people, friends, companions. Charm is such an interesting thing, isn't it? Because we shouldn't deviate, but there's always a slightly sinister aspect to the word charm as in, a magic charm. And one tends to be a bit suspicious of charm. And he knew he had charm and he was physically very magnetic and good looking and very funny and very attentive to people.But I think the charm, in his case, he did use it to get the right results, and he did use it, as he would say, “to look after my plays.” He was always, “I want to look after my plays.” And that's why he went back to rehearsal when there were revivals and so on. But he wasn't always charming. Patrick Marber, who's a friend of his and who directed Leopoldstadt, is very good on how irritable Stoppard could be sometimes in rehearsal. And I've heard that from other directors too—Jack O'Brien, who did the American productions of things like The Invention of Love.If Stoppard felt it wasn't right, he could get quite cross. So this wasn't a sort of oleaginous character at all. It's not smooth, it's not a smooth charm at all. But yes, he knew his power and he used it, and I think in a good way. I think he was a benign character actually. And one of the things that was very fascinating to me, not only when he died and there was this great outpouring of tributes, very heartfelt tributes, I thought. But also when I was working on the biography, I was going around the world trying to find people to say bad things about him, because what I didn't want to do was write a hagiography. You don't want to do that; there would be no point. And it was genuinely quite hard.And I don't know the theater world; it's not my world. I got to know it a little bit then. But I have never necessarily thought of the theater world as being utterly loving and generous about everybody else. I'm sure there are lots of rivalries and spitefulness, as there is in academic life, all the rest of it. But it was very hard to find anyone with a bad word to say about him, even people who'd come up against the steeliness that there is in him.I had an interview with Steven Spielberg about him, with whom he worked a lot, and with whom he did Empire of the Sun. And I would ask my interviewees if they could come up with two or three adjectives or an adjective that would sum him up, that would sum Stoppard up to them. And when I asked Spielberg this question, he had a little think and then he said, intransigent. I thought, great. He must be the only person who ever stood up to him.Oliver: What was his best film script? Did he write a really great film.Lee: That one. I think partly the novel, I don't know if you know the Ballard novel, the Empire of the Sun, it's a marvelous novel. And Ballard was just a magical and amazing writer, a great hero of mine. But I think what Stoppard did with that was really clever and brilliant.I know people like Brazil, the Terry Gilliam sort of surrealist way. And there's some interesting early work. Most of his film work was not one script; it was little bits that he helped with. So there's famously the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he did most of the dialogue for Harrison Ford.But there are others like the One Hundred and One Dalmatians, where I think there's one line, anonymously Stoppardian in there. One of the things about the obituaries that slightly narked me was that there, I felt there was a bit too much about the films. Truly, I don't think the film work was—he wanted it to be right and he wanted to get it right—but it wasn't as close to his heart as the theater work. And indeed the work for radio, which I thought was generally underwritten about when he died. There was some terrific work there.Oliver: Yes. And there aren't that many canonical writers who've been great on the radio.Lee: Absolutely. He did everything. He did film, he did radio. He wrote some opera librettos. He really did everything. And on top of that, there was the great work for the public good, which I think is a very important part of his legacy, his history.Oliver: How much crossover influence is there between the different bits of his career? Does the screenwriting influence the theater writing and the radio and so on? Or is he just compartmentalized and able to do a lot of different things?Lee: That's such an interesting question. I don't think I've thought about it enough. I think there are very cinematic aspects to some of the plays, like Night and Day, for instance, the play about journalism. That could easily have been a film.And perhaps Hapgood as well, although it could be a kind of John le Carré type film thriller, though it's such a set of complicated interlocking boxes that I don't know that it would work as a film. It's not one of my favorite players, I must say. I struggle a little bit with Hapgood. But, yes, I'm sure that they fed into each other. Because he was so busy, he was often doing several things at once. So he was keeping things in boxes and opening the lid of that box. But mentally things must have overlapped, I'm sure.Oliver: He once joked that rather than having read Wittgenstein from cover to cover, he had only read the covers. How true is that? Because I know some people who would say he's very clever in everything, but he's not as clever as he looks. It's obviously not true that he only read the covers.Lee: I think there was a phase, wasn't there, after the early plays when people felt that he was—it's that English phrase, isn't it—too clever by half. Which you would never hear anyone in France saying of someone that they were too clever by half. So he was this kind of jazzy intellectual who put all his ideas out there, and he was this sort of self-educated savant who hadn't been to Oxford.There was quite a lot of that about in the earlier years, I think. And a sense that he was getting away with it, to which I would countermand with the story of the writing of The Invention of Love. So what attracted him to the figure of Housman initially was not the painful, suppressed homosexual love story, but the fact that here was this person who was divided into a very pernickety, savagely critical classical editor of Latin and a romantic lyric poet. In order to work out how to turn this into a play, he probably spent about six years taking Latin lessons, reading everything he could read on the history of classical literature. Obviously reading about Housman, engaging in conversation with classical scholars about Housman's, finer points of editorial precision about certain phrases. And what he used from that was the tip of the iceberg. But the iceberg was real.He really did that work and he often used to say that it was his favorite play because he'd so much enjoyed the work that went into it. I think he took what he needed from someone like Wittgenstein. I know you don't like The Coast of Utopia very much, but if you read his background to Coast of Utopia, what went into it, and if you compare what's in the plays, those three plays, with what's in the writing about those revolutionaries, he read everything. He may have magpied it, but he's certainly knows what he's talking about. So I defend him a bit against that, I think.Oliver: Good, good. Did you see the recent production at the Hamstead Theatre of The Invention of Love?Lee: I did, yes.Oliver: What did you think?Lee: I liked it. I thought it was rather beautifully done. I liked those boats rowing around that clicked together. I thought Simon Russell Beale was extremely good, particularly very moving. And very good in Housman's vindictiveness as a critic. He is not a nice person in that sense. And his scornfulness about the women students in his class, that kind of thing. And so there was a wonderful vitriol and scorn in Russell Beale's performance.I think when you see it now, some of the Oxford context is a little bit clunky, those scenes with Jowett and Pater and so on, it's like a bit of a caricature of the context of cultural life at the time, intellectual life at the time. But I think that the trope of the old and the young Housman meeting each other and talking to each other, which I still think is very moving. I thought it worked tremendously well.Oliver: What are Tom Stoppard's poems like?Lee: You see them in Indian Ink where he invents a poet, Flora Crewe, who is a poet who was died young, turn of the century, bold feminist associated with Bloomsbury and gets picked up much later as a kind of Sylvia Plath-type, HD type heroine. And when you look at Stoppard's manuscripts in the Harry Ransom Center in the University of Austin, in Texas, there is more ink spent on writing and rewriting those poems of Flora Crewe than anything else I saw in the manuscript. He wrote them and rewrote them.Early on he wrote some Elliot—they're very like Elliot—little poems for himself. I think there are probably quite a lot of love poems out there, which I never saw because they belong to the people for whom he wrote them. So I wouldn't know about those.Oliver: How consistently did Stoppard hold to a kind of liberal individualism in his politics?Lee: He was accused of being very right wing in the 1980s really, 1970s, 1980s, when the preponderant tendency for British drama was radicalism, Royal Court, left wing, all of that. And Stoppard seemed an outlier then, because he approved of Thatcher. He was a friend of Thatcher. He didn't like the print union. It was particularly about newspapers because he'd been a newspaper man in his youth. That was his alternative university education, working in Bristol on the newspapers. He had a romance heroic feeling about the value of the journalist to uphold democracy, and he hated the pressure of the print unions to what he thought at the time was stifling that.He changed his mind. I think a lot about that. He had been very idealistic and in love with English liberal values. And I think towards the end of his life he felt that those were being eroded. He voted lots of different ways. He voted conservative, voted green. He voted lib dem. I don't if he ever voted Labour.Oliver: But even though his personal politics shifted and the way he voted shifted, there is something quite continuous from the early plays through to Rock ‘n' Roll. Is there a sort of basic foundation that doesn't change, even though the response to events and the idea about the times changes?Lee: Yes, I think that's right, and I think it can be summed up in what Henry says in The Real Thing about politics, which is a version of what's often said in his plays, which is public postures have the configuration of private derangement. So that there's a deep suspicion of political rhetoric, especially when it tends towards the final solution type, the utopian type, the sense that individual lives can be sacrificed in the interest of an ultimate rationalized greater good.And then, he's worked in the '70s for the victims of Soviet communism. His work alongside in support of Havel and Charter 77. And he wrote on those themes such as Every Good Boy Deserves Favour and Professional Foul. Those are absolutely at the heart of what he felt. And they come back again when he's very modest about this and kept it quiet. But he did an enormous amount of work for the Belarus exile, Belarus Free Theater collective, people in support of those trying to work against the regime in Belarus.And then the profound, heartfelt, intense feeling of horror about what happened to people in Leopoldstadt. That's all part of the same thing. I think he's a believer in individual freedom and in democracy and has a suspicion of political rhetoric.Oliver: How much were some of his great parts written for specific actors? Because I sometimes have a feeling when I watch one of his plays now, if I'd been here when Felicity Kendal was doing this, I would be getting the whole thing, but I'm getting most of it.Lee: I'm sure that's right. And he built up a team around him: Peter Wood, the director and John Wood who's such an extraordinary Henry Carr in in in Travesties. And Michael Hordern as George the philosopher in Jumpers. And he wrote a lot for Kendal, in the process of becoming life companions.But he'd obviously been writing and thinking of her very much, for instance, in Arcadia. And also I think very much, it's very touching now to see the production of Indian Ink that's running at Hampstead Theatre in which Felicity Kendal is playing the older woman, the surviving older sister of the poet Flora Crewe, where of course the part of Flora Crewe was written for her. And there's something very touching about seeing that now. And, in fact, the first night of that production was the day of Stoppard's funeral. And Kendal couldn't be at the funeral, of course, because she was in the first night of his play. That's a very touching thing.Oliver: Why did he think the revivals came too soon?Lee: I don't really know the answer to that. I think he thought a play had to hook up a lot of oxygen and attract a lot of attention. If you were lucky while it was on, people would remember the casting and the direction of that version of it, and it would have a kind of memory. You had to be there.But people who were there would remember it and talk about it. And if you had another production very soon after that, then maybe it would diminish or take away that effect. I think he had a sort of loyalty to first productions often. What do you think about that? I'm not quite sure of the answer to that.Oliver: I don't know. To me it seems to conflict a bit with his idea that it's a living thing and he's always rewriting it in the rehearsal room. But I think probably what you say is right, and he will have got it right in a certain way through all that rehearsing. You then need to wait for a new generation of people to make it fresh again, if you like.Lee: Or not a generation even, but give it five years.Oliver: Everyone new and this theater's working differently now. We can rework it in our own way. Can we have a few questions about your broader career before we finish?Lee: Depends what they are.Oliver: Your former colleague John Carey died at a similar time to Stoppard. What do you think was his best work?Lee: John Carey's best work? Oh. I thought the biography of Golding was pretty good. And I thought he wrote a very good book on Thackery. And I thought his work on Milton was good. I wasn't so keen on The Intellectuals and the Masses. He and I used to have vociferous arguments about that because he had cast Virginia Woolf with all the modernist fascists, as it were. He'd put her in a pile with Wyndham Lewis and Ezra Pound and so on. And actually, Virginia Woolf was a socialist feminist. And this didn't seem to have struck him because he was so keen to expose her frightful snobbery, which is what people in England reading Woolf, especially middle class blokes, were horrified by.And she is a snob, there's no doubt about it. But she knew that and she lacerated herself for it too. And I think he ignored all the other aspects of her. So I was angry about that. But he was the kind of person you could have a really good argument with. That was one of the really great things about John.Oliver: He seems to be someone else who was amenable and charming, but also very steely.Lee: Yes, I think he probably was I think he probably was. You can see that in his memoir, I think.Oliver: What was Carmen Callil like?Lee: Oh. She was a very important person in my life. It was she who got me involved in writing pieces for Virago. And it was she who asked me to write the life of Virginia Woolf for Chatto. And she was an enormous, inspiring encourager as she was to very many people. And I loved her.But I was also, as many people were, quite daunted by her. She was temperamental, she was angry. She was passionate. She was often quite difficult. Not a word I like to use about women because there's that trope of difficult women, but she could be. And she lost her temper in a very un-English way, which was quite a sight to behold. But I think of her as one of the most creative and influential publishers of the 20th century.Oliver: Will there be a biography of her?Lee: I don't know. Yes, it's a really interesting question, and I've been asking her executors whether they have any thoughts about that. Somebody said to me, oh, who wants a biography of a publisher? But, actually, publishers are really important people often, so I hope there would be. Yes. And it would need to be someone who understood the politics of feminism and who understood about coming from Australia and who understood about the Catholic background and who understood about her passion for France. And there are a whole lot of aspects to that life. It's a rich and complex life. Yes, I hope there will be someday.Oliver: Her papers are sitting there in the British Library.Lee: They are. And in fact—you kindly mentioned this to start with—I've just finished a biography of the art historian and novelist, Anita Brookner, who won the Booker prize in 1984 for a novel called Hotel du Lac.And Carmen and Anita were great buddies, surprisingly actually, because they were very different kinds of characters. And the year before she died, Carmen, who knew I was working on Anita, showed me all her diary entries and all the letters she'd kept from Anita. And that's the kind of generous person that she was.That material is now sitting in the British Library, along with huge reams of correspondence between Carmen and many other people. And it's an exciting archive.Oliver: She seems to have had a capacity to be friends with almost anyone.Lee: Yes, I think there were people she would not have wanted to be friends with. She was very disapproving of a lot of political figures and particularly right-wing figures, and there were people she would've simply spat at if she was in the room with them. But, yes, she an enormous range of friends, and she was, as I said, she was fantastically encouraging to younger women writers.And, also, another aspect of Carmen's life, which I greatly admired and was fascinated by: In Virago she would often be resuscitating the careers of elderly women writers who had been forgotten or neglected, including Antonia White and including Rosamund Lehmann. And part of Carmen's job at Virago, as she felt, was not just to republish these people, some of whom hadn't had a book published for decades, but also to look after them. And they were all quite elderly and often quite eccentric and often quite needy. And Carmen would be there, bringing them out and looking after them and going around to see them. And really marvelous, I think.Oliver: Yes, it is. Tell me about Brian Moore.Lee: Breean, as he called himself.Oliver: Oh, I'm sorry.Lee: No, it's all right. I think Brian became a friend because in the 1980s I had a book program on Channel 4, which was called Book Four. It had a very small audience, but had a wonderful time over several years interviewing lots and lots of writers who had new books out. We didn't have a budget; it was a table and two chairs and not the kind of book program you see on the television anymore. And I got to know Brian through that and through reviewing him a bit and doing interviews with him, and my husband and I would go out and visit him and his wife Jean.And I loved the work. I thought the work was such a brilliant mixture of popular cultural forms, like the thriller and historical novel and so on. And fascinating ideas about authority and religion and how to be free, how to break free of the bonds of what he'd grown up with in Ireland, in Northern Ireland, the bombs of religious autocracy, as it were. And very surreal in some ways as well. And he was also a very charming, funny, gregarious person who could be quite wicked about other writers.And, he was a wonderfully wicked and funny companion. What breaks my heart about Brian Moore is that while he was alive, he was writing a novel maybe every other year or every three years, and people would review them and they were talked about, and I don't think they were on academic syllabuses but they were really popular. And when he died and there were no more books, it just went. You can think of other writers like that who were tremendously well known in their time. And then when there weren't any more books, just went away. You ask people, now you go out and ask people, say, “What about The Temptation of Eileen Hughes or The Doctor's Wife or Black Robe? And they'll go, “Sorry?”Oliver: If anyone listening to this wants to try one of his novels, where do you say they should start?Lee: I think I would start with The Doctor's Wife and The Temptation of Eileen Hughes. And then if one liked those, one would get a taste for him. But there's plenty to choose from.Oliver: What about Catholics?Lee: Yes. Catholics is a wonderful book. Yes. Wonderful book. Bit like Muriel Spark's The Abbess of Crewe, I think.Oliver: How important is religion to Penelope Fitzgerald's work?Lee: She would say that she felt guilty about not having put her religious beliefs more explicitly into her fiction. I'm very glad that she didn't because I think it is deeply important and she believes in miracles and saints and angels and manifestations and providence, but she doesn't spell it out.And so when at the end of The Gate of Angels, for instance, there is a kind of miracle on the last page but it's much better not to have it spelt out as a miracle, in my view. And in The Blue Flower, which is not my favorite of her books, but it's the book of the greatest genius possibly. And I think she was a genius. There is a deep interest in Novalis's romantic philosophical ideas about a spiritual life, beyond the physical life, no more doctrinally than that. And she, of course, believes in that. I think she believed, in an almost Platonic way, that this life was a kind of cave of shadows and that there was something beyond that. And there are some very mysterious moments in her books, which, if they had been explained as religious experiences, I think would've been much less forceful and much less intense.Oliver: What is your favorite of her books?Lee: Oh, The Beginning of Spring. The Beginning of Spring is set in Moscow just before the revolution. And its concerns an Englishman who runs a print and publishing works. And it's based quite a lot on some factual narratives about people in Moscow at the time. And it's about the feeling of that place and that time, but it's also about being in love with two people at the same time.And, yes, and it's about cultural clashes and cultural misunderstanding, and it is an astonishingly evocative book. And when asked about this book, interviewers would say to Penelope, oh, she must have lived in Moscow for ages to know so much about it. And sometimes she would say, “Yes, I lived there for years.” And sometimes she would say, “No, I've never been there in my life.” And the fact was she'd had a week's book tour in Moscow with her daughter. And that was the only time she ever went to Russia, but she read. So it was a wonderful example of how she would be so wicked; she would lie.Oliver: Yes.Lee: Because she couldn't be bothered to tell the truth.Oliver: But wasn't she poking fun at their silly questions?Lee: Yes. It's not such a silly question. I would've asked her that question. It is an astonishing evocation of a place.Oliver: No, I would've asked it too, but I do feel like she had this sense of it's silly to be asked questions at all. It's silly to be interviewed.Lee: I interviewed her about three times—and it was fascinating. And she would deflect. She would deflect, deflect. When you asked her about her own work, she would deflect onto someone else's work or she would tell you a story. But she also got quite irritable.So for instance, there's a poltergeist in a novel called The Bookshop. And the poltergeist is a very frightening apparition and very strong chapter in the book. And I said to her in interview, “Look, lots of people think this is just superstition. There aren't poltergeists.” And she looked at me very crossly and said they just haven't been there. They don't know what they're talking about. Absolutely factual and matter of fact about the reality of a poltergeist.Oliver: What makes Virginia Woolf's literary criticism so good?Lee: Oh, I think it's a kind of empathy actually. That she has an extraordinary ability to try and inhabit the person that she's writing about. So she doesn't write from the point of view of, as it were, a dry, historical appreciation.She's got the facts and she's read the books, but she's trying to intimately evoke what it felt like to be that writer. I don't mean by dressing it up with personal anecdotes, but just she has an extraordinary way of describing what that person's writing is like, often in images by using images and metaphors, which makes you feel you are inside the story somehow.And she loves anecdotes. She's very good at telling anecdotes, I think. And also she's not soft, but she's not harshly judgmental. I think she will try and get the juice out of anything she's writing about. Most of these literary criticism pieces were written for money and against the clock and whilst doing other things.So if you read her on Dorothy Wordsworth or Mary Wollstonecraft or Henry James, there's a wonderful sense of, you feel your knowledge has been expanded. Knowledge in the sense of knowing the person; I don't mean in the sense of hard facts.Oliver: Sure. You've finished your Anita Brookner biography and that's coming this year.Lee: September the 10th this year, here and in the States.Oliver: What will you do next?Lee: Yes. That's a very good question, though a little soon, I feel.Oliver: Is there someone whose life you always wanted to write, but didn't?Lee: No. No, there isn't. Not at the moment. Who knows?Oliver: You are open to it. You are open.Lee: Who knows what will come up.Oliver: Yes. Hermione Lee, this was a real pleasure. Thank you very much.Lee: Thank you very much. It was a treat. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

On this episode of Funky Friday with Cam Newton, Cam sits down with Demetri Wiley for an honest conversation about love, relationships, and personal growth. From love at first sight to co-parenting, boundaries, and healing, nothing is off limits. Dmitri shares real-life experiences and lessons that challenge how we think about connection and commitment. This is one of those episodes that makes you reflect on how — and why — you love.00:00 — Love, Lust & Real Talk: Setting the Tone00:49 — Welcome Back to Funky Friday with Cam Newton01:07 — Meet Dmitri Wiley: Love, Life & Perspective02:39 — Demetri's Love Story: How It Really Started04:16 — Is Love at First Sight Real or Just Chemistry?07:23 — What “Real Love” Actually Looks Like17:09 — Co-Parenting, Blended Families & Doing It the Right Way33:20 — Prom Nights, Young Love & Lessons Learned34:16 — Platonic vs Romantic: Where People Get It Wrong35:22 — Temptation, Discipline & Self-Control37:03 — Boundaries, Respect & Knowing When to Fall Back41:20 — The Crack House Analogy (Yeah… We Went There)46:22 — Healing Yourself Before Loving Someone Else57:51 — Valentine's Day Advice You Actually Need to Hear

Today on Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Deacon Harrison Garlick and Dr. Donald Prudlo explore the intricate relationship between Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas, examining how Aquinas's thought is influenced by Platonic philosophy while also being rooted in Aristotle. We are reading the PURGATORIO for Lent!Check out our LIBRARY OF GUIDES TO THE GREAT BOOKS.See Dr. Prudlo's books on St. Thomas, administration, and more!They discuss the nuances of Aquinas' understanding of universals, the nature of evil, and the significance of the body in Christian anthropology, highlighting the complexities of Aquinas's intellectual context and the historical development of these philosophical ideas. They discuss how Aquinas synthesized various philosophical traditions, particularly in his understanding of existence and essence, the role of beauty, and the moral implications of his metaphysics. The dialogue also touches on the early church's reception (or rejection) of Aristotle, the influence of Islamic philosophy, and the evolution of Aquinas' thought throughout his life. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the richness of Aquinas' philosophy and its relevance to contemporary discussions on faith and reason.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Great Books Podcast03:11 Experiencing the Papal Conclave06:34 Plato and Aquinas: A Complex Relationship12:43 Aquinas' Intellectual Evolution17:02 The Importance of Reading the Great Books24:25 Platonic Thought in Aquinas' Philosophy34:48 The Quest for Certitude in Philosophy37:20 Realism and the Nature of Universals40:56 Mind-Body Dualism and the Significance of the Body47:36 The Reception of Aristotle in Early Christianity54:09 The Distinction Between Essence and Existence01:04:53 The Role of Beauty in Aquinas' Philosophy01:06:38 Exploring Beauty in Philosophy01:11:23 The Role of Beauty in St. Thomas Aquinas01:13:44 The Ladder of Love and Its Implications01:19:18 Essence and Existence in Thomistic Thought01:21:41 The Hierarchy of Being and Divine Wisdom01:25:22 The Evolution of Aquinas' Thought01:27:35 Understanding Aquinas Through His Influences01:30:17 Final Thoughts on Faith and ReasonTakeawaysAquinas is often mischaracterized as purely Aristotelian.The relationship between Plato and Aristotle is more complex (and harmonious) than often portrayed.Aquinas' thought is enriched by both Platonic and Aristotelian influences.Evil is understood as a privation of the good in Aquinas's philosophy.Aquinas' understanding of universals differs from both Plato and Aristotle.The concept of exitus and reditus is a key Neoplatonic idea in Aquinas.The mind-body dualism presents challenges for Christian thought.Aquinas retained Platonic emphasis on the...

In this episode, I sit down with Riyan Parekh, a high school senior juggling life as a philosophy club president, Boy Scout, tennis player, and full-time thinker, to talk about what it actually means to live philosophically at 18.Riyan shares the philosophical motion he lives by, how leading discussions has reshaped the way he listens in his personal life, and what it's like balancing ambition, reflection, and responsibility in a world that often rewards self-obsession over self-awareness. We unpack the tension between truth and reality, how to express emotions—Platonic or romantic—without losing yourself, and why second chances matter when navigating identity, ego, and growth.We also talk about what advice he'd give his future self five years from now, and Riyan leaves listeners with a final message that feels grounding, honest, and deeply relevant for anyone trying to figure themselves out while growing up in public.

What if everything we think we know about the brain is just a really good metaphor that we forgot was a metaphor?This episode takes you on a journey through the history of scientific simplification, from a young Karl Friston watching wood lice in his garden to the bold claims that your mind is literally software running on biological hardware.We bring together some of the most brilliant minds we've interviewed — Professor Mazviita Chirimuuta, Francois Chollet, Joscha Bach, Professor Luciano Floridi, Professor Noam Chomsky, Nobel laureate John Jumper, and more — to wrestle with a deceptively simple question: *When scientists simplify reality to study it, what gets captured and what gets lost?**Key ideas explored:**The Spherical Cow Problem* — Science requires simplification. We're limited creatures trying to understand systems far more complex than our working memory can hold. But when does a useful model become a dangerous illusion?*The Kaleidoscope Hypothesis* — Francois Chollet's beautiful idea that beneath all the apparent chaos of reality lies simple, repeating patterns — like bits of colored glass in a kaleidoscope creating infinite complexity. Is this profound truth or Platonic wishful thinking?*Is Software Really Spirit?* — Joscha Bach makes the provocative claim that software is literally spirit, not metaphorically. We push back on this, asking whether the "sameness" we see across different computers running the same program exists in nature or only in our descriptions.*The Cultural Illusion of AGI* — Why does artificial general intelligence seem so inevitable to people in Silicon Valley? Professor Chirimuuta suggests we might be caught in a "cultural historical illusion" — our mechanistic assumptions about minds making AI seem like destiny when it might just be a bet.*Prediction vs. Understanding* — Nobel Prize winner John Jumper: AI can predict and control, but understanding requires a human in the loop. Throughout history, we've described the brain as hydraulic pumps, telegraph networks, telephone switchboards, and now computers. Each metaphor felt obviously true at the time. This episode asks: what will we think was naive about our current assumptions in fifty years?Featuring insights from *The Brain Abstracted* by Mazviita Chirimuuta — possibly the most influential book on how we think about thinking in 2025.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 The Wood Louse & The Spherical Cow00:02:04 The Necessity of Abstraction00:04:42 Simplicius vs. Ignorantio: The Boxing Match00:06:39 The Kaleidoscope Hypothesis00:08:40 Is the Mind Software?00:13:15 Critique of Causal Patterns00:14:40 Temperature is Not a Thing00:18:24 The Ship of Theseus & Ontology00:23:45 Metaphors Hardening into Reality00:25:41 The Illusion of AGI Inevitability00:27:45 Prediction vs. Understanding00:32:00 Climbing the Mountain vs. The Helicopter00:34:53 Haptic Realism & The Limits of Knowledge---REFERENCES:Person:[00:00:00] Karl Friston (UCL)https://profiles.ucl.ac.uk/1236-karl-friston[00:06:30] Francois Chollethttps://fchollet.com/[00:14:41] Cesar Hidalgo, MLST interview.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzpFOJRteeI[00:30:30] Terence Tao's Bloghttps://terrytao.wordpress.com/Book:[00:02:25] The Brain Abstractedhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548045/the-brain-abstracted/[00:06:00] On Learned Ignorancehttps://www.amazon.com/Nicholas-Cusa-learned-ignorance-translation/dp/0938060236[00:24:15] Science and the Modern Worldhttps://amazon.com/dp/0684836394RESCRIPT:https://app.rescript.info/public/share/CYy0ex2M2kvcVRdMnSUky5O7H7hB7v2u_nVhoUiuKD4PDF Transcript: https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/6c44c41e1e0fa6dd/pdf Thank you to Dr. Maxwell Ramstead for early script work on this show (Ph.D student of Friston) and the woodlice story came from him!

Dr. Michael Levin (@drmichaellevin) is the Vannevar Bush Distinguished Professor of Biology at Tufts University and director of the Allen Discovery Center. He is primarily interested in how intelligence self-organizes in a diverse range of natural, engineered, and hybrid embodiments. Applied to the collective intelligence of cell groups undergoing morphogenesis, these ideas have allowed the Levin Lab to develop new applications in birth defects, organ regeneration, and cancer suppression.This episode is brought to you by:ShipStation shipping software: ShipStation.com/TimAG1 all-in-one nutritional supplement: DrinkAG1.com/TimOur Place's Titanium Always Pan® Pro using nonstick technology that's coating-free and made without PFAS, otherwise known as “forever chemicals”: FromOurPlace.com/TimTIMESTAMPS:[00:00:00] Start[00:03:18] The Body Electric: A Vancouver bookstore discovery that launched a career.[00:04:19] Bioelectricity 101: Your brain uses it to think; your body used it before you had a brain.[00:06:05] The lesson learned by scrambled tadpole faces that rearrange themselves.[00:08:51] Software vs. hardware: The genome is your factory settings, not your destiny.[00:11:43] Two-headed flatworms: Rewriting biological memory without touching DNA.[00:16:20] Seeing memories: Voltage-sensitive dyes reveal the body's hidden blueprints.[00:20:12] Three killer apps for humans: Birth defects, regeneration, and cancer.[00:24:27] Cancer as identity crisis: Cells forgetting they're part of a team.[00:25:40] The boredom theory of aging: Goal-seeking systems with nothing left to do.[00:30:09] Planaria's immortality hack: Rip yourself in half every two weeks.[00:31:27] Manhattan Project for aging: Crack cellular cognition, everything else falls into place.[00:33:47] Giving cells new goals: Convince a gut to become an eye.[00:37:42] Must mammalian mortality be mandatory?[00:40:25] Cross-pollination: Why biologists would benefit from programming courses.[00:47:15] Does acupuncture actually do anything?[00:50:57] Placebo as feature, not bug: Words and drugs share the same mechanism.[00:55:06] The frame problem: Why robots explode and rats intuit what matters.[00:59:41] Binary thinking is a trap: “Is it intelligent?” is the wrong question.[01:07:46] Minimal brain, normal IQ: Clinical cases that break neuroscience.[01:08:45] Super panpsychism: Your liver might have opinions.[01:13:48] The Platonic space: Bodies as thin clients for patterns from elsewhere.[01:15:24] Keep asking “why” and you end up in the math department.[01:23:07] Polycomputing: Sorting algorithms secretly doing side quests.[01:28:24] Power scaling for the future and avoiding red herrings for understanding machine minds.[01:34:06] Sci-fi recommendations.[01:37:24] Cliff Tabin's toast and Dan Dennett's steel manning.[01:41:21] Parting thoughts.*For show notes and past guests on The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast.For deals from sponsors of The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast-sponsorsSign up for Tim's email newsletter (5-Bullet Friday) at tim.blog/friday.For transcripts of episodes, go to tim.blog/transcripts.Discover Tim's books: tim.blog/books.Follow Tim:Twitter: twitter.com/tferriss Instagram: instagram.com/timferrissYouTube: youtube.com/timferrissFacebook: facebook.com/timferriss LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/timferrissSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of the Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Deacon Harrison Garlick engages in a profound discussion with Dr. Thomas Ward from Baylor University about Plato's influence on St. Boethius. The conversation begins with an exploration of Boethius's life, particularly his role as a Roman statesman and philosopher during a tumultuous time in history. Dr. Ward highlights St. Boethius's seminal work, "The Consolation of Philosophy," written while he awaited execution, and discusses its impact on medieval thought and the liberal arts tradition. The dialogue emphasizes St. Boethius's unique position as a bridge between Roman and medieval philosophy, often referred to as the last of the Romans and the first of the medievals.Visit thegreatbookspodcast.com for our reading schedule.Want to know more about Plato? Start here with our Plato playlist.And check out Dr. Thomas Ward's website!As the conversation unfolds, the discussion shifts to the Platonic influences on St. Boethius's writings. Dr. Ward explains how Boethius synthesized Platonic and Aristotelian thought, particularly in his understanding of the good and the nature of happiness. The episode delves into the themes of evil as privation, the nature of true happiness, and the philosophical journey from despair to enlightenment that St. Boethius undergoes in his work. The dialogue is rich with references to other philosophical texts, including the works of Plato, and draws parallels between Boethius's ideas and those found in the writings of later thinkers like Dante and Aquinas. Overall, the episode serves as a compelling introduction to Boethius's thought and its enduring relevance in the study of philosophy.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Great Books Podcast02:24 Exploring Boethius and His Influence04:16 Who Was Boethius?07:49 Boethius: The Last Roman and First Scholastic10:18 The Liberal Arts and Boethius' Legacy11:36 Teaching Boethius: A Personal Journey14:07 Plato's Influence on Boethius18:50 The Consolation of Philosophy: Setting the Stage24:31 Lady Philosophy: Deconstruction and Reconstruction29:58 The Quest for Self-Knowledge30:51 Fortune and Its Dual Nature31:53 The Good: Bridging Plato and Christianity36:19 Happiness and the Divine Connection40:00 The Paradox of Good and Evil45:11 The Poetic and Philosophical Fusion48:44 Evil as Privation: A Platonic Insight52:08 Boethius: A Synthesis of Philosophical TraditionsTakeawaysBoethius is often called the last of the Romans and the first of the Medievals.His work, "The Consolation of Philosophy," was written while he awaited execution.Boethius synthesized Platonic and Aristotelian thought in his writings.Evil is understood as a privation of good, not a substance in itself.The journey from despair to enlightenment is central to Boethius's philosophy.KeywordsBoethius, Plato, Consolation of Philosophy, medieval philosophy, Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Thomas Ward, liberal arts, happiness, evil as privation, philosophy, Deacon Harrison Garlick, great...

What it is...and how to escape.

Wearing Sexy Clothes Around Platonic Friends by Maine's Coast 93.1

How did Plato influence St. Augustine? Today on Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Dcn. Harrison Garlick and Dr. Chad Pecknold of the Catholic University of America discuss Plato's influence on St. Augustine.Check out our account on X for daily postings on the great books!Check out our library of written guides to the great books!Check out FIRE ON THE ALTAR by Dr. Chad Pecknold.The discussion begins with the historical evolution of Platonism—from the original Academy of Socrates and Plato, through Middle Platonism (with figures like Plutarch and Apuleius), to the late or Neoplatonism of Plotinus and others—showing how it became increasingly religious, mystical, and hierarchical in the Roman Empire, complete with daemons (intermediary spiritual beings) and a strong emphasis on the soul's ascent to the divine.St. Augustine, after years as a Manichaean and skeptic, encountered Platonic texts (likely including Plotinus) in Milan around 385–386 AD through Christian Platonists like Bishop Ambrose and Simplicianus. These writings played a crucial role in his intellectual conversion: they revealed a transcendent, immaterial God as Being itself, the eternal Word/Logos, and the soul's capacity for contemplative ascent beyond the material world—ideas strikingly parallel to the prologue of John's Gospel.Yet St. Augustine recognized Platonism's crucial limitation: it allowed him to "catch the fragrance" of God but not to "feast" through union, because it lacked the Word made flesh—the incarnate Christ as the true mediator who bridges the gap between the divine and humanity, solving the problem of mediation and purification that Platonism itself raised but could not resolve.Ultimately, Pecknold presents Platonism as a providential praeparatio evangelica—a promise that raises the restless heart's longing for God, truth, beauty, and eternal happiness—but one fulfilled only in Christianity. St. Augustine adopts and transforms Platonic elements (such as the ideas/forms residing in the divine mind, now identified with the Logos/Christ, and the soul's ascent through purification) while critiquing its errors, especially its inadequate mediators and inability to address incarnation, bodily resurrection, and grace. In this way, St. Augustine shows that Plato comes closest among philosophers to Christianity, yet only the Word made flesh satisfies the hunger Plato so powerfully articulated.Plato on St. Boethius is up next week!

Human beings move as a flock. What feels like freedom is motion inside a herd. People act the way they do because of pressure, habit, fear, desire, reward, or past experience. When we make decisions, we are responding to systemic forces already acting on us, even when theologians insist on calling this a free choice, the so-called “free will.” Long before a choice is named, the path is worn.Governments, workplaces, laws, economies, religions, philosophies, ideologies, and social norms all rely on the same logic. If certain behaviors are rewarded and others punished, people will respond in predictable ways. Obedience inside these systems is never neutral. People comply because it benefits them, protects them, or helps them avoid loss. Even rebellion, blind to what it is building, follows recognizable patterns and is absorbed back into the systems it supposedly opposes.But beneath these systems sits something deeper and more diabolical: the human logos. Explanation. Justification. Language itself as causality. Words that govern reality, binding reasons to actions, beliefs to outcomes, and sacrifices to meaning. This is how systems hold together. They are not only structures of power, but temples built of language, narratives, and shared explanations. Propaganda. A world where everything makes sense.Belief, in this sense, is not faith. It is how humans explain themselves to themselves, a projection of the lamp of the body, quieting fear, justifying loss, making obedience reasonable. Over time, this explanatory language becomes a prison people inhabit. A Temple made of human hands, not of stone, but of coherence. An idol constructed from meaning.Inside this Temple, every sacrifice is justified. Every command explained. Every loss serves a purpose. Even love is rationalized. Domesticated. Hope reframed as likelihood. Language does not merely describe the system. It sanctifies it.These systems can even tolerate sacrifice, as long as the sacrifice is made for something abstract: the nation, the tribe, the future, the greater good, the “building” up or the “survival” of the community. Abstract loyalty is calculable. It can be taught, praised, rewarded, and demanded. A person who gives themselves for an idea or a cause is still operating inside logic the system understands and human language can defend.Torah insists that a true command cannot arise from within this Temple or employ its language. Scripture does not perceive human beings as autonomous agents standing outside the flock, freely acting. It finds people as they are: already bound, already oriented, already enslaved to something. That is why Torah does not ask whether people are free, but whom they serve. Egypt is not replaced by false autonomy, but by covenant. Pharaoh is not replaced by the self, the builder of temples, but by the Voice of the Shepherd, that commands, calling us out of the temples that entomb us. According to Scripture, if a rule makes sense because it works, helps, or produces good outcomes, then following it is still a calculation. It may be wise or effective, but it is not obedience. It is sycophancy. That is why the Voice of the Shepherd is heard in the wilderness, away from stable systems and the human Temple of explanation. In the wilderness, people cannot rely on strategy or outcomes. They can only hear and respond. To those who live inside the system, this looks like slavery, or worse, insanity. Far from it.It is trust.This is where love of neighbor enters, and it does not enter as an idea, let alone a Platonic ideal. A neighbor is not humanity in the abstract. A neighbor is not the future, the cause, or the system. A neighbor is the real person who stands before you and whose claim cannot be translated into principle without being lost.Your neighbor is not defined by worth, identity, or moral condition, but by proximity under obedience to the Command. Love of neighbor is irrational by decree. It does not weigh consequences. It does not ask whether the whole will survive. It does not justify itself in language the system can use. Systems assume that when forced to choose, people will sacrifice the one for the many. Love of neighbor refuses that exchange. It does not assume God's purview. It does not control. It does not judge. It does not choose the right thing. It submits to the Command: love for the one encountered. This is why love of neighbor looks dangerous from inside the Temple. It threatens coherence. It interrupts explanation. It is willing to let the world burn rather than betray the one who stands before you. It does not argue. It does not explain. It does not rebel. The moment it does, it has already been absorbed back into the prison of the human logos. Hope enters here, not as optimism and not as confidence in success. Hope is what remains when explanation fails. Hope is the willingness to act without knowing whether the act will save or destroy everything. It interrupts causality by refusing to let outcomes or narratives decide what matters. Love of neighbor does not act because things will turn out well. It acts because of the Command.The Command does not abolish cause and effect, but it interrupts it. Scripture introduces something causality and human language cannot produce: a binding word that is not an effect, not a tool, and not a story we tell ourselves. It is not obeyed because it succeeds or pays off, but because it is spoken and heard, through the claim of a real person, a flesh and blood prophet, rather than the demands of an abstract group.When people live inside societies and institutions, this kind of hearing becomes difficult. Explanation returns. Outcomes take precedence. Faithfulness is measured by effectiveness. Hope is reduced to human belief in a future that can be imagined and defended. The Temple quietly rebuilds itself.Scripture keeps pointing back to the wilderness to remind people that freedom is not about mastering systems or rejecting them, but about remaining able to hear and act when human language blinds and deafens us, to act with conviction when explanation fails, and to obey the Command of the Shepherd even when the world can no longer be justified.This is the promise in which we hope, faith in things not seen: that through his Command God alone will achieve victory for his many flocks, which in his sight are one flock:“For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” (Romans 8:24-25)Episode 576 is a searching and uncompromising meditation on language, submission, and judgment, spoken from the land itself rather than from the safety of abstraction. Recorded in Jordan on New Year's Day, the conversation between Father Marc Boulos and Father Timothy Lowe unfolds as both personal reckoning and scriptural indictment.At its core, the episode argues that modern Christianity has betrayed the text it claims to serve by severing itself from the languages in which Scripture was spoken. Translation is not neutral, and reliance on English is not innocent. To speak in God's name while neglecting Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic is to risk uttering words God never said. For the preacher, this is not an academic shortcoming but a spiritual danger, because every utterance stands under divine accounting.The discussion presses further, insisting that biblical languages are not tools but living realities that carry wisdom through shared Semitic roots. By tracing these roots across the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur'an...

MetaTheurgy with Kevin Cann Kevin Cann is a contributor to Jeffrey Kripal's book How to Think Impossibly. He is a high-functioning autistic individual whose perspectives inform his philosophical work. Cann is the originator of a worldview he calls Platonic Surrealism. Kevin Cann explores MetaTheurgy as an expansion of ancient theurgy, reframing ritual, consciousness, and wonderworking through the contemporary lens of his system, Platonic Surrealism. He explains how human beings function as interfaces between awareness, potentiality, monadic consciousness, and the physical world, offering practical methods to restore agency in a postmodern culture marked by alienation. Cann also discusses how ritual, transcendence, and expanded states of mind can foster healing, meaning, and participation in a larger cosmic process. 00:00:01 Introduction: metatheurgy and expanded awareness 00:01:42 Origins, Platonic surrealism, and, ancient theurgy 00:03:48 Wonderworking, UFO summoning, and, altered states 00:07:03 Metamodern, moving beyond postmodern despair 00:12:02 Rituals, daily practices, and, reframing life 00:15:12 Healing, empowerment, and, suffering in modern life 00:29:47 Wonderworking, personal transformation as the core 00:33:21 Freewill, determinism, and, feedback loops 00:44:06 Human beings, monads, souls, and, plasma symbiosis 01:08:53 Conclusion New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. He is Co-Director of Parapsychology Education at the California Institute for Human Science. (Recorded on December 9, 2025) For a short video on How to Get the Most From New Thinking Allowed, go to https://youtu.be/aVbfPFGxv9o For a complete, updated list with links to all of our videos, see https://newthinkingallowed.com/Listings.htm. Check out the New Thinking Allowed Foundation website at http://www.newthinkingallowed.org. There you will find our incredible, searchable database as well as opportunities to shop and to support our video productions – plus, this is where people can subscribe to our FREE, weekly Newsletter and can download a FREE .pdf copy of our quarterly magazine. To order high-quality, printed copies of our quarterly magazine: NTA-Magazine.MagCloud.com Check out New Thinking Allowed’s AI chatbot. You can create a free account at awakin.ai/open/jeffreymishlove. When you enter the space, you will see that our chatbot is one of several you can interact with. While it is still a work in progress, it has been trained on 1,600 NTA transcripts. It can provide intelligent answers about the contents of our interviews. It’s almost like having a conversation with Jeffrey Mishlove. If you would like to join our team of volunteers, helping to promote the New Thinking Allowed YouTube channel on social media, editing and translating videos, creating short video trailers based on our interviews, helping to upgrade our website, or contributing in other ways (we may not even have thought of), please send an email to friends@newthinkingallowed.com. To join the NTA Psi Experience Community on Facebook, see https://www.facebook.com/groups/1953031791426543/ To download and listen to audio versions of the New Thinking Allowed videos, please visit our new podcast at https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/new-thinking-allowed-audio-podcast/id1435178031. Download and read Jeffrey Mishlove’s Grand Prize essay in the Bigelow Institute competition, Beyond the Brain: The Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death, go to https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/docs/1st.pdf. You can help support our video productions while enjoying a good book. To order a copy of New Thinking Allowed Dialogues: Is There Life After Death? click on https://amzn.to/3LzLA7Y (As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.) To order the second book in the New Thinking Allowed Dialogues series, Russell Targ: Ninety Years of ESP, Remote Viewing, and Timeless Awareness, go to https://amzn.to/4aw2iyr To order a copy of New Thinking Allowed Dialogues: UFOs and UAP – Are We Really Alone?, go to https://amzn.to/3Y0VOVh To order The Other Goddess: Mary Magdalene and the Goddesses of Eros and Secret Knowledge by Dr. Joanna Kujawa, go to https://amzn.to/483vqPl To order How to Think Impossibly by Jeffrey Kripal (with collaboration from Kevin Cann), go to https://amzn.to/3XJ7OJw

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 CE) stands as a formative intellect of the Alexandrian Christian tradition, mediating between apostolic faith and Hellenic paideia. As a teacher at the Catechetical School of Alexandria, he argued that philosophia especially Platonic ethics and Logos-theology—was a preparatory discipline granted by God to the Greeks, analogous to the Torah for Israel. In works such as Protrepticus, Paedagogus, and Stromateis, Clement articulated a vision of gnōsis not as elitist speculation but as the mature apprehension of faith, ordered by love and ascetic virtue. Christ, the Logos, is for Clement the true Teacher who heals the passions and leads the believer toward likeness to God. His synthesis laid crucial groundwork for later Alexandrian theology, especially in Origen, while preserving a rigorously ethical and ecclesial horizon. For more teachings about Patristics and early church father check our online Academy: www.twinsbiblicalacademy.com/academy 

Jairus appears as an administrator. He was named, titled, and located inside a functioning system. He knew how things worked, when to ask, when to stop, when a situation was resolved. When he knelt before Jesus, it was already a breach of role, but the text does not stop there. It presses him.While he was still on the way, while the instruction was still unfolding, a message arrived from his own house: Your daughter has died. Do not trouble the Teacher.It sounds compassionate. It sounds final. But it is not merely a report. It is a deception and a false command. Those who pressed Jairus pressed him to stop searching Scripture, to stop pursuing the call of the Prophet. They said: return to your place. Accept the verdict the system of human words has rendered.But there is only one Judge.Jesus answered without addressing death at all. He promised nothing. He uttered the command, Do not fear. Only trust.With that command, the axis of the text shifts. Fear here is not panic. Fear is obedience to human reasonableness. It is enclosure within narrative walls built of human words. Trust is remaining under instruction, exposed to reality, out in the open, where only living, breathing divine words can give life, even when every visible sign says the moment has passed.The crowd moves with them. They are practical. They know how death works. They know when grief must become resignation. They are not simply onlookers. They are the stone Temple outside the synagogue, walls built of human words, set against the living, breathing Word.They do what walls always do. They mark the human boundary. They decide what may pass and what must stop. What they call wisdom is fear of man disciplined into respectability. What they call obedience is resignation taught to bow to something other than God. They are the domesticated gatekeepers of reasonableness, the infrastructure of Herod, the architecture of fear.They are like the children in the marketplace who said:“We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.” (Luke 7:32)They do not listen for the sound of God. They pipe their own tune. Whether the sound is mourning or rejoicing, their demand is the same: respond within our script. The problem was not his music. It was their refusal to hear.They are the makers of garments, woven out of fig leaves. As Moses wrote:“Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9)“I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” (Genesis 3:10)Jesus emptied the room. Only Peter, James, John, and the parents remained. When Jesus said She is not dead but sleeping, they laughed. Their laughter was not a misunderstanding. It was fear covered, not by God, but by human craftiness. It restored their order. It set a guard around the girl's tomb. It domesticated the moment. It said: this voice may sing only within the borders of our melodies.No one expected what was about to happen. No one could later claim trust in his Command:“And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. And he said to me, ‘Son of man, can these bones live?'” (Ezekiel 37:2-3)Jesus took the girl by the hand and spoke: Child, arise. The text is not Greco-Roman. It is not written that her “mind” returns. It is not written that her Platonic “soul” is restored. It is written that her pneuma, her ruaḥ, returns. Breath that had gone out came back in. Life does not rise from within the human system of words. It enters from outside, at the sound of his voice (Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 37:2-10).“Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.” (Ezekiel 37:4)Peter, James, and John, like the parents, said and did nothing. They bore witness. Life does not come from parents. Wisdom does not come from disciples, let alone stone temples:“So I prophesied as I was commanded, and as I prophesied there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, sinews were on them, and flesh came upon them, and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath: Thus says the Lord God, Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.'” (Ezekiel 37:7-9)The living breath comes not from human words, but from him who commands the four winds, who commanded the Son of Man to breathe his living words upon her.Immediately, Jesus commanded practical care. Feed her. Life is not human spectacle. It is divine instruction, followed by silent obedience:“Tell no one.” (Luke 8:56)Silence is not secrecy. It is judgment. To speak at that moment would rebuild the stone temple of human words in narrative form. It would turn instruction into explanation, breath into human property, life into idolatry.Silence is the test.Like Zechariah leaving the temple unable to speak, the witnesses were stripped of their voice so that God's voice was no longer imprisoned.Hearing must remain intact.Come from the four winds, O breath!The girl was raised and returned, not unto comfort but unto function under his command. As with the man freed from Legion, return to the path of Scripture is always the assignment. Living, moving breath restored from God cannot be managed by those who witness it. They too are sent back under his command, to love the neighbor.Luke tears down every refuge at once. The crowd's boundary-making, parental love, administrative reasonableness, and Jairus's partial trust are all human shelters made of fear. Life, which came before man, will not be housed, measured, ruled, judged, explained, or secured by the words with which humans try to protect themselves.Life, it is written, is not from men, nor through man, but from God, through God:“Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand,O house of Israel.” (Jeremiah 18:6)“On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,' will it?Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?” (Romans 9:20–21)Fear, St. Paul explained, tries to build a platform over God. Fear builds. The gospel dismantles (Genesis 11:4).This week, I discuss Luke 8:49-56. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Dale and Rachel catch up on life, travel, and the strange conversations that only long-term platonic friends can have. They debate manicures, dating standards, and whether asking for a feet picture is ever acceptable. Rachel explains why she wore a salmon sperm face mask on a flight and how she handled the internet backlash that followed.The conversation shifts to Dale's NBC6 appearance, the brainstorming process behind naming his sports segment Dale's Download, and the stress of live television. They also share stories from Spirit Airlines, reality show hosting at Camp Challenge, and wrap with their “say it with your chest” segment, touching on airline fees and a serious moment about witnessing immigration enforcement in real time.

Send us a textHey beautiful souls!In today's episode I'm talking all about:Platonic intimacy What if relationships aren't all bad?Why I don't need a roster (& taking the pressure off my roster search) Removing the moochers from my life before I could elevate and ascend& SO MUCH MOREWant to join my pleasure oasis? CLICK HERE: https://www.loveatiya.com/theetherealpleasureacademyWanna learn how to pleasure yourself to your higher self? CLICK HERE: https://www.patreon.com/TheLoveAtiyaExperience Sex Education Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/loveatiya/Sex Education TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iloveatiya?Sex Positive Podcast: https://theloveatiyaexperience.buzzsprout.comYouTube: iloveatiya https://www.youtube.com/@iloveatiya/videos Pure Tested Peptides - GLP-3, BPC 157, CJC-1295, ipamorelin, ss-31, epithalon, SLU-pp-332 99% pure research peptides for longevity muscle and metabolic healthSupport the show

In one of our greatest holiday traditions, Hayley Leier (ADHD-DVD) returns to talk about the best TV shows of the year. Pluribus! Severance! The Chair Company! Platonic! Much more!

Platonic Computation and the Dodleston Messages with Simon Duan Simon Duan came from China to the United Kingdom in the 1980s, where he earned a PhD in materials science from Cambridge University. He is a past Vice President of the Chinese Parapsychology Association and the founder and CEO of Metacomputics Labs, which researches a postmaterialist paradigm unifying consciousness, mind, and matter. Duan developed the hypothesis known as Platonic computation, argued to provide the strongest available explanation for the controversial Dodleston Messages case, if the case is genuine. Simon Duan discusses his hypothesis of Platonic computation, a postmaterialist model proposing that consciousness, mind, and matter emerge from a deeper non-physical realm of forms. He explains how this framework may illuminate the enigmatic Dodleston Messages, a decades-old case involving anomalous communications that appear to originate from both the past and the future. Duan explores how higher-level layers of reality, intelligence, and information processing could account for the extraordinary features of this controversial paranormal episode. New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. He is Co-Director of Parapsychology Education at the California Institute for Human Science. (Recorded on November 16, 2025) For a short video on How to Get the Most From New Thinking Allowed, go to https://youtu.be/aVbfPFGxv9o For a complete, updated list with links to all of our videos, see https://newthinkingallowed.com/Listings.htm. Check out the New Thinking Allowed Foundation website at http://www.newthinkingallowed.org. There you will find our incredible, searchable database as well as opportunities to shop and to support our video productions – plus, this is where people can subscribe to our FREE, weekly Newsletter and can download a FREE .pdf copy of our quarterly magazine. To order high-quality, printed copies of our quarterly magazine: NTA-Magazine.MagCloud.com Check out New Thinking Allowed’s AI chatbot. You can create a free account at awakin.ai/open/jeffreymishlove. When you enter the space, you will see that our chatbot is one of several you can interact with. While it is still a work in progress, it has been trained on 1,600 NTA transcripts. It can provide intelligent answers about the contents of our interviews. It’s almost like having a conversation with Jeffrey Mishlove. If you would like to join our team of volunteers, helping to promote the New Thinking Allowed YouTube channel on social media, editing and translating videos, creating short video trailers based on our interviews, helping to upgrade our website, or contributing in other ways (we may not even have thought of), please send an email to friends@newthinkingallowed.com. To join the NTA Psi Experience Community on Facebook, see https://www.facebook.com/groups/1953031791426543/ To download and listen to audio versions of the New Thinking Allowed videos, please visit our new podcast at https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/new-thinking-allowed-audio-podcast/id1435178031. Download and read Jeffrey Mishlove’s Grand Prize essay in the Bigelow Institute competition, Beyond the Brain: The Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death, go to https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/docs/1st.pdf. You can help support our video productions while enjoying a good book. To order a copy of New Thinking Allowed Dialogues: Is There Life After Death? click on https://amzn.to/3LzLA7Y (As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.) To order the second book in the New Thinking Allowed Dialogues series, Russell Targ: Ninety Years of ESP, Remote Viewing, and Timeless Awareness, go to https://amzn.to/4aw2iyr To order a copy of New Thinking Allowed Dialogues: UFOs and UAP – Are We Really Alone?, go to https://amzn.to/3Y0VOVh

Andrew Lopez is on FX's The Bear and Apple TV's Platonic with some of the biggest stars in Hollywood. He also has his own show in development with HBO. But it wasn't long ago that he was a kid growing up in Pella. Then, Donna Reed is beloved for roles like Mary Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life and Donna Stone in The Donna Reed Show. She was born in Denison, where the Donna Reed Foundation keeps her legacy alive.These segments were produced in September and October 2025.

This deep dive comprehensively challenges the foundational materialist model by synthesizing cutting-edge biological research with decades of high-strangeness data, including near-death experiences (NDEs), the UAP phenomenon, and reports of paranormal events. The central conflict addressed is whether reality consists of separate physical things or is fundamentally an expression of a unified, non-local field, leading to the essential question of whether physical matter creates consciousness or is merely its byproduct.The sources argue that science, while possessing immensely powerful models capable of precise description (how gravity or cells work), fundamentally fails to provide the ultimate explanation (why these laws exist), creating a "total black box". This distinction between description and explanation highlights the historical hubris seen in the late 19th century, when influential physicists believed "everything had already been discovered," only for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to shatter the perceived fixed laws of reality soon after. This failure of explanation persists today, making highly descriptive data, such as military UAP reports, intractable because the required underlying theory of existence is missing.The inadequacy of the materialist view forces a paradigm shift to reality defined by non-physical information and pattern, termed the Platonic blueprint. Abstract truths, such as the constant π or the Fibonacci sequence, are discovered, not invented, and exist as fixed, immutable relationships independent of physical matter. This suggests they are the "deep architecture" or scaffolding upon which the physical universe is built.Physical matter is reduced to an "epiphenomenon"—a secondary effect or byproduct, like smoke from the fire that is the primary field.The brain is thus viewed not as the source of consciousness, but as a "localized receiver" or terminal jacked into a non-local network. Consciousness must be the operating system itself, given that cognitive scientists view spacetime as merely an interface or "headset" designed for survival, meaning the brain, which exists inside that construct, cannot possibly create consciousness. This concept of consciousness as a non-local field is overwhelmingly validated by experiential data from NDEs, where survivors often report a sense of oneness and intuitive, expansive knowledge that cannot be explained by the local brain, such as a blind woman suddenly understanding calculus.Dr. Michael Levin's work aligns with this pattern-based view, focusing on agency and goal-seeking capacity regardless of material composition. He defines the self by the scale of its goals—its "cognitive light cone". Disease, like cancer, is reinterpreted as a failure of collective cognition where cells shrink their light cone and revert to a primitive, selfish imperative. Experimental systems like xenobots, which are simple cells demonstrating sophisticated, complex competencies like kinematic self-replication without any evolutionary history for the behavior, strongly suggest that the patterns for these minds are pulled from a pre-existing latent space, the Platonic field.Ultimately, the sources conclude that reality is a participatory universe, where observation shapes outcomes and the distinction between the observer and the observed is dissolved. The UAP phenomenon exemplifies this by its "highly reflexive" nature, mirroring the witness's culture, trauma, or expectation. This deliberate ambiguity—the phenomenon persistently staying "just out of reach"—is crucial, as it forces humanity to constantly upgrade its understanding of reality, ensuring that the game of discovery and developmental growth continues. #NonLocal #cancercure #PlatonicBlueprint,.#ConsciousnessIsFundamental #ParticipatoryUniverse #PostMaterialism #MichaelLevin #CognitiveAgency #Brain #UAPPhenomenon #Xenobots #REALITY #HighStrangeness #BigBang

In 1908, Virginia Woolf wrote that she hoped to revolutionise the novel and ‘capture multitudes of things at present fugitive'. ‘To the Lighthouse' (1927) marks perhaps her fullest realisation of the novel as philosophical enterprise, and not simply because one of its central characters is engaged with the problem of ‘subject and object and the nature of reality'. In the final episode of their series, Jonathan and James consider different ways of reading Woolf's great novel: as a satirical portrait of her father through Mr Ramsay, as a study of creative expression through Lily Briscoe, or as a mystical, Platonic quest in which form and style respond to philosophical propositions, and the truth of human experience is to be found in movement, conversation and laughter. Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from this episode. To listen to the full episode, and to all our other Close Readings series, subscribe: Directly in Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/applecrcip⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ In other podcast apps: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/closereadingscip⁠ Read more in the LRB: Jacqueline Rose: Where's Woolf? https://lrb.me/cipep13woolf1 Virgina Woolf: The Symbol https://lrb.me/cipep13woolf2 John Bayley: Superchild https://lrb.me/cipep13woolf3

John Collins and McKinnon continue their in-depth exploration into William Branham's “Adoption” doctrine and its influence on modern charismatic movements. They expose how Branham's teaching of a “word for the age” replaced salvation through faith in Christ with loyalty to new revelation. Drawing direct lines from Branham to the New Apostolic Reformation, they analyze how a theology rooted in mysticism, pantheism, and esoteric thought evolved into the cultic systems seen today. The discussion compares scriptural truth with Branham's distortions, examines the idolization of tapes and prophets, and reveals how persuasive charisma led countless believers to substitute emotional fervor for biblical faith.00:00 Introduction and Purpose of the Episode00:32 How Branham's “Word for the Age” Replaced the Gospel02:25 Cultic Authority and Fear of Outside Information05:20 Doctrinal Problems: Diminishing Christ and Changing the Gospel07:01 Tape-Only Churches and Movement-Wide Confusion10:40 Internal Message Criticism: A Minister Challenges Tape Worship13:25 Emotional Manipulation and the Power of Persuasion17:03 “Not Every Word Is Thus Saith the Lord”: Rising Internal Doubt20:55 Infallibility Contradictions in Branham's Teachings23:17 The Shift Toward Mysticism and Pre-Existence Doctrine29:56 Platonic and New Thought Roots Behind Branham's Ideas35:51 Blending Ancient Mysticism With Christianity38:18 A Different Gospel: Recognition Theology and Loss of Biblical Salvation44:00 Modalism in the Message and the Denial of Christ's Deity51:01 Closing Thoughts and Preview of Next Episode______________________Weaponized Religion: From Christian Identity to the NAR:Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1735160962Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DCGGZX3K______________________– Support the channel: https://www.patreon.com/branham– Subscribe to the channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBSpezVG15TVG-lOYMRXuyQ– Visit the website: https://william-branham.org– Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WilliamBranhamOrg – Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@william.m.branham– Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/wmbhr– Buy the books: https://william-branham.org/site/books

Jess had 16 people in 1 house for Thanksgiving...what could go wrong? Wicked review!! Can Kramer fix this friendship?

Friendship is one of the topics we get asked about most, so we brought back Dr. Marisa Franco, one of the world's leading voices on human connection. We dive straight into the heart of modern friendship and start with something that influences every relationship we have: attachment styles. Marisa explains how these patterns begin in childhood, how they show up differently in adulthood, and why none of us fit neatly into one category. We explore one of the biggest questions we hear from listeners: if you tend to be anxious or avoidant, do you end up attracting friends with the same tendencies? Marisa shares one of her biggest challenges in her research—secure people continue to find each other easily, while those who struggle with connection often repeat the same patterns with similar types of friends.Since many of you are new moms or navigating school-aged seasons, we ask Marisa what to do when a friend needs more from you than you can realistically give. She reminds us that it's okay to say no and that saying no with kindness helps preserve the relationship.Although friendship looks natural from the outside, we share honestly that it hasn't always been effortless for us either. Amy opens up about how isolating early motherhood felt and why making new friends during that time was unexpectedly hard. If you're in a season where friendship feels like it has to fall to the bottom of the list, Marisa offers a powerful reminder of why connection still matters—and what small steps can help bring it back to the forefront.Finally, we talk about the hardest part of friendship: knowing when it's time to end one. Should you let the relationship fade or have a more direct conversation? Marisa shares how to discern which path is right, and she gives guidance on something we rarely talk about—grieving a friendship.LINKS AND RESOURCES:Listen to HERself episode #145 Dr. Marisa Franco on the Importance of Adult Friendship; https://www.herselfpodcast.com/listen/adultfriendshipRead Dr. Marisa Franco's Book; Platonic: https://amzlink.to/az0lb2DLKWeWk Follow Marisa on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drmarisagfranco/Dr. Marisa's Website: https://drmarisagfranco.com/HERSELF PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/herselfpodcastLMNT: Free Sample Pack with purchase:  drinkLMNT.com/HERSELFLet's connect!HERSELF INSTAGRAM: http://instagram.com/herselfpodcastMEET AMY: http://instagram.com/ameskieferMEET ABBY: http://instagram.com/abbyrosegreenThis episode was brought to you by the Pivot Ball Change Network.

Send us a textHey beautiful souls!I'm so excited for this wonderful Patreon episode that's all about platonic intimacy! I was going to post it exclusively for my Patreons but I decided to post this as a preview into the type of bonus content you can enjoy on my Patreon! ❤️In today's episode I talk all about:Platonic touch & intimacyMy amazing ass first Reiki sessionHow it feels like everytime I go outside I'm energetically attacked (It's a test, thank you ancestors)I only wanna meet people who are like my momWhy I'm excited to age nowPlatonic friendships and how to introduce them into our livesThe time I got ghosted because I held a man's handMy relationship with intimacy before the shame How much I love and appreciate my mommy Finding my peopleAll the times I begged for love and intimacy The time he said he couldn't cuddle cause he gets hot The difference between platonic intimacy and sexual intimacy The difference between sensuality and sexualityHanging out with my 13 year old self  If you loved what I talked about in this episode then I know you'll love The Ethereal Pleasure Oasis! CLICK HERE: https://www.loveatiya.com/theetherealpleasureacademyWanna learn how to pleasure yourself to your higher self? CLICK HERE: https://www.patreon.com/TheLoveAtiyaExperience Sex Education Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/loveatiya/Sex Education TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iloveatiya?Sex Positive Podcast: https://theloveatiyaexperience.buzzsprout.comYouTube: iloveatiya https://www.youtube.com/@iloveatiya/videos Support the show

This classic Platonic dialogue recounts Socrates' courageous defense before his execution, revealing why so few attain true wisdom and how love of the truth can demand great sacrifice, uncovering timeless lessons on living rightly in a fallen world.

This is my relatively short talk given during the 2025 Plato's Academy multidisciplinary conference: The Philosophy and Psychology of Anger, during which I discuss some of the useful insights and practices early Christian thinkers (2nd-5th Century CE) can provide us. These don't require one to be committed to Christianity and can be applied by a wide range of people. I begin with a passage from Pierre Hadot's book Philosophy As A Way Of Life: "[Christians] believed they recognized spiritual exercises, which they had learned through philosophy, in specific scriptural passages . . . The reason why Christian authors paid attention to these particular biblical passages, was that they were already familiar, from other sources, with the spiritual exercises of prosokhē, meditation on death, and examination of the conscience.” What Hadot calls “spiritual exercises” gets called by a variety of other terms by other thinkers. Foucault's "technologies of the self", Nussbaum's "therapeutic arguments", as well as the more general "philosophical practices" many of us reference in our work and study. What we can say about these early Christian thinkers is that many had a philosophical education, had opportunities to engage with pagan philosophical schools, some of which had pretty strong religious stances, with precursor and contemporary Jewish thought, and with a variety of other disciplines like rhetoric, medicine, literature, political theory, law, history, music, etc. There was already a strong interest in issues about anger already raised and debated in ancient philosophy including: vicious anger, can anger have useful role, dangers of indulging or excusing anger, anger and courage or justice, types or levels of anger, divine anger. Early Christian thinkers rely upon or incorporating broadly Platonic psychology, and ethical conceptions drawn from Platonist, Stoic, and Aristotelian schools, but within a framework Christianity provides. The thinkers I reference and discuss in this presentation include: 2nd-4th Century CE: Clement of Alexandria 150 – c. 215 AD, Tertullian 155 – c. 220, Origen 185 – c. 253, Lactantius 250 – c. 325 4th 5th century CE: Basil of Caesarea 330 – 379, Gregory of Nyssa 335, Evagrius Ponticus 345–399 AD, John Chrysostom 347-407, Ambrose 339-397, Jerome 342–347-420, Prudentius 348-413?, John Cassian 360 – 435, Augustine of Hippo 354-430 Some of the key scriptural passages they tend to engage most heavily with include: A number of discussions of anger in Pre-Christian Jewish scriptures, particularly in the Psalms, Proverbs, and Sirach The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, Paul's Letter To Ephesians, and the Letter of James There is a stress on identifying and dealing with vices that involve anger, but also on developing virtues of Patience, Humility, Mercy, and Forgiveness. They also adopt, develop, and discuss a number of useful practices for lessening, understanding, or dealing with anger.

Today on Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Dcn. Harrison Garlick and Dr. Matthew Bianco of the Circe Institute discuss the second part of Plato's Gorgias--the dialogue between Socrates and Polus—Gorgias' spirited, “colt-like” student who bursts in at 461b accusing his own teacher of being “too ashamed” to admit rhetoric needs no justice, only the power to persuade. Visit thegreatbookspodcast.com for our reading schedule.Visit our LIBRARY OF WRITTEN GUIDES to the great books.Visit our sister publication, THE ASCENT, for two spiritual lessons per week.What follows is pure Platonic fireworks: Socrates refuses long speeches, forces short questions, and delivers the unforgettable pastry-baker analogy (462–466a), branding rhetoric as mere flattery—like cookery or cosmetics for the soul—that “has no speech to give about the nature of the things” (465a). Polus agrees with several premises yet recoils when Socrates concludes that doing injustice is worse than suffering it, and the unpunished tyrant is the unhappiest man alive (478–479). The conversation spirals into a shocking vision of punishment as medicine for the soul: the wrongdoer should run to the judge “as to a doctor” (480b). Throughout, the hosts explore whether rhetoric itself is evil or only rhetoric divorced from philosophy, using the tripartite soul as a foothold—Gorgias as corrupted intellect, Polus as honor-craving thumos, Callicles (next week) as unashamed appetite—while Socrates models a just soul governing all three. Dr. Bianco brings fresh insight into Socrates' tailored pedagogy and the happiness that only a philosophical rhetoric can truly serve.Key Themes & Search Tags:• Plato's Gorgias• Polus• Rhetoric vs Philosophy• Tripartite Soul• Doing injustice vs suffering injustice• Punishment as medicine• Pastry-baker analogy• Classical Education• Socrates pedagogy• Pleonexia• Happiness eudaimonia

This classic Platonic dialogue recounts Socrates' courageous defense before his execution, revealing why so few attain true wisdom and how love of the truth can demand great sacrifice and uncovering timeless lessons on living rightly in a fallen world.

What we want you to gain from this episode is the importance of non-sexualized, safe, and brave spaces for gay men to heal and grow together. By the end of this episode, you will be able to identify what a nest is, how you could benefit from one, and where to find or create one if you are interested in nesting. The concepts and questions we explore in this episode are: What is “nesting” and why is it important for gay men? What moments in our lives require the need for nesting? How do we know when we're “nested” — or when we're not? What makes a nest truly safe? How do you tend and protect a nest once it's formed? What could gay culture look like if nesting became normal? What's one small way you can begin nesting today? Today's Guest: Nigel Pedlingham Gay Men's Retreat Instagram LinkedIn Today's Host: Matt Landsiedel Facebook Instagram TikTok Support the Show - viewer and listener support helps us to continue making episodes - CONNECT WITH US - Watch podcast episodes on YouTube Join the Gay Men's Brotherhood Facebook community Get on our email list to get access to our monthly Zoom calls Follow us on Instagram | TikTok Learn more about our community at GayMenGoingDeeper.com - LEARN WITH US - Building Better Relationships online course: Learn how to nurture more meaningful and authentic connections with yourself and others. Healing Your Shame online course: Begin the journey toward greater confidence and self-worth by learning how to recognize and deal with toxic shame. Gay Men Going Deeper Coaching Collection: Lifetime access to BOTH courses + 45 coaching videos and 2 workshop series. Take the Chapters (00:00:05) - Gaiman Going Deeper: The Need for Gay Sexual Spaces(00:01:44) - The Nested Experience(00:07:27) - The Neve of Gay Men(00:10:48) - Are Gay Nests Sexual?(00:17:38) - The Need for Self-Compassion(00:23:32) - Exploring the Body in Gay Groups(00:26:36) - Why are these spaces so important for gay and queer men?(00:29:15) - How to help lone wolves(00:31:51) - What Makes You Feel Like You're a Real Person?(00:33:58) - What Makes Gay Men Feel Like They Deserve Their Love?(00:39:06) - How to Connect with Others(00:40:53) - Finding a nest(00:44:34) - An offering to the sacred men(00:46:52) - Let's Nest

What we want you to gain from this episode is the importance of non-sexualized, safe, and brave spaces for gay men to heal and grow together. By the end of this episode, you will be able to identify what a nest is, how you could benefit from one, and where to find or create one if you are interested in nesting. The concepts and questions we explore in this episode are: What is “nesting” and why is it important for gay men? What moments in our lives require the need for nesting? How do we know when we're “nested” — or when we're not? What makes a nest truly safe? How do you tend and protect a nest once it's formed? What could gay culture look like if nesting became normal? What's one small way you can begin nesting today? Today's Guest: Nigel Pedlingham Gay Men's Retreat Instagram LinkedIn Today's Host: Matt Landsiedel Facebook Instagram TikTok Support the Show - viewer and listener support helps us to continue making episodes - CONNECT WITH US - Watch podcast episodes on YouTube Join the Gay Men's Brotherhood Facebook community Get on our email list to get access to our monthly Zoom calls Follow us on Instagram | TikTok Learn more about our community at GayMenGoingDeeper.com - LEARN WITH US - Building Better Relationships online course: Learn how to nurture more meaningful and authentic connections with yourself and others. Healing Your Shame online course: Begin the journey toward greater confidence and self-worth by learning how to recognize and deal with toxic shame. Gay Men Going Deeper Coaching Collection: Lifetime access to BOTH courses + 45 coaching videos and 2 workshop series. Take the Attachment Style Quiz to determine your attachment style and get a free report.

Imagine a woman setting herself the task of liking her son's choice of wife. At first she finds her daughter-in-law unbearable, but through the effort of seeing her clearly and justly she comes to accept and even appreciate the younger woman. For Iris Murdoch this is an example of moral labour, the struggle to achieve virtue that is understood intuitively by all of us. In her 1970 book The Sovereignty of Good, a collection of three lectures, Murdoch rejects the unambitious, ‘milk and water' ethics of her fellow English moralists at Oxford in favour of a Platonic system in which morality has the same objectivity as mathematics. In this episode Jonathan and James discuss Murdoch's lifelong philosophical project to establish what the rational unity of morality might be like without God. They consider her ideas of ‘unselfing' and of goodness as a replacement for God, and what she got wrong about Sartre's distinction between authenticity and sincerity. Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from this episode. To listen to the full episode, and to all our other Close Readings series, subscribe: Directly in Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/applecrcip⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ In other podcast apps: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/closereadingscip⁠ Further reading in the LRB: Alexander Nehamas: John Bayley's 'Iris': https://lrb.me/cipep12murdoch1 James Wood: Existentialists and Mystics: https://lrb.me/cipep12murdoch2 Rosemary Hill on Iris Murdoch: https://lrb.me/cipep12murdoch3 Audiobooks from the LRB Including Jonathan Rée's 'Becoming a Philosopher: Spinoza to Sartre': https://lrb.me/audiobookscip

The Gospel of the Skull Crusher | KWR0053 Kingdom War Room Hosts: Dr. Michael K. Lake: Founder, Biblical Life College and Seminary, Scholar-in-Residence, Biblical Life Assembly, Co-Host of the Kingdom Intelligence Briefing, and Best-Selling Author. Dr. Mike Spaulding: Pastor, Lima Calvary Chapel, Host of Dr. Mike Live, aplogetist, and a prolific author. Dr. Corby Shuey: Pastor, Mount Zion Road Church, President-Elect of Biblical Life Seminary, and Christian author. Guest: Joel Richardson is a New York Times bestselling author, filmmaker, and Bible teacher known for his clear and passionate teaching on biblical prophecy, the return of Jesus, and God's redemptive plan for Israel and the nations. Through his books, films, and online content, Joel seeks to equip believers with a grounded, apocalyptic hope rooted in the Scriptures. The Gospel of the Skull Crusher: The Gloriously Good News of God's Plan to Fix Everything is a sweeping journey through the entire biblical story—from Eden to the New Jerusalem—revealing the Messiah as the promised "seed of the woman" who crushes the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15). This book traces the war between the two seeds through every major covenant, prophecy, and hope of Scripture. Combining biblical theology, prophetic insight, and devotional clarity, Joel Richardson unveils how the gospel is not merely about escaping this world, but about God's promise to restore all things through the victorious reign of His Son. To Purchase Book: store.joelstrumpet.com == Description Dr. Michael Lake is joined by Dr. Mike Spaulding, Dr. Corby Shuey, and special guest Joel Richardson (NYT bestselling author, filmmaker, Bible teacher) to unpack Joel's new book, The Gospel of the Skull Crusher: The Glorious Good News of God's Plan for Fixing Everything. From Genesis 3:15 and the "war of the seeds" to Jesus as the Divine Warrior, we explore why the Bible is not just a promise book—it's a war narrative with a guaranteed victory at the Cross, fully manifested at the Lord's return. We tackle the "now and not yet" paradigm, embodied hope and the resurrection, the prophetic centrality of Israel (Abrahamic & Davidic covenants), and why recovering a Hebraic, non-Platonic worldview matters for discipleship, evangelism, and everyday faith. Joel also shares why he crafted a tactile, heirloom-quality book (linen cover, foil, ribbon, full-color art) to help readers slow down, wonder, and worship—plus how to access his ongoing chapter-by-chapter Bible study series. Guest: Joel Richardson — joelstrumpet.com Book (direct): store.joelstrumpet.com Joel's App: "Joel Richardson Ministries" (iOS/Android) Partner with the Ministry: Kingdom Intelligence Briefing — https://www.kingdomintelligencebriefing.com Donate: store.biblicallifeassembly.org Mail: Biblical Life, P.O. Box 160, Seymour, MO 65746-0160 Scripture noted (ESV): "Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." — 1 John 3:2 (ESV) — Timeline of Topics (Adjust timestamps to your final edit length.) 00:00 – Opening & welcome; panel introductions; Joel's new book 02:10 – The Bible as a war narrative: Genesis 3:15 and the "war of the seeds" 06:40 – Jesus as Divine Warrior vs. the "soft" cultural caricature 09:55 – Rethinking "now and not yet": why the emphasis lands on "not yet" 15:20 – Embodied hope: resurrection, real bodies, real creation, real joy 19:45 – 1 John 2:28–3:3 and our identity as children of God (ESV) 24:30 – Speculative theology: timing of consciousness and the resurrection 28:40 – Heaven as the parent reality; millennial reign & restored order 34:55 – David & Goliath as prophetic pattern: skull-crushing the serpent 40:50 – Israel in God's plan: Abrahamic/Davidic covenants; restoration theme 49:30 – One New Man: Jews & Gentiles, veils lifted, Torah rightly understood 55:05 – Calling the Church out of Platonism and biblical illiteracy 1:00:20 – Making a tactile, heirloom book: design, art, and intent 1:05:10 – Tech vs. embodiment: reading slowly, discipling hearts 1:09:00 – Where to get the book; Joel's YouTube/app study series 1:12:10 – Final encouragements & how to partner with the ministry Hashtags #JoelRichardson, #GospelOfTheSkullCrusher, #Genesis315, #DivineWarrior, #Eschatology, #KingdomOfGod, #NowAndNotYet, #Israel, #AbrahamicCovenant, #DavidicCovenant, #BiblicalLifeTV, #Remnant, #EndTimes, #ResurrectionHope, #MessianicProphecy

Adam Harstad and Matt Waldman reprise their season-long RSP Film & Theory podcast with a discussion Newton, Plato, and fantasy footballl. There are a lot of excellent writers and analysts in the fantasy industry. There are few that I hold in as high a regard as Adam (and not surprising he earned the FSWA's Fantasy Writer of the Year). He's a forthright human being with a tremendous intellect whose approach to analysis in this space differs from most. He's also an excellent fantasy GM in re-draft and dynasty formats.  Adam spends a lot of time examining results and dealing with broad themes of decision-making that help us become better fantasy players and fantasy analysts. https://youtu.be/0Mz1VfZk3Po Topics Physics and Fantasy Football What Is Value? League Settings: Generating Luck or Dedicated to Skill? Does ROI in fantasy leagues matter to be a fantasy analyst? Now entering its 20th season, learn more about Matt Waldman's RSP  — the most in-depth analysis of offensive skill position players available (QB, RB, WR, and TE). Or if you already know the deal, go ahead and pre-order (you know you want to) at an even greater discount than the normal steal of a price.  Matt's new RSP Dynasty Rankings and Two-Year Projections Package is available for $24.95 If you're a fantasy GM interested in purchasing past publications for $9.95 each, the 2012-2024 RSPs also have a Post-Draft Add-on that's included at no additional charge.   Best yet, proceeds from sales are set aside for a year-end donation to Darkness to Light to combat the sexual abuse of children.

Tim Robinson is back with The Chair Company, a cringe-com with a mystery (or is it??) at its center, and Variety's Alison Herman is also back to talk about it: the little self-flagellating moments the show gets right, whether it's the Tim Robinson property for people who usually don't enjoy Tim Robinson, and why Robinson is like David Lynch. We went Around The Dial with 9-1-1s old and new, Devil In Disguise: John Wayne Gacy, and The Alabama Solution, and Tara busted out her see! cret! skill! at Canon pitching for a first-season episode of Platonic. Julio Torres won, Yellowjackets lost, and the panel tried to hit IMDb episode-count bulls-eyes in the second half of the 30 Under 30 Game Time. Leave that deviled-egg remnant right where it is and come join us! GUESTS

Today on Breaking Bread Nick Stoller joins us at the table! You know him from making every funny movie ever, but today we get a peak into the real Nick Stoller: the insanely talented baker. Sally from Sally's Baking Addiction, please step aside. We might just end the podcast here, it will be nearly impossible to top. Enjoy! Check out Nick Stoller's show, PLATONIC. Season 2 now streaming on Apple TV + . Also follow Nick on Instagram for more baking content @nicholasstoller.   Text PAPA to 64000 to get twenty percent off all IQBAR products, plus FREE shipping. Message and data rates may apply.  As an exclusive offer, our listeners can get free protein in every Butcher Box for a year PLUS $20 off your first box when you go to ButcherBox.com/PAPA.  -------------- 0:00:00 Cold Open 0:00:29 Tour & Nambe Shoutout 0:02:04 Nick Stoller Intro 0:04:04 Diving into baking 0:08:45 Croissants & Sally's baking addiction 0:11:00 Nick brought many treats 0:17:00 Baking conference in Japan  0:18:56 Growing up in Miami 0:19:16 Chocolate croissants  0:20:42 Growing up obsessed with comedy  0:25:15 NY to LA, getting an agent  0:26:56 Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen, Jason Segel relationships 0:31:39 IQ Bar Ad 0:33:52 Butcher Box Ad 0:35:40 First time directing 0:39:45 Nick's Babka  0:42:50 Platonic, working with Seth Rogen 0:48:33 Comedy stars yelling  0:50:18 Awards shows, state of comedy  0:52:07 Nick's creative process 0:55:20 Bad Magic  0:59:01 Uncomfortable moment 1:00:33 Being decisive, writing is therapy 1:06:40 Privilege and criticism  1:11:19 Perfect comedy movies 1:13:27 Booking Japan trip and bread & comedy -------------- Tom Papa is a celebrated stand-up comedian with over 20 years in the industry. Watch Tom's new special "Home Free" out NOW on Netflix! Patreon - Patreon.com/BreakingBreadWithTomPapa Radio, Podcasts and more: https://linktr.ee/tompapa/ Website - http://tompapa.com/ Instagram -  https://www.instagram.com/tompapa Tiktok - https://www.tiktok.com/@tompapa Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/comediantompapa Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/tompapa #tompapa #breakingbread #comedy #standup #standupcomedy #bread #nickstoller #baking #croissant Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Continuing on selections from this late Platonic dialogue. Starting in Book 4, Plato's characters are discussing how to create a new state ("Magnesia") from scratch. What sorts of laws should it have? We talk about marriage laws, the nocturnal council, how the law is argued for that everyone has to believe in gods, and more. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsor: Visit functionhealth.com/PEL to get the data you need to take action for your health.

This week, Louis is joined by Smith Sisters Live co-host Mariah Smith to discuss the VMAs, Sabrina Carpenter's new album Man's Best Friend, Lady Gaga's new music, Justin Bieber's Swag II, the Wuthering Heights teaser, and Hollywood's most legendary celebrity families. They're also joined by writer/director Nicholas Stoller to discuss season 2 of the AppleTV+ comedy Platonic.Subscribe to Keep It on YouTube to catch full episodes, exclusive content, and other community events. Find us there at YouTube.com/@KeepItPodcast